An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Inteventions and Supports. Jason E. Harlacher

       Systems

       Data

       Problem-Solving Model at Tier One

       Summary

       3 Tier Two

       Outcomes

       Practices

       Systems

       Data

       Problem-Solving Model at Tier Two

       Summary

       4 Tier Three

       Outcomes

       Practices

       Systems

       Data

       Problem-Solving Model at Tier Three

       Summary

       5 SWPBIS in Action

       Implementing SWPBIS

       Planning for Change

       Designing and Implementing Tier One

       Designing and Implementing Tiers Two and Three

       Structuring Teams

       Ensuring Effective Teams

       Sustaining the System

       Dealing with Interruptions in Implementation

       Summary

       6 Case Examples of Schools Using SWPBIS

       Meador Elementary School

       Kennedy Middle School

       Summary

       Epilogue

       Appendix A: Tier Two Interventions Template

       Blank Template of Menu of Tier Two Interventions

       Appendix B: Functional Behavior Assessment Interview

       Brief Functional Behavior Assessment Interview

       References and Resources

       Index

      About the Authors

      Jason E. Harlacher, PhD, is a consultant, researcher, and adjunct professor with over twelve years of experience in education. He works full time as a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Specialist with the Colorado Department of Education (CDE). Prior to joining CDE, Dr. Harlacher worked as a school psychologist, a response to intervention (RTI) consultant, and the state director for positive behavior support of Nevada (now Nevada PBIS). He is the sole author of Designing Effective Classroom Management and a coauthor of Practitioner’s Guide to Curriculum-Based Evaluation in Reading. He presents nationally on schoolwide prevention models and has published articles on RTI, social-emotional learning, and classroom interventions. Dr. Harlacher earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Ohio University, a master’s degree in school psychology from Utah State University, and a doctorate in school psychology from the University of Oregon.

      Billie Jo Rodriguez, PhD, NCSP, BCBA, is a practicing school psychologist, district positive behavior support coach, and adjunct professor with over eleven years of education experience. She currently works for Springfield Public Schools and teaches coursework in special education and school psychology at the University of Oregon. She has sixteen peer-reviewed publications in refereed journals as well as ten additional publications in the areas of Multi-Tiered System of Supports, (MTSS), functional behavior assessment and support planning, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS). Prior to joining Springfield Public Schools as a school psychologist and Positive Behavior Support coach, Dr. Rodriguez worked as an assistant professor in school psychology at the University of Texas at San Antonio and as a behavior specialist for Clackamas Education Service District. Dr. Rodriguez has served on a team coordinating Tier Two and Three PBIS supports for a state-funded Oregon Department of Education grant, has served on the Oregon Coaches’ Network, and has participated in the Texas Behavior Support network. Dr. Rodriguez presents nationally in the areas of MTSS, functional behavior assessment and intervention development, and PBIS. She earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Central Arkansas, a master’s degree in special education from the University of Oregon, and a doctorate in school psychology, also from the University of Oregon.

      Introduction

      Greyson Cole Elementary School is a midsize school nestled in a small neighborhood on the outskirts of Reno, Nevada. Tumbleweeds regularly blow through the parking lot, and one can see the crisp Nevada landscape from its windows. It’s not uncommon for a neighborhood dog to find its way to the playground during recess.

      Like most schools, Greyson Cole Elementary School has its share of student problem behavior. Teachers manage behaviors that range from students running in the hallways to students fighting with each other. During one school year, the staff completed 397 major discipline referrals—documenting fighting, bullying, or property damage—and 434 minor discipline referrals—documenting tardiness, noncompliance, and minor acts of disrespect (Harlacher, 2011). Not surprisingly, such behavior extends to the buses, where over five hundred citations were given out during the same school year. In fact, inappropriate student behavior was so out of control that bus drivers occasionally turned the bus around to return to the school. Such referral rates paint a somewhat chaotic setting where time is often spent on managing behavior instead of on delivering instruction.

      What are options for schools such as this one to respond to problem behavior? They could certainly adopt a zero-tolerance policy and use suspension as a means of restoring order, but zero-tolerance policies are largely ineffective for lowering misbehavior rates and for improving school climate (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000; American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996). Perhaps identifying students with chronic problem behavior and developing interventions for those students could work, as school-based interventions are an effective means for managing student behavior (Bowen, Jenson, & Clark, 2004; Rathvon, 2008). However, the interventions themselves can be taxing for teachers to implement consistently, decreasing effectiveness (Kratochwill, Elliott, & Callan-Stoiber, 2002; Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004; Noell, Duhon, Gatti, & Connell, 2002; Wolery, 2011). Additionally, teachers don’t always have access to the resources they need for such interventions, such as technical assistance and training manuals, and the heavy use of individualized interventions creates a fragmented, piecemeal system that is inefficient (Merrell, Ervin, & Peacock, 2012; Peacock, Ervin,