Robert F. Putnam
May Institute
Robert H. Horner
University of Oregon
Robert Algozzine
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Recent research indicates that school-wide positive behavior is associated
with decreased exclusionary, reactive and punitive discipline practices (Horner,
Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Luiselli, Putnam, & Sunderland, 2002),
increased student satisfaction (Lewis-Palmer, Horner, Sugai, Eber, & Phillips,
2002), and improved perceptions of school safety (Schneider, Walker, & Sprague,
2000). Our focus in this review is on research examining the relationship between
school-wide behavior support and improved academic performance. First, we review
the relationship between academic achievement and problem behavior. Second,
we consider relationships between school-wide positive behavior support and
improved academic performance as measured by grades and standardized test performance.
Third, we explore why school-wide positive behavior support should improve academic
performance. We end with the summary of relationships between achievement and
behavior as well as recommendations for further research.
Academic Achievement and Problem Behavior
Higher rates of office discipline referrals (ODRs) are associated with problematic
behavioral climates in schools (Irwin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent,
2004). Several studies (Larsen, Steele & Sailor, in press; McIntosh, 2005;
Tobin & Sugai, 1999) have found relationships between academic performance
and problem behavior across grade levels. For example, McIntosh (2005) investigated
how early elementary screening measures (particularly assessments in kindergarten)
targeting behavior and reading predicted if a student would have two or more
discipline contacts in the 3rd and 5th grade. He found, as expected, that office
referrals in 1st and 2nd grade were strong predictors of ODRs in 3rd grade.
His results also indicated that reading competence in kindergarten (as measured
by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]) was statistically
predictive of ODRs in 3rd grade. The most powerful overall predictors of 2 or
more discipline contacts in 5th grade were 4th grade ODRs and low DIBELS Oral
Reading Fluency scores obtained in the winter of 5th grade. The most powerful
kindergarten predictor of which students would have 2 or more discipline contacts
in 5th grade was the DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency assessment given in
the spring of the student’s kindergarten year. Additionally, those students
with high levels of escape maintained behavior in fifth grade were those most
likely to have significantly lower literacy skills (low DIBELS scores) than
their peers, whereas, those students with high levels of peer-attention maintained
problem behavior were likely to have literacy skills that matched their peers
without problem behavior.
The overall picture provided by McIntosh’s results is one in which children
enter kindergarten with varying reading skills. If, however, they do not respond
to literacy instruction during kindergarten, and fall behind, a negative spiral
of achievement and behavior becomes more likely. As the student’s literacy
skills do not keep pace with those of peers, academic tasks become more aversive,
and problem behaviors that lead to escape from these tasks become more likely.
This relationship between academic performance and problem behaviors has also
been studied at the middle school and high school levels (Fleming, Harachi,
Cortes, Abbott & Catalano, 2004; Larsen, Steele, & Sailor (in press);
Morrison, Anthony, Storino, & Dillon, 2001; Roeser, Eccles & Sameroff,
2000; Tobin & Sugai, 1999). Tobin and Sugai (1999) found that individual
student academic failure in high school was correlated with three or more suspensions
in ninth grade. They also found correlations between grade point average (GPAs)
and specific types of ODR behaviors (fighting, harassing and threats of violence,
nonviolent misbehavior) for boys in sixth grade. Morrison, Anthony, Storino,
and Dillon (2001) reviewed the records of students who were referred to an in-school
suspension program. Those students who had no previous ODRs had higher GPAs
than the students who had ODRs. Roeser, Eccles, and Sameroff (2000) found the
relationship strengthen over the course of middle school between problematic
behavior and academic performance. Murdock, Anderman, and Hodge (2000) used
a Likert discipline scale rating of 1 (never) to 5 (four or more times this
year) to assess the frequency of 4 student self-reported discipline events with
9th graders. These events were: (a) being sent to the assistant principal, (b)
receiving detention, (c) receiving in-school suspension, and, (d) receiving
out of school suspension. The discipline scores demonstrated a negative correlation
with grades. Larsen, Steele, & Sailor (in press) examined ODRs and suspensions
with performance on standardized reading and math tests in an urban middle school.
The number of ODRs and suspensions a student received predicted lower scores
on standardized reading and math tests. The findings of these studies demonstrate
that academic performance and future problematic behavior are related across
grade levels and that higher rates of ODRs and suspensions are correlated with
lower scores on academic assessments in the upper grades.
Other research (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004) has demonstrated that
students with severe problem behavior experienced large academic deficits as
compared to typical peers. In most areas these deficits remained stable over
time, however, in the case of mathematics the deficits actually broaden over
time. Finally, externalizing behaviors were more strongly related to academic
performance deficits as compared to internalizing behaviors. McKinney (1989)
found that outcomes are the poorest for students with problems in both areas.
Fleming, Harachi, Cortes, Abbott, and Catalano (2004) found that students with
higher reading scores in the middle of elementary school and those whose scores
increased between third and sixth grade engaged in significantly less problem
behavior in seventh grade. One study (Lee, Sugai & Horner, 1999) demonstrated
improvements in escape-maintained problem behavior when students received academic
support that made them effective with the target math tasks.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Time in Instruction
Research has consistently shown that the amount of time that instruction is
provided is highly correlated with student achievement (Brophy, 1988; Fisher,
Berliner, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, 1980). Scott and Barrett (2004) implemented
school-wide positive behavior support in an urban elementary school and with
intervention, the annual rate of ODRs decreased by 562 and suspensions by 55
over a two-year time period. They estimated that when a student receives an
ODR he/she loses 20 minutes of instructional time and when a student is given
a suspension he/she loses 1 day of instructional time. The average instructional
days gained per year through the reduction in ODRs were 29.5 days and through
the reduction in suspensions were 50 days, for a total of 79.5 days. Putnam,
Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich (2003) reported similar results with gains
of 169 instructional days comparing the implementation of school wide positive
behavior support for one half year versus a similar period in which school-wide
behavior support was not implemented in a low performing urban school. Larsen,
Steele and Sailor (in press) found similar results in another inner-city middle
school.
In a related area of research Putnam, Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich (2003)
and Putnam, Handler, Rey and O’Leary-Zonarich (2002) found that classwide
behavior support increased the time students receive academic instruction. The
objective of intervention was to increase time teachers instructed students.
Feedback was given to teachers on the amount of time that they provided instruction,
producing a 57% increase over pre-intervention levels.
Student academic engagement has been found to be correlated with improved academic
achievement. For example, high-achieving students in high schools were academically
engaged 75% of the time, compared to 51% for low-achieving students (Frederick,
1977). Engagement in academic responding also increases achievement as measured
by academic tests and covaries with gains in reading, language, and arithmetic
(Greenwood, Delquardi, & Hall, 1989). In a study of six classrooms that
implemented behavior support plans, on-task behavior increased by 24% percent
over the baseline levels (Putnam et al., 2003).
School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Academic Achievement
A number of initial studies have illustrated that school-wide behavior supports
decrease problem behavior, increase time spent in academic instruction, and
are associated with improved academic outcomes. These studies are encouraging,
but remain descriptive in nature and do not have the experimental control needed
to confirm a relationship between school-wide PBS and improved academic performance.
Improving grades. Luiselli, Putnam, and Sunderland (2002) found that after
the implementation of school-wide behavior support in a suburban middle school,
detentions for disruptive-antisocial behavior, as well as substance abuse decreased
over a four year period. School attendance also increased over the four years.
A lottery drawing was conducted each quarter for each student who met or exceeded
certain academic (maintaining a specific grade point average, receiving passing
grades for all subjects on the report card, and having no more than two homework
detentions) and behavioral (attendance, detentions, expulsions) criteria. The
percent of students who were eligible for the lottery increased from 40% of
the schools’ population to 55% of the schools’ population over the
course of four years.
Improving standardized test performance. There is increasing evidence that school-wide positive behavior support interventions
improve standardized test results. Larsen, Steele, and Sailor (in press) completed
a three year study in an inner city urban school, finding that reductions in
ODRs and suspensions, and corresponding increases in mathematics test scores
from baseline to year three. While reading scores did not increase from baseline,
positive changes were documented from year one to year three. In a related study,
Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) implemented school-wide behavior
support at an urban school and found decreases from baseline to intervention
to follow-up in ODRs and suspensions. Reading comprehension and mathematics
percentile ranks on standardized tests improved from the first (pre-intervention)
to the second (intervention) test dates, increasing 18 and 25 percentage points
respectively. In another study, Putnam, Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich
(2003) found that reading and math scores improved on standardized testing following
behavior support intervention at an urban elementary school. It should be noted
that none of these studies controlled for other academic interventions that
may have impacted on the student’s academic performance nor had random
control groups.
A recent analysis of academic performance of schools implementing school wide
positive behavior support compared to schools not implementing such programs
was conducted in Illinois (Horner, Sugai, Eber, & Lewandowski, 2004). Schools
implementing school wide behavior support were schools that had scored 80% on
the School Evaluation Tool (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd & Horner, 2001) and
had 80% of their students being able to state their school wide expectations.
The schools (n=52) in which school-wide positive behavior support were implemented
had 62% of their 3rd grade students meeting the Illinois State Achievement Test
Reading Standard. By contrast, only 47% of students met the Illinois State Achievement
Reading Test Standard in schools (n=69) that had not fully implemented positive
behavior support.
A comparative district-wide study (www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html)
of schools that had implemented school-wide positive behavior compared to those
who had not was conducted across their elementary and middle schools. The four
middle and thirteen elementary schools who implemented school-wide positive
behavior support demonstrated increased achievement on the Oregon State Achievement
tests as compared to four middle and six elementary schools that did not implement
school-wide behavior support. These schools that implemented school wide behavior
support tended to be schools that began with lower scores meaning the magnitude
of improvement tended to be much higher.
Horner, Sugai, Todd, and Lewis-Palmer (2005) demonstrated similar findings
with another school district with nineteen elementary schools. Between the 1997-98
and 2001-2002 academic years, thirteen of the schools implemented school-wide
positive behavior support and six schools did not. They compared the percentage
of 3rd graders who met state wide reading standards in the academic year 1997-98
with the percentage in the academic year 2001-2002. Ten out of the thirteen
schools (77%) that adopted school-wide positive behavior support practices had
improved outcomes. The change in percentage of students meeting standards ranged
from 2% to over 15% in these schools. Only one of the six schools (16%) that
not did implement school-wide positive behavior support showed improvement.
Perspective and Recommendations for Future Research
While problem behavior does not solely lead to poor literacy, poor literacy
alone does not lead to problem behavior. Multiple studies have documented that
students with problem behavior are more likely to have academic deficits (Anthony,
Storino, & Dillon, 2001; Larsen, Steele, & Sailor, in press; Murdock,
Anderman & Hodge, 2000; Tobin & Sugai, 1999). Studies have also been
completed demonstrating that school-wide behavior support can improve variables
that have been suggested to improve academic performance such as student attendance
(Luiselli, Putnam & Sunderland, 2002), time in school due to reduced exclusionary
disciplinary practices (Putnam Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003;
Scott & Barrett, 2004), classroom instructional time (Putnam et al., 2002),
and academic engagement (Putnam, Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003).
In addition, improved behavior support is related to improved academic outcomes
(Larsen, Steele, & Sailor, in press; Luiselli et al., 2005; Putnam, Handler,
& O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003) and schools implementing school-wide behavior
support have been shown to have greater academic improvements compared to schools
where school-wide behavior support were not implemented (Horner et al., 2005,
Larsen, Steele, & Sailor, in press, (http://www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html).
If problem behavior and academics are linked, each affects the other, and
if acceptable instruction is in place, then improving the behavioral climate
of the school will allow that instruction to be more effective. There are several
different paths that need to be examined. First, schools that deliver poor academic
opportunities, create academic failure. Academic failure is aversive, and students
engage in behaviors to avoid failure. These behaviors often result in ODRs,
and loss of access to academic instruction. Conceptualizing this, in essence,
is a classic coercion model (Reid, Patterson & Synder, 2002). When a student
engages in problem behavior he/she is excluded from his/her classroom and this
results in the teacher having a less problematic learning situation. On the
other hand, if a student experiences an aversive task demand and engages in
problematic behavior that student greatly enhances his/her chances of escaping
this task. Exclusion from learning activities reduces the opportunities to gain
skills that would make the task demands less aversive. Alternatively, there
are academically capable students who engage in attention-maintained problem
behavior. They also get excluded from academic opportunities, and even though
they have the basic skills, they experience academic failure. Recall that McIntosh
(2005) found that poor literacy scores are statistical predictors of later problem
behavior. He found at 5th grade that those students with high levels of escape-maintained
problem behavior were likely to have significantly lower literacy skills (low
DIBELS scores) than their peers, and that those students with high levels of
peer-attention maintained problem behavior were likely to have literacy skills
that matched their peers without problem behavior.
With full implementation of school-wide positive behavior support, a behaviorally
competent school would have the following conditions: a) classroom management
and curriculum variables would be adapted so academic tasks become less aversive;
b) reduction in ODRs would mean more minutes spent in academic instruction;
c) the minutes spent in academic instruction would be more effective; d) there
would be less peer support for academic failure, and; e) there would be an increase
in the structured prompts, contingent feedback and support for academic behavior.
We might hypothesize that with these conditions in place a school could affect
the academic gains of students.
Horner et al., (2005) point out that academic and behavior supports must be
intertwined. The importance of effective direct instruction in academic skills
is critical to improving academic skills. Students will not learn academic skills
without effective instruction and a good curriculum. They will not learn to
read just being taught social skills. Of course, these same students will not
learn to read in a school or classroom that is behaviorally chaotic. In order
to have students receive an effective education we need effective behavior support
interventions, an empirically validated curriculum as well as effective instruction.
It is clear that additional research on the impact of school-wide behavior
support on academic achievement is needed. There are a number of research questions
that arise from a review of this literature. First, most of the studies feature
pre-post comparison or are descriptive in nature. Accordingly, research that
employs more rigorous experimental control is necessary. Positive behavior support
appears to be potentially an intervention that impacts academic achievement
but many replication studies must be completed to establish confirmatory evidence.
Secondly, it is important to identify the mechanisms that have the most impact
on improvements in academic performance and the potential contributions of each
of these factors. It is reported that school-wide positive behavior support
increases the amount of instruction provided to students who attend a school
that uses these interventions (Putnam, Handler & O’Leary-Zonarich,
2003;Scott and Barrett, 2004). Increased prompting and contingent feedback for
academic skill performance is also a factor in school-wide positive behavior
support. In addition, the climate of these schools provides less peer support
for academic failure. Each of these components should be investigated for its
potential contributions to increased academic achievement. In addition, in which
schools would school-wide positive behavior support have the greatest impact
on academic achievement? We would hypothesize that schools with greater discipline
issues but with an effective curriculum and instructional practices would experience
larger gains than those schools that had none of these components. Finally,
McIntosh (2005) found that students in fifth grade with escape-maintained problem
behavior had significantly lowered literacy scores than their peers. He also
found that some of these students could be identified as early as kindergarten.
These findings are important and need to be replicated and linked to functional
intervention strategies thereby decreasing the number of students with challenging
behavior and academic failure in later years.
References
Brophy, J. E. (1988). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement:
Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students. Educational Psychologist,
23, 235-286.
Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., &
Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student
achievement: An overview.Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1), 2-15.
Frederick, W. C. (1977). The use of classroom time in high schools above or
below the median reading score. Urban Education, 21(4), 459-465.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquardi, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal
effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. (1991).
Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with
antisocial peers. Devopmental Psychology, 27, 172-180.
Fleming, C. B., Harachi, T. W., Cortes, R. C., Abbott, R. D. & Catalano,
R. F. (2004). Level and change in reading scores and attention problems during
elementary school as predictors of problem behavior in middle school. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3),130-144.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005) School-wide
positive behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools.
In L. M. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students
with problem behaviors. (pp. 359-390). New York: Guilford Press.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Eber, L., & Lewandowski, H. (2004). Illinois Positive
Behavior Interventions and Support Project: 2003-2004 Progress Report. University
of Oregon: Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support & Illinois
State Board of Education.
Irwin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G. & Vincent, C. G.
(2004) Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide
behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 131-147.
Larsen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (in press). The relationship
of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban
middle school. Psychology Review.
Lee, Y., Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (1999). Using an instructional intervention
to reduce problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
1(4), 195-204.
Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Eber, L., & Phillips, D. (2002).
Illinois Positive Behavior Interventions and Support Project: 2001-2002 Progress
Report. University of Oregon: OSEP Center on Positive Behavior Support.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation
of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 182-188.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg A. B. (2005).
Whole-school Positive Behaviour Support: Effects on student discipline problems
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198.
McIntosh, K. (2005, March). Use of DIBELS ORF trajectories to predict office
discipline referrals. Paper presented at DIBELS Summit 2005, Ratin, N. M.
McKinney, J. D. (1989). Longitudinal research on the behavioral characteristics
of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(3),
141-150, 165.
Morrison, G. M., Anthony, S., Storino, M., & Dillon, C. (2001). An examination
of the disciplinary histories and the individual and educational characteristics
of students who participate in an in-school suspension program. Education and
Treatment of Children, 24, 276-293.
Murdock, T. B., Anderman, L. H., & Hodge, S. A. (2000). Middle-grade predictors
of students’ motivation and behavior in high school. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 15(3), 327-351.
Nelson, J.R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement
of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children,
71(1), 59-73.
Putnam, R. F, Handler, M., & O’Leary-Zonarich, C. (2003). Improving
academic achievement using school-wide behavioral support interventions. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Behavior Analysis.
San Francisco, CA.
Putnam, R. F., Handler, M., Rey, J., & O’Leary-Zonarich, C. (2002).
Classwide behavior support interventions: Using functional assessment practices
to design effective interventions in general classroom settings. Paper presented
at the Annual Conference of the Association of Behavior Analysis. Toronto, Canada.
Reid, J.B., Patterson, G.R., Synder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children
and adults. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S. & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context
of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: a summary
of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443-471.
Schneider, T., Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (2000). Safe school design:
A handbook for educational leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management. College of Education, University of Oregon.
Scott, T. M. & Barrett, S. B., (2004). Using staff and student time engaged
in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 21-27.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. & Horner, R. (2001). School-wide
evaluation tool. University of Oregon.
Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Predicting violence at school, chronic discipline
problems, and high school outcomes from sixth graders’ school records. Journal of Emotional Disorders. 7, 40-53.
4J EBS District Data. (2004). Eugene School District 4J, 200 North Monroe Street,
Eugene, Oregon 97402. http://www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html