Positive
Behavioral Interventions & Supports Newsletter
Contents
Building
Connections Between Individual Behavior Support Plans and
Schoolwide Systems of Positive Behavior Support
Lori Newcomer, Ph.D. & Tim Lewis, Ph.D.
University of Missouri - Columbia
Teachers and administrators indicate that addressing disruptive, disrespectful and aggressive student behavior is one of the greatest demands on their time. While traditional responses to these behaviors in schools have typically included “get tough” policies based on containment, punishment and exclusion, such strategies have been shown to be ineffective for improving behavior. Paradoxically, the coercive and punitive environments that result from this approach may serve as setting events that evoke aggression, attendance problems, disruptions and other undesirable outcomes for students who are most at risk for failure.
A more promising solution is the use of proactive strategies of school wide
systems of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) to address the contextual factors
within schools that lead to problem behavior. A school-wide systems approach
to PBS is one way to effectively reduce chronic challenging behavior, promote
cultures of social competence, and meet the needs of children with significant
behavioral challenges. The goal of school-wide systems of PBS is to create
and maintain a host environment that emphasizes the development of a positive
school climate, practical policies, well-defined physical spaces, and monitoring
systems to improve academic and social outcomes for all students, but especially
those who are considered at risk for behavior problems.
Schools that have implemented school-wide systems of PBS increase their capacity
to support students who present challenges by shifting away from traditional
responses of solving behavior problems through suspension and exclusion to
an approach that emphasizes the development of specially designed and individualized
interventions based on functional behavioral assessment to generate an understanding
of how the social and instructional context effect an individual student’s
behavior. In doing so, these schools have redefined the roles and responsibilities
of educators and all school personnel in accountability for promoting positive
behavioral interventions, strategies and support for students with chronically
challenging behavior. Individual systems of PBS focus on integrated, team-based
planning and problem solving to design individual support plans to prevent,
reduce and replace problem behaviors and to develop, maintain and strengthen
socially desirable behaviors. What we have learned from research and application
is that larger overall school-wide systems are required to increase the likelihood
that individual support plans are implemented with a high degree of integrity.
Matthew: A Case Study
Take the example of Matthew, a 9-year-old, third grade student. Matthew attends
a school that has experienced an increase in appropriate behaviors and reduction
in office referrals following the establishment of universal and secondary
systems of PBS. The school recently developed a building level team that acts
as a subgroup of the PBS team. This Individual Support Team is charged with
coordinating support for teachers working with students with challenging behaviors
and to develop, implement and monitor programs of behavioral support for individual
students.
While his teachers reported that Matthew’s behavior in the classroom was satisfactory,
Matthew continued to be sent to the office for arguing, threatening and harassing
his peers in the cafeteria, gym and on the playground. Supervisors in these
less structured areas reported that the inappropriate behavior occurred several
times each day and regularly throughout the day. The counselor and principal
expressed considerable concern regarding the intensity of Matthew’s behavior
in these settings, which included shaking his head, pounding his fist, mumbling,
crying, tantrumming, and issuing threats. Matthew was diagnosed as “Other
Health Impaired” under IDEA by a multidisciplinary team and recently began
taking Ritalin. His behavior plan provided for weekly meetings with the school
counselor to discuss anger management. It was recognized by all the staff
that the universal systems of support, standard forms of discipline and current
support plan were ineffective at changing Matthew’s behavior. A referral was
made to the team to develop a comprehensive individualized support plan for
Matthew.
Functional Behavioral Assessment
The support team determined that a functional assessment was necessary, and
an assessment plan was developed. Descriptive analyses (e.g., teacher interview,
student interview, teacher rating) and direct observation (e.g., scatter plot
and direct descriptive observation) were conducted to identify the problem
behavior, the antecedent and consequent events, and to develop a hypotheses
regarding the function of the problem behavior. Results supported a preliminary
hypothesis that Matthew engaged in inappropriate behavior to escape peers.
To test the hypothesis, Matthew’s class was combined with two other classes
from the same grade to participate in a series of game-like cooperative group
activities designed to be fun, appealing and low in structure. Conditions
were altered so that Matthew was allowed to choose which peers he was with
for some activities, but was allowed no choice for others. In essence, the
no choice conditions did not allow escape from peers, and predictably, Matthew
had an increase in inappropriate behavior when he was not able to escape.
With a confirmed hypothesis, the team then reconvened to design an individualized
support plan based on the outcome of the functional assessment. Included in
the meeting, in addition to the Individual Support Team, were the classroom
teacher, the special education teacher, the counselor, other teachers who
had Matthew in their classes (e.g., art, music) and Matthew’s mother. As they
discussed the components of the plan, the team followed two guidelines: (a)
the plan should build upon systems already in place and (b) be a maximal fit
with the resources and schedules of the playground and cafeteria, the two
environments in which the problem behaviors typically occurred.
Plan Development
Several elements were combined to form Matthew’s complete plan. Each component
of the individualized plan provided a reasonable extension of the existing
universal interventions to a more intense and individualized support plan.
To eliminate the antecedent to the inappropriate behaviors, several environmental
changes were implemented. Teachers and supervisors in the cafeteria and on
the playground were asked to avoid grouping Matthew with “disliked” peers.
For example, as part of the cafeteria routine students were directed to sit
at specific tables in the cafeteria based on order of entry into the setting
or progress of the lunch line. Under the conditions of the individualized
support plan the supervisor would redirect Matthew to a different table if
it appeared he would be assigned to a table with a disliked peer. Likewise,
supervisors increased the rate of praise for appropriate behavior in those
environments, particularly when they observed Matthew interacting with students
with whom he had experienced problems.
To give Matthew a replacement skill that provided an appropriate means of
escape from peers, one-to-one instruction on how to make “I” statements to
ask for assignment to a different group or area when unhappy with group membership
(e.g., “I would prefer to sit at a different table, please”) was provided.
Teachers and supervisors were provided with a precorrect to say when he entered
the setting (e.g., “Remember to use an “I” statement if you have some need
today”). Because teachers and supervisors had used precorrects when teaching
school-wide behavioral expectations to all students, tailoring the procedure
to meet Matthew’s needs required little adjustment or effort.
In addition, Matthew participated in lessons on how to respond to teasing
and how to respond to perceived challenges from peers since those events were
often the antecedents to his problem behavior. Matthew’s mother asked for
copies of the social skill lessons so she could prompt Matthew to use the
skills at home and reinforce the behaviors when she saw him use them. To support
the individualized lessons and promote generalization of the replacement skills
being taught to him individually, group social skill lessons on self-management
and self-advocacy were taught to the entire class, although tailored to meet
Matthew’s specific skill deficits. The lessons were designed to build on and
reflect the social skill lessons taught to the entire school regarding behavior
expectations in all settings.
The team reconvened after two weeks to review the data that were collected
to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan. The data showed a clear decreasing
pattern of problem behavior. His classroom teacher reported that he was not
coming in from the playground in an agitated state as he did prior to the
support plan. Based on the data and teacher report, the team decided to maintain
the plan until the end of the school year, which was only two weeks away.
In the fall of the following school year, the Individual Support Team met
and reviewed Matthew’s plan. His new classroom teacher reported to the team
that he is doing well, and has had no office referrals. The team, however,
decided that Matthew could still benefit from additional support and therefore
included him in a targeted group intervention, an after school club that focuses
on teaching social skills. The “Social Skills Club” meets once a week. To
promote generalization, posters of each lesson taught in the club are given
to the classroom teacher to display in class and use as a visual prompt. Matthew
then presents the weekly social skill lesson to his class. All staff have
been instructed on how to prompt and reinforce the skills that are taught.
By providing systems of support across all school settings, Matthew has improved
in his ability to interact appropriately with peers, and is experiencing greater
success at school. In addition to teaching replacement behaviors and planning
for generalization, his individualized support plan addressed how the school
environment should be modified to increase the use of the replacement behaviors
that were taught and decrease the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance
of his problem behavior. Critical to success of Matthew’s plan and any plan
of support at the individual level is a thorough understanding of the way
the problem behavior relates functionally to the school context. The success
of an individualized support plan is directly related to the effectiveness
of the larger school wide system of PBS in providing prevention and intervention
at the universal, targeted and individual levels.
Conclusion
As described above, critical to Matthew’s success was the development of a
continuum of positive behavior supports. By linking individual student plans
to the larger school set of expectations, processes, and policies, we increase
the likelihood of success. Strong universal systems allow schools to make
critical alterations in the environment to support newly taught functionally-based
replacement behaviors. In addition, through the use of small group interventions
schools are able to prevent student problems from becoming chronic and support
individual students through less intensive, less intrusive, and less costly
interventions.
All content of this newsletter and the website are the property of the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support. Duplication without express written consent by authors is strictly prohibited. For any questions please contact: mailto:riffy@ku.edu