- Bully Prevention
- SWPBIS for Beginners
- PBIS in the Classroom
- Tier 1 Supports
- Tier 2 Supports
- Tier 3 Supports
- District Level
- PBIS and the Law
- School Mental Health
- High School PBIS
- Equity & PBIS
- Exemplar from the Field
District Level PBIS
Durable, and adaptable schoolwide PBIS in a school requires systemic support that extends beyond an individual school. It is important to organize multiple schools (e.g., cluster, complex, district, county, state) so that a common vision, language, and experience are established. This approach allows districts and states to improve the efficiency of resource use, implementation efforts, and organizational management. An expanded infrastructure also enhances the district and state level support (e.g., policy, resources, competence) and provides a supportive context for implementation at the local level.
What is the difference between district-wide PBIS and state-wide PBIS?
The systems change strategies for district-wide and state-wide PBIS implementation are similar. The four components of successful implementation are the same for both district and state-wide PBIS implementation. At a state-wide level, there will be more professionals on the leadership team representing the Department of Education and other human service organizations and agencies including the fields of mental health, child welfare, and developmental disability.
What are the components for successful district and state implementation?
There are four components for successful implementation: (a) a Leadership Team to actively coordinate implementation efforts; (b) an organizational umbrella composed of adequate funding, broad visibility, and consistent political support; (c) a foundation for sustained and broad-scale implementation established through a cadre of individuals who can provide coaching support for local implementation, a small group of individuals who can train teams on the practices and processes of schoolwide PBIS, and a system for on-going evaluation; and (d) a small group of demonstration schools that documents the viability of the approach within the local fiscal, political and social climate of the state/district
What is a leadership team?
A leadership team is needed to lead the assessment and action planning process. The objective of the team is to increase capacity in four primary areas:
- Training Capacity refers to the system’s ability to self-assess for specific programmatic and staff development needs and objectives, develop a training action plan, invest in increasing local training capacity, and implement effective and efficient training activities.
- Coaching Capacity refers to the system’s ability to organize personnel and resources for facilitating, assisting, maintaining, and adapting local school training implementation efforts. Resources are committed for both initial training and on-going implementation support.
- Evaluation Capacity refers to the system’s ability to establish measurable outcomes, methods for evaluating progress toward these measurable outcomes, and modified or adapted action plans based on these evaluations.
- Coordination Capacity refers to the system’s ability to establish an operational organization and “rhythm” that enables effective and efficient utilization of materials, time, personnel, etc. in the implementation of an action plan.
To enable and support the leadership team’s efforts, the PBIS implementation must have (a) adequate and sustained funding support; (b) regular, wide, and meaningful visibility; and (c) relevant and effective political support.
Who serves on the leadership team?
Members of this team should include individuals whose roles, responsibilities, and activities are associated with the (a) prevention of the development and occurrence of problem behavior, (b) development and maintenance of behavior, and (c) management and evaluation of resources related to the provision of behavioral supports. Examples of district-wide team members include:
- District administration
- School administration
- District PBIS trainers
- Instruction and Curriculum
- Safe and Drug Free Schools
- Special Education
- School Psychology and Counseling
- Title or other related initiatives
- Student Health
- Parents and family members
- Schoolwide Discipline
- Dropout Prevention
- Character Education
- Alternative Programming
- Data or Information Management
- Multiculturalism and Affirmative Action
What are the major responsibilities of the leadership team?
The leadership team works together to decide how many schools are to be involved in the effort. Major responsibilities include:
- Completing a self-assessment
- Creating a 3-5 year action plan
- Establishing regularly scheduled meetings
- Identifying a coordinator to manage and facilitate
- Securing stable funding for efforts
- Developing a dissemination strategy to establish visibility (website, newsletter, conferences, TV)
- Ensuring student social behavior is the top priority of the district
- Establishing trainers to build and sustain schoolwide PBIS practices.
- Developing a coaching network (each school identifies a school coach to facilitate)
- Evaluating schoolwide PBIS efforts.
Evidence Base for PBS and District Wide Leadership (IL Coodinator's Networking Meeting-Rosemont, IL)
Illinois implementation results and notes from
Leadership Meeting for Coordinator's in the state. The presentation includes 'Evidence Base for PBS,' 'District Wide Leadership,' and Illinois Leadership.
The presentation describes critical features of district level system change and coordination for sustainable implementation.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Linking Social and Academic Gains (Washington Association of School Administrators)
The presentation discusses the relationship between SW-PBS and academic gains. It focuses on: 1) the importance of social behavior to achieve academic gains, 2) SW-PBS to build positive behavior social culture and to promote both academic and social success, and 3) coordinated focus to implement evidence-based practice (SW-PBS).
The presentation provides: 1) brief overview of blueprint, 2) various examples about job descriptions, action plan, marketing strategies, ledgers, protocols.
The presentation introduces: 1) essential components of infrastructure needed to provide a supportive context for implementation at the local level and 2) systemic support building for multiple schools.
Critical features of action planning for district
level leadership in PBIS
Although schools generally provide safe environments, teachers, staff, parents, and students are concerned with the rising level of disruptive, antisocial behavior (Horner, Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Todd, 2001). Only a relatively small number of students in a school building engage in the most serious and/or chronic problem behaviors. However, these students account for about 50% of the incidents handled by office staff and dominate a majority of staff time (Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 1994). Recent research recommends addressing individual student needs within a schoolwide discipline system. The purpose of this article was to provide an overview of individual student systems, identify guidelines for implementing a function-based model, and describe a case study of a district's attempts to build a comprehensive district-based individual student support systems cadre.
School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) has been identified as an effective and efficient method to teach students prosocial skills. It requires both effective behavior support practices and systems that will support these changes, including data-based decision making among the school leadership team. There are many practical and systemic factors that school personnel should examine before they consider themselves ready for systemic school-wide changes, including those associated with the (a) leadership team, (b) staff, (c) administration, (d) coach/facilitator, and (e) district. Practical considerations in each of these areas will be identified and discussed so that practitioners can anticipate their needs as they create effective SWPBS, particularly in low performing urban schools.
As more and more schools adopt school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) as a model for school improvement and the success of initial demonstration sites becomes evident, districts are faced with expansion and sustainability issues. Careful planning of these implementation efforts requires district personnel to be familiar with the resources and supports needed to implement and sustain such district-wide systems change efforts and build an infrastructure to support SWPBS initiatives. The purpose of this article is to expand upon School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Implementers' Blueprint and Self-Assessment (Sugai et al., 2005) by describing the how-to of the SWPBS implementation process with specific activities and providing user-friendly tools that can assist a district in "going to scale." Obstacles to and future considerations for expanding the practice of SWPBS are also presented.
Schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) exemplifies a longitudinal research program originating in the fields of special education and school psychology that has produced an extensive national database encompassing an evidence-based set of practices applicable to general education as well as special education students including those with severe disabilities. Schoolwide applications of evidence-based practices, however, are at some risk of falling victim to the ongoing bifurcation of education into the general and special education parallel and often noninteractive, professional systems of instruction. One potential solution to bifurcated practice is to embed (or contextualize) SWPBS in a broader, universal school reform agenda that coordinates and evaluates all educational intervention services and supports for the benefit of all students. A structural school reform process called the Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) is described, which includes SWPBS as 1 of 15 critical features. Results from a 3-year, ongoing research project in a low-income, multicultural, urban school district in Northern California suggests that SWPBS, with its three levels of student support, guided by teams of general as well as special educators, can be an important contributor to academic as well as social achievement among students with and without disabilities and, as grounded within systematic school reform, can help to mitigate against the bifurcation of general and special education practices.
Improving discipline practices in public schools: Description of a whole-school and district-wide model of behavior analysis consultation
We describe the delivery of behavioral consultation services to improve discipline practices in public schools. The components of a whole-school and district-wide consultative model are discussed, with an emphasis on preventive interventions, multimethod measurement, and empirical outcome evaluation. Data from several consultation projects are presented to illustrate the types and scope of intervention.
This document provides you with information and the district and the state role in phase 1, 2, and 3 of the implementation process.
These worksheets provide a checklist that a district must complete prior to completing the school-wide PBS training.
This form allows for an organized way of keeping traack of mid-year and end of year items needed for reporting and assessment purposes.
This powerpoint presentation discusses the PBS program, how it is implemented in a school, and its beneficial properties.
This is an initial action plan for implementing SW-PBS based on results of PBS-CAT.
Expanding Technical Assistance Consultation to Public Schools: District-Wide Evaluation of Instructional and Behavior Support Practices for Students with Developmental Disabilities
Describes consultation to a public school district in the form of a systems-wide evaluation of instructional and behavior support practices for students with developmental disabilities. The format of the evaluative model, respective findings, suggested remedies, and implications for large-scale public school consultation are provided.
The slides show general overview of SW-PBS including classroom and individual support system, application of continuum of instructional and PBS, family involvement, and outcome data from SWPBS schools.
The presentation slides describe 1) NYS PBIS expectations for developing partnership programs; provide an overview of partnership model, 2) NYC's strengths and resources, 3) setting a clear goal for partnership planning for NYC schools implementing PBIS, 4) approach to designing a comprehensive district program to meet specific goals, and 5) plan for implementation in NYC for next academic year 2005/2006.
The newsletter article provides information on how School-wide PBS can be implemented, not just within a few “demonstration schools,” but across large numbers of schools within a state/district.
The presentation was made to 1) define four major areas where district decisions affect sustainability of school-wide PBIS and 2) define process for dealing with Òcompeting initiativesÓ using Òbully-proofingÓ and Òearly literacyÓ as examples.
Scaling Up: Lessons Learned in the Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Supports (OSEP Project Directors Meeting)
The presentation provides information on scaling up SWPBS. The content includes recommendations on new initiatives promotion, researching finding summary, core features of SWPBS for scaling up, a school example, and so on.
Critical features of Functional Behavior Assessment. The presentation describes behavioral function, functional behavior assessment, behavior support elements, and competing pathways.
Scaling Up: Lessons Learned in the Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Supports (OSEP 16th Annual TA and Dissemination Conference)
The presentation describes 1) research recommendations about behavior support system, 2) essential features of SW-PBS, 3) key features in scaling up through SW-PBS, 4) school, district, & state examples related PBIS center activities, and 5) connecting "Schools" & "Districts."
Critical features of: Functional Behavior Assessment. The presentation describes behavioral function, functional behavior assessment, behavior support elements, and competing pathways.