1 Wilder Research Evaluation ethics Evaluation resources from Wilder Research Before you start collecting data, one very important issue cannot be ove...
1 Wikiality Summary Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, recently lamented that he...
1 Memorandum DATE February 2, 2018 TO Members of the Economic Development & Housing Committee: Tennell Atkins, Chair, Rickey D. Callahan, Vice-Cha...
1 Request for Proposals For research for and preparation of Elevating Quindaro: The Application for National Historic Landmark By Freedom s Frontier a...
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The New York State Commission on Higher Education ( the Commission ) was established by Executive Order No. 14 of Gover...
1 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND... 2 Snapshot of Location... 2 Kopernik... 4 Local Partner: Yayasan Puter Indonesia......
1 Classification Handle with care Preservation period 5 years Date 28 April 2017 Drafted by KIM Hyemin / DOS TCS Seminar on Regional Education Coopera...
1 International Labour Office Situation and gap analysis on the ILO Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, and the fishing and seafoo...
Wilder Research Sustaining PBIS implementation in Minnesota schools
Factors that support or challenge schools attempting to sustain PBIS after they have completed the two-year training sequence sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Education
Background Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a proactive systems change process with a focus on improving school climate. The underlying concept is teaching behavioral expectations in the same manner as any core curriculum subject. Rather than telling students what not to do, the school focuses on preferred, positive behaviors. The encouraging effects of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in schools are well-documented. Through research spanning over 15 years, PBIS has been associated with outcomes such as decreasing office discipline referrals (ODRs), suspensions, and expulsions; improvement in school climate; and positive academic achievement (Mathews, et al., 2013). These positive student outcomes are contingent upon implementation fidelity (Horner et al., 2009) and the continuation of these positive student outcomes depend on sustained PBIS implementation (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Fiedman, &Wallace, 2005). Therefore, it is important to emphasize key features that allow schools to sustain PBIS successfully and which conditions inhibit sustainability. This fact sheet combines several sources of information including research literature, information from Minnesota’s “Sustaining Exemplar” PBIS schools regarding their implementation fidelity, and outcome data to identify what conditions enhance or impede their ability to sustain PBIS after completion of the two-year training sequence. Minnesota’s PBIS training provides instruction for schools on how to implement PBIS and includes components critical to PBIS such as how to collect and use data, designing action plans, team formulation, and others. PBIS training is provided for two years by the Minnesota Department of Education and Regional Implementation Projects (RIPs) in three regions of Minnesota: metro, north, and south.
Summary Key factors that enhance PBIS sustainability There are several key factors that enhance PBIS sustainability in schools. Among the most critical identified by the literature include use of data, teaming and staff buy-in, administrator support, and the availability of ongoing resources. Administrator support is perceived as an important key feature because it serves as a “gateway” to the other critical components to sustaining PBIS. Barriers that prevent PBIS sustainability Lack of resources, lack of administrator buy-in, not using data, and discontinued coaching and technical assistance are reasons why some schools do not sustain PBIS. Considerations for Minnesota To ensure that all schools implementing PBIS in Minnesota have the opportunity to sustain the initiative, the Minnesota Department of Education’s PBIS Statewide Leadership Team (SLT) should consider the following options: • Explore to what extent the two-year training sequence is helping to encourage and prepare schools for sustainability. • Encourage schools out of training to use the SUBSIST tool to assess PBIS sustainability at their school. • Consider providing additional training support for schools out of training who are trying to sustain PBIS. • Provide concrete examples of exemplary practices from Sustaining Exemplar schools in Minnesota (e.g. using data effectively). • Work with Wilder Research to complete a case study on why schools abandon PBIS. The results of this project could provide insight and guidance for additional support that might assist those schools who are considering leaving PBIS behind or who are struggling to maintain implementation fidelity.
About Minnesota’s PBIS Sustaining Exemplar Schools Since 2005, there are 425 schools in 9 (annual) cohorts that have gone through the two-year PBIS training sequence. As of spring 2014, 407 of those schools are still implementing PBIS with varying levels of fidelity. Minnesota’s PBIS Recognition Program identifies and recognizes schools that have completed training and are continuing to achieve positive student outcomes by implementing and sustaining PBIS school-wide with fidelity. Schools are invited to apply to become a “Sustaining Exemplar school” based on evaluation scores, improvement in professional outcomes, school leadership, action planning, and giving back to the greater PBIS community. Figure 1 is a map outlining the regional implementation areas with a table that describes the location (region) of the Sustaining Exemplar schools. Figure 2 shows the grade levels of Sustaining Exemplar schools. A list of schools that qualified to be a Sustaining Exemplar school from 2011-2013 can be found at the end of this fact sheet. 1. NUMBER OF SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS (BY REGION)
2. NUMBER OF SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS (BY GRADE LEVEL) Number
This fact sheet uses data from the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) and Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ), which are assessments of implementation fidelity of the universal tier (tier I) of PBIS. The SET is conducted by an external evaluator while the BoQ is a self-assessment performed by the school’s PBIS team. In order for a school to be considered implementing PBIS with fidelity, they must have an overall SET score of 80 percent or a BoQ score of 70 percent. In this report, overall averages and average subscale SET and BoQ scores were used for a total of 64 schools that qualified to be PBIS Sustaining Exemplar schools from 2011-2013. For comparison, SET scores were used from 49 Cohort 9 schools at baseline in 2013. (Schools do not use the BoQ until after they have completed the training sequence and achieved implementation fidelity according to the SET, so baseline BoQ scores are not available for comparison.) Additionally, testimony from 13 of the Sustaining Exemplar schools is used to illustrate the key components of sustainability that are identified in the research literature. The Sustaining Exemplar schools have SET and BoQ scores that exceed the cut-off scores for implementation fidelity. Figure 3 illustrates the average SET and BoQ scores for Sustaining Exemplar schools, and baseline SET scores from Cohort 9 are shown for comparison. It is important to note that baseline SET scores have increased over time since the inception of the PBIS program in Minnesota in 2005.
3. AVERAGE SET AND BOQ SCORES OF SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS Baseline SET for Cohort 9 schools in 2013-2014 (N=49) Average SET score of Sustaining Exemplar schools in 2011-2013 (N=60) Average BoQ scores for Sustaining Exemplar schools in 2011-2013 (N=54)
The average score of Sustaining Exemplar schools is nearly double that of schools at baseline on the SET subscales of “the administrator reports that the team provides discipline data summaries to the staff at least three times per year” and “the majority of PBIS team members report that data is used for making decisions.” See Figure 4. 4. USE OF DATA BY SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS AND SCHOOLS AT BASELINE
Average SET subscale score: The administrator reports that the team provides discipline data summary reports to the staff at least 3 times per year
Key factors that enhance sustainability of PBIS
Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Many components go into creating and sustaining a successful PBIS program in a school. Use of data, teaming and staff-buy-in, integration of PBIS into everyday practices, administrator support, and access to ongoing support all emerge in the literature as key factors in sustaining PBIS. Each of these elements is described in detail below.
Average SET subscale score: 90% of team members asked report that discipline data is used for making decisions in designing, implementing and revising school-wide effective behavior support efforts)
Use of data A critical factor for sustaining PBIS is ongoing data collection to use for decision-making and improvement of PBIS implementation in the school (McIntosh et al., 2013; McIntosh & Mercer, 2013). School staff must recognize the importance of making decisions based on school data and must have access to staff with the skills needed to analyze data for decision-making purposes (Tyre et al., 2010). They must also have the data they need to answer their questions in a timely manner. Sharing data with school staff and supporting them in using data for decision-making may help make a case for continued universal supports including teaching behavioral expectations, which is a critical component to PBIS. Use of data provides a concrete and visible framework for systematically assessing the usefulness, effectiveness, and efficiency of PBIS practice (Coffey & Horner, 2012).
Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Additionally, Sustaining Exemplar schools that took the BoQ had an average score of 80 percent when asked if their team analyzed data at least monthly. However, Sustaining Exemplar schools scored lower when asked if data was shared with the PBIS team and faculty at a minimum of once per month. See Figure 5. 5. USE OF DATA: AVERAGE BOQ SUBSCALE SCORES OF SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS
Data analyzed by team at least monthly (N=54) Data shared with team and faculty monthly (at minimum) (N=54)
Reviewing data with staff and using this data to make decisions to address behavior problems is demonstrated by Minnesota’s Sustaining Exemplar schools:
the administrator is aware of or involved in the delivery of team progress reports.
“We share ODR [office discipline referral] data with staff at a monthly meeting and compare our data across years and noted that our school has cut ODR referrals in half every year since we’ve implemented PBIS. “ “We review data frequently. We try to be preventive and proactive instead of reactive with student behavior.”
Of note, schools at baseline and Sustaining Exemplar schools had the same (very high) average subscale score regarding the administrator reporting that team meetings occurred at least monthly. This could indicate that this component was emphasized early in training as a necessity for implementing PBIS. See Figure 6. 6. TEAMING AND STAFF-BUY-IN OF SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS
Teaming and staff buy-in
Average SET subscale score: The administrator reports that team meetings occur
Effective and efficient team functioning including regular meetings, a high level of knowledge and skills of team members, and meeting and organization efficiency contribute to sustaining PBIS. The role of the administrator as a team member is important in creating effective and efficient PBIS teams. According to McIntosh et al. (2013), administrators who prioritize PBIS in their daily behaviors may promote the sustainability of PBIS. This frequently includes protecting regular meeting times for PBIS teams and the administrator’s own active participation in team meetings (Lohrmann et al., 2008). In addition, administrators can further PBIS efforts by overtly supporting daily PBIS activities and publicly acknowledging the active staff for their efforts (Kincaid et al., 2007). Minnesota’s PBIS Sustaining Exemplar schools have higher SET subscale scores in the areas of teaming and staff buy-in than schools at baseline, which indicates a high level of implementation and potential progress and development in these areas since training. The average score for Sustaining Exemplar schools for “team has a current action plan” is double that of schools at baseline, which is to be expected because schools at baseline have not yet had an opportunity to develop an action plan as a part of their PBIS training sequence. Sustaining Exemplar schools also have a higher average score compared to schools at baseline for the subscale item related to the team reporting progress to staff members at least four times per year. This SET subscale item is based on administrator involvement in the PBIS team and indicates whether
Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average SET subscale score: The administrator reports that the team reports progress to the staff at least four times per year Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average SET subscale score: Team has an action plan that is less than 1 year old Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49) Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Moreover, BoQ subscale scores indicate high levels of implementation fidelity regarding effective teaming and staff buy-in. Sustaining Exemplar schools that took the BoQ had high scores in the areas of “team has regular meetings (at least monthly),” and “team has an established/clear mission or purpose.” Sustaining
Exemplar school teams had a slightly lower subscale score for “faculty feedback is obtained throughout the year.” See Figure 7.
are more likely to gain approval from staff (Mathews, McIntosh, Frank, & May, 2013).
7. AVERAGE BoQ SUBSCALE SCORES FOR TEAM FUNCTIONING AND STAFF BUY-IN FOR SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS Team has regular meetings (at least monthly)
Team has an established/clear mission or purpose Faculty feedback is obtained throughout the year
Measures of individual teacher behaviors indicate that what happens in classrooms significantly impacts sustained PBIS implementation at the school level, and is also a predictor of the extent of problem behaviors in a school. For instance, the Self-Assessment Survey (SAS) tool, which is used to measure individual staff perceptions of PBIS implementation, was a statistically significant predictor of sustained PBIS implementation behavior (Mathews, McIntosh, Frank, & May, 2013).
Team buy-in and effectiveness is a priority for Sustaining Exemplar schools in Minnesota: “Our PBIS leadership team knows the staff and vibe of the school, and develops systems with 100% staff input and voice in every step.” “We meet monthly as a district PBIS committee. We get a lot of ideas, we share ideas. When staff buy-in wasn’t as high, we went back to staff on how to improve staff buyin. Our team created videos and visuals on strategies from how to manage the classroom to how to keep staff engaged and interested.”
Integration of PBIS into everyday practices Another critical element that contributes to PBIS sustainability is the extent to which PBIS becomes viewed as “typical practice.” If activities and principles of the practice are woven into existing or new initiatives that are valued, have high priority for implementation, and have been shown to produce valued outcomes, the school will be more likely to sustain PBIS (McIntosh & Mercer, 2013). Additionally, school teams should ensure that practices are time-efficient, address an identified gap in existing services, and meet diverse needs of all students in the classroom are emphasized—these types of practices
Prior implementation in the area of Classroom Systems on the SAS was a small but statistically significant unique predictor of sustained PBIS implementation and levels of problem behavior (Mathews, McIntosh, Frank, & May, 2013). This could indicate that teachers have implemented changes to their classroom practices by incorporating PBIS components into their teaching. This supports the theory that the actions of individual teachers are important to sustainability. In other words, although developing a common underlying framework of PBIS values and expectations is important, it may be even more critical to focus on helping school personnel translate these core values into their everyday classroom teaching practices. The SET subscale scores from Sustaining Exemplar schools indicate that they are incorporating PBIS into practices already in place at the school. Compared with schools at baseline, Sustaining Exemplar schools have considerably higher average subscale scores (ranging from 83-97%) for having a documented system for teaching behavioral expectations to students on an
annual basis and teaching behavioral expectations this year, and the majority of staff can list at least two-thirds of the school rules. These everyday practices are much more commonly in place for Sustaining Exemplar schools when compared with PBIS Cohort 9 schools at baseline. See Figure 8.
Also, many of Minnesota’s Sustaining Exemplar schools reported that PBIS integration into everyday practices is a top priority: “Everything we do, everything we talk about, we relate it back to PBIS.” “Using PBIS with existing student support systems and taking it to your staff to build school culture is advice I would give to schools just starting PBIS.”
8. INTEGRATION OF PBIS INTO TYPICAL PRACTICES: SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS COMPARED TO SCHOOLS AT BASELINE Average SET subscale score: There is a documented system for teaching behavioral expectations to students on an annual basis Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
“It’s important to include staff and have systems in place that support their work.”
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average SET subscale score: Teaching of behavioral expectations has occurred this year Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average SET subscale score:Team members state that the school-wide behavior program has been taught/reviewed with staff on an annual basis Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average SET subscale score: 90% or more of staff list 2/3 of the school rules Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49) Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Administrator support Administrator support is perceived to be the most critical component of sustaining PBIS, as it is the gateway to solidifying other factors for sustainability in a school. For example, if the administrator approves of PBIS, then they will be more likely to encourage staff buy-in and professional development around PBIS. Moreover, administrator support assures school staff that implementation will be supported by allocating resources (e.g., time, incentives, and training), communicating expectations, and addressing competing practices that may decrease resources (Han & Weiss, 2005). According to McIntosh et al. (2013), features relating to administrator support and school team functioning have the strongest impact on both implementation and sustainability stages of PBIS. Additionally, having an administrator who actively supports PBIS, ensures time for and regularly attends and participates in PBIS team meetings, and describes PBIS as a top priority for the Page 6
school had the strongest impact on implementing and sustaining PBIS.
9. PBIS FEATURES IN PLACE: ADMINISTRATOR SUPPORT IN SUSTAINING EXEMPLAR SCHOOLS
However, it is important to note that these perceptions did not match results from an empirical test of the SUBSIST variables with the same schools (McIntosh et.al., 2013). In that study, administrator support was strongly correlated with sustained implementation, but when compared with effective teaming and use of data, it did not make a statistically significant independent contribution (McIntsoh et. al, 2013, 39-40). This indicates that a strong administrator alone is unlikely to implement lasting change without building a broad base of staff support and expertise (Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, Foleno, & Foley, 2001).
Additionally, some of the Sustaining Exemplar schools provided comments regarding administrator support:
Therefore, these studies indicate that administrators are most effective when they empower the PBIS school team to implement effectively and use data for decisionmaking (McIntosh et. al., 2013). For school-wide PBIS systems to endure over time, it is essential that school administrators voice their political support by establishing behavior support as one of the school’s top improvement priorities and striving to promote a shared vision for change among school stakeholders (George et al., 2007).
Average SET sub-scale score: the administrator is an active PBIS team member Schools at baseline (2013-2014) (N=49)
Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=60)
Average BoQ sub-scale score: Team has administrative support (BoQ) Sustaining Exemplar schools (N=54)
Administrator support is exemplified by the Minnesota PBIS Sustaining Exemplar schools. The average subscale scores for administrator participation of the SET and BoQ of Sustaining Exemplar schools range from 95-97 percent, which indicates a high level of implementation fidelity in this area. Of note, the SET subscale score indicating that “the administrator is an active PBIS team member” is the same as schools at baseline. We suspect that this is due to the fact that administrator support is emphasized as a key component for implementing PBIS during the first two years of training. For example, it is a specific expectation that administrators attend PBIS training. However, when schools have completed PBIS training, it is expected that administrator support could dwindle due to administrator turn-over and the expectations to attend PBIS training are no longer there. See Figure 9.
“Our principal is a leader. We [PBIS team] don’t have to fight our way onto meeting agendas or to get money.” “We have strong administrator support. Our administrator ‘lives and dies’ by PBIS.”
Availability of ongoing resources
pressure to improve the academic performance of students may result in de-prioritization of PBIS and other efforts in many schools (Tyre et al., 2010). However, McIntosh, et al. (2013) found that barriers were less important to implementation and sustainability than the facilitators. For example, having a committed administrator was seen as more important to sustaining PBIS than barriers such as lack of money or time.
In addition to the key features listed above, schools need to have access to ongoing resources to increase the likelihood of sustainability. Schools should purposefully devise a plan to fade external assistance/ coaching and concurrently increase internal expertise to ensure their ongoing access to PBIS resources (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Currently, to implement PBIS in Minnesota, schools must agree that they will implement the PBIS program in their schools for at least three years. However, only minimal support is available from the Minnesota Department of Education and RIPs (aside from annual two-day PBIS Institutes) for schools implementing PBIS after they have completed the two-year training sequence. Additionally, supporting schools past the 2-year training sequence is not covered by the grants for the Regional Implementation Projects. The North Regional Implementation Project (NRIP), one of three regional partners contracted by the Minnesota Department of Education to implement the two-year training sequences for schools in their region, provides online handouts and other resources for schools that are out of training and sustaining PBIS. These handouts include the SUBSIST tool, which allows schools to see where they are at with sustaining PBIS after they have completed the two-year training sequence. NRIP also held a 3-day conference this year for schools out of training focused on sustainability.
Barriers to sustainability A review of existing literature revealed a dearth of research examining challenges to sustainability for PBIS. A few studies highlighted the following barriers to sustained implementation: Lack of resources. Time and money were commonly cited as obstacles to sustaining PBIS implementation in schools. Lack of administrator support. If the school principal does not view behavioral support as a top priority in the school, school-wide PBIS programs are unlikely to be sustained over time. With the current climate of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind, the
Removal of coaching and technical assistance. In one study, schools experienced a decline in PBIS after the removal of external technical expertise (Tyre, et al. 2010). As reliance on outside technical expertise becomes less feasible, an increase in internal school or district capacity and expertise is needed to sustain PBIS. In the absence of this local capacity, Minnesota should consider ways of strengthening regional capacity to provide technical expertise to PBIS schools that are out of training and trying to sustain PBIS. Other barriers. Other barriers to sustaining PBIS implementation include staff and administrator turnover and lack of staff buy-in. It is important to note that many of the barriers to sustaining PBIS implementation in schools are describing the opposite circumstances of the key factors in successfully sustaining PBIS implementation. Furthermore, some barriers are omnipresent and will always exist in schools (i.e. competing initiatives, turnover, lack of adequate resources), so to consider and address these within the narrower context of PBIS sustainability may not be appropriate or feasible. Instead, schools should focus on factors that contribute to PBIS sustainability.
Limitations of this study It is important to note that the majority of existing studies we reviewed focused on factors that sustain PBIS. These studies therefore utilized data from sustaining schools, and not from schools that have abandoned PBIS altogether or are implementing PBIS with partial fidelity. There appears to be a gap in the existing research regarding challenges schools may have sustaining PBIS. Further research on reasons why schools abandon PBIS is warranted to gain a full picture of barriers to sustainability.
Issues to consider Based on the literature, the Minnesota PBIS Statewide Leadership Team (SLT) should consider the following suggestions to help schools that are in and out of training sustain the PBIS program. Explore to what extent the two-year training sequence is helping to encourage and prepare schools for sustainability. The SLT, the RIPs, and PBIS trainers should consider their current training curriculums and what is being done to emphasize sustainability during the two-year training sequence. The RIPs could also provide concrete tools and examples to schools in training to prepare them for sustainability (if this is not already being done). Encouraging schools to create permanent products, such as procedural documents on how to use data, how to integrate PBIS into daily practices, team procedures, and others might be helpful for schools to prepare for sustaining PBIS in the long run without outside coaching and support. Encourage the use of the SUBSIST tool to help schools out of training to look at action planning in a new way. This tool has the potential to be helpful for schools to see how their PBIS program is faring over time, and specifically to pinpoint successes and areas for improvement. This tool should be use in addition to, rather than a replacement for, implementation fidelity measures such as the SET and the BoQ. Currently, the North Regional Implementation Partner (NRIP) makes this tool available for all of the PBIS schools in the North region of Minnesota, both at training and online. It may be worth it to include this tool at trainings in all regions and highlight it on the PBIS website or use it to reach out to schools that currently have inactive PBIS programs and are looking for guidance.
schools. It might be worth exploring additional funding options and other ways of support so RIPs are better equipped to provide training, coaching, and outreach to sustaining schools out of training. Also, more coherent guidance from the SLT and continuity across each region is needed in order for the RIPs to work more consistently and effectively with schools out of training. The sustainability training format should be different for schools that are already partially or fully sustaining PBIS – these school teams may need brief refreshers or access to information or connections to other schools that are dealing with the same specific issues. On the other hand, schools that completed the two-year training sequence and have since not really implemented PBIS at all and/or had complete turnover of their administrators and PBIS team may need more comprehensive training similar to the initial two-year sequence. Additional research should examine why schools abandon PBIS or do not implement with fidelity. This research would provide additional insight to the SLT on why schools choose to stop PBIS and how they could potentially be brought back to implementing PBIS, and ultimately improving the behavior outcomes and school climate in their schools. Additional research is also needed to illustrate concrete ways in which schools use data to inform their decisions – such as what data exactly do they use, and when, and how to use the data. This information should then be disseminated to schools through in-person training or in other formats (online).
Consider providing additional training, support, and technical assistance for schools out of training who are sustaining PBIS. Ongoing support may help to encourage schools to “re-join” or begin to submit data again after an absence from the program. Initial outreach may be needed for some schools that have been out of training for a while, especially those schools with a new administrator and/or significant turnover in their PBIS team. It is worth noting that the current Regional Implementation Project (RIP) grants do not cover training past the two-year training sequence for Page 9
Sustaining Exemplar schools The following table lists schools that were included in the data analysis for this case study, because they were invited to apply to become a Sustaining Exemplar School. The table also shows their region, their cohort, and the year(s) they were invited. School
* Indicates that the school was selected to be a Sustaining Exemplar school for the 2011-2012 school year and honored at the 2013 PBIS Summer Institute.
References Coffey, J., & Horner, R. (2012). The Sustainability of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., Foleno, T., & Foley, P. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game: Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. New York, NY: Public Agenda. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: Synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. George, M. P., White, G. P., & Schlaffer, J. J. (2007). Implementing school-wide behavior change: Lessons from the field. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 41–51. doi:10.1002/pits.20204
Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-0057646-2. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esparanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–144.Kincaid, D., Childs, K., Blase, K. A., & Wallace, F. (2007). Identifying Barriers and Facilitators in Implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,9(3), 174–184. Lohrmann, S., Forman, S., Martin, S., & Palmieri, M. (2008). Understanding school personnel’s resistance to adopting school-wide positive behavior support at a universal level of intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 256–269. doi:10.1177/1098300708318963 Mathews, S. (2011, August).The Role Of School Personnel Perceptions In Predicting Sustained Implementation Of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/132692/ubc_2011_fall_mathews_susanna.pdf Mathews, S., McIntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & May, S. L. (2013). Critical Features Predicting Sustained Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1098300713484065. doi:10.1177/1098300713484065 McIntosh, K. (2011, April).Sustaining PBIS: How it Works and How to Make it Happen. Retrieved from http://www.pbisnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/McIntosh-Sustainability-keynote.pdf Mcintosh, K., Mercer, S., Hume, A., Frank, J., Turri, M., & Mathews, S. (2013). Factors Related to Sustained Implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 293–311. McIntosh, K., Predy, L., Uprety, G., Hume, A., Turri, M., and Mathews, S. (2013). Perceptions of Contextual Features Related to Implementation and Sustainability of School-wide Positive Behavior Support. Journal of Positive Interventions, 16(1), 31-43. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing school-wide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307326). New York, NY: Springer. Tyre, A., Feuerborn, L., & Lilly, K. (2010). Planning for Sustainable Implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support: Lessons Learned from an Elementary School Case Example. ERS Spectrum, 28(3), 25–33.
For more information For more information about this report, contact Amanda J. Petersen at Wilder Research, 651-280-2741.
Information. Insight. Impact.
Authors: Amanda J. Petersen, M.P.P. and Nicole MartinRogers, Ph.D.
451 Lexington Parkway North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 651-280-2700