Successful Implementation for Tier 1 and Tier
2 School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions
and Support: Sharing Survey Results
Tabetha Bernstein-Danis, Ph.D.
Kutztown University
Kyleigh Ivory
Kutztown University
Defining SWPBIS: Try the
Survey
Answer the following questions for yourself.
 What is School-Wide Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports? (This may be called
“Response to Intervention for Behavior” or “Tiered
Support for Behavior” in your district.)
 Does your school implement SWPBIS?
 Did you receive training for SWPBIS?
 Was the training sufficient?
Overview of Research Site
 Only middle school in a district with 5 schools (3
elementary, 1 middle, 1 high)
 91% White, 4% Latino/a, 2% African-American/Black,
2% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% 2 or more races
 23% of students receive free or reduced lunch
 No security guards or school resource officers
 District claimed to have a SWPBIS model which was
referred to as “Response to Intervention for Behavior”
Overview of Participants
18 teachers responded
 67% prepared through traditional 4-year teacher
preparation program; only 17% had alternative
certification (remainder went through post-baccalaureate
or Master’s preparation program)
 Majority of teachers who responded had been teaching
over 10 years, with many teachers having extensive
teaching experience (several teachers with 20+ years)
Problem #1: Confusion about
Implementation of SWPBIS
Respondents all taught in the same school.
Problem #2:Inconsistent Responses
about Training
Problem #3: Training Not Considered
Sufficient
It is important to note that only 5 of the 18 participants
responded to this question.
Defining SWPBIS
“SWPBIS is a universal prevention strategy that
aims to alter the school environment by creating
improved systems (e.g., discipline, reinforcement,
data management) and procedures (e.g., office
referral, training, leadership) that promote
positive change in staff behaviors, which
subsequently alter student behaviors.” Bradshaw
and Mitchell (2010)
Defining SWPBIS: PBIS OSEP
Technical Assistance Center
“PBIS is a framework or approach for
assisting school personnel in adopting and
organizing evidence-based behavioral
interventions into an integrated continuum
that enhances academic and social
behavior outcomes for all students.”
www.pbis.org
The Three Tiers of SWPBIS
Tier 3: Students with
intensive needs –
Functional Behavioral
Assessment and
Behavior Intervention
Plan
Tier 2: Small group
instruction and intervention
given to students who need
additional support.
Tier 1: All students taught appropriate
behavior, given clear expectations, and
reinforcement is given for appropriate
behaviors.
Problem #4: Incomplete and
Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
 “Demonstrating the behaviors desired rather than going
right to punishment”
 This seems to focus on Tier 1 – focus on teaching
appropriate behavior for all students.
 “Reward for positive behavior, paying more attention to
positive behavior than negative behavior”
 Again, this is Tier 1.
 “Positive Behavior Support Plans”
 This is a vague definition and seems to denote the overall
approach without defining it.
Problem #4: Incomplete and
Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
 “It is following a series of steps to determine the cause of
student behaviors. Once causes are determined, it is also
used to help provide a structured and supportive way to
intervene with student behavior. “
 This seems like the description of a Functional Behavioral
Assessment (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). That
is Tier 3.
 “A plan for helping students with behavioral needs”
 This could be Tier 2 to Tier 3.
 “Corrective action.”
 Vague – seems to imply Tier 2 to Tier 3 more targeted or
intensive supports.
Problem #4: Incomplete and
Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
 “A leveled system of support for target behaviors”
 Closer – Implies a continuum
 “Levels of consequences or actions taken by staff in order of
behavior frequency or severity.”
 Implies a continuum but seems focused on punishment, which is
not SWPBIS
 “Steps/Tiers were students are placed due to their behaviors with
additional supports as needed”
 Demonstrates tiers and additional support offered for students who
have greater needs
 “A proactive plan to teach students to make good choices and help
them understand the connection between choices and
consequences when they make a bad choice”
 This is closer – implies teaching appropriate behavior and
understanding the process of making choices
Discussion: Compare to Your Own
SWPBIS Definitions
Turn and Talk
 How close were the participants’
definitions to your own?
 How would you revise your definition
based on the presentation so far?
Be prepared to share with the whole group.
Teacher Decision-Making: Try
the Survey
For the following situations, respond with
one of the following answers and be ready
to explain why:
a. Handle it myself or with other nonadministrative staff in the classroom
b. Contact a school counselor
c. Call an administrator
d. Call a security guard or police officer
Teacher Decision-Making: Try
the Survey
 Q18: A student has an objective weapon (e.g., gun, knife, pepper
spray) or claims to have an objective weapon.
 Q19: A student has an object that could potentially be used as a
weapon however has not stated that they will use it as a weapon
(e.g., hammer, screwdriver, pocket knife).
 Q20: One or more students threaten to engage in a physical fight.
 Q21: A student causes major property damage (e.g., purposely
breaks a window).
 Q29: A student refuses to complete a standardized test.
 Q30: A student displays disruptive but not dangerous behavior
during a standardized test.
Teacher Decision-Making: Try the
Survey
 Q22: A student cause’s minor property damage (e.g., rips a book).
 Q23: A student uses profanity against you or another adult staff
member.
 Q24: A student uses general profanity not directed at a person
 Q25: A student refuses to do work or participate in class.
 Q26: A student displays a "disrespectful" attitude towards you or
other adult staff members.
 Q27: A student refuses to stay seated and gets up to walk around or
leave the room without permission.
 Q28: A student is displaying disruptive behavior that impedes the
learning process but does not present danger (e.g., speaking
without being called on, having side conversations, texting in class).
For these behaviors, the majority of
teachers surveyed said they would call
in an administrator.
 Q18: A student has an objective weapon (e.g., gun, knife, pepper
spray) or claims to have an objective weapon.
 Q19: A student has an object that could potentially be used as a
weapon however has not stated that they will use it as a weapon
(e.g., hammer, screwdriver, pocket knife).
 Q20: One or more students threaten to engage in a physical fight.
 Q21: A student causes major property damage (e.g., purposely
breaks a window).
 Q29: A student refuses to complete a standardized test.
 Q30: A student displays disruptive but not dangerous behavior
during a standardized test.
Most teachers surveyed would handle these
behaviors on their own in the classroom.
 Q22: A student cause’s minor property damage (e.g., rips a book).
 Q23: A student uses profanity against you or another adult staff
member.
 Q24: A student uses general profanity not directed at a person
 Q25: A student refuses to do work or participate in class.
 Q26: A student displays a "disrespectful" attitude towards you or
other adult staff members.
 Q27: A student refuses to stay seated and gets up to walk around or
leave the room without permission.
 Q28: A student is displaying disruptive behavior that impedes the
learning process but does not present danger (e.g., speaking
without being called on, having side conversations, texting in class).
Discussion: Teacher DecisionMaking
 How do the participants’ responses
match up with your own?
 What seems to be the difference between
the behaviors teachers would handle
themselves and the behaviors for which
teachers would call for help?
Summary of Findings
 Although the school claims to implement SWPBIS,
many teachers were unsure how to define this
approach and even disagreed in some cases about
whether or not it was implemented.
 Most teachers did not feel they received adequate
training.
 For all questions where respondents stated they
would contact a school administrator, some level of
possible “physical harm” was present (including
major property damage).
Summary of Findings
 The only questions where the possibility of physical
harm was not present that would lead to most teachers
calling for an administrator pertained to any behaviors
during standardized testing.
 Teachers generally felt comfortable handling behaviors
that were disruptive but not dangerous, off-task
behaviors, and refusals to do work.
 It should be noted that because most of the teachers in
the school had many years of experience, there may be
a likelihood that they were more comfortable handling
most behaviors in the classroom due to experience
rather than SWPBIS training.
Next Steps
 Recruit more schools to participate, including districts with
school resource officers and/or security; districts with greater
diversity in the student population; and schools that include
teachers who are less experienced.
 Share findings with school and district administrators to
discuss potential areas for improvement. Our goal is to
partner with schools and help them use this data to
strengthen SWPBIS at their sites.
 Collaborate with this school and any future potential school
partners to create a school-specific approach for
professional development.
Our Guidance: PBIS Center Model for
Professional Development
Data Collected and
Analyzed
Outcomes/Objectives
Established
Effective Practices or
Interventions
Selected
Systems
Implemented to
Ensure Practitioners
Have Necessary
Skills
Sugai and Horner
(2009)
Questions?
Tabetha Bernstein-Danis
[email protected]
Kyleigh Ivory
[email protected]