and worked as catalysts.
Implementation Facilitators for School A
As themes emerged, facilitators to School A’s implementation of the Universal Tier of SWPBIS are: (a) strong leadership, (b) staff buy-in, (c) training and support from the state leadership team, (d) regular SWPBIS meetings, (e) use of data, (f) explicitly teaching the schoolwide system, (g) continuously revisiting the system, (h) focusing solely on the implementation of the Universal Tier, and (i) working proactively as a team.
Implementation Facilitators for School B
In comparison, elements that facilitated the process for School B were: (a) an initial high-level of staff buy-in, (b) the Idaho SWPBIS Training Institutes, and (c) a high level of student buy-in.
Table 9: Identified Implementation Facilitators for School A and School B Implementation Facilitators
School A School B
• Strong Leadership
• Staff Buy-in
• Training and Support from the State Leadership Team
• Regular SWPBIS Meetings
• Use of Data
• Explicitly Teaching the Schoolwide System
• Continuously Revisiting the System
• Focusing Solely on the
Implementation of the Universal Tier
• Working Proactively as a Team
• An Initial High Level of Staff Buy- in
• Idaho SWPBIS Training Institutes
• A High Level of Student Buy-in
Both School A and School B experienced the catalysts of staff buy-in (though on different levels) and training received from the State Leadership Team. In correlation to the level of implementation fidelity achieved, School A’s list of facilitators outnumbers School B’s recorded facilitators.
School A’s identified facilitators also coincided with Kincaid et al. (2007), where their findings indicated the top five facilitator themes to be administrator support,
SWPBIS project support, the use of data, school-level training, and strong communication.
Shown in the identified facilitators, School A seemed to follow the Lohrmann et al. (2013) recommendations for implementation and sustainability. As indicated by the research data, School A was able to achieve the following strategies: (a) keep the universal intervention out in front through updates at staff meetings, sharing data, and providing formal and informal professional development sessions, (b) promote staff involvement in planning and coordination through the recruitment of pivotal staff to
participate on the SWPBIS Leadership Team, (c) make implementation as easy as possible by simplifying the implementation process and providing modeling and coaching, and (d) build the effectiveness of the system through retraining the staff on universal intervention strategies, focusing on doable action plans, and increasing the access to resources. These strategies were present in the emerging themes of
implementation facilitators for School A.
School B was unable to accomplish these strategies in their implementation process. Many of these strategies that align with the Lohrmann et al. (2013) findings emerged as implementation barriers for School B.
Questions 3: What are the Barriers the Schools Faced in Implementing SWPBIS? In order to create a better description of the conditions that inhibit the
implementation of SWPBIS, obstacles commonly experienced by School A and School B were identified. According to Lohrmann and colleagues (2008),
Ultimately, sustainability of the universal intervention rests with the willingness of staff to invest their time and effort into implementation. Therefore,
understanding the barriers that inhibit school personnel from investing their time and effort is essential to preventing and transforming the resistance often
encountered with new initiatives. (p. 258)
Lohrmann et al.’s (2008) findings suggest that technical assistance should directly
address organizational barriers of implementation as opposed to just knowledge and skills of positive behavior support. The recognition of implementation barriers will assist state leadership teams in providing the necessary and specific assistance and information for facilitating the implementation of the Universal Tier of positive behavior supports at the
schoolwide level. The following elements were identified as barriers inhibiting the successful implementation of the Universal Tier of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in the first year of application.
Implementation Barriers for School A
School A experienced the subsequent inhibiting elements during their SWPBIS application process: (a) gaining a deep level of buy-in and creating a mental shift, (b) data collection and analysis, (c) lack of district support, and (d) staff training/knowledge of SWPBIS.
Implementation Barriers for School B
In contrast, School B experienced the following implementation barriers: (a) lack of administrator accountability, (b) failure to hold regular SWPBIS team meetings, (c) teachers’ lack of understanding of SWPBIS, (d) creating Tier 1 interventions in tandem with generating Tier 2 interventions, (e) lack of a data system and use of data to make decisions, and (f) lack of district support and resources.
Table 10: Identified Implementation Barriers for School A and School B Implementation Barriers
School A School B
• Gaining a Deep Level of Buy-in and Creating a Mental Shift
• Data Collection and Analysis
• Lack of District Support
• Staff Training/Knowledge of SWPBIS
• Lack of Administrator Accountability
• Failure to Hold Regular SWPBIS Team Meetings
• Teachers’ Lack of Understanding of SWPBIS
• Creating Tier 1 Interventions in Tandem with Generating Tier 2 Interventions
• Lack of Data System and Use of Data to Make Decisions
• Lack of District Support and Resources
Both School A and School B suffered inhibiting elements in their implementation process. However, parallel to the facilitators, the two schools were dissimilar in the extent in which these components of their system impeded their application of SWPBIS. School B seemed to be influenced by and suffer from more implementation barriers than School A experienced.
Question 2: How do Practices Compare at a School Implementing with High