SWPBS Overview 1
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Overview
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports1
University of Oregon & Connecticut
www.pbis.org
George Sugai
October 2, 2008
This handout includes material used in working with school leadership teams.
For more information about these materials, contact George Sugai at
George.sugai@uconn.edu. Also, see www.pbis.org for additional information.
The OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is grateful
to the students, educators, administrators, families, support providers, researchers,
and teacher trainers who have worked tirelessly to improve educational outcomes
for all students and who have contributed to our understanding of the critical
practices and systems of Positive Behavior Intervention & Support.
These training materials have been developed to assist schools in their efforts
to improve school climate and school-wide positive behavior support for all students.
Photocopying, use, and/or sale of these materials are forbidden without expressed
written permission by the OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports. To obtain a personal copy of these materials, contact the Center at
www.pbis.org.
1
The Center is supported by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, US
Department of Education (H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the US Department of Education, and
such endorsements should not be inferred.
SWPBS Overview 2
What is SWPBS?
School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS) provides an organizational
approach or framework for improving the social behavior climate of the schools and
supporting or enhancing the impact of academic instruction on achievement and
increasing proactive (positive/preventive) management.
Improving
classroom &
school climate
Integrating
Decreasing
academic &
reactive
behavior
management
initiatives
Improving
support for
students w/
EBD
Maximizing
academic
achievement
SWPBS is comprised of evidence-based behavioral interventions and practices
that can be implemented by real users to effectively address and support the socially
and educationally important behavioral needs of students and their families.
SWPBS has its conceptual foundations in
 Behavioral Theory - Behavior is learned, lawful, and manipulable
 Applied Behavior Analysis - Behavioral theory is applied to socially important
observable behaviors in the context of the applied settings in which they are
observed
 Positive Behavior Intervention & Support – Behavioral supports are
considered in the larger context of improvement of quality of life
SWPBS Overview 3
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
SWPBS
What Principles Guide Implementer Use of SWPBS?
Implementers of SWPBS use the following principles to guide their decisions
and actions:
1.
Use data to guide decision making
2.
Establish school discipline as instrument for academic and behavior
success
3.
Make decisions that are linked to important and measurable outcomes
4.
Utilize research-validated practices, interventions, and strategies
5.
Emphasize an instructional approach to behavior management
6.
Emphasize prevention
7.
Integrate initiatives, programs, interventions that have common
outcomes
8.
Adapt products, activities, actions, etc. to align with cultural and
contextual characteristics of local environment (e.g., family,
neighborhood, community)
9.
Build and sustain a continuum of behavior support
10.
Consider and implement school-wide practices and systems for all
students, all staff, and all settings
11.
Evaluate continuously
12.
Coordinate efforts with a school-wide leadership team
SWPBS Overview 4
ADJUST for
Efficiency
MONITOR &
ACKNOWLEDGE
Continuously
DEFINE
Simply
MODEL
PRACTICE
In Setting
SWPBS Overview 5
What Operational Elements Define SWPBS?
Effective, efficient, and relevant school-wide discipline is based on a balance
of four key and interactive elements:
Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
SY
TA
DA
Supporting
Staff Behavior
ST
EM
S
OUTCOMES
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
Supporting
Decision
Making
SWPBS Overview 6
DATA: What do we currently see and know?
Data-based decision making guides selection and modification of curricula and
practices, evaluation of progress, and enhancement of systems.
OUTCOMES: What do we want to see?
Clearly specified outcomes are related to academic achievement and social
competence
PRACTICES: What practice could effectively, efficiently, and relevantly achieve what
we want to see?
Evidenced-based practices have a high probability of outcome achievement for
students.
SYSTEMS: What needs to be in place to support (a) practice adoption that is
informed and (b) full implementation that is contextualized, accurate, and
sustainable?
Systems support adult adoption, high fidelity implementation, and sustained use of
effective practices.
SWPBS Overview 7
What Evidence-based Behavioral Interventions are Included in SWPBS?
SWPBS emphasizes selection and implementation of the most appropriate,
effective, efficient, and relevant practices and interventions that match the needs,
resources, and competence of users. These practices and interventions are organized
in five SWPBS subsystems:
Classroom
Family
Non-classroom
Student
SUBSYSTEMS
School-wide
Classroom
PRACTICES, PROCESSES, AND SYSTES FOR……
All students and staff members, across all settings
Settings in which delivery of instruction is emphasized
Nonclassroom
Settings and contexts in which the emphasis is on supervision and
monitoring, not instruction (e.g., sporting events, assemblies,
lunchrooms, hallways, buses, field trips, etc.).
Student
Individual students whose behaviors are not responsive to schoolwide or primary tier prevention (secondary/tertiary tiers)
Family
Engaging and supporting family participation in the activities and
access to resources of the school.
SWPBS Overview 8
Behavioral Interventions and Practices
1. Leadership team
School-Wide
2. Common purpose & approach to discipline
3. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
4. Procedures for teaching school-wide and classroom-wide expected
behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior
6. Continuum of procedures for discouraging inappropriate behavior
7. Procedures for on-going monitoring & evaluation
1. All school-wide above.
2. Maximium structure & predictability (e.g., routines, environment)
Classroom-Wide
3. Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, &
supervised
4. Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to
respond, delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum &
practices
5. Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate
behavior , including contingent & specific praise, group contingencies,
behavior contracts, token economies
Non-Classroom
Settings
6. Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior,
including specific, contingent, brief corrections for academic and
social behavior errors, differential reinforcement of other behavior,
planned ignoring, response cost, and time out.
1. Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged/acknowledged
2. Active supervision by all staff, emphasizing scanning, moving, &
interacting
3. Precorrections, prompts, & reminders
4. Positive reinforcement
Individual Student
SWPBS Overview 9
1. Behavioral competence at school & district levels
2. Function-based behavior support planning
3. Team- & data-based decision making
4. Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes
5. Targeted social skills & self-management instruction
6. Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations
Family
Engagement
1. Continuum of Positive Behavior Intervention & Support for all families
2. Frequent, regular, & positive contacts, communications, &
acknowledgements
3. Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partners
4. Access to system of integrated school & community resources
What is the PBIS School-wide Continuum of Behavior Support?2
A relatively small proportion of students (1-15%) have learning histories that
cause general school-wide interventions to be ineffective (i.e., not responsive), and
these students require additional specialized and individualized interventions. Thus,
school-wide discipline systems should not be abandoned because the behaviors of
these students are unresponsive. Instead, schools should think of school-wide
discipline systems as being important foundations for (a) supporting the majority of
students, (b) preventing the development of chronic problem behavior for students
with high risk backgrounds and learning histories, and (c) identifying (screening) and
providing more specialized and individualized behavior supports for students with
high intensity, difficult-to-change problem behaviors.
The three tiered prevention logic organizes practices and systems along a
continuum of increasing intensity and/or complexity. Student behavior
responsiveness to intervention is used to match intervention intensity. Although the
continuum is dynamic and blended, the three tiers are generally described as follows:
2
Also referred to as “RtI” or Responsiveness-to-Intervention
SWPBS Overview 10
Prevention
Tier
General
Response Criteria
Description
Primary
(Universal)
Practices and systems for all students and staff
implemented across all settings.
Behaviors of 7090% of students
Secondary
(Targeted)
More intensive and specialized practices and
systems for students whose behaviors have been
documented as not responsive at the primary tier,
and generally provided in a common or
standardized manner in small student groupings.
Behaviors of 1030% of students
Tertiary
(Intensive)
Most intensive and specialized practices and
systems for students whose behaviors have been
documented as not responsive at the primary or
secondary tiers, and generally are highly
individualized to the specific needs and strengths
of an individual student.
Behaviors of 110% of students
The following figure illustrates this important concept:
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
SWPBS Overview 11
The following figure illustrates the an “applied” continuum of support in
which sequencing and integration of practices and supports varies by setting (e.g.,
elementary v. middle v. high school; alternative programming; rural v. urban) and
individual student strengths and needs:
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
Few
Some
All
Continuum of
Support for
ALL
SWPBS Overview 12
How does SWPBS Relate to Responsiveness to Intervention?
“Responsiveness-to-Intervention” (RtI) has been described as an approach for
establishing and redesigning teaching and learning environments so that they are
effective, efficient, relevant, and durable for all students, families, and educators.
Specifically, RTI is shaped by six defining characteristics3:
IMPLEMENTATION
W/ FIDELITY
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
RtI
CONTINUUM OF
EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS
DATA-BASED
DECISION MAKING
STUDENT
& PROBLEM
PERFORMANCE
SOLVING
CONTINUOUS
PROGRESS
MONITORING
3
Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deschler, 2007;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Gresham, 2005; Gresham et al.,
2005; Kame’enui, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006;
Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007; Sugai, 2007
SWPBS Overview 13
RtI Feature
Description
1. Universal
screening
Learner performance and progress should be reviewed on a
regular basis and in a systematic manner to identify students
who are (a) making adequate progress, (b) at some risk of
failure if not provided extra assistance, or (c) at high risk of
failure if not provided specialized supports.
2. Data-based
decision making
and problem
solving
Information that directly reflects student learning based on
measurable and relevant learning criteria and outcomes should
be used to guide decisions regarding instructional
effectiveness, student responsiveness, and intervention
adaptations and modifications
3. Continuous
progress
monitoring
Student progress should be assessed on a frequent and regular
basis to identify adequate or inadequate growth trends and
support timely instructional decisions.
4. Student
performance
Priority should be given to using actual student performance
on the instructional curriculum to guide decisions regarding
teaching effectiveness and learning progress
5. Continuum of
evidence-based
interventions
An integrated and sequenced curriculum should be available
such that a (a) core curriculum is provided for all students, (b)
modification of this core is arranged for students who are
identified as nonresponsive, and (c) specialized and intensive
curriculum is developed for students whose performance is
deemed nonresponsive to the modified core. Elements of this
continuum must have empirical evidence to support efficacy
(intervention is linked to outcome), effectiveness (intervention
SWPBS Overview 14
outcomes are achievable and replicable in applied settings),
relevant (intervention can be implemented by natural
implementers and with high fidelity), and durable (intervention
implementation is sustainable and student outcomes are
durable).
6. Implementation
fidelity
Team-based structures and procedures are in place to ensure
and coordinate appropriate adoption and accurate and
sustained implementation of the full continuum of intervention
practices.
SWPBS Overview 15
Practices and Systems by Prevention Tier and SWPBS Working Elements
Prevention Tier
Primary

Data






Outcomes
SWPBS Working Elements


Office discipline
referrals (ODR)
EBS SelfAssessment
SET
Benchmarks of
Quality
School Safety
Survey
Academic
performance
Curriculum based
measurement
~80% of students
with 0-1 major
ODR
~1/500
students/day
Secondary






Tertiary
Office disciplinary
referrals
Points earned
token economy
Academic
competence
Curriculum based
measurement
FACTS



~15% of students
with 2-5 major
ODR



FACTS
FBA
Academic
competence
Curriculum based
measurement
Individualized
academic and
behavior
objectives
~5% of students
with >6 major
ODR
SWPBS Overview 16
Practices





Systems



Teach and
encourage small
number of schoolwide behavioral
expectations and
behaviors
Continuum of
consequences for
violations of
behavior
expectations
Active supervision
Effective
classroom
management

SW leadership
team
Formative dataand team-based
decision making
and action
planning
High priority
Active
administrator
involvement









Universal
screening
Group social skills
instruction
Daily performance
feedback
Self-management
instruction
At least hourly
positive
reinforcement
Family
engagement

Behavioral
competence
Weekly program
review
Team based
coordination and
decision making
Direct link to
school-wide
primary tier
prevention system






Function-based
Individualized
behavior support
plan
Targeted social
skills instruction
Academic
accommodations
and supports
Family
participation
Specialized
behavioral
competence
Team-based
coordination and
decision making
Daily program
review
SWPBS Overview 17
Continuum of School-wide Positive Behavior Support
Directions: Insert evaluated and selected practices and strategies into this table to
establish a continuum of school-wide positive behavior supports.

Tertiary







Secondary







Primary






SWPBS Overview 18
Tertiary
Example: Continuum of School-wide Positive Behavior Support

Function-based support

Wraparound/person-centered planning

Special education

Crisis prevention & intervention


Secondary


Check in/out

Targeted social skills training

Peer-based tutoring

Social skills club

Behavioral contracting

Primary


Teaching & encouraging positive school-wide
behavioral expectations

Proactive school-wide discipline

Effective academic instruction/curriculum

Parent engagement

Active supervision


SWPBS Overview 19
What is the SWPBS Team-Based Implementation Process?
The features of the general team based implementation process are
summarized in the following:
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
SWPBS Overview 20
When engaged in the general SWPBS implementation steps, consider the
following guidelines:
Establish Agreements
Form Team
Guidelines
Yes No ?
1. Adequate representation
Yes No ?
2. Active administrator membership and involvement
Yes No ?
3. Efficient means for communications within team and with
faculty as a whole
Yes No ?
4. Capacity for on-going data-based decision making
Yes No ?
5. Priority and status among committees and initiatives
Yes No ?
6. Behavioral capacity on team
Yes No ?
1. Commitment to 3-4 years of priority implementation
Yes No ?
2. Use of 3-tiered prevention logic and continuum
Yes No ?
3. Administrator participation and membership
Yes No ?
4. On-going coaching and facilitation supports
5. Dedicated resources and time
Yes No ?
6. Agreement about operating procedures for roles, agenda,
Data-based Action Plan
meeting times, action planning, etc.
Yes No ?
7. Top three school-wide initiatives based on need
Yes No ?
1. Regular self-assessment
Yes No ?
2. Review and use of existing discipline data
Yes No ?
3. Multiple subsystems of evidence-based behavioral
interventions
Yes No ?
4. Team-based decision making and action planning
Yes No ?
5. Efficient system of data input, storage, and summarization
SWPBS Overview 21
2. Active administrator participation
Yes No ?
3. Continuous staff involvement in planning
Develop Procedures and Supports for
Implementation Action Plan with Fidelity and
Durability
Yes No ?
Yes No ?
7. Team coordinated and managed implementation
Continuous Evaluation Fidelity of
Implementation and Outcome
Progress
1. Emphasis on evidence based practices and interventions
Yes No ?
Yes No ?
1. Team- and data-based decision making and planning
Yes No ?
2. Relevant and measurable outcome indicators
Yes No ?
3. Efficient input, storage, and retrieval of data
Yes No ?
4. Effective, efficient, and informative visual displays
Yes No ?
5. Regular data review
Yes No ?
Yes No ?
Yes No ?
Yes No ?
4. Efficient and effective support for staff training and
implementation
5. Continuous monitoring of fidelity of implementation and
progress
6. Regular and effective staff acknowledgements for
participation and accomplishments
6. Continuous monitoring of fidelity of implementation and
progress
SWPBS Overview 22
The following flowchart has been designed to improve decisions related to
selection and use of instructional and behavioral interventions.
Start
Review questions
& data on regular
basis
Does problem
exist?
Yes
Specify features of
need/problem
No
Identify practice
that addresses
need/problem
Is practice
research
based?
No
Yes
Yes
Can practice
be adapted?
Yes
No
Implement &
monitor effects
Is adequate
progress
observed?
Yes
Improve efficiency
& sustainability of
practice
implementation
Is evidence of
effectiveness
available?
No
No
Consider another
practice
SWPBS Overview 23
GETTING STARTED WITH SWPBS:
PRIMARY PREVENTION TIER
In the following sections, planning steps for getting started with the implementation
of SWPBS are described. Examples of outcomes for each step are provided in the Appendices.
Guidelines
Yes No ?4
STEP 1 - Establish Leadership Team Membership
Yes No ?
STEP 2 - Develop Brief Statement of Behavior Purpose
Yes No ?
STEP 3 - Identify Positive School-wide Behavioral Expectations
Yes No ?
STEP 4 - Develop Procedures for Teaching School-wide Behavior Expectations
Yes No ?
STEP 5 - Develop Procedures for Teaching Classroom-wide Behavioral
Expectations
Yes No ?
STEP 6 - Develop Continuum of Procedures for Encouraging and
Strengthening Student Use of School-wide Behavior Expectations
Yes No ?
STEP 7 - Develop Continuum of Procedures for Discouraging Student
Behavior Violations of School-wide Behavior Expectations
Yes No ?
STEP 8 - Develop Data-based Procedures for Monitoring Implementation of
SWPBS (Primary Tier)
4
Uncertain, unknown, more information needed
SWPBS Overview 24
Supervision Self-Assessment5
Name______________________________
Date_____________
Setting □ Hallway □ Entrance □ Cafeteria
Time Start_________
□ Playground □ Other_________________
Tally each Positive Student Contacts
Time End _________
Total #
Ratio6 of Positives to Negatives: _____: 1
Tally each Negative Student Contacts
Total #
1. Did I have at least 4 positive for 1 negative student contacts?
Yes No
2. Did I move throughout the area I was supervising?
Yes No
3. Did I frequently scan the area I was supervising?
Yes No
4. Did I positively interact with most of the students in the area?
Yes No
5. Did I handle most minor violations of behavior expectations
quickly and quietly?
Yes No
6. Did I follow school procedures for handling major violations of
behavior expectations?
Yes No
7. Do I know our school-wide behavior expectations (positively
stated rules)?
Yes No
8. Did I positively acknowledge at least 5 different students for
displaying our school-wide behavior expectations
Yes No
Overall active supervision score:
7-8 “yes” = “Super Supervision”
5-6 “yes” = “So-So Supervision”
<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”
5
6
Draft 3-10-04 Sugai
To calculate, divide # positives by # of negatives.
# Yes______
SWPBS Overview 25
SWPBS Overview 26
Although a review of the literature on effective classroom management
practices does not reveal a definitive list of evidence based practices, a “short-list” of
recommended best practices emerges from over 50 years of descriptive and
evaluation research:
Classroom
Management Practice
1. Minimize
crowding and
distraction
Description

Design environment to elicit appropriate behavior:
o Arrange furniture to allow easy traffic flow.
o Ensure adequate supervision of all areas.
o Designate staff & student areas.
o Seating arrangements (classrooms, cafeteria, etc.)
2. Maximize
structure &
predictability

Teacher routines: volunteers, communications,
movement, planning, grading, etc.

Student routines: personal needs, transitions,
working in groups, independent work, instruction,
getting materials, homework, etc.
3. State, teach,
review &
reinforce
positively stated
expectations

Establish behavioral expectations/rules.

Teach rules in context of routines.

Prompt or remind students of rule prior to entering
natural context.

Monitor students’ behavior in natural context &
provide specific feedback.

Evaluate effect of instruction - review data, make
decisions, & follow up.

Maintain at least 4 to 1

Interact positively once every 5 minutes

Follow correction for violation of behavior
expectations with positive reinforcement for rule
following
4. Provide more
acknowledgement
s for appropriate
than
inappropriate
behavior
SWPBS Overview 27
5. Maximize varied
opportunities to
respond

Vary individual v. group responding

Vary response type
o Oral, written, gestural

Increase participatory instruction
o Questioning, materials
6. Maximize Active
Engagement

Vary format
o Written, choral, gestures

Specify observable engagements

Link engagement with outcome objectives

Move

Scan

Interact

Remind/precorrect

Positively acknowledge
8. Respond to
Inappropriate
Behavior Quickly,
Positively, &
Directly

Respond efficiently

Attend to students who are displaying appropriate
behavior

Follow school procedures for major problem
behaviors objectively & anticipate next occurrence
9. Establish Multiple
Strategies for
Acknowledging
Appropriate
Behavior

Social, tangible, activity, etc.

Frequent v. infrequent

Predictably v. unpredictably

Immediate v. delayed
10. Generally Provide
Specific Feedback
for Errors &
Corrects

Provide contingently

Always indicate correct behaviors

Link to context
7. Actively &
Continuously
Supervise
SWPBS Overview 28
Classroom Management Self-Assessment
Teacher__________________________ Rater_______________________
Date___________
Instructional Activity
Time Start_______
Time End _______
Tally each Positive Student Contacts
Total #
Tally each Negative Student Contacts
Total #
Ratio7 of Positives to Negatives: _____ to 1
Classroom Management Practice
1.
I have arranged my classroom to minimize crowding and distraction
Yes No
2.
I have maximized structure and predictability in my classroom (e.g., explicit
classroom routines, specific directions, etc.).
Yes No
3.
I have posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced 3-5 positively stated expectations (or
rules).
Yes No
4.
I provided more frequent acknowledgement for appropriate behaviors than
inappropriate behaviors (See top of page).
Yes No
5.
I provided each student with multiple opportunities to respond and participate during
instruction.
Yes
No
6.
My instruction actively engaged students in observable ways (e.g., writing,
verbalizing)
Yes
No
7.
I actively supervised my classroom (e.g., moving, scanning) during instruction.
Yes No
8.
I ignored or provided quick, direct, explicit reprimands/redirections in response to
inappropriate behavior.
Yes No
9.
I have multiple strategies/systems in place to acknowledge appropriate behavior
(e.g., class point systems, praise, etc.).
Yes No
10.
In general, I have provided specific feedback in response to social and academic
behavior errors and correct responses.
Yes No
Overall classroom management score:
10-8 “yes” = “Super”
7
Rating
To calculate, divide # positives by # of negatives.
# Yes____
SWPBS Overview 29
7-5 “yes” = “So-So”
<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”
SWPBS Overview 30
CLASSROOM SETTINGS: Selected References
Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E.J., & Sugai. G. (1993). School-wide and classroom
management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students
with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of
Children, 16, 361-381.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R., & Lee, Y. (1997). Effect of active supervision and
precorrection on transition behaviors of elementary students. School
Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344-363.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Patching, B. (1993). Pre-correction: An instructional approach
for managing predictable problem behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic,
28, 143-150.
DePry, R. I., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and precorrection on
minor behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255-267.
Franzen, K., & Kamps, D. (2008). The utilization and effects of positive behavior
support strategies on an urban school playground. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 3, 150-161.
Haydon, T., & Scott, T. M. (2008). Using common sense in common settings: Active
supervision and precorrection in the morning gym. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 43, 283-290.
Heck, A., Collins, J., & Peterson, L. (2001). Decreasing children’s risk taking on the
playground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 349-352.
Kartub, D., Taylor-Greene, S., March, R.E., & Horner, R.H. (2000). Reducing hallway
noise: A systems approach. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3),
179-182.
Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the research-to-practice gap:
Improving hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavioral
Disorders, 19, 130-139.
Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active
supervision on the recess behavior of elementary school students. Education
and Treatment of Children, 23, 109-121.
Lewis, T. J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1999). Effective behavior support: Designing
setting specific interventions. Effective School Practices, 17, 38-46.
Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L. (2002). Reducing problem
behaviors on the playground: An investigation of the application of schoolwide positive behavior and supports. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 181-190.
Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a
school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a schoolwide scoal skills training program and contextual interventions. School
Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
SWPBS Overview 31
Nelson, J. R., Colvin, G., & Smith, D. J. (1996). The effects of setting clear standards on
students’ social behavior in common areas of the school. The Journal of AtRisk Issues, Summer/Fall, 10-17.
Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., Ramirez-Platt, C. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2003). Improving
student bus-riding behavior through a whole-school intervention. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 583-589.
Todd, A., Haugen, L., Anderson, K., & Spriggs, M. (2002). Teaching recess: Low-cost
efforts producing effective results. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
4(1), 46-52.
NONCLASSROOM SETTINGS: Selected Supporting References
Colvin, G., & Lazar, M. (1997). The effective elementary classroom: Managing for
success. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Patching, W. (1993). Pre-correction: An instructional strategy
for managing predictable behavior problems. Intervention in School and Clinic,
28, 143-150.
Darch, C. B., & Kameenui, E. J. (2003). Instructional classroom management: A
proactive approach to behavior management. (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Jones, V. F. & Jones, L. S. (2001). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating
communities of support and solving problems (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that
accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Latham, G. I. (1997). Behind the schoolhouse door: Eight skills every teacher should
have. Utah State University.
Latham, G. (1992). Interacting with at-risk children: The positive position. Principal,
72(1), 26-30.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive
behaviors in the schools: A schoolwide, classroom, and individualized social
learning approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Paine, S. C., Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. C., Deutchman, L., & Darch, C. B. (1983).
Structuring your classroom for academic success. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based
practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice.
Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351-380.
SWPBS Overview 32
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support and Response to Intervention
by George Sugai, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, Storrs
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Center for Behavioral Education and Research
Schools are complex environments where the collective skills, knowledge, and
practices of a culture are taught, shaped, encouraged, and transmitted.
Teachers are challenged to provide effective and explicit instruction that
maximizes students’ acquisition of concepts, skills, and information, and
students are challenged to remain attentive, responsive, and engaged to
benefit from these instructional opportunities. These formidable goals are
enriched and complicated by learners with diverse learning histories, unique
strengths and limitations, and defining cultural influences. In addition, schools,
families, and students continually must adapt to maximize benefits from the
school experience.
In recent years, achieving these goals has required that schools a) increase
instructional accountability and justification, b) improve the alignment between
assessment information and intervention development, c) enhance use of
limited resources and time, d) make decisions with accurate and relevant
information, e) initiate important instructional decisions earlier and in a more
timely manner, f) engage in regular and comprehensive screening for
successful and at-risk learners, g) provide effective and relevant support for
students who do not respond to core curricula, and g) enhance fidelity of
instructional implementation (Sugai, 2007).
In response, a general problem-solving framework, Response to Intervention
(RTI), has evolved to address these need statements. Although not new or
limited to special education, RTI initially appeared as policy in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), and it has
conceptual and empirical foundations in, for example, applied behavior
analysis, curriculum-based measurement, precision teaching, pre-referral
intervention, teacher assistance teaming, diagnostic prescriptive teaching,
data-based decision making, early universal screening and intervention,
behavioral and instructional consultation, and team-based problem solving
(Sugai, 2007). RTI has been described as an approach for establishing and
redesigning teaching and learning environments so that they are effective,
efficient, relevant, and durable for all students, families, and educators (Sugai,
2007). Specifically, RTI is shaped by six defining characteristics (BrownChidsey & Steege, 2005; Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deschler,
2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Gresham,
2005; Gresham et al., 2005; Kame’enui, 2007; National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, 2006; Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle,
Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007):
SWPBS Overview 33
1. Universal screening: Learner performance and progress should be
reviewed on a regular basis and in a systematic manner to identify
students who are a) making adequate progress, b) at some risk of
failure if not provided extra assistance, or c) at high risk of failure if not
provided specialized supports.
2. Data-based decision making and problem solving: Information that
directly reflects student learning based on measurable and relevant
learning criteria and outcomes should be used to guide decisions
regarding instructional effectiveness, student responsiveness, and
intervention adaptations and modifications.
3. Continuous progress monitoring: Student progress should be
assessed on a frequent and regular basis to identify adequate or
inadequate growth trends and support timely instructional decisions.
4. Student performance: Priority should be given to using actual student
performance on the instructional curriculum to guide decisions
regarding teaching effectiveness and learning progress.
5. Continuum of evidence-based interventions: An integrated and
linked curriculum should be available such that:
a. A core curriculum is provided for all students;
b. A modification of this core is arranged for students who are
identified as nonresponsive, and
c. A specialized and intensive curriculum is developed for students
whose performance is deemed nonresponsive to the modified
core. Elements of this continuum must have empirical evidence
to support efficacy (intervention is linked to outcome),
effectiveness (intervention outcomes are achievable and
replicable in applied settings), relevant (intervention can be
implemented by natural implementers and with high fidelity), and
durable (intervention implementation is sustainable and student
outcomes are durable).
6. Implementation fidelity: Team-based structures and procedures are in
place to ensure and coordinate appropriate adoption and accurate and
sustained implementation of the full continuum of intervention practices.
Although most RTI implementation efforts have focused on academic
curriculum and instructional practices (e.g., early literacy and numeracy),
applications of the RTI framework also are represented in the implementation
of School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) practices and systems
(Sugai et al., 2000). A comparison of RTI applications in early literacy and
social behavior reveals similarities within core RTI characteristics (see Figure
1).
SWPBS Overview 34
Figure 1: Comparison of RTI in Literacy and Social Behavior
SOURCE: Sugai, G., (August 1, 2007). School-wide positive behavior support
and responsiveness-to-intervention. Keynote presentation to and paper for the
Southern Maryland PBIS Summer Regional Conference. Waldorf, MD.
Reprinted with permission.
A particularly important feature of SWPBS and RTI is an emphasis on
prevention (see Figure 2), which has its roots in public health and disease
control and occurs at three levels:
1. Primary tier prevention: All students are exposed to a core social
behavior curriculum to prevent the development of problem behavior
and to identify students whose behaviors are not responsive to that
core.
2. Secondary tier prevention: Supplemental social behavior support is
added to reduce the current number and intensity of problem behavior.
3. Tertiary tier prevention: Individualized and intensive behavior support is
developed to reduce complications, intensity, and/or severity of existing
problem behavior.
This three-tiered prevention logic has direct application to both academic and
social behavior supports (Kame’enui, 2007; Lane et al., 2007; O'Shaughnessy,
Lane, Gresham, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2003; Sadler & Sugai, in press).
SWPBS Overview 35
Figure 2: Integration of Academic and Social Behavior Three-Tiered
Continuum of Behavior Support
SOURCE: Sugai, G. (June 23, 2001). School climate and discipline: Schoolwide positive behavior support. Keynote presentation to and paper for the
National Summit on Shared Implementation of IDEA. Washington, DC.
Reprinted with permission.
Although conceptualized as a three-tiered framework, this continuum of
evidence-based practices of RTI and SWPBS applications is best represented
as a blended integration that has relevance and application across the range
of teaching and learning environments that exist in schools and communities.
In Figure 3, examples of specific school-based behavioral interventions are
organized in the traditional three-tiered framework but also are aligned along
this integrated curriculum. If done properly, each practice should have decision
rules for determining movement up and down the continuum based on student
performance. The specialized nature of interventions and breadth of the
continuum will vary by developmental level (e.g., early childhood/preschool,
elementary, middle, high school), environmental constraints (e.g., small vs.
large school), alternative programming (e.g., correctional school, hospital
setting), and so on. For example, an intensive program for students with
significant emotional and behavioral disorders might have a structured level
system and token economy for all students that involves hourly social behavior
progress monitoring and feedback associated with school-wide social skills
(primary tier); a peer- or adult-based individualized behavioral contracting
system with continuous prompting, monitoring, and feedback (secondary tier);
and cognitive-behavioral counseling sessions every morning that are linked to
psychopharmacological and person-centered process planning (tertiary tier).
SWPBS Overview 36
Figure 3: Integrated Continuum of Positive Behavior Support With Intervention
Examples
SOURCE: Sugai, G. (2007, December). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
Lessons learned and to be learned. Keynote presentation at and paper for the
RTI Summit, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with
permission.
Although applications of the RTI logic and SWPBS approach seem
straightforward, research (Christ et al., 2005; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, &
Lathrop, 2007; Fuchs & Deschler, 2007; Gresham, 2005; Klingner & Edwards,
2006; Sandomierski, Kincaid, & Algozzine, 2007) has shown that school
personnel need to continually rethink their practices in a number of areas.
1. How curriculum adoptions and instructional design decisions are made;
2. How special and general educators work together to address the needs
of all students;
3. What assessment tools and procedures are used to make reliable and
valid instructional decisions;
4. How high fidelity of implementation of best practices is assessed,
evaluated, and supported;
5. What communications among students, teachers, and families look like;
6. How resources are organized to respond effectively and efficiently with
students who do not achieve the desired outcomes in response to the
intervention;
7. What criteria are used to determine whether a practice is evidence
based;
8. How the practices and systems align with the social, cultural, and
educational vision and values of students, family members, and school
staff.
SWPBS Overview 37
In conclusion, RTI is a good framework and logic for organizing and increasing
the efficiency with which evidence-based practices are selected, organized,
integrated, implemented, and adapted. Examples and applications of the RTI
logic are being developed, demonstrated, and tested in a number of academic
content areas and in social behavior supports. As represented in SWPBS, RTI
gives priority to the continuous monitoring of important student performance
indicators in response to high-fidelity implementation of evidence-based
practices. Timely screening and data-based decisions are encouraged so that
more effective and efficient interventions can be provided for students whose
behaviors are not responsive to core practices and interventions. Preventing
the development and lessening the intensity of problem behavior must be a
high priority of instructors seeking to maximize student learning and the impact
of effective interventions. If done wisely in the context of other initiatives and
interventions across classroom and nonclassroom settings, the possibility of
improving student academic and social behavior outcomes can become a
reality for all students.
References
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention:
Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guildford Press.
Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion
within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences.
Communique, 34(3), 1–8.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to
intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade.
Exceptional Children, 73, 288–310.
Fuchs, D., & Deschler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about
responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (Eds.). (2007). Responsiveness to intervention
[Special issue]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5).
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsivenessto-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–
171.
Gresham, R. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of
identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of
Children, 28, 328–344.
Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Prasse,
SWPBS Overview 38
D., et al. (2005). A response to intervention perspective. The School
Psychologist, 59(1), 26–33.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-446, § 1400 et seq.
Kame’enui, E. J. (2007). A new paradigm: Responsiveness to intervention.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 6–7.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response
to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117.
Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin,
M. T., & Bergman, W. A. (2007). Function-based interventions for students
who are nonresponsive to primary and secondary prevention efforts:
Illustrations at the elementary and middle school levels. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 169–184.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006, May).
Myths about response to intervention (RtI) implementation. Retrieved May
2007, from
http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Download%20Publications/Myths
%20about%20RtI.pdf.
O’Shaughnessy, T. E., Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & Beebe-Frankenberger,
M. E. (2003). Children placed at risk for learning and behavioral difficulties:
Implementing a school-wide system of early identification and intervention.
Remedial and Special Education, 24(1), 27–35.
Sadler, C., & Sugai, G. (in press). Effective behavior and instructional support:
A district model for early identification and prevention of reading and behavior
problems. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.
Sandomierski, T., Kincaid, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Response to
intervention and positive behavior support: Brothers from different mothers or
sisters with different misters? Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Newsletter, 4(2), 1–4.
Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., &
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally atrisk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional
practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193–223.
Sugai, G. (2007, December). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Lessons
learned and to be learned. Keynote presentation at and paper for the RTI
Summit, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
SWPBS Overview 39
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C.
M., et al. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional
assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131–143.
The development of this article was supported in part by Grant H029D40055
from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Opinions expressed herein are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the
position of the U.S. Department of Education or the RTI Action Network, and
such endorsements should not be inferred. George Sugai may be contacted at
the OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.