Download - Response to Intervention and Positive Behavior Support: Brothers From Different Mothers or Sisters With Different Misters

RtI and PBS 1

Response to Intervention and Positive Behavior Support:

Brothers from Different Mothers or Sisters from Different Misters?

Therese Sandomierski

Don Kincaid

University of South Florida

Bob Algozzine

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Running head: RTI AND PBS

RtI and PBS 2

Response to Intervention and Positive Behavior Support: Brothers from Different Mothers or Sisters from Different Misters?

Recent updates to state and federal special education guidelines are changing the way schools are expected to support students with problem behavior. Traditionally, approaches to assisting these students included parent conferences, observations, a minimum number of general interventions, a review of educational and social records, and a psychological evaluation (Special Programs for Students who are Emotionally Handicapped, 2006). Now, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and revision of IDEA, schools are being encouraged to turn towards proactive approaches that match the service a student receives with his/her level of need. One such approach is called Response to Intervention, or RtI. Response to Intervention (RtI) is defined as “the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals, and applying child response data to important educational decisions” (Batsche et al., 2006). Based on a problem-solving model, the RtI approach considers environmental factors as they might apply to an individual student’s difficulty, and provides services/intervention as soon as the student demonstrates a need. Focused primarily on addressing academic problems, RtI has emerged as the new way to think about both disability identification and early intervention assistance for the “most vulnerable, academically unresponsive children” in schools and school districts (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131, emphasis added). Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is based on a problem-solving model and aims to prevent inappropriate behavior through teaching and reinforcing appropriate behaviors (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2007). Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is a process that is consistent with the core principles of RtI. Similar to RtI, PBS offers a range of interventions that are systematically applied to students based on their demonstrated level of need, and addresses the role of the environment as it applies to development and improvement of behavior problems. Both RtI and PBS are grounded in differentiated instruction. Each approach delimits critical factors and components to be in place at the universal (Tier 1), targeted group (Tier 2), and individual (Tier 3) levels. Our goal is to describe the shared (identified in bold) characteristics of these approaches as a basis for highlighting how best to meet the needs of children experiencing academic and social difficulties in school. Tier 1(Universal) School achievement and success requires that students have adequate exposure to a quality curriculum and instruction. While this feature is easily understood and accepted with regard to academic achievement, it is less easily evident or applied for behavior. With academic achievement, a curriculum contains the critical content skills every student is expected to learn, and it directs assessment and intervention practices

RtI and PBS 3

central to RtI. For behavior, a universal curriculum focuses attention on the set of social skills all students are expected to display. For proponents of PBS, the universal curriculum consists of the school-wide expectations, rules, and procedures, as well as the lesson plans used to teach them. While easily articulated and supported, this aspect of high quality school-wide behavioral instruction is seldom evident in what is taught in schools. One important contribution of PBS has been its’ proponents efforts to elevate behavior curricula and instruction to levels of interest and importance that are similar to those found with academics. Both RtI and PBS support a preventative approach to teaching academic and social behavior, beginning at the Tier 1 level. In schools using PBS, the practice of teaching and reinforcing students for displaying the school-wide expectations is considered to be a universal intervention, delivered to every student in every setting. By teaching and reinforcing expected behaviors, teachers and other professionals using PBS increase the probability that the majority of students will act according to the expectations, and acts as a proactive intervention for students with a history of problem behavior. Similarly, those who envision potential payoff from RtI see it coming from early identification of and strong preventive intervention for academic problems. When universal intervention is carried out with fidelity, schools can begin to identify students who are in need of additional support. These are the students who,, in spite of receiving assistance that has been successful with a majority of other students, continue to display academic and/or social problems. The benchmark assessments and progress monitoring procedures that are prominent in RtI illustrate this, and speak to the importance of using data for decision making. The collection and use of records of behavior provides important decision-making data in PBS schools. For many students, a history of office discipline referrals (ODRs) may be adequate to identify them as needing more support; students who have a high number of ODRs relative to the rest of the school’s population are easily identified as having a poor response to the universal intervention. While ODRs are necessary for identifying students with high rates of externalizing behaviors, they are not sufficient for identifying all students in need of Tier 2 supports. Students who have internalizing behaviors, and students who have less severe externalizing behaviors, are often not captured in school-wide ODR information (Clonin, McDougal, Clark, & Davison, 2007; Nelson, Bennen, Reid, & Epstein, 2002; Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007). The needs of these students still must be addressed in order to prevent future behavior problems and to facilitate school-wide academic achievement. Therefore, schools that implement tiered interventions for behavior must also incorporate a screening measure to proactively identify at-risk students. This idea is consistent with RtI for academics, where schools use academic screeners (such as DIBELS) to identify students experiencing reading difficulties (University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning, 2007; University of South Florida Problem Solving and Response to Intervention Project, 2007). However, no such screening or identification measure has been widely investigated or implemented for the behavioral side of RtI. Nomination processes which ask teachers to rank the top

RtI and PBS 4

internalizing and externalizing students in their classrooms, such as the one used in the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders [SSBD] system (Walker & Severson, 1992) appear to hold much promise for identifying students at-risk of or exhibiting significant problem behaviors. Identifying and meeting the educational needs of students requiring additional support must also address the classroom environment. Otherwise, it would be difficult to argue that a student had a poor response to intervention, when the intervention was put into place in the midst of a maladaptive environment. As part of the prevention process, schools must continually look at their classroom-level data to determine the overall health of each of their classrooms. Classroom environments in which numbers of students experiencing academic difficulties are consistently high require analysis and attention. Classes that generate a high number of ODRs, have high levels of off-task behavior, have continuing low achievement, or have extended periods of unstructured time also require action. Administrators and support teams should work with those classroom teachers to pinpoint the areas that are most in need of development. It is only after high-quality academic and behavior instruction and interventions are established at both the school-wide and classroom levels that schools could conclude that a student has a need for additional services. Tier 2 (Targeted Group) Once a student has been identified as needing additional support, both RtI and PBS advocate for using evidence-based interventions that require resources appropriate to the student’s level of need, and then monitoring the progress of students receiving those interventions. At Tier 2, this is interpreted as providing interventions that are easy to administer to small groups of students, and which require limited time and staff involvement. In schools that are using PBS, a check-in/check-out program such as the Behavior Education Program (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004) meets these criteria and provides a way to focus at-risk students’ attention on the school-wide expectations. Other possibilities for Tier 2 interventions include social skills groups, group counseling, or mentoring programs. While a plethora of such programs exist for purchase and use within schools, many do not have a solid research base that supports their effectiveness. Similarly, although there are instructional procedures with promise for improving academic skills, there is “widespread uncertainty” about what “scientifically validated” instruction means within RtI (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131). Therefore, districts and schools are encouraged to closely monitor the implementation and outcomes of such programs. And even the best programs, if they are implemented poorly, will likely not produce the desired impact on academic and/or behavior change. Clearly, the area of targeted group/Tier 2 interventions will benefit from future efforts at applied research. Another area of common interest and overlap is the degree to which students have the necessary academic and behavioral skills to succeed at school. Most educators would agree that it is rare to find a student who has behavior challenges who does not also have academic challenges, and many times the behavioral problems originate because of the student’s inability to succeed academically at a level comparable to his/her peers. An

RtI and PBS 5

analysis conducted by the FL PBS Project of three schools in Florida found that over 80% of all students identified as having severe behavioral problems were also identified by their teachers as having academic problems. If a student has shown a poor response to universal and classroom-level behavioral interventions, his/her academic proficiency should be assessed. If the student has academic deficits, they should receive evidence-based interventions that directly address their needs. Schools may find that it is necessary to provide academic and behavior interventions simultaneously, but a judgment of the student’s response to the behavior intervention should be interpreted cautiously until the academic problems are remediated. Progress monitoring can be efficiently achieved for Tier 2 interventions using variations of teacher rating scales that reflect students’ academic and/or behavior goals (the school-wide expectations). Samples of these scales for behavior can be accessed at the Florida PBS website (http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/). Most commonly, rating scales require teachers (or another adult) to record their opinion of a student’s behavior during a specific time period, such as a 50-minute class or subject period (e.g., Language Arts, or Math). As the teacher fills out the rating scale, they provide brief, specific verbal feedback to the student about why they earned that rating. The most obvious drawback to this method of progress monitoring is that the teacher’s reported opinion is being measured, not the actual instances of academic or social behavior. However, at this level of analysis, the resources dedicated to any particular student should match his/her level of need; more time-consuming and intensive measures should be left to levels of intervention that are equally intense. As with the universal and classroom levels of intervention, academic and behavior interventions must be carried out with fidelity in Tier 2 before the student can be judged to have an adequate or insufficient response to intervention. This would mean that interventions would be evaluated not only with regard to how they were delivered to the student, but also with regard to the way in which they generalized to non-treatment settings. For example, if a student participates in a “pull-out” social skills group with the school’s guidance counselor, fidelity would have to be evaluated for the manner in which the counselor presented the social skill lessons to the students, as well as the manner in which the teachers applied the social skill lessons in the classroom. Similarly, evidence of academic performance should reflect improvements across settings, people, and materials. The process of monitoring intervention fidelity and supporting teachers while effective interventions are implemented is of key importance, and requires further investigation on both state and national levels. Tier 3 (Individual Student) Prior to selecting a Tier 2 intervention, the school’s PBS/RTI team should have already met to discuss the student’s behavioral needs, classroom issues, and academic needs. At Tier 3, the school team needs to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the student’s data, which at this point would include all of the information examined at Tier 1, as well as the student’s response to and the fidelity of the Tier 2 intervention(s). The classroom teacher(s) should have a larger role at this stage of the problem-solving process, as more

RtI and PBS 6

in-depth information is collected through one-on-one consultation. At the beginning of Tier 3, consultation regarding persistent behavior problems could include a brief Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), and/or completion of a behavioral or mental health rating scale. If a student continues to have difficulty, a comprehensive FBA would be warranted. As a student moves along the third Tier of intervention and support, schools will want to continue to use the guiding principle of matching services, time, and resources to a student’s demonstrated need. A simple Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP) that includes evidence-based interventions and is based on the results of the FBA should be used early in the Tier 3 stage, and the student’s response to the plan should be closely monitored. If a student continues to show a poor response to the plan, additional school personnel are gathered to apply a more structured problem-solving process to the situation, and develop a more detailed plan. As a student’s behavior problems are revealed to be persistent and/or severe, additional data collection procedures (such as direct observation by non-classroom personnel) may become necessary. This same process (e.g., developing an individualized education program) is evident in efforts to implement Tier 3 interventions in RtI approaches although these actions often are reserved for or emerge from special education professionals and programs. At Tier 3, access to an array of assessment information is essential for effective team decision-making. Different data are necessary for identifying students in need of more intensive support, for assessing the function(s) of their problem behaviors, and for evaluating the outcomes of individualized education programs. At this stage, more intensive progress monitoring techniques should be applied. Teacher rating scales can still play an important role in this process, but they should provide more detailed information than what was gathered during Tier 2. For instance, time periods within the rating scale may be reduced to create a more precise measure of how the teachers’ perception of the student’s behavior improves or worsens over time. In cases where students repeatedly show poor response to intervention, it may be necessary to gather data on specific instances of behavior using direct observation. This, of course, would require significant amounts of staff time and expertise; however, by this stage of the intervention process, the student’s behavioral difficulties have been shown to be persistent, and may also be intense, and the additional time and resources would be warranted. Again, the similarities in and importance of teams across RtI and PBS are obvious and compelling. Changing the Lives of Students with Problems RtI and PBS offer opportunities to address academic and behavior problems effectively with interventions at different levels of intensity and support. If a student is not making adequate progress, decision-making teams consider if the interventions were implemented with fidelity. If not, additional support is provided or intervention plans are revised to better match the context of the classroom and the teacher’s ability to respond effectively. While RtI and PBS offer great promise, “…it is untrue and misleading to claim that we currently have a necessary and sufficient knowledge base to guide the implementation of

RtI and PBS 7

RTI [and PBS]…across all grades, for all academic [and behavior] skills, in all content areas, for all children and youth” (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 134). We have few models of districts implementing these systems across all schools and all three levels for all students. As such, it sometimes feels as if we are watching a “runaway train” destined to wreck and are trying to lay track (practices, research, and data) to avoid the disaster. So, while RtI and PBS share common parentages, histories, and features, there is still much work to be done to insure that a combined approach can deliver on the promise of improving both academic and behavior outcomes for all students. Florida’s Problem Solving and Response to Intervention Project is collaborating with our Positive Behavior Support Project to provide training and technical assistance in implementing a three-tiered RtI process that addresses both behavioral and academic issues. The Florida PBS Project continues to provide training and technical assistance to districts and school teams on implementing effective and efficient multi-tiered systems to support the entire school, classrooms, targeted groups of students or even students with the most severe behavior problems. The RTI project will also be providing training on implementing academic and behavioral problem-solving processes and piloting integrated systems in several districts. Districts and schools who have been trained by the Florida PBS Project can feel confident that the problem-solving process we train and support is based on research-based practices and is consistent with the national and state efforts. Please feel free to ask any of our Project staff any questions about implementing RTI in your districts.

References

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., et al. (2006). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Clonin, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Clark, K., & Davison, S. (2007). Use of office discipline referrals in school-wide decision making: A practical example. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 19-27.

Crone, D.A., Horner, R.H., & Hawken, L.S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, 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.

Nelson, J.R., Bennen, G.J., Reid, R.C., & Espstein, M.H. (2002). Convergent validity of office discipline referrals with the CBCL-TRF. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders 10(3) 181-88.

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. (2007). Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

Severson, H.H., Walker, H.M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T.R., Gresham, F.M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193-223.

RtI and PBS 8

Special Programs for Students who are Emotionally Handicapped, Fla. Admin. Code Ann., §6A-6.03016 et seq. (2006). Retrieved May 31, 2007, from https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=0&tid=1061876&type=1&File=6A-6.03016.doc

University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2007). Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/dibelsinfo.php

University of South Florida Problem Solving and Response to Intervention Project. (2007). Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/index.html

Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD): User’s Guide and Administration Manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Schoolwide PBS: Module 1 Handouts Page 1 of 27

Handouts

Module 1 Introduction to Schoolwide Positive

Behavior Support Project


Translating Research into Effective Practice:

The Effects of a Universal Staff and Student Intervention on Indicators of

Discipline and School Safety

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.

Hill Walker, Ph.D.

Annemieke Golly, Ph.D.

Kathy White, M.S.

Dale R. Myers, M.S.

Tad Shannon, M.S.

The University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior

Development and implementation of this study was supported by grant # 97-JN-FX-0022, from the U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The opinions expressed are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the funding agency.

Running Head: Research to Practice


Abstract

This paper describes a universal intervention package aimed at improving the safety and social

behavior of students in elementary and middle schools. Its goals were to assist schools to provide

effective educational services, behavioral supports and social-behavioral skills teaching to all students in

the school. Nine treatment and six comparison (no-intervention) elementary and middle schools in three

communities participated. Descriptive data were used to evaluate the one-year effects of the intervention.

The treatment schools implemented a schoolwide discipline plan based on the Effective Behavioral

Support (Sugai & Horner, 1994) model in addition to the Second Step violence prevention curriculum

(Grossman et al., 1997) for one year. Comparison schools were not restricted in their use of interventions

but received neither systematic technical assistance and training nor data based feedback on their

performance. Regarding changes in office discipline referrals, treatment schools generally showed greater

reductions. Treatment school students showed improved social skill knowledge. Perceptions of school

safety were not different across the schools after one year. In focus group interviews across some

treatment and comparison schools, treatment school personnel generally reported improved operation of

their schools and motivation to continue with the intervention. Comparison schools cited the need for

improved schoolwide intervention and technical assistance as a top need. Results are discussed relative to

the need for examination of sustained use of the intervention over multiple years and more frequent and

detailed outcome measures.


Educating the diverse populations of students enrolled in today's schools is an ever-increasing

challenge. More students are culturally diverse, have English as a second language, less prepared to enter

school, and have a greater range of learning and behavioral challenges (Knitzer, 1993; Knitzer, Steinberg,

& Fleish et al., 1990). Our schools are challenged to educate this changing population with shrinking

resources, competing priorities for improvement (e.g., academics, discipline, school safety), and changes

in family structure and lifestyles that increase stress and impair parenting effectiveness (Hawkins,

Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999).

Overall rates of serious violent crime in the school appear to be decreasing or at least stable in the

past decade (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999). However, these and the rates of less serious behaviors

(e.g., theft, bullying, harassment, threats) remain the highest in the industrialized world (Osofsky, 1997).

The dramatic increase in the sensationalized mass school shootings in recent years (U.S. Department of

Justice, 1999) has heightened awareness of the myriad adjustment problems our children present in the

face of family, neighborhood and school stressors. Children are more at risk now than ever before

(Walker & Eaton-Walker, 2000) to be pushed onto a pathway leading to delinquency, violence, school

failure and a host of other negative outcomes (Hawkins, et al., 1999; Sprague & Walker, 2000).

Our challenge is to understand how to prevent and decrease the prevalence and incidence of

children and youth that display behaviors that foster antisocial lifestyles. By presenting behaviors that are

dangerous to themselves, other students, teachers, families, and community members, these children and

youth disrupt teaching and learning in schools, create inhospitable neighborhoods, upset family structures

and functioning, and ultimately become involved in the criminal justice and/or mental health system.

Fortunately, we have research evidence that helps us to understand the nature of this challenge and to

identify and characterize the features of an effective and efficient response.

Many school climate factors contribute to the development of antisocial behavior in children and

youth. These include, (a) ineffective instruction that results in academic failure; (b) inconsistent and

punitive management practices; (c) lack of opportunity to learn and practice prosocial interpersonal and

self-management skills; (d) unclear rules and expectations regarding appropriate behavior; (e) failure to

enforce rules; and (f) failure to individualize instruction to adapt to individual differences (Colvin,

Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Mayer, 1995; Walker et al., 1996).

In combination, these school, family, and community risk factors pose a formidable challenge to

those whose objective is to mount a comprehensive, effective, and efficient response to preventing and

responding to antisocial behavior. Schools have been identified as an ideal place to organize an effort

against the increasing problem of children and youth who display antisocial behavior (Mayer, 1995; Sugai

& Horner, 1994; Walker et al., 1996).


School personnel have a long history of applying simple and general solutions to complex student

behavior problems and expressing understandable disappointment when these attempts do not work as

expected. Usually the approach used, or other factors (e.g., the child's home life, poor motivation for

change, lack of parent support), is blamed for unsatisfactory outcomes. Commonly, the failure to achieve

meaningful outcomes is due to a poor match between presenting problems and the intensity, fidelity, or

focus interventions. Rarely do we come close to investing the resources, time and expertise necessary to

solve the problem effectively. Often this practice is sustained by unrealistic expectations about what is

actually required to produce enduring changes in student behavior, or by a natural tendency to eliminate

the immediate presenting problem quickly (i.e. remove the student) rather than to focus on the larger

source of the problem.

In other cases, indirect intervention approaches (e.g., counseling, insight-based therapies,

improving self-esteem) are used in isolation to solve intractable behavior problems that require more

powerful, direct forms of intervention (Mayer, 1995). Such indirect approaches are rarely adequate or

sufficient because (a) these students tend to be unmotivated to engage in these therapies and (b) because

ownership of the problem is often shared by the student and other social agents (e.g., peers, adults)

(Dryfoos, 1990).

Unfortunately, when these indirect intervention approaches fail, punishments and exclusion from

the school setting often become the interventions of choice. Exclusion, suspension, expulsion, verbal

reprimands, detention and the like are common reactive responses. Although punishment consequences

provide an immediate, short-term reprieve from the problem, positive long-term change in behavior is not

achieved. In fact, research has shown that punishment-based interventions for students with serious

antisocial and violent behavior usually result in an increase in the problem behavior (Mayer & Sulzer-

Azaroff, 1990). Thus, we see an increase in truancy, vandalism, intimidation, harassment, and other

forms of problem behavior. Ironically, these are among the same behaviors we are attempting to

eliminate.

Solutions must start with a comprehensive look at the contexts in which violence and antisocial

behavior occur (Biglan, 1995). The school, for example, represents a complex organization of people,

environments, policies, routines, and procedures that must function as a coordinated whole. In any

school, we would expect to find three relatively distinct populations of students. These include typically

developing students; those at-risk for behavioral and academic problems, and high-risk students who

already manifest serious behavioral and academic difficulties (Sprague & Walker, 2000).

Preferred and Best Practices


Given these circumstances and challenges, effective interventions must be developed that, (a)

apply a multiple systems approach to discipline aimed at all students in the school, (b) support educators

in classrooms and schools, and (c) adopt and sustain effective and efficient practices (Gottfredson, 1997).

Fortunately, the same body of literature that identifies ineffective strategies also acknowledges effective

approaches to positive schoolwide discipline and management. These include (a) social skills instruction,

(b) academic/curricular restructuring and adaptation, (c) behaviorally based interventions, (d) early

screening and identification of children with antisocial behavior patterns, and (e) positive schoolwide

discipline systems (Biglan, 1995; Lipsey, 1991; Mayer, 1995; Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai &

Horner, 1994; Tolan & Guerra, 1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker, Sprague, Close &

Schneider, in press). Two interventions that exemplify this approach include Effective Behavioral Support

(EBS) and the Second Step violence prevention curriculum (Committee for Children, 1997).

Effective behavioral support. A promising approach to this problem is the Effective Behavioral

Support (EBS) Model, which is a system of training, technical assistance, and evaluation of school

discipline and climate. The EBS model has been developed and field-tested extensively by researchers at

the University of Oregon (see Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Taylor-Greene et

al., 1995). EBS is a multiple system, whole school approach to addressing the problems posed by

antisocial students and coping with challenging forms of student behavior.

EBS has these essential features:

1. Problem behaviors are defined clearly for students and staff members;

2. Appropriate, positive behaviors are defined for students and staff;

3. Students are taught these alternative behaviors directly and given assistance to acquire the

necessary skills to enable the desired behavior change;

4. Effective incentives and motivational systems are developed and carried out to encourage students

to behave differently;

5. Staff commits to staying with the intervention over the long term and to monitoring, supporting,

coaching, debriefing, and providing booster shots as necessary to maintain the achieved gains;

6. Staff receives training and regular feedback about effective implementation of the interventions;

and,

7. Systems for measuring and monitoring the intervention's effectiveness are established and carried

out.


Teaching higher order social skills using the Second Step violence prevention curriculum.

Evidence of the efficacy of whole school approaches such as EBS is building (see Gottfredson, 1997 for a

review). We also have evidence that higher order social skills training programs reduce the prevalence of

antisocial behavior when applied universally in a school (Grossman et al.,1997; Hawkins et al., 1999).

The Second Step violence prevention curriculum has been shown to increase higher order social skills in

elementary age children and decrease aggressive behavior on the playground (Grossman et al., 1997).

The curriculum provides structured, well-sequenced lessons for grades K-8 and is designed to be

delivered over the course of a school year. The curriculum includes lessons on anger management,

problem solving (e.g., dealing with bullies, rumors) and empathy and emphasizes regular use of role-play

and integration into the regular curriculum. Lesson concepts and behaviors are presented with increasing

complexity from Kindergarten through grade 8. Combining the intervention components of the EBS

model with systematic and frequent teaching of higher order social skills (i.e., anger management,

problem solving, empathy) could produce powerful behavioral changes at the whole-school level,

compared to singular, poorly integrated intervention approaches (e.g., providing anger management

training for at risk youth).

Purpose of the Investigation

Our investigation was designed to document the effects of a universal intervention package aimed

at improving the safety and social behavior of students in elementary and middle schools. Its major goals

were to assist schools to provide more effective educational services, behavioral supports and social-

behavioral skills teaching to all students in the school. Due to the complexity of the measures and lack of

true experimental control, the results are presented as an evaluative review rather than a formal

experimental comparison.

Methodology

Participants and Settings

We assisted nine treatment schools in two suburban, and one urban community in the Pacific

Northwest and compared their performance on selected measures to six similar schools in those same

communities. Treatment and comparison schools were not randomly selected but rather chosen by local

school administrators. All schools had volunteered to participate as treatment schools. Table 1 provides

information regarding the characteristics of each school. Based on simple demographics, there were no


substantial differences in characteristics between the schools. We did not use indicators of staff capacity

or baseline rates of discipline problems or other measures to indicate equivalence of the treatment versus

comparison schools. The reader should consider the quality of the school matches with caution due to

lack of randomized assignment on a range of more robust measures.


Table 1: Treatment and Comparison School Characteristics School Grade Level Treatment or

Comparison Number of Students Enrolled

Proportion of Minority Students (percent)

Proportion of Free and Reduced Lunch Students

Teacher-Student Ratio

Middle 1 6-8 Treatment 742 9.2 50.13 Not available Middle 2 6-8 Treatment 542 10.7 23.62 17.3 Middle 3

6-8 Treatment 502 1.0 45.85 21.8

Average 595.33 6.97 39.87 19.55 Middle 4 6-8 Comparison 482 6.4 28.84 19.1 Middle 5 6-8 Comparison 646 32.1 61.61 18.9 Middle 6

6-8 Comparison 957 6.2 21.36 23.9

Average 695 14.9 37.27 20.63 Elementary 1

K-5 Treatment 311 6.9 31.83 21.1

Elementary 2

K-5 Treatment 425 8.2 49.88 22.7

Elementary 3

K-5 Treatment 318 58.9 67.61 21.2

Elementary 4

K-5 Treatment 187 28.1 76.47 12.2

Elementary 5

K-2 Treatment 132 8.6 61.36 20

Elementary 6

K-5 Treatment 540 12.5 35.56 25.2

Average 318.83 20.53 53.79 20.4 Elementary 7

K-5 Comparison 390 5.5 25.90 22.8

Elementary 8

K-5 Comparison 455 70.4 81.54 19.8

Elementary 9

K-5 Comparison 502 1.6 57.37 24.2

Average 449 25.83 54.94 22.27


Measurement

We developed a profile of each school that included information about school demographics, the

type and number of at-risk and high-risk students in the school, discipline referral patterns, school crime

and safety, etc. The profile was used as the primary evaluation tool for the project and was used to assist

schools to plan for future interventions and evaluate current work.

Several measures including staff and student demographics (see Table 1), intervention

implementation (e.g., school rules are developed and taught, teachers use a system of positive

reinforcement) and safety surveys, office discipline referrals, and student declarative knowledge on

Second Step lesson content (intervention schools only) were collected. Copies of the data collection

instruments are available from the first author. Finally, we conducted a qualitative, focus group interview

with four treatment, and four comparison schools at the end of the study to assess differences between the

perceptions of school team members.

Due to limitations in resources, we were unable to collect extensive, direct observation measures.

Finally, the nature of the measures used prevented detailed assessment of inter-rater reliability. Table 2

lists the measures collected across treatment and comparison schools.

Table 2: Process and Outcome Measures Instrument

Measure

Frequency

Respondents

Assessing behavior support checklist (Sugai et al., 1999)

Percent of items rated as in place or in progress

End of the school year

EBS team members or whole faculty

Oregon School Safety Survey (Sprague et al., 1995)

Likert ratings of selected risk and protective factors

End of the school year

School Site Council

School Vandalism Costs

Total cost summary

Quarterly

Building Principal

Student Second Step Knowledge tests

Quantitative and Qualitative summary of each instrument (e.g. % correct)

Pre and Post Instruction

Classroom teachers

Teacher use reports (Second Step Curriculum),

Quantitative and Qualitative summary (e.g. 0 rating)

Quarterly.

Classroom teachers

Discipline referrals, attendance, SES ranking of school

Quantitative summary of each key measure

Annual

Building principal, State Department of Education Database


Evaluation Design

The design used was a treatment-comparison analysis between the nine treatment and six

comparison schools. All treatment schools received the intervention concurrently and data were collected

from the comparison schools on the same schedule. For purposes of comparison, elementary and middle

school data were analyzed separately.

Procedures

The project included four major intervention strategies aimed at building personnel and students.

Technical assistance personnel met with a representative group of teachers and related service staff from

each school (general and special education) and the building administrator (required) 1-2 times per month

to provide training and consultation regarding implementation of the independent variable.

Approximately 20 hours of formal training were provided on intervention components, which are

described below. Technical assistance was provided as needed to solve problems, conduct planning, etc.

for 25-40 hours across the implementation year. In addition, the entire staff of each treatment school

received an eight-hour inservice on implementing the Second Step curriculum and an additional four hour

session on components of the EBS model.

We provided technical assistance and training to establish schoolwide behavior rule teaching

related to student-teacher compliance, peer-peer interaction, academic achievement, and academic study

skills. Schools adopted rules around the general framework of "safety," "respect," and "responsibility"

and directly taught lessons throughout the year to teach and maintain those patterns of behavior. In

addition, schools posted the rules publicly in posters, school newsletters etc. Schools also used such

strategies as schoolwide assemblies and videotape presentations of the behavior lessons. This

intervention has been described and tested extensively (see Taylor-Green et al., 1996 & Todd, Horner,

Sugai, & Sprague, 1999 for additional explanation of this component).

Second, each school established a consistent system of enforcement, monitoring and positive

reinforcement to enhance the effect of rule teaching and maintain patterns of desired student behavior.

Reinforcement systems included Schoolwide token economies in the form of "tickets" stating each school

rule that were delivered by all adults in the building. These tokens were backed up with weekly drawings

and rewards for the teachers as well. Each school implemented the procedures to fit their school

improvement plan and specific discipline needs.

To enhance the effect of these strategies, we also gave data-based feedback to schools regarding

their responses to the "Assessing Behavior Support in Schools" survey (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd &

Horner, 1999) and discipline referral patterns as available (Sprague, Sugai, Horner & Walker, 1999.).

Simple bar graphs of each school's performance were developed and the entire school staff reviewed the


data at monthly staff meetings (contact the primary author for examples of these displays). Staffs were

encouraged to give comment on the data and participate in problem solving discussions and developing

action plans during regular school meetings.

Finally, we installed the Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum (Committee for Children,

1997) in each treatment school. The curriculum was taught by most teachers in the school to maximize

the effect of the intervention (our goal was 100% participation). Research shows the Second Step

curriculum to be one of the best available for use in schools (Grossman et al., 1997) as it has been shown

to be effective in increasing positive social skills and reducing aggressive playground behavior.

Results

Results are presented regarding changes in disciplinary referrals at treatment and comparison

schools, perceptions of school safety by adults in the schools, perceptions of the status of school

discipline, changes in student social-skills knowledge related to the Second Step curriculum, and findings

from the focus group interviews.

Office discipline referrals

We asked schools to report the frequency of office discipline referrals for the year preceding

intervention (1997-1998) and the intervention year (1998-1999). While office discipline referrals are not

a true indicator of behavioral change, they have been shown to be a useful metric for guiding decision

making regarding interventions and making inferences about intervention effects (Sprague et al., 1999;

Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000). All treatment middle and elementary schools reported

reductions in office discipline referrals in the intervention year when compared to the baseline year and

showed greater improvement relative to comparison schools.

Discipline referrals in the baseline year ranged from 550-3167 for treatment middle schools and

260-2608 in the intervention year. Average percent change across the middle schools was -36% (range =

-18 to -53%) compared to 82 percent increase in the comparison schools (range = -39 - +203%).

Comparison middle schools ranged from 601-1240 office referrals in the baseline year and 755 to 1222 in

the intervention year.

Four of the six treatment elementary schools reported office discipline referrals for the baseline

year. The remaining two had purged these data at the end of the baseline year (a common practice in

schools we have found). Of the four schools with two years data, baseline frequencies ranged from 128-

866 and 46-273 in the treatment year. Average percent change across the four treatment elementary

schools was -51% (range = -18 to -68.5%). Comparison elementary schools reported a range of 159-699

in the baseline year and 146-658 in the treatment year. Average percent change for these schools was -


7.5% (range = -6--9%). Figure 1 presents composite percent change statistics for treatment and

comparison schools.

Figure 1

Perceptions of school safety

We administered the Oregon School Safety Survey (Sprague, Colvin, & Irvin, 1995) to school

site-based management councils at both treatment and comparison schools (n= a total of 100

administrators, teachers and parents). The survey asks respondents to rate the extent of 16 risk and 17

protective factors shown to increase or buffer against school violence and discipline problems. A scale of

1 (not at all) to 4 (extensive) was used. Treatment middle school site councils indicated an average of

2.53 for risk factors and 2.57 for protective factors (minimal to moderate risk and protect). Comparison

middle school site councils indicated an average of 2.3 for risk factors and 2.65 for protective factors

(minimal to moderate risk and protect). No meaningful differences were detected in these ratings.

Assessing behavioral support in schools

In the treatment schools, the school discipline team was asked at mid-year to rate the status of

several features of Effective Behavioral Support (Sugai & Horner, 1994) using the "Assessing Behavioral

Support in Schools" checklist (Sugai et al., 1999). This checklist asks raters to indicate whether an item is

"in place," "in progress," or "not started" across the areas of schoolwide, common area, classroom, and

Percent Change in Referrals

Elem TreatElem Comp

Mid TreatMid Comp

0

50

100

-50% C

hang

e in

Dis

cipl

ine

Ref

e rra

ls


individual student systems. Sample items included questions regarding the structure and function of the

building based team, whether school rules and reinforcement systems are in place, etc. and reflected

directly the content of the training provided by this project. A copy of the tool is available from the first

author. We used the tool to indicate the quality of implementation of intervention components from the

perspective of staff participating in the intervention. Treatment middle schools reported 50% of

Schoolwide, 32% common area, 48% classroom, and 30% individual student items as "in place."

Elementary treatment schools reported 57% of Schoolwide, 33% common area, 63% classroom, and 42%

individual student items as "in place." We did not use this assessment in the comparison schools. Figures

2 and 3 present a graphic summary of survey results. We obtained highest ratings in the schoolwide and

classroom systems, areas of focus for training and assistance in this study.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Assessing Behavioral Support In Schools

Treatment School Results

Middle 1 Middle 2 Middle 3 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80SW Non-C CL IS

Assessing Behavioral Support in Schools

40

60

80

100

tem

s a c

com

p lis

hed

SW Non-C CL IS


Second Step knowledge change

Students in grades 3-8 in the treatment schools were given a 15-item test prior to receiving

instruction in the curriculum and then at the end of the year. The test was created to assess student's

ability to define essential skills (e.g., empathy) and to respond to vignettes of school related problems.

All grade levels in all schools improved on this measure after instruction. Average percent correct in

baseline was 46% and average scores increased to 55% across all grades. Figure 4 provides a graphic

summary of pre and posttest scores by grade.

Figure 4

Focus group interviews

As an additional indicator of the qualitative effects of the intervention, interviews were conducted

with focus groups comprised of teachers, administrators and parents at four treatment (2 each elementary

and middle) and four comparison (2 each elementary and middle) schools. The focus groups were

interviewed for approximately one hour and asked to answer two basic questions:

Second Step Knowledge Tests

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cent

Co r

rect

Pre Post


1. What are the perceptions of school personnel regarding the process and content of school

discipline, social skills teaching, reinforcement systems, and obstacles to improvement?

2. Do intervention schools report differences in consistency of intervention and satisfaction with the

operation of their school, compared to the non-intervention schools?

Schoolwide discipline. Regarding schoolwide discipline, the four comparison school groups

reported a lack of comprehensive approaches for schoolwide discipline. In these schools, discipline

procedures were reported as more reactive than preventive and generally applied most often to at-risk

students. When asked about teaching school behavioral expectations, treatment schools described

consistent use of these procedures both schoolwide and in classrooms. In contrast, only one of the

comparison schools mentioned having a system of schoolwide rules. In this school, the principal visited

each classroom to teach the "5 don'ts." All comparison schools discussed the lack of defined schoolwide

rules as a challenge to effective operation. An elementary school staff member said that one of the

biggest needs for improvement is "some consistency of expectations across the school."

Positive reinforcement. When asked to discuss the use of positive reinforcement and recognition

in the schools, all treatment schools discussed effective operation of these systems. Each team also added

that maintaining the reward system takes a lot of time and energy. In contrast only two of the four

comparison schools reported use of a reinforcement and recognition system.

Social skills teaching. In addition to establishing and teaching schoolwide behavioral

expectations and positive reinforcement systems, the treatment schools implemented the Second Step

violence prevention curriculum. Although most praised the use of the curriculum and described examples

of positive change in student behavior, others complained that the lessons were too time consuming. The

comparison schools reported less systematic teaching of social skills and tended to not apply the

curriculum universally. Social skills teaching typically was targeted to a handful of problematic students

and delivered by specialized personnel such as the school counselor or special education teacher.

What it was like before and after intervention? The treatment schools reported improvement

compared to the way things were prior to implementing schoolwide interventions. One teacher said her

elementary school was "off the charts" before implementing EBS and Second Step. "Everyone looked so

tired and exhausted," the teacher said. "It was like a consensus: This isn't fun any more. Something has

to change. This is not why we went into teaching. "Now, the teacher said simply, "We can teach."

Most of the comparison schools said they had began trying to take a more proactive stance toward

school discipline in recent years after noting a rise in inappropriate and aggressive behavior among

students. While improvement was noted, serious concerns were also expressed. One frustrated teacher

put it bluntly when asked about teacher concerns regarding discipline and safety: "Columbine, I can't be


bothered with fear about that. I'm trying to get through the day. It's the other kids, the kids who are

constantly arguing, constantly challenging your authority, constantly disrupting who wear you down."

Areas for improvement. A lack of time was the biggest obstacle cited by treatment school staff

regarding implementation of schoolwide discipline and social skill teaching strategies. Maintaining newly

established systems took a great deal of effort and resources. "It’s a lot of work," said one middle school

teacher. Nevertheless, the teacher said, if there are fewer students getting into trouble, then it's worth the

effort. Comparison schools generally reported the need for a consistent, schoolwide approach to behavior

management but noted a lack of technical support and training in this area.

Discussion

This paper provided a limited description of the effects of a one-year intervention to improve

schoolwide discipline and safety in elementary and middle schools. Some effects were compared to

similar elementary and middle schools in the same communities. Treatment schools fared better regarding

changes in office discipline referrals and these changes appeared related to perceptions of intervention

fidelity (as measured by the Assessing Behavioral Support in Schools survey) and improvements in

student social skills (as measured by the knowledge tests). Adults in the school did not report measurable

differences in their perceptions of school safety (as measured by the Oregon School Safety survey).

This study shows that school personnel can make meaningful changes in school practices in a

one-year period with a relatively inexpensive investment in time and expense. We provided technical

assistance and training to each treatment school across the year and required that a representative team of

individuals (building administrator, representative teachers, related service staff) meet at least monthly to

review progress and solve problems related to the implementation of EBS and Second Step. School

teams were allotted 1500 dollars each to support substitutes for teachers and/or stipends for meeting after

school hours. Cost of purchasing the Second Step curriculum (one kit for every two teachers) was

approximately 2500 dollars per school.

This study is limited due to a relatively small sample size (n=9 treatment, 6 control) using the

whole school as a unit of analysis. Future studies should use larger, randomly selected sample of schools

to assess the impact of the intervention in more detail. This type of design will be challenging due to the

need to find a large number of relatively equally matched schools for intervention or comparison. We did

not compare individual students in the treatment and comparison schools on any measures as the focus of

the study was on larger, whole school effects. Other studies (see Hawkins et al., 1999) which have used

expanded, although similar, intervention procedures have shown significant effects for individual

treatment students over a multi-year period.


The measurement procedures used in this project were limited, lack a complete set of outcome

measures, and should be interpreted with caution. First, office referral data might be seen as a weak index

of behavioral change. No collateral measures (e.g., direct observation, and student rating scales) were

collected and no assessment of interobserver agreement was conducted. In addition, discipline referral

data were shared with treatment school staff. This may have influenced staff behavior by encouraging

teachers to use this strategy less. We believe however that teachers were encouraged to be more

consistent in their use of office referrals due to receiving data based feedback on their performance. More

study of this type of feedback is needed.

True baseline measures were not available for discipline referrals, school safety perceptions, or

"Assessing Behavioral Support in Schools." As such, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty whether

some EBS features were in place prior to intervention. It is likely that some features were in place.

Changes in the Second Step knowledge test were minimal and lacked a comparison group. Future studies

need to gather all of the above data in accordance with accepted conventions for ensuring the reliability

and validity.

The short duration of the study was an artifact of the grant that funded the training and technical

assistance. While differential effects were observed in office discipline referrals and attitudes expressed

by treatment versus comparison school staff, we would expect even greater differences in a multi-year

comparison. In our work with multiple schools, we have consistently seen continued improvement over

2-4 years of implementation. In addition, we would expect continued changes in perceptions of school

safety, student social skills etc. with sustained intervention (see Hawkins et al., 1999 for a demonstration

of this cumulative effect). Future studies need to follow schools (and the students they serve) over

multiple years to assess the cumulative effect of these procedures. Reviews of treatments for reducing

school violence (Gottfredson, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1999) and children's mental health symptoms

(Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 1999) recommend sustaining interventions over multiple years

in order to cross important developmental periods (e.g., the transition from elementary to middle school).

As noted by the focus group participants, sustaining these interventions remain a significant challenge and

future work needs to focus on ways to assist school personnel to integrate increased demands for

academic and behavioral excellence (Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993).

The U.S. Public Health Service has developed a classification system of prevention approaches

that provides for the integration of differing intervention types necessary to address the divergent needs of

these three student types. The three prevention approaches contained in the U.S. PHS classification

system are primary (prevent onset), secondary (reduce emerging problems) and tertiary (reduce or

reverse ongoing damage). Walker and his colleagues have conceptualized an integrated prevention


model, based upon this classification system, for addressing the problem of school-based antisocial

behavior patterns (Walker, et al., 1996). Universal interventions, applied to everyone in the same manner

and degree, are used to achieve primary prevention goals; that is, to keep problems from emerging. This

study attempted to assess the effects of this level of intervention. Individualized interventions, applied to

one case at a time or to small groups of at risk individuals (e.g. alternative classrooms) are used to achieve

secondary and tertiary prevention goals. These interventions are labor intensive, complex, often intrusive,

costly, and powerful.

This integrated model, though it has rarely been implemented fully in the context of schooling,

provides an ideal means for school settings to develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive

management system that addresses the needs of all students in the school. It is also a fair system in that

typically developing students are not penalized by being denied access to potentially beneficial

interventions. In addition, it has the potential to positively impact the operations, administration and

overall climate of the school. This model, through its emphasis on the use of primary prevention goals,

achieved through universal interventions, maximizes the cost-efficient use of school resources and

provides a supportive context for the application of necessary secondary and tertiary interventions for the

more severely involved students. Finally, it provides a built in screening and assessment process; that is,

through careful monitoring of students responses to the primary prevention interventions, it is possible to

detect those who are at greater risk and in need of more intensive services and supports.

Conclusion

Emerging public concerns regarding the safety of students in the school setting coupled with

recent school shootings and media coverage of youth violence in general are generating enormous

pressures on educators to take ownership of the problems presented by antisocial, delinquent and violent

youth. Over the next several years, an enormous amount of federal and state resources will be invested in

school safety and prevention of antisocial behavior. It is extremely important that these precious

resources be used to promote the adoption of best professional practices and that proven, research based

screening systems and early interventions be implemented in addressing them. These developments also

create significant opportunities for school professionals (related services personnel, general educators,

special educators) to collaborate more effectively and to forge new working relationships with families

and community agencies. If we can implement with integrity what we currently know regarding these

problems, a major positive impact can be achieved. The stakes are high for our society and school

systems. Yet the potential gains are well worth the investment and effort.


References

Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower

prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479-492.

Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Schoolwide and classroom management:

Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general

education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.

Committee for Children, (1997). Second Step: Violence prevention curriculum. Seattle, WA: Author.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). School-Based crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D.

MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway, Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t,

what’s promising (pp. 1-49). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs.

Greenberg, M.T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental disorders in school-age

children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs (Executive Summary).

Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development College of Health and

Human Development, Pennsylvania State University.

Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., Frey, K., &

Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in

elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Medical

Association, 277(20), 1605-1612.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent

health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics &

Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226-234.

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children's mental health policy: Challenging the future. Journal of Emotional and

Behavioral Disorders,1(1), 8-16.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleish, B. (1990). At the school house door: An examination of programs and

policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York, Bank Street College of

Education.

Lipsey, M. W. (1991). The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results from meta-analysis. In F.

Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

28, 467-478.


Mayer, G. R. & B. Sulzer-Azeroff (1990). Interventions for vandalism. Interventions for achievement and

behavior problems. G. Stoner, M. K. Shinn and H. M. Walker. Washington, DC, National

Association of School Psychologists Monograph: 559-580.

Osofsky, J. D. (1997). Children in a violent society. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Sprague, J., Colvin, G., & Irvin, L. (1995). The Oregon School Safety Survey. Eugene: University of

Oregon.

Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (1999). Using office discipline referral data to

evaluate schoolwide discipline and violence prevention interventions. Oregon School Study

Council Bulletin, 42(2). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education.

Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in the schools. In S. Watson & F.

Gresham (Eds.), Child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and

evaluation (pp. 451-474).

Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and

violent behavior. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 367-379.

Sugai, G. and R. Horner (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education

settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. Oregon Conference Monograph, 6: 102-120.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H. & Sprague, J. (in press). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning:

Research-to-practice-to-research. Education and Treatment of Children.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A.W., & Horner, R. H. (1999) Schoolwide evaluation tool. Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center, University of Oregon:

Eugene, Oregon.

Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., Swartz, J., Horner, R.,

Sugai, G., & Hall, S. (1995). Schoolwide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal

of Behavioral Education, 7(1), 99-112.

Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Effective behavior support:

Strengthening schoolwide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices,

17(4), 23-37. Assocation for Direct Instruction.

Tolan, P. and N. Guerra (1994). What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of

the Field. Chicago, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. U.S. Department of Justice,

Department of Education. (1998). Annual Report on School Safety.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best

practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.


Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J.

(1996). Integrated approaches to preventing anti-social behavior patterns among school-age

children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194-209.

Walker, H. M., & Eaton-Walker, J. (2000). Key questions about school safety: Critical issues and

recommended solutions. NASSP Bulletin, March, 46-55.

Walker, H. M., Sprague, J. R, Close, D. W., & Schneider, T. (in press). School safety: Recommendations

and generic strategies for educational leaders. University of Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management.


Related Resources


References and Resources

Biglan, A., Metzler, C. W., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (in press). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve schoolwide positive behavior support. Eugene, OR: Oregon Research Institute and University of Oregon.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1996). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In Wittrock,

M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Training. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishers Company Inc., 328-375.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., III, & Lee, Y. (1997). Using active supervision and

precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344-363.

Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Schoolwide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381

Embry, D. E., Flannery, D., Vazsonyi, A., Powell, K., & Atha, H. (1996). PeaceBuilders:

A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 91-100.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D.

Gottfredson, D. Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999) Preventing mental disorders

in school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. (Report submitted to Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Joepsell, T. D., Liu, P., Asher, K. N., Beland, K.,

Frey, K., & Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(20), 1605-1611.

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2000). Schoolwide behavior support: An emerging initiative

(special issue). Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 231-233. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H. F. (in press). Administrative leadership can

reduce violence in schools.


Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H. F. (2000). A Schoolwide approach to student discipline, The School Administrator, 57(2), 20-24.

Irvin, L.K., Tobin, T.J., Sprague, J.R., & Vincent, C.G. (in press). Validity of office

discipline referrals measures as indices of schoolwide behavioral status and effects of schoolwide behavioral interventions. University of Oregon OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

Kellam, S. G., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G. W., & Hawkins, W. E. (1998). Effects of

improving achievement on aggressive behavior and of improving aggressive behavior on achievement through two preventive interventions: An investigation of causal paths. Dohrenwend, Bruce P. (Ed.), et al. Adversity, stress, and psychopathology. (pp. 486-505). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. Xv, 567 pp.

Lewis-Palmer, T., Sugai, G., & Larson, S. (in press). Using data to guide decisions

about program implementation and effectiveness. Effective School Practices. Lewis, T. J, Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a

school-side system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a schoolwide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.

Maag, J.W. (2001) Rewarded by Punishment: Reflections on the Disuse of Positive

Reinforcement in Schools. Exceptional children. 67(2), 173-186. Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 28(4), 467-478. Mayer, G. R., Butterworth, T., Nafpaktitis, M., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1983). Preventing

school vandalism and improving discipline: A three-year study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 355-369.

Mehas, K., Boling, K., Sobieniak, S., Sprague, J., Burke, M. D., & Hagan, S. (1998).

Finding a safe haven in middle school: Discipline behavior intervention. The Council for Exceptional Children, 30(4), 20-23.

Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J.C., &Sprague, J.R. (2001). Evaluation of a

comprehensive behavior management program to improve schoolwide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4), 448-479.

O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., Abbott, R., Day, L. (1995). Preventing school

failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: long-term intervention in elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 65:87-100.


O’Leary, K.D., Becker, W.C., Evans, M.B., & Saudargas, R.A. (1969). A token

reinforcement program in a public school: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13.

Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspensions:

Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295-315.

Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (1999). Using office discipline

referral data to evaluate schoolwide discipline and violence prevention interventions. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 42(2). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education.

Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in schools. In T. S.

Watson & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of child behavior therapy (pp. 451-474). New York: Plenum.

Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D., Shannon, T. (2001)

Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4), 495-511.

Sprick, R., Sprick, M., & Garrison, M. (1992). Interventions: Collaborative planning for

students at risk. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sprick, R., Sprick, M., & Garrison, M. (1992). Foundations: Developing positive

schoolwide discipline policies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sprick, R.S. & Howard, L.M. (1995). The Teacher’s Encyclopedia of Behavior

Management: 100 Problems/500 Plans. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sprick, R., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (1998). CHAMPS: A proactive and positive

approach to classroom management. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sprick, R., Howard, L., Wise, B.J., Marcum, K., & Haykin, M. (1998). Administrator’s

Desk Reference of Behavior Management. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sprick, R., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (2000). ParaPro: Supporting the instructional

process. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). “Including students with severe behavior problems in

general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions.” Oregon Conference Monograph, 6, 102-120.


Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., Swartz, J., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Hall, S. (1997). Schoolwide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99-112.

Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Effective behavior

support: Strengthening schoolwide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23-37. ADI.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of

the Surgeon General - Executive Summary. Rockville. MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; and National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school:

Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R. Bricker, D., &

Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated Approaches to Preventing Antisocial Behavior Patterns Among School Age Children and Youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Volume 4, No. 4. 194-209.