THE EFFECTS OF A SCHOOL WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT SYSTEM
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education
By Nancy Salmeron
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
THE EFFECTS OF A SCHOOL WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT SYSTEM
by
Nancy Salmeron
Dr. John Borba
Professor of School Administration
Dr. Chet Jensen Professor of Education
Date
Date Signed Certification of Approval Page is on
© 2013 Nancy Salmeron ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iv DEDICATION
As I approach the end of a long journey, it is a bittersweet end to a significant chapter of my life. I would like to dedicate this work to my husband Carlos Salmeron. He has been my rock through the years! He always ensured that our children were taken care of as I worked on this thesis. His words of inspiration and encouragement made me push on. Thank you, my love. I will forever be grateful to you!
Julian and Miranda, it is because of your love that I have made it this far. I wanted to model for you what higher education is all about, and I believe I have succeeded. Thank you for your patience and believing that Mommy would someday be finished. May you aspire to always do your best and may all your dreams come true!
I would also like to dedicate this project to my partner in crime, my sister Araceli Martinez. Thank you for joining me in this journey! Your words of encouragement and your sense of humor have made this endeavor more fun.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents Eloisa and Fernando Martinez. Your belief and dedication to hard work made me want to challenge myself. Gracias, por todo su appoyo y amor. Soy quien soy por su buen ejemplo!
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Through this journey there are many people to whom I owe a thank you. I would first like to thank my chairperson, Dr. John Borba, for his guidance and continual support with this endeavor. Thank you for your patience and for your constant willingness to go the distance with me. I have learned a great deal about the writing process because of you. I would also like to thank Dr. Jensen for serving with Dr. Borba on my advisory committee.
I would also like to thank Sonia Aguirre and Stefani Ortiz for their continual support and words of encouragement. You have made this process more interesting. I knew I could always count on you.
Thank you, Rocio Flores, for your words of wisdom and for reminding me to never give up! I am glad we have maintained our friendship for all these years. May our friendship continue to grow.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ... iv
Acknowledgements ... v
List of Tables ... viii
Abstract ... ix
CHAPTER I. Introduction ... 1
Background of the Study ... 1
Statement of the Problem ... 3
Research Questions ... 4
Hypotheses ... 4
Significance of the Study ... 5
Limitations and Delimitations ... 5
Operational Definitions ... 5
Summary ... 6
II. Review of the Literature ... 7
History and Development of the SWPBS System ... 7
Summary ... 17
III. Methods and Procedures ... 18
Subjects ... 18
Treatment ... 19
Data Collection Methods ... 20
Statistical Analysis ... 20
Summary ... 20
IV. Results and Discussion ... 22
Description of the Sample ... 22
Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 ... 22
Findings Related to Hypothesis 2 ... 24
vii
V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ... 26
Summary ... 26
Conclusions ... 27
Recommendations for Further Research ... 28
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Chi-Square Test of Independence—Office Referrals ... 23
2. Distribution of Office Referrals: Frequencies and Percentages ... 23
3. Chi-Square Test of Independence—Detentions... 24
ix ABSTRACT
A safe learning environment along with quality instruction is essential for academic
achievement. The education field is constantly changing to meet the needs of a wide variety of students. Traditionally, educators have dealt with problem behaviors in the classroom by using reactive disciplinary methods and relying on the conduct code. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a School Wide Positive Behavior System (SWPBS) on office referrals and detentions. The study examined data from two consecutive school years, 2010–2011 and 2011–2012. It followed third grade students in 2010–2011 without a SWPBS system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year. The purpose of this study was to determine if there would be a statistically significant decrease in the number of office referrals and detentions after the implementation of a SWPBS system. The hypotheses stated there would not be a significant difference in the number of referrals and the number of detentions. Through statistical and descriptive analysis, the author discovered that the results of the chi square analysis suggested that there were significant differences (p < .01) in the distribution of the number of office referrals and detentions among third grade students before the implementation of the SWPBS system and the same students as fourth graders after the SWPBS system was implemented.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The improvement of academic achievement is difficult without addressing the violence that occurs in schools. Schools are a reflection of the lack of civility in society. In such environments, students cannot learn because they are not emotionally connected. Lunenberg (2010) noted that violence, bullying, and chaos in classrooms are a fact of life to many students. Frequently, the violence in a community spills into the schools. Although the situation in some schools and neighborhoods is more serious than others, the goal of educators is to create a safe and disciplined learning environment that will promote civility and acceptance of all students. Luiselli,
Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) discovered that violence, vandalism, bullying, and other disruptive behaviors create an unsafe learning environment, undermine instruction, and potentially pose a threat to all members of the school population.
How can high academic achievement occur without addressing the school culture? The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) concluded academic achievement cannot happen if the nature of the problem is not fully understood (NCES, 2007). Evidently, many students experience high anxiety due to violence and negative school climate. In order for students to learn, educators need to focus on assuring that students feel comfortable and safe in schools. Education is a critical component to the economic success of any individual, yet the ultimate goal of
2 education should also include building character and developing civility in all
students. The School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) system is a proactive and preventive method that was designed to reduce problematic behavior in schools. Under this approach, teachers and administrators seek to create a school environment that fosters prosocial behavior and systematically deters problem behaviors before they happen (Medley, Little, & Akin-Little, 2008). Reactive approaches such as detention, suspension and expulsion are not changing or improving behavior.
Students are more likely to drop out of school, join gangs, serve prison terms, or die. Antisocial, uncooperative, and physically harmful behavior are strong predictors of delinquent and violent behavior later in life (Kern & Manz, 2004). A proactive response to discipline is the complete opposite of what is known as traditional techniques for managing behavior. In the reactive approach, administrators and teachers do not teach appropriate behavior. The assumption is that all students should know what appropriate behavior is; yet, many do not. Although SWPBS still requires students to comply with the conduct code, the goal is to keep problems from
happening in the first place.
Over the past 10 years, more than 11,000 elementary, middle, and high schools have adopted the SWPBS system as a framework for improving their social and academic outcomes (Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009). Key features of
SWPBS include investment in preventing negative behavior, academic and behavioral interventions at multiple levels of intensity, and data for decision making and
3 basic approach always emphasizes developing a learning environment that is socially predictable, consistent, positive, and safe (Safran & Oswald, 2003).
The Kansas Institute for Positive Behavior Support presented the emergence of Response to Intervention (RTI) and the SWPBS system as offering scientifically-based strategies founded on the premise of changing the way schools proactively work with students who are identified with learning and discipline problems (Freeman, Anderson, & Griggs, 2009). SWPBS is a systematic approach for
implementing proactive school-wide discipline and is currently implemented in over 7,000 schools in over 37 states.
The goal of Primary Prevention is to create a positive school culture in which pro-social student behaviors are taught and reinforced by all students (85%–95% of the school will respond) and adults respond to the occurrence of problem behavior in a consistent manner. The SWPBS team defines at least three major expectations such as respect, responsibility and acceptance. The students are explicitly taught these expectations as they apply to the different areas of the school (Flannery et al., 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The increase in aggressive and delinquent behavior in schools throughout the country has reached critical proportions (Horner, 2000; Jackson & Panyan, 2002). Lack of parent involvement, poverty, unclear home and school expectations have resulted in loss of academic achievement. More than ever, the public perception is that classroom behavior is out of control. As a result, schools establish policies that try to increase discipline and control, often by adopting “get tough” practices. In other
4 words, schools set strict rules about the types of student behavior that are
unacceptable and assign severe consequences for student infractions (Rose & Gallup, 2005). According to the Advanced Project’s report “Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track” (as cited in Lewis, 2005), zero tolerance leads to
more expulsions and suspensions, which results in lower student test scores, more disciplinary actions, higher drop-out rates and increased juvenile incarceration. Children are handcuffed, arrested, and sometimes prosecuted for the commission of minor acts of defiance that should be handled by school officials instead of the police. The reactive approach of zero tolerance has not led to a reduction in student
misconduct, nor has it led to safer schools. Furthermore, zero-tolerance policies have had a disproportionate effect on students of color and students with disabilities (Lewis, 2005).
Research Question
Does the SWPBS system improve students’ behavior at school?
Hypotheses
H1: There is no significant difference in the number of office referrals
regarding third grade students in 2010–2011 academic year, without a SWPBS
system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic year, with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
H2: There is no significant difference in the number of detentions regarding
third grade students in 2010–2011 academic year, without a SWPBS system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic year, with a
5 SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of the SWPBS system on inappropriate behavior at school. If the study reveals positive results, less disruptive behavior may occur in the classrooms, which may result in higher learning.
Limitations and Delimitations Limitations
This study was limited to students who were in third grade during the 2010– 2011 academic school year, and the same students who were in fourth grade during the 2011–2012 academic school year.
Delimitations
Ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status of the students were not taken into consideration.
Operational Definitions
School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) system: A behaviorally-based proactive system that encourages schools to utilize strategies intended to decrease the incidents of unwanted student behaviors.
Zero tolerance: A policy of penalizing students for infraction of rules, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances. In schools, common zero tolerance policies concern the possession or use of drugs or weapons.
6 who meet behavior expectations. If students are aware of the rules and know the consequences of violating them, some misbehavior will be eliminated. If the teacher praises and rewards students for appropriate behavior, they are more likely to exhibit the same pattern.
Reactive approach: Impositions of punishment that are fair and consistent. An example is a student who is excessively late to class, and is punished by having to serve detention after school. These actions may deter the behavior from recurring in the future.
Summary
The pressure continues for administrators and teachers all over the country with regard to keeping schools safe. As a norm, educators have dealt with problem behaviors using a reactive approach. Zero tolerance is considered fair, because it treats everyone the same. This approach is a quick fix that does not improve or change student behavior. School Wide Positive Behavior is a systematic proactive approach that reinforces the belief of, “fair is not giving everyone the same; fair is giving every child what he needs to be successful.” Due to the lack of civility in society, a proactive approach may be more successful in reducing inappropriate behavior at school. In Chapter II, this researcher will present a review of the literature related to the topic of this study.
7 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
History and Development of the SWPBS System
Having safe supportive schools is crucial to the advancement of academic and social success. Due to the culture of violence in society, many schools make violence prevention and conflict resolution part of learning. The increase in aggressive and delinquent behavior in schools throughout the country has reached critical proportions (Safran & Oswald, 2003). In 2007, the NCES reported that 74% of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime; 16% recorded one or more serious violent incidents; 44% recorded one or more thefts, and 68% recorded one or more other incidents (NCES, 2007). As a result, schools established policies to increase discipline and control by adopting “get tough” practices (Simonsen, Sugai, & Negron, 2008). Violent and disruptive behaviors become more destructive over time, destroy the school environment, and lower the quality of life for students and teachers (Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005).
Fifty years ago, the main disciplinary problems were running in halls, talking out of turn, and chewing gum. Today, transgressions include physical and verbal violence, incivility, and in some schools, drug abuse, robbery, assault, and murder. The result is that many teachers spend a great amount of time and energy managing classroom conflicts (Neiman, 2011). Income levels are singled out by public health experts as risk factors that can contribute to anti-social behaviors. Although culture
8 expects the family to deal with problems, contemporary society makes it difficult for parents to meet all of their children's needs. In the current economy, both parents have to work; therefore, more children are raised by single parents including teenage mothers.
Some children are neglected emotionally, physically abused, and/or sexually abused by their parents or other relatives. In a perfect world, parents would nurture and reinforce positive behavior. The reality is that many parents fail. As a result, children develop negative and often violent behavior patterns. In addition, neglectful or abusive family environments inhibit the development of communication skills and self-esteem. In homes where positive behavior is not the norm, exposure to violence through popular culture may have a more profound impact. The goal for school officials is that violence must be stopped from happening in the first place (Walker et al., 2005).
Parents, teachers, and administrators expect schools to be safe havens of learning. Acts of violence disrupt the learning process and have a negative effect on students, the school itself, and the broader community (Sugai, Horner, & Anderson, 2010). School climate is reactive and controlling. Attempts to respond to these challenges often result in an overreliance on the use of aversive and exclusionary consequences. For example, teachers respond to student displays of chronic problem behavior by increasing their use of verbal reprimands and exclusionary consequences. According to Skiba et al. (2000), severe and penalizing disciplinary policies
9 behavior. In general, urban schools across the nation rely on suspensions, loss of privileges, reprimands, and expulsion as means of discipline.
When teachers attempt to reduce student problem behavior, they are more likely to use reactive management practices. These reductions are temporary and problem behaviors reoccur, sometimes at higher rates and more intensive levels. Justification for the increased use of reactive management strategies is based on the erroneous assumption that the student is inherently bad, or will learn a better way of behaving next time (Hendley, 2007).
The assumption is that punishment-based discipline actions implemented in response to rule violations will deter future occurrences and somehow teach and promote more prosocial skills (Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002). However, the current “zero tolerance” approach to discipline has proven ineffective in reducing problem behavior (Simonsen et al., 2008). In fact, relying exclusively on reactive, consequence-based discipline policies are actually associated with increases in problem behavior (Safran & Oswald, 2003). Surprisingly, students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders (EBD), given their high rates of externalizing behavior, are often frequent recipients of “punishment-based” discipline.
According to Berkowitz and Bier (2005), in a large and growing number of schools around the country, students are learning more than just reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are learning what character education advocates call the fourth and fifth Rs, respect and responsibility. The formal teaching of morals and values is not a new phenomenon; rather, it has been part of democratic thought throughout history.
10 Plato and Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. believed the role of education was to train good and virtuous citizens. The U.S. Department of Education (2006) reported on programs that prevent violence using whole school strategies that seek to influence the school environment. Clarifying rules, increasing supervision of the school grounds, and setting up positive behavior reward systems have been instrumental in improving school environment.
Berkowitz and Bier (2005) wrote that since the early 1990s, the federal government has embraced the idea of offering character education in public schools and has made grants available to states interested in piloting programs in their schools. In response, for profit and nonprofit organizations have developed character education programs for schools, districts, and states.
One of the first questions that parents ask about a character education program is "Whose values are you going to teach?" Most character education programs are based on the traits developed from the civic virtues found in the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Charter—as well as common civil and moral values such as honesty, courage, and respect for others. Advocating that honesty is better than dishonesty, or that free speech is better than censorship, rarely invites controversy (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005).
For example, the Character Counts program is based on the "six pillars of character": trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Character Works, used throughout Georgia, emphasizes 38 character traits, one for each week of a typical school year, including courtesy, integrity, creativity, fairness,
11 and accomplishment. The Character Education Partnership has drawn up 11
principles of effective character education that schools can use to guide their efforts. The principles include the advice that the term "character" must be well-defined, that the program must be integrated into the curriculum, and that parents and community members must be involved. Peace Builders is a science-based, research-validated violence prevention curriculum and professional development program for grades pre-K to 12. Its essence is a common language–six principles taught, modeled, and practiced. These same principles set behavioral expectations, reduce aggression, and transform the climate and culture of any environment to one which is cooperative, productive, and academically successful. The final principle is the need to assess the progress of the school involved in the program. While there has been much anecdotal evidence about the effects of character education, not much in the way of
scientifically based research exists (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005).
Of the few studies that have been conducted so far, a few suggest that facilitating social development, for many kids, concurrently advances academic function (Lassen, Steel, & Sailor, 2006). One study found children's positive social skills to be powerful predictors of academic achievement. The author suggested that social skills that are part of character education programs may be academic enablers (Lassen et al., 2006).
The SWPBS system is a research-driven and evidence-based process that was developed over 20 years ago and is now internationally recognized and available free of charge to all schools. SWPBS is not based on a written script or program that looks
12
the same in each school (Simonsen et al., 2008).
Unlike typical school practices, which often wait for a student to fail before providing support, the SWPBS system employs a three-tier approach to proactively address the social behavior needs of all students and to prevent social and academic failure (Simonsen et al., 2008; Sugai et al., 2010). The essential elements of SWPBS system include the following: (a) a consistent approach to managing behavioral problems, (b) a view that school discipline is a prerequisite of academic learning, (c) a focus on proactive prevention, (d) active involvement from school administration, and (e) a focus on effective staff development (Solomon, Klein, Hintze, Cressey, & Peller, 2012).
According to the Council for Exceptional Children (qtd. in Simonsen et al.,
2008), the first tier is designed to support all students and staff across all settings in the school. The secondary tier is designed to support a targeted group of students who have not responded to primary tier interventions, but whose behaviors do not pose a serious risk to themselves or others. Simonsen et al. (2008) noted that tertiary tier interventions are designed to support individual students who require additional support to benefit from secondary or primary tier intervention (i.e., students who have not responded to secondary tier intervention) or whose behaviors are serious enough to require more immediate and intensive support (i.e., students whose behaviors pose a risk andwho are not appropriate for secondary tier intervention).
Warren et al. (2006) reported on a school located in the western United States where a number of encouraging outcomes resulted during the first year of full
13 SWPBS implementation. For example, the total number of office discipline referrals decreased by 20% from Year 1 to Year 2, timeouts decreased by 23%, and most notable, short-term suspensions decreased by 57%. Reports from teachers and administrators confirmed that the combination of universal, group, and individual supports made a positive impact on the school climate and student behavior in
general. Although these data were very encouraging, several negative trends began to appear the following year (Year 3), when a team began the transition from a direct intervention role to a more consultative role.
During several months of Year 3, disciplinary referrals exceeded the reduction in Year 2, and at least 2 months exceeded the baseline. For example, in the third year, office referrals declined 32% from October of the 2nd year (602 and 469,
respectively). Also, the number of disciplinary referrals for the month of October was 20% higher (613 and 493, respectively) during the third year, which was the baseline year (Warren et al., 2006).
A study by Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, and Sprague (2001) investigated the effects of implementing positive supports in the school. The study was conducted at three junior high schools in Oregon (grades six, seven, and eight) with similar populations over a three-year period. The study found there was 41% decrease in office referrals from the year prior to implementation to the second year after implementation (Metzler et al., 2001).
Swanson, Calderella and Young (2011) conducted a quantitative research study that examined discipline among 468 students at a suburban elementary school.
14 The purpose of this study was to examine whether discipline referrals could be
reduced by using the School Wide Positive Behavior Support system strategies. Both school wide and focused small-group counseling strategies were implemented. The strategies were then reviewed to determine their effectiveness in reducing discipline referrals. All 468 students who attended the school were included in the study. The ethnic composition of the students was 52% African-American, 31% White, 7% Multiracial, 5% Asian, and 5% Hispanic.
Data from this group were analyzed using a t test. Results showed a
significant decrease in discipline referrals (p = .009), for the main group between the 2006–2007 school year (before SWPBS) and the 2007–2008 school year (after implementation of SWPBS). Overall, results indicated a reduction in discipline referrals and an improvement in behavior. Among the entire student population who received the school-wide approach, 26% fewer discipline referrals were recorded in the 2007–2008 school year (when the SWPBS strategies were implemented) than were recorded the previous school year (Swanson et al., 2011).
Warren et al. (2006) studied the implementation of a SWPBS plan in a Midwestern, inner-city middle school. The school included approximately 737 students in grades 6–8. Ethnically, 41% of the students were African American, 35% Hispanic, and 18% were classified as European-American. The free lunch rate for the entire student body was approximately 80%. Discipline data from the school year prior to implementing SWPBS system showed 42% of the students had received at least five office discipline referrals, while 81% of the students received at least one
15 office discipline referral.
Students were introduced to the SWPBS system expectations after they were developed by school staff at the beginning of the school year. Subsequently, teachers used preestablished lessons designed to teach and model appropriate behaviors. In addition, students were given the opportunity to practice appropriate behaviors in different school settings. School staff also developed a reward system designed to reinforce and acknowledge appropriate behaviors. Students were given tickets for demonstrating appropriate behaviors. Tickets were entered into frequent drawings when students could win prizes and privileges. The names and pictures of students receiving prizes were posted near the school’s cafeteria. Teachers were also instructed in positive behavior support methods in order to meet the needs of individual students (Warren et al., 2006).
Discipline data showed substantial differences between Year 1 (the school year before beginning the SWPBS system) and Year 2. Office discipline referrals were reduced by 20%. In-school conferences (discussing the student’s problem behavior with him/her) decreased by 17%. Time-outs requiring students to sit in the office decreased by 23%. Furthermore, school suspensions dropped by 5% and out-of-school suspensions plummeted by 57%. More importantly, both teachers and administrators provided numerous reports of improved school climate and student attitudes toward school (Warren et al., 2006).
Nelson, Benner, Lane, and Smith (2004) studied a form of SWPBS using data from the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 school years at a middle school in the western
16 United States in the third year of using the SWPBS system plan. The purpose of the study was to determine whether teacher-written notes praising appropriate student social skills and behaviors would influence the number of office discipline referrals. Participants included 70 teachers (48 females and 22 males), along with 1,809 sixth and seventh grade students. Racially, participants were 86% Caucasian, 11%
Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 1% Pacific Islander. The school’s free or reduced lunch rate was approximately 39%.
In this study, teachers were instructed to write praise notes to students when they witnessed students engaging in expected behaviors established within the
SWPBS system plan. Praise notes were printed in triplicate. The student received one copy, the parents another, and the third copy was entered into a weekly prize drawing for students. Winners were announced during the reading of the school’s
announcements. In an effort to increase the frequency of writing praise notes, teachers were given gift certificates to local restaurants when they had written a specified number of notes.
Researchers collected data on both office discipline referrals and praise notes for the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 school years. After quantitatively analyzing the data, a strong negative correlation was found between the number of praise notes written to students and the number of office discipline referrals (r = -.551, p < .05). In other words, as the number of praise notes increased, the number of office discipline referrals decreased. Similarly, among students who had previously received an office discipline referral, a strong negative correlation was found between the number of
17 praise notes received and the subsequent office discipline referrals (r = -.553,
p < .05). In other words, as the number of praise notes increased for students with at least one office discipline referral, the rates of office discipline referrals for these students decreased (Nelson et al., 2009).
Summary
These research findings demonstrate the outcome of the SWPBS system and discipline referrals. The current results indicate that continued implementation in over a number of years will result in positive outcomes. Warren et al. (2006) found that disciplinary referrals exceeded the reduction in Year 2 and for at least 2 months exceeded the baseline. Metzler et al. (2001) found that 41% of office referrals decreased from the year prior to implementation to the second year after implementation. Swanson et al. (2011) discovered that the results indicated a
reduction in discipline referrals and an improvement in behavior. Warren et al. (2006) found administrators and teachers reported an improved climate and positive attitudes toward school. Nelson et al. (2004) demonstrated that as the number of praise notes increased office referrals decreased. Yet most of the research failed to examine the number of years of implementation as a variable. Also, additional research needs to be completed to see if the SWPBS system will, in fact, increase academic
18 CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The purpose of this study was to determine if a School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) system improved students’ behavior at school by analyzing the number of office referrals and detentions. The SWPBS system, is a three tier system that focuses on a proactive approach to preventing discipline
problems. The positive behavior support process involves a SWPBS team and focuses on information gathering, hypothesis development, support plan design,
implementation, and monitoring. The SWPBS team was developed in a selected school in the Central Valley of California. The team consisted of three teachers, one counselor, a school psychologist, and the administrator. The SWPBS team developed four school wide expectations: Respect, Optimism, Acceptance and Responsibility (ROAR). The purpose of this study is to examine the effects that teaching and
reinforcing important socials skills have on office referrals and detentions of students. The methods and procedures are divided into four sections: (a) subjects, (b) instrumentation, (c) data collection methods, and (d) statistical analysis.
Subjects
One California Central Valley school was selected for this study, where the SWPBS system was implemented during the 2011–2012 academic year. The school population consisted of 664 students, of which 97.3% were socioeconomically disadvantaged, 67% English Learners, 84.3% Hispanic or Latino, 6.8% Asian, 3.5%
19 White, 1.5% African American, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 0.2% Filipino, and 7.4% Student with Disabilities.
Treatment
The school selected for this study had a history of applying a reactive approach to discipline. Zero tolerance and the conduct code were instrumental in dealing with negative behavior. During the 2010–2011 academic year, and every year prior, all teachers were responsible for creating a behavior system for their individual classes.
In the 2011–2012 academic year, the school administrator chose three
teachers, a counselor, and a school psychologist to develop the SWPBS system plan. Over the course of four weeks, this group met on several occasions to develop the school’s expectations. The SWPBS decided that the four school-wide expectations would be Respect, Optimism, Acceptance and Responsibility (ROAR). The school decided that the expectations would be taught biweekly by the two school counselors and one teacher. The lessons were twenty minutes long, and regular classroom teachers reinforced lessons taught for the following week.
The SWPBS team also created ROAR tickets to serve as the reinforcement system utilized by all faculty and staff members to reward students for desired behaviors. The team was asked to create a ROAR store. Students could purchase prizes from a catalog with ROAR tickets. Over the course of the 2011–2012 academic year, the SWPBS team met once a month to evaluate the success of the program.
20
Data Collection Methods
Student discipline data were gathered through the district computer
information system, which manages student discipline reports. Data were grouped according to the total number of office discipline referrals and detentions for every student enrolled in the academic years 2010–2011 and 2011–2012. Each student was assigned a code to maintain confidentiality.
Statistical Analysis
The initial sample consisted of 95 students who were third graders during the 2010–2011 school year and fourth graders during the 2011–2012 school year. Of the 95 students, 25 were selected for this analysis due to the number of office discipline referrals and detentions as recorded by the district information system. Seventy-five students were excluded from the analysis due to not having detentions or office referrals. The independent variable for the first and second hypotheses was the implementation of the SWPBS system, and the dependent variables were the number of office referrals and detentions.
A chi-square test of independence was used to determine if the SWPBS system that was implemented in 2011–2012 had an effect on student office referrals and detentions. The alpha level was set at (p < .05).
Summary
Chapter III presented the methods and procedures used in this study. The methods and procedures included a description of the sample, instrumentation,
21 collection methods, and data analysis. Chapter IV presents the statistical analysis of the data in relation to the hypotheses tested. A summary of the findings is presented.
22 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine if a School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) system improved students’ behavior at school by analyzing the number of office referrals and detentions. The data utilized in this study were collected in order to test the hypotheses. In this chapter, the following will be discussed: (a) description of the sample, (b) findings of each hypothesis, and (c) summary.
Description of the Sample
The initial sample consisted of 95 students who were third graders during the 2010–2011 school year and the same students as fourth graders during the 2011– 2012 school year. All participants were enrolled both school years. The independent variable for the first and second hypotheses was the implementation of the SWPBS system and the dependent variables were the number of office referrals and
detentions.
Findings Related to Hypothesis 1
H1. There is no significant difference in the number of office referrals
regarding third grade students in 2010–2011 academic school year, without a
SWPBS system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic school year with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
23 significance was set at the (p < .05) level. The results of the chi square analysis showed that there was a significant difference (p < .01) in office referrals between the pre and post system regarding third grade students prior to the 2010–2011 academic school year and the same students when they were in fourth grade during the 2011–2012 academic school year after the implementation of the SWPBS
system. In the 2010–2011 academic year, 100% of the students received one to more than five office referrals during the 2011–2012 academic school year, and 24% received one to more than five office referrals. Tables 1 and 2 present statistical and descriptive analyses of the results.
Table 1
Chi-Square Test of Independence—Office Referrals χ2
df p
32.95 4 .001*
*p < .05
Table 2
Distribution of Office Referrals: Frequencies and Percentages
Period n 0 1 2 3 4 5+ 2010–2011 25 0 13 4 3 1 3 0% 52% 16% 16% 4% 12% 2011–2012 25 19 1 2 1 1 1 76% 4% 8% 4% 4% 4%
24
Findings Related to Hypothesis 2
H2. There is no significant difference in the number of detentions regarding
third grade students in 2010–2012 academic year, without a SWPBS system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic year, with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
The chi-square analysis for independence was performed for each hypothesis. For this analysis, significance was set at the (p < .05) level. The results of the chi square analysis showed that there was a significant difference (p < .01) in the detentions between the pre and the post system regarding third grade students prior to 2010–2011 academic year and the same students when they were in fourth grade during the 2011–2012 academic year after the implementation of the SWPBS
system. In the 2010–2011 academic year, 92% of the students received one to five or more office referrals, and during the 2011–2012 academic year, and 20% received one to five or more office referrals. Tables 3 and 4 present statistical and descriptive analyses of the results.
Table 3
Chi-Square Test of Independence—Detentions χ2
df p
26.51 3 .001*
25 Table 4
Distribution of Detentions: Frequencies and Percentages
Period n 0 1 2 3 4+ 2010–2011 25 2 19 2 1 1 8% 76% 8% 4% 4% 2011–2012 25 20 4 1 0 0 80% 16% 4% 0% 0% Summary
Chapter IV presented the results of the statistical analyses for both hypotheses. Chapter V will provide the summary, conclusions, and recommendations for this study.
26 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to determine if a School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) system improved students’ behavior at school by
analyzing the number of office referrals and detentions. The data utilized in this study were collected in order to test the hypotheses. This chapter presents the following: (a) summary, (b) conclusions, and (c) recommendations for further study.
Summary
The improvement of academic achievement is difficult without addressing the violence that occurs in schools. In the field of education, there is a continuous
challenge to meet the needs of a wide variety of students. New initiatives are constantly being developed to provide educators with more effective and proactive disciplinary strategies. Across the nation, schools are trying to guarantee students quality academic instruction along with a safe learning environment.
This study sought to add to the literature regarding the effectiveness of a proactive school-wide discipline plan in decreasing the number of office referrals and detentions. A SWPBS team was developed in a selected school in the Central Valley of California. The SWPBS system has been in operation since the 2011–2012 academic year.
Ninety-five third grade students who were enrolled in 2010–2011 before the SWPBS system was implemented were selected for this study. Also, these same
27 students were fourth graders when SWPBS was implemented the following year in 2011-2012.
H1. There is no significant difference in the number of office referrals
regarding third grade students in 2010–2012 academic year, without a SWPBS
system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic year, with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
H2.There is no significant difference in the number of detentions regarding
third grade students in 2010–2011 academic year, without a SWPBS system and the same students when they were in fourth grade in 2011–2012 academic year, with a SWPBS system in place for a full academic year.
Chapter I presented an introduction that focused on the importance of
SWPBS. The purpose of this study was discussed; the research questions were posed; the limitations and delimitations were stated; and definitions of relevant terms were provided. Chapter II presented a brief history of SWPBS and its purpose as well as an overview of previous research in the area of SWPBS and its effectiveness on the reduction of office referrals and detentions. Chapter III described the research design for this study and provided a description of the sample, data collection method, and the statistical data analyses. Chapter IV reported the results of the data analysis.
Conclusions
After completing the review of the literature and analyzing the data related to the effects of a SWPBS system, the results suggested that there was a significant statistical difference between the pre and post program implementation. The results
28 rejected the hypothesis stated in Chapter I. The results of the chi-square analysis found that there was a significant difference in the distribution of the number of office referrals and detentions between third-grade students during the 2010–2011 academic year and the same students when they were in fourth grade during the 2011–2012 academic year after the implementation of the SWPBS system.
This study suggests that SWPBS has a positive effect by reducing office referrals and detentions. It was demonstrated that a SWPBS team of three teachers, a counselor, and a school psychologist which is responsible for developing,
implementing, and monitoring a plan may have contributed to reducing inappropriate student behavior. In addition, teaching Respect, Optimism, Acceptance, and
Responsibility (ROAR) biweekly to students by the school counselors and one teacher and rewarding students with ROAR tickets for positive behavior may have resulted in less disruption and a more positive school climate. Swanson et al. (2011) reported similar findings with regard to the beneficial effect of positive school climate on student behavior.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study investigated the effectiveness of the SWPBS system. The data and results gathered by this present study raised many important questions that can be explored in future research. Continuing research on this topic may include conducting a longitudinal study to determine if the number of years of implementation of a SWPBS system is a variable. Also, the focus of this study was limited to a small sample size (N = 25). A recommendation would be to establish a larger sample size to
29 determine if the results can be generalized across many settings. More research needs to be done to explore whether a SWPBS has a positive impact on academic outcomes. Continuing research on this topic may include examining the different types of
SWPBS that are implemented in schools and determine which system is the most effective in reducing the number of office discipline referrals and detentions. Another study could examine the effects of using token economies, tickets, or other reward systems and could assess results to see which one is the most successful.
31
REFERENCES
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. Retrieved from http://www.rucharacter.org/file /practitioners_518.pdf
Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C., & Scott, T. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavior interventions and supports in the schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 136–173.
Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide positive behavior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
11(3), 17–185. doi:10.1177/1098300708316257
Freeman, R., Anderson, S., & Griggs, P. (2009). School-wide positive behavior support. Retrieved from the Kansas Institute for Positive Behavior Support at the University of Kansas website: http://www.kipbs.org/new_kipbs/index.html
Hendley, S. (2007). Use positive behavior support for inclusion in the general education classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(4), 225–228.
Horner, R. H. (2000). Positive behavior supports. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(2), 97–105. doi: 10.1177/108835760001500205
Jackson, L. B., & Panyan, M. V. (2002). Positive behavioral support in the classroom: Principles and practices. Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.
Kern, L., & Manz, P. (2004). A look at current validity issues of school wide behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 30(1), 47–59.
32 Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive
behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in Schools, 43(6), 701–712. doi: 10.1002/pits.20177
Lewis, T. (2005). What every administrator needs to know about school-wide positive behavior supports. Retrieved from http://www.mslbd.org/Admin_Conference /Lewis%2010-5-06.pdf
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-School Positive Behavior Support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183–198.
Lunenberg, F. C. (2010). School violence in America’s schools. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 4(1), 1–6.
Medley, N., Little, S., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Comparing individual behavior plans from schools with and without schoolwide positive behavior support: A preliminary study.
Journal of Behavior & Education, 17, 93–110.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of
comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education & Treatment of Children, 24(4), 448–479.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007
(NCES 2008021). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp ?pubid=2008021
Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2009–10 (NCES 2011320). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011320.pdf
33 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.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2005). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1),41–57. Safran, S., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape
disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69(3), 361–373.
Simonsen, B., Sugai, G., & Negron, M. (2008). School wide positive behavior supports: Primary systems and practices. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, 40, 32– 40.
Skiba, R., Boone, K., Fontanini, A., Wu, T., & Strussell, A., & Peterson, R. (2000).
Preventing school violence: A practical guide to comprehensive planning. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED479077)
Solomon, B., Klein, S., Hintze, J., Cressey, J., & Peller, S. (2012). A meta-analysis of school wide positive behavior support: An exploratory student using single-case synthesis.
Psychology in the Schools, 49, 105–121.
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Anderson, C. (2010). Examining the evidence base for School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–11.
Swanson, K., Caldarella, P., & Young, R. (2011). Civility in schools: An emerging paradigm for behavioral problems and school violence. Retrieved from http://education .byu.edu/pbsi/documents/TECBDCivility.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/ocr2006rv30/VistaApp/browsetable.aspx?
34 Walker, B., Cheney, D. Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive
behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 194–204. doi: 10.1177 /10983007050070040101
Warren, J. S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Wickham, D., Griggs, P., & Beech, S. E. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support: Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational Psychology Review,
