Simple Strategies for Reflecting on and Responding

N to Common Criticisms of PBIS

Allison Bruhn, Jay Gorsh, and Chloe Hannan Shanna Eisner Hirsch
Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa University of Virginia

N Schools implementing Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are often confronted with
concerns from a variety of educational stakeholders about school climate, teaching behavioral
expectations, the role of reinforcement, and labeling students.

N Administrators should be prepared to respond to these concerns with theoretical and empirical evidence.
And, they need tools for faculty to reflect upon and improve PBIS implementation.

N Effective PBIS implementation involves (a) positive social interactions between students, teachers, and
administrators; (b) behavioral expectations taught in a socially- and age-appropriate way; (c) a variety of
methods for reinforcing students for demonstrating positive behavior, and (d) teams using fidelity and
student-level data to drive instructional decisions.
N
A fter one year of implementing Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (PBIS), teachers and
administrators from Jonesville Middle School spent a week
claiming that the focus on rules promoted nothing but blind
compliance and student animosity toward teachers. Next,
Mr. Johnson described PBIS as demeaning and that it
in the summer attending a professional development assumes wrongly that all students need remedial instruction
training to improve their skills in implementing PBIS. They and prizes. He stated that teaching bathroom expectations is
returned from the training eager to implement their refined disrespectful to the students, especially middle school
skills at school. As part of their effort to improve PBIS students who already know how to use the bathroom. Dr.
implementation, they made plans to discuss with parents Gates then shared her concerns that PBIS may encourage
how PBIS was going after the first six weeks of school. materialism. After all, she didn’t want her children to behave
However, the teachers and administrators were met with only to receive a prize. She also worried that her kids were
animosity at the first Parent Teacher Association (PTA) going to be labeled as good kids or bad kids, or worse, green
meeting of the school year. Over one hundred parents and kids or red kids. For example, her nephews attended a school
community members attended. During the meeting, a group in a neighboring district that displayed kids’ names on
of parents voiced questions and concerns about PBIS. clothes pins attached to a red, yellow, or green paper.
Ms. Smith, a parent of three children who attend Ms. Smith concluded the forum by summarizing the
schools in the district and president of the PTA, was the parents’ concerns. They felt PBIS created a negative school
first person to raise a concern regarding PBIS. In her environment, and that it was demeaning, fostered
opinion, it seemed that educational practices such as PBIS materialism, and promoted labeling. Mrs. Ramirez, the
were small-minded, lacked a focus on intrinsic motivation, school principal, listened intently to these concerns. Before
and sucked the joy of learning from students. She even responding to the parents, she felt she needed more time to
compared PBIS to training a dog! examine the PBIS practices in her school. Although she was
Following Ms. Smith’s lead, Mr. Levine, Mr. Johnson, clear on the evidence supporting the practice, had been
and Dr. Gates—parents of students at Jonesville Middle pleased with the first year of implementation, and was
School—petitioned the school administrators to consider excited for teachers to demonstrate the skills they had
rescinding the PBIS program. Mr. Levine stated that he had learned over the summer; she wanted to make sure that
spoken with other parents who felt as though PBIS had faculty and staff in her building were implementing PBIS in
created a negative school environment over the course of a a consistent and proper way. Mrs. Ramirez decided it was
year or so. He went on to compare the school to prison time for some self-reflection and discussion with her team.1
1
This is a fictional scenario based on the authors’ multiple years of experience training and implementing PBIS in schools across the country, as well as
reading about and listening to criticisms from various stakeholders.

NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

13 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N
Because PBIS has its fair share of critics including
educational leaders who have vocalized opposition to
components of the PBIS framework and the federal
government’s involvement with the National
Technical Assistance Center for PBIS (Samuels, 2013),
as well as parents who have expressed concerns (Lane,
Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009), scenarios like the one at the
Jonesville PTA meeting are not uncommon. To help
administrators like Mrs. Ramirez, as well
as promote understanding amongst educational
stakeholders, we provide a historical framework
of schoolwide discipline, summarize evidence of
PBIS resulting in improved school outcomes, and most
importantly, provide resources and recommendations
that address common criticisms and support
implementation. The goal of this paper is not to
discuss parental buy-in, but rather, to equip
administrators and teachers with simple strategies and
resources that will help them to reflect on their current
practices and improve implementation. By making
sure PBIS is implemented accurately, consistently, and
ethically according to practices described in the
research base; we hope that administrators and
teachers will find themselves better prepared to
respond to stakeholders’ criticisms.
The Past and Present
It is difficult to analyze current behavioral policies
and practices in K-12 schools without first looking at
where we have been. Researchers in the field have
written about the failed reactive discipline policies of
the past (Mongan & Walker, 2012; Sugai & Horner,
2002), but the message about the importance of taking
a proactive approach to behavior has not reached all
educational stakeholders, such as those in the
Jonesville community.
..........................................
‘‘…data have shown no clear decreasing trends in
threats, injuries, and homicides in relation to the
enactment of zero-tolerance policies.’’ (Mongan &
Walker, [2012])
For many years, school discipline practices
consisted of reacting to existing behaviors by
administering consequences rather than preventing
future behaviors. These practices, which were
often the response to increases in school violence,
N 14
bullying, and truancy, included: increased campus
surveillance; an emphasis on rules and punishment;
establishment of zero-tolerance policies; exclusion of
students with disabilities and behavior problems; and
increased use of suspension and expulsion (Sugai &
Horner, 2002). Zero-tolerance policies often involve
mandatory suspension or expulsion for a variety of rule
violations associated with drugs, weapons, and
violence. These policies may be invoked without
differentiating between major and minor infractions,
may result in negative impacts disproportionately
affecting students with disabilities and from minority
backgrounds, and even increase dropout rates
(Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/
resources/factsheets/zt_fs.aspx). Further, Mongan and
Walker (2012) conducted a theoretical, empirical, and
legal analysis of zero-tolerance weapons policies and
determined they are ‘‘not empirically supported or
theoretically sound,’’ as data have shown no clear
decreasing trends in threats, injuries, and homicides in
relation to the enactment of zero-tolerance policies.
Whereas little research has been done to document the
effectiveness of these reactive practices, Sugai and
Horner (2002) noted several important findings to the
contrary: (1) for students with long, complex histories of
severe problem behavior, reactive ‘‘solutions’’ are likely
to exacerbate antisocial behavior; (2) in the absence of
positive and preventive approaches to behavior,
punishment and exclusion are ineffective; and (3)
although short-term reductions in problem behaviors
may occur, reactive discipline does not foster a positive
school climate; nor does it prevent antisocial behavior.
A proactive approach. In light of the
ineffectiveness of reactive discipline when used in
isolation, proactive strategies for managing student
behaviors were recommended by leading experts
and institutions, including the federal government.
For example, in 2001, a report from the Office of the
US Surgeon General recommended that to prevent
school violence, schools needed to create positive
school climates with an emphasis on prevention (US
Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
The federal government went further by including
language in the reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) to
prevent the exclusion of students with disabilities by
‘‘providing incentives for whole-school approaches,
scientifically based early reading programs, positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and early
intervening services to reduce the need to label
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
children as disabled in order to address the learning
and behavioral needs of such children.’’ As stated in
IDEA, this mandate was based on over 30 years of
research on the effectiveness of such approaches
to educate students with disabilities. These
recommendations for proactive approaches addressed
concerns of (a) the inequity of excluding students
with disabilities and behavioral problems from the
general education setting, (b) the need for effective
disciplinary practices to prevent school violence, and
(c) the increasing trend of teachers leaving the
profession due to student disciplinary issues.
Core features of PBIS. The calls for proactive
approaches to behavior represented a true shift in
thinking and have resulted in the proliferation of
multi-tiered prevention models like PBIS which use
a broad range of strategies to prevent problem
behaviors in an effort to maximize academic and social
outcomes (Sugai & Horner, 2002). PBIS utilizes a
multi-tiered, response-to-intervention (RTI)
framework rather than a manualized or packaged
curriculum, and it is characterized by graduated levels
of support based on student need (Sugai & Simonsen,
2012). Core features include using: problem-solving
methods to determine intervention support; evidence-
based practices; assessments for screening, diagnostic,
and progress-monitoring purposes; and multiple data
sources to drive decisions (Sugai & Horner, 2009).
These core features are evident in each level or tier of
service. Within Tier 1, schoolwide behavioral
expectations are modeled, taught, and reinforced in all
school settings to all students. Then, school-site teams
used various data sources (e.g., office discipline
referrals [ODRs]; systematic screeners, academic
assessments) to determine students for whom the Tier
1 plan has been ineffective and more targeted supports
are needed. These students may benefit from a Tier 2
intervention (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumman, 2008).
Tier 2 supports are designed to serve about 15% of the
school population, and thus, must be highly efficient.
Examples of Tier 2 interventions include the Behavior
Education Program (also known as Check-in/Check-
out; Crone, Hawken, & Horner, 2010; Hawken, 2006;
Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011), small-group social
skills instruction (e.g., Gresham & Elliott, 2008;
Gresham, Van, & Cook; 2006) and other targeted
interventions such as self-management strategies (e.g.,
Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009; Bruhn & Watt, 2012;
Chafouleas, Hagermoser-Sanetti, Jaffrey, & Fallon;
2012; Hirsch, Ennis, & McDaniel, 2014). Within Tier 2,
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
behavior is monitored more frequently and students
who are non-responsive (approximately 5%) may
be eligible for more intensive, individualized
interventions. Students who receive Tier 3 support
often have complex behavioral histories and have been
less amenable to Tier 1 and 2 interventions. In many
cases, Tier 3 interventions include function-based
support; that is, behavioral interventions focused on
conditions that reduce problem behaviors and increase
pro-social behaviors (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,
2007). Central to PBIS is an emphasis on
implementation fidelity and a team-based, problem-
solving approach for making decisions within and
across tiers (Gresham, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2009).
Purpose. Although PBIS is grounded in sound
behavioral principles and there is research on its
effectiveness, concerns about PBIS like those expressed
by Jonesville parents and others exist. Like in many
areas of life, concerns about policies and practices often
arise due to lack of information or miscommunication,
which may lead to misconceptions. In this digitally-
connected world in which tweets, posts, and blogs can
turn misconceptions into movements with just one
click; it is important that truthful, scientifically-based
information be available—especially when the critical
issue is how to best educate our children, including
those with disabilities. To meet this call, in the
remaining text, we address four concerns about PBIS
from the introductory vignette by discussing the
research base and offering recommendations for
practitioners that support implementation and mitigate
concerns. Concerns include: 1) PBIS creates a negative
school environment, 2) PBIS is demeaning, 3) PBIS
fosters materialism, and 4) PBIS promotes labeling.
Prior to addressing these, we offer a quick ‘‘self-check.’’
The purpose of the self-check is to help PBIS teams,
administrators, and teachers reflect quickly and
objectively on PBIS implementation at their schools. It
may be completed individually, in teams, or as a whole
faculty. This self-check can be an easy source of
information to stimulate faculty discussions and
promote positive action steps toward sound, sustained
implementation. It will also help guide further reading
of this article, as each self-check question addresses the
four aforementioned concerns or misconceptions.
School Climate
Although Mr. Levine noted his concern about school
turning into a prison-like atmosphere, research has
15 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N
shown PBIS does not create a culture of fear where
students are afraid to misbehave. Rather, a negative
culture may be created when schools rely solely on
traditional reactive disciplinary systems such as
zero-tolerance policies, surveillance cameras, and
suspension/expulsion (Sugai & Horner, 2002). In the
absence of (a) transparency about how adults expect
students to act, and (b) clear expectations that have
been taught, modeled, and reinforced; simply put,
reactive discipline is ineffective. Inappropriate and
unsafe behaviors often are associated with rules,
expectations, and consequences that are unclear to
students (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). For students to
maximize learning opportunities, they must feel safe
in their schools and trust the people around them.
A secure learning environment is ensured when
students do not need to guess whether their behavior
is acceptable, nor do they have to live in fear of
bullying or school violence. Students are more likely to
engage in learning and less apt to engage in negative
behaviors when the school environment is predictable,
consistent, positive, and safe (Horner et al., 2009).
Further, students feel secure in school when they
believe their peers will behave safely and positively
(Horner et al., 2009), which is the crux of PBIS.
..........................................
Students are more likely to engage in learning and
less apt to engage in negative behaviors when the
school environment is predictable, consistent,
positive, and safe (Horner et al., 2009).
Researchers have demonstrated evidence that PBIS
nurtures positive school climates rather than negative
ones (e.g., Bradshaw, Koth, Behvans, Ialongo, & Leaf,
2008; Horner et al., 2009; Ross, Romer, & Horner,
2012). In a randomized, wait-list control trial of the
effects of PBIS on elementary schools in Hawaii and
Illinois, Horner and colleagues (2009) reported on
student outcomes and perceptions of the school
environment. They found that schools implementing
PBIS perceived their environments to be significantly
safer than those not implementing PBIS. These data
were based on the School Safety Survey (Sprague,
Colvin, & Irvin, 1996) examining perceptions about
school space, student-teacher interactions, adult
supervision, behavioral expectations, and student
participation and perception, among other things.
Results also indicated improved reading performance
N 16
as well as low discipline referral (ODR) rates.
Although we must be cautious in interpreting results,
these findings suggest that when schools improve
their social culture and behavioral supports, they also
may be able to improve student academic and
behavioral outcomes (Horner et al., 2009).
Part of improving school culture, and in turn
student outcomes, involves improving teacher morale
and student-adult interactions (Ross et al., 2012). In
PBIS schools, students are acknowledged for meeting
school-wide expectations. These interactions can be
positively reinforcing for both students and teachers
(McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010). This
differs from traditional approaches of the past in
which students might be acknowledged only when
they do not meet expectations. Ross and colleagues
(2012) found that in schools implementing PBIS,
teachers had significantly higher levels of self-efficacy,
lower levels of burnout, and improved positive
interactions with students. The implication is that if
teacher well-being and student-teacher interactions
improve, then there may be potential for improved
student outcomes, which is the ultimate goal of any
student-centered school initiative like PBIS.
To ensure PBIS is actually creating a positive
school environment with clear and consistent
expectations, not only do we recommend doing an
informal self-check (see Figure 1), we recommend
a more formal assessment of fidelity. Measuring
implementation fidelity is important to (a) making
sure the plan is being implemented as intended,
(b) drawing accurate conclusions about student
responsiveness, and (c) allocating resources for
professional development and student interventions
(Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2013). For example, if the plan
is not being well implemented, resources may need to
be provided for supporting improved faculty and staff
development. Or, if the plan is being implemented
accurately, students who are still struggling may be
provided more targeted support. Fortunately, there
are several reliable and valid tools available to
measure PBIS implementation, as provided in Table 1
(Bruhn, 2011). These tools can help schools evaluate
their strengths and weaknesses in implementing PBIS,
and in turn, help guide action planning.
Behavioral Expectations
For parents who have spent extensive time teaching
their children about socially appropriate behavior, it
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
Figure 1. Quick self-check.
Note: If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no,’ the leadership team should consider brainstorming and implementing corrective action steps.
is not surprising to hear concerns like those of
Mr. Johnson who believed teaching students
bathroom expectations was demeaning. But even
parents of students who have been less involved
in modeling and teaching behavioral skills may
share these same concerns. Regardless, we know
that parents and communities serve as models to
children (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). When children
are exposed to models acting in negative and anti-
social ways, they are more likely to engage in
similar anti-social behavior and even participate
in criminal activity (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). Whereas
some students have positive, appropriate models
in their families and communities, other students
may not be afforded such opportunities. Given
success in school and beyond is associated with
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
having strong examples of socially-appropriate
behavior, (Lewis & Sugai, 1999), it is imperative that
every student, regardless of ability, gender, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, learning history, and home life,
is provided with adequate social and behavioral
supports. When PBIS schools consider these variables
that affect students’ social and academic behaviors
and then adjust practices accordingly,
implementation may be more culturally and
contextually relevant, and likely more effective in
obtaining positive student outcomes (Sugai, O’Keeffe,
& Fallon, 2012). Additionally, many core PBIS
strategies such as explicit teaching of social skills and
behavioral expectations are considered culturally
responsive for managing behavior (Fallon, O’Keeffe,
& Sugai, 2012).
17 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N

Table 1: Treatment fidelity assessments for PBIS

Assessment tool Method of measurement Perspective Unit of analysis Evidence of reliability

School-wide Evaluation Interviews, Direct External assessor, School Cronbach’s alpha 5 .84 to .96,
Tool (SET) Observation, Review of Interviews of Test-retest reliability 5
materials administrator, randomly 97.3%,
selected teachers and
students
Team Implementation Self-report Leadership team School Cronbach’s alpha 5 .93, low
Checklist (TIC) (r 5.08) to high (r 5.75)
correlations with SET
Benchmarks of Quality Self-report Leadership team School Cronbach’s alpha 5 .96, Test-
(BoQ) retest r5 .94 (p , .01),
moderate correlation (r 5
.51; p , .05) with SET
Self-Assessment and Self-report Leadership team School Cronbach’s alpha 5 .96, 71%
Program Review (SAPR) agreement between SET and
SAPR subscales above 80%
Implementation Phases Self-report PBIS coaches who are School Cronbach’s alpha 5 .94, Test-
Inventory (IPI) liaisons between school retest r 5 .80 (p # .01)
and district
Source. Bruhn, A. L. (2011). Measuring primary plan treatment integrity of comprehensive, integrated three-tiered prevention models.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

In PBIS schools, teachers take the same
instructional approach to behavior as they do with
academics (Lane et al., 2009). For example, third-grade
math teachers do not expect their students to show up
on the first day of school understanding fractions. It is
not assumed the students were taught fractions at
home. Rather, the teachers spend time teaching
students about fractions. They give the students
opportunities to practice fractions and provide
corrective feedback. And, they provide reinforcement
for accurately completing fraction assignments. In
other words, teachers take an instructional approach
to fractions. This instructional approach of teaching,
practicing, providing feedback, and reinforcing is not
specific to teaching third-grade math—it occurs across
all grades and all content areas. Clearly, if students do
not know how to read a book, write a story, compute a
math problem, play an instrument, or throw a ball;
beginning of each school year and then intermittently
throughout the year, students are taught exactly
what it is expected of them. Students are not left
wondering whether or not they can run in the
hallway, chew gum in class, or speak without raising
a hand. Instead these expectations are communicated
to every student in every setting of the building.
Reducing ambiguity provides students a clear picture
of how to be successful in school, and it provides
the safe and consistent environment necessary
to maximize learning. In this way, all students
regardless of need and regardless of what they may
or may not have been taught at home are delivered
universal standards for behavior. By making sure all
students are aware of and have had the opportunity
to practice meeting expectations, decisions can be
made about who truly needs remediation in behavior
and social skills (Lane et al., 2009).

.......................................... ..........................................
then we teach them rather than reprimand them.

By making sure all students are aware of and have had

In PBIS schools, teachers take the same instructional the opportunity to practice meeting expectations,
approach to behavior as they do with academics decisions can be made about who truly needs
(Lane et al., 2009). remediation in behavior and social skills (Lane et al., 2009).

The same pedagogy can be applied to behavior Again, we encourage schools to reflect on their
and social skills. In schools implementing PBIS, at the current practices to make sure (a) adults in the

N
N 18 Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
Table 2: Recommended resources for PBIS
Type Resources
Articles Brandt, R. C., Chitiyo, M., & May, M. E. (2012). Measures
used in assessing outcomes of school-wide positive
behaviour support. Journal of Research in Special
Education Needs, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01260
Handler, M. W., Rey, J., Connell, J., Thier, K., Feinberg,
A., & Putnam, R. (2007). Practical considerations in
creating school-wide positive behavior support in public
schools. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 29–39.
Kennedy, M. J. & Swain-Bradway, J. (2012). Rationale and
recommended practices for using homegrown video to
support school-wide positive behavioral interventions
and supports, Beyond Behavior, 21, 20–28.
Muscott, H. S., Szczesiul, S., Berk, B., Staub, K., Hoober, J.,
& Perry-Chisoholm, P. (2008). Creating home partnerships
by engaging families in school-wide positive behavior
supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 6–14.
Strain, P. S. & Jospeh, G. E. (2004). A not so good job with
‘‘good job’’: A response to Kohn 2001. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 6, 55–59.
Books Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Menzies, H. M. (2009).
Developing school-wide programs to prevent and
manage problem behaviors: A step-by-step approach.
New York: Guilford Press.
Young, E. L., Calderella, P., Richardson, M. J., & Young, R. K.
(2011). Positive behavior support in secondary schools: A
practical guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Websites Association for Positive Behavior Support: http://apbs.org
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports: http://www.pbis.org/
building are modeling positive behavior, and (b) the
way students are taught expectations is socially- and
age-appropriate. One strategy for teaching school-
wide expectations to elementary students is to have
them participate in a school-wide ‘‘passport’’ activity.
First, all students are given a ‘‘passport.’’ Then, each
classroom of students visits a specific school setting
(e.g., bathroom) and receives explicit instructions
on expectation for that specific setting. Teachers
model and explain examples and non-examples of
appropriate behavior in that setting and then give all
students opportunities to practice meeting the
expectations. Upon demonstrating mastery, the
students’ passports are stamped and they rotate to
the next setting. By the end of the week, all of the
students will have visited each school setting and a
school-wide assembly is held. During the assembly,
teachers review each setting and students can enter
their passports into a raffle for a prize. At the middle
or high school level, students may work in groups to
develop their own videos that describe each setting’s
expectations. These videos can be aired on the school’s
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
Description
Describes multiple outcome measures that can be used to
evaluate the efficacy of PBIS. Strengths and weaknesses are
shared.
Discusses practical and systemic factors to examine as schools
prepare to implement school-wide PBIS.
An overview of homegrown video that includes a ‘‘how-to’’
guide to creating successful videos for PBIS.
Discusses specific family engagement strategies.
Provides evidence and rationale on the practice of using
positive reinforcement.
Explains designing, implementing, and evaluating school-
wide primary prevention programs across the K-12 setting.
Step-by-step guide to planning, implementing, evaluating,
and sustaining school-wide PBIS at the secondary level.
Professional organization for PBIS that provides information
on evidence-based practices and professional development
Contains information on home, school, and community PBIS
implementation, training, research, and evaluation.
television network after morning announcements
(Kennedy & Swain-Bradway, 2012). Several resources
for teaching and modeling expectations, including the
use of homegrown videos (Kennedy & Swain-
Bradway, 2012) and school-wide assemblies (Lane
et al., 2009), are identified in Table 2.
Reinforcement
Addressing the issue of materialism, as introduced by
Dr. Gates, requires a broader look at the role of
reinforcement and feedback. Not only must students
be taught expectations and have opportunities to
practice meeting them, they must be provided
feedback about their performance. Often, the
importance of feedback has been examined in terms
of how it affects academic outcomes. For example,
Hattie’s (2009) formative work on learning showed
feedback to be the most powerful influence on
student achievement. However, feedback in the form
of correction, instruction, or specific praise, is not
limited to academic performance. Feedback is equally
19 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N
Figure 2. Tangible vs. non-tangible reinforcers.
important for shaping social and behavioral skills.
Teachers can model and teach socially appropriate
behaviors all day long, but the bottom line is,
students will behave in ways that are most
reinforcing to them (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee,
1997). Therefore, it is imperative that faculty and staff
reinforce the behaviors most likely to result in
success, and they can do that through feedback like
behavior specific praise.
Specific praise (and corrective feedback, if
needed) is a proactive method for increasing the
likelihood of prosocial behavior and is an integral
form of reinforcement in PBIS models. Although Dr.
Gates expressed concern the use of rewards may
decrease intrinsic motivation to behave, research has
indicated positive feedback and praise can actually
increase intrinsic motivation by improving feelings of
self-efficacy (Cameron & Pierce, 1994). This makes
sense when considering the seminal work of White
(1959) who demonstrated that improved self-efficacy
from achieving new competencies becomes self-
reinforcing. As students are praised for exhibiting
positive behaviors, they develop feelings that they
can, in fact, meet behavioral expectations, and thus,
they are more likely to exhibit positive behaviors in
the future.
..........................................
Teachers can model and teach socially appropriate
behaviors all day long, but the bottom line is,
students will behave in ways that are most
reinforcing to them (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee,
1997).
N 20
Praise, however, is not the only reinforcement
provided in PBIS models. Certainly, there is greater
concern about reinforcement provided through
tangible items, as mentioned by Dr. Gates. In any
PBIS model, schools must consider what students
want to obtain and what they want to avoid (i.e.,
behavioral function). What is reinforcing to one
student may have little value to another student. In
our experience working in PBIS schools, we learned
the importance of considering both student
preferences as well as community values. For
example, the school community of faculty, staff,
parents, and students may not value tangible items
such as candy, pencils, or toys. And, a student who
has regular access to tangible items may find them to
be of little value, whereas a student who is not
regularly afforded those items may find them highly
reinforcing. Non-tangible rewards like a free
homework pass, lunch with a teacher, or classroom
helper are other options for reinforcing positive
behaviors (e.g., Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn, Mahoney, &
Driscoll, 2008). Similar to tangible rewards,
preferences amongst students and school
communities for non-tangible rewards vary (see
Figure 2). For example, a student who thrives on
teacher attention may find lunch with the teacher or
being a classroom helper much more rewarding
than a student who has had negative classroom
experiences and wants to avoid teacher attention.
When schools consider behavioral function and are
conscious of the concerns with and preferences for
certain rewards, then a range of options addressing
access and avoidance of non-tangibles (e.g., social
attention, activities), tangibles, and sensory input
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
may be used as effective reinforcers (Lane et al., 2008;
Lane et al., 2009).
..........................................
…once students experience success, that success
becomes self-reinforcing, which means students are
less likely to need extrinsic rewards like praise or
tangibles in the future.
Regardless of the type or frequency of
reinforcement in PBIS models, it is critical to
understand that some students who have
experienced repeated reprimands and failures in
school may lack intrinsic motivation, particularly if
they attribute their success (or lack thereof) to
external factors beyond their control (De Castella,
Byrne, & Covington, 2013; Pressley & McCormick,
1995). Similarly, some students may not have certain
skills in their behavioral repertoires. In both cases,
providing extrinsic rewards may be needed to
promote demonstration of socially appropriate
behaviors, as well as to help students understand and
internalize rules or values (Stipek, 1993). When
rewards are used correctly, that is, they are used as an
outward recognition of some performance standard
and faded to shift the focus to the intrinsic value of
prosocial behavior, they can be a very powerful and
meaningful influence on behavior, and in turn,
learning. The goal is that once students experience
success, that success becomes self-reinforcing, which
means students are less likely to need extrinsic
rewards like praise or tangibles in the future. In other
words, success breeds success!
Data-Driven Supports
A final concern from the introductory scenario was
that PBIS promotes the labeling of students. By
federal law (i.e., IDEA, 2004), in order for a student
to receive special education services, the student
must meet criteria for one or more disabilities.
Unfortunately, special education labels often have
stigmas attached to the disability. Consequently,
advocates have promoted ‘‘people-first’’ language
and worked to eliminate the ‘‘disability-first’’
perception that often leads to harmful stigmas
(Russell, 2008). Although labels serve a functional
purpose for (a) planning and providing support
services, (b) differentiating services and instructional
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
methods for students, and (c) offering service
providers a means to efficiently communicate, there
are obvious drawbacks to labeling students. For
example, assumptions may be made that students
with the same label are somehow the same, thus
masking individual differences that should be
recognized within and between students. When
people misuse labels by attaching stigmas, students
may alter their perceptions of their learning potential
(Hunt & Marshall, 2012). Further, when anti-social
behavior becomes engrained and students have a
negative self-perception, this can lead to repeated
school failure that necessitates formal labeling
(Kagan, 1990).
..........................................
When people misuse labels by attaching stigmas,
students may alter their perceptions of their
learning potential (Hunt & Marshall, 2012).
One objective of RTI frameworks like PBIS is to
prevent problems from becoming so severe they
necessitate formal labeling via special education
services. To this end, school teams use data to identify
deficits early and provide subsequent supports.
Common data sources include attendance rates,
suspensions, expulsions, grades, office discipline
referrals (ODRs), and systematic screeners. Perhaps
the most common behavioral data used are ODRs,
which are records of student misbehavior that
frequently document information about when, where,
and with whom the behavior occurred; the
topography of the behavior; and the possible
motivation for behavior. Generally, ODRs are
collected as part of regular school administrative
procedures. More recently, schools have implemented
universal screeners in which all students, regardless of
risk, are rated using reliable and valid assessment tools
(Bruhn, Woods-Groves, & Huddle, 2013). Similar to
benchmark reading and math assessments, every
student in the building is assessed by a teacher(s) to
determine if they are at risk for or exhibiting
significant emotional or behavioral problems, thus
making all of them eligible for support and decreasing
the chances of a false negative (Lane, Menzies,
Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012; Levitt, Saka, Romanelli,
& Hoagwood, 2007). There are multiple
psychometrically-sound screening tools such as the
Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders (Walker &
21 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N
Table 3: Comparison of office discipline referrals and school-wide behavior screening
Office discipline referrals
N 0 to1 5 responsive, 2 to 5 5 at risk, 6 or more 5 high risk,
must wait for student to accumulate a certain number prior
to intervening
N Schools generally collect ODR data as a matter of practice
making data easy to access
N Free
N Concerns about variability between teachers (e.g., what
constitutes an ODR in one class may be different from
another)
N Accurate identification of students with externalizing
behaviors, but may fail to identify students with
internalizing issues
Note. (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2013; Bruhn, Woods-Groves, & Huddle, 2013; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)
Severson, 1992), the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997), and the BASC-2
Behavioral and Emotional Screening System
(Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). Both methods have
benefits and drawbacks (see Table 3) that should be
considered carefully as PBIS teams determine which
data to use for monitoring responsiveness (Lane et al.,
2012). Regardless, we encourage school leadership to
use multiple pieces of student data—including
academic data—to inform intervention decisions
(Bruhn et al., 2013).
..........................................
…12% of school-age children have one or more
emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) at a particular
point in time (i.e., point prevalence), and yet, fewer
than 1% have problems severe enough to warrant
special education services under the emotional
disturbance label (Forness, Kim, & Walker, 2012).
Using student data for early identification allows
school personnel to then focus on reducing and
reversing problem behavior through targeted and
intensive interventions. Through this problem-solving
system of early identification and subsequent support,
schools can make sure all students’ needs are addressed
and only those students needing special education
services receive them. This is particularly important
given approximately 12% of school-age children have
one or more emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) at
a particular point in time (i.e., point prevalence), and
yet, fewer than 1% have problems severe enough to
warrant special education services under the emotional
N 22
School-wide Behavior Screening
N May be completed early in the school year and have the ability to
predict end of the year academic and behavioral outcomes
N Multiple tools available with strong psychometric properties that
allow for accurate identification of students with both externalizing
and internalizing behaviors
N Some are free, others are available for a cost
N Concerns about time to complete and score
N Many schools across the country are unaware of available screening
tools and their benefits
disturbance label (Forness, Kim, & Walker, 2012). In
light of this service gap, social and behavioral supports
may be provided within the context of general
education, particularly in PBIS models.
In PBIS, the support provided to help students
experience success is offered on a continuum, which
uses colors (red, yellow, and green) to define the levels
of support available to students. These colors are
indicators of levels of support and are not intended to
be used as labels for groups of students (e.g. red
student, kids in the yellow). When applied correctly,
the colors serve as an indication of (a) the percent of
students needing a certain level of supports, and (b) the
type (e.g. general, targeted instruction; highly
individualized intervention) of support available. PBIS,
like any program instituted through wide-scale
implementation, has the potential to be misapplied or
implemented with a lack of fidelity (Sugai & Horner,
2009). For example, teachers may refer to student as
‘‘yellow kids or red kids,’’ or colorful cards may be
used to publicly indicate levels of compliance, as this
was one of Dr. Gates worries. These oral and visual
statements not only go against the person-centered
principles of PBIS; they can easily be picked up on and
perpetuated by students, which may lead to
unintended, informal labeling of students. Again, this
is not the intention of PBIS. Schools implementing PBIS
must be careful to avoid labeling students informally as
red, yellow, or green. And, they must use their data to
provide students the level of support necessary for
success in an effort to prevent future formal labeling.
In addition to academic and behavioral data
needed to make these decisions, fidelity data are also
important. Although behavioral data such as the
number of ODRs a student has received over a period
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
Figure 3. Treatment Fidelity Model for Intervention.
of time may indicate the student is eligible for a Tier 2
or Tier 3 intervention, that decision can be made
accurately only when it is known if the student had
sufficient exposure to the Tier 1 plan. Figure 3 offers a
model schools can use for interpreting student’s
response to intervention in conjunction with
treatment fidelity data. This model suggests using
student level data to first determine student
responsiveness to intervention. For example, ODRs
and reading assessment scores may indicate the
student, Oscar, is not responsive to a Tier 2 reading
intervention. But this is not the whole picture. If
Oscar is not receiving sufficient exposure to the
intervention because it is not being implemented with
fidelity, as indicated by fidelity data (e.g., a checklist
of implementation procedures), then Oscar may not
need Tier 3 support or further assessment. Rather, the
teacher or interventionist may need to be retrained in
how to deliver intervention accurately. Conversely, if
fidelity data indicate Oscar had the opportunity to
experience and benefit from the intervention, then
Oscar may need to be referred to a student support
team for further assessment and evaluation.
Final Thoughts
As schools embrace the proactive PBIS framework,
they might encounter criticisms similar to the ones at
Jonesville Middle School. In the fictional scenario, a
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
small cohort of apprehensive parents from the PTA
prompted the principal, Mrs. Ramirez, to reflect on
implementation with her faculty and staff. Prior to
responding to the criticisms, Mrs. Ramirez first needed
to ensure her faculty was delivering PBIS in a way that
accurately reflected research-based practice. In this
article, we provided a tool for reflection using the
‘‘Quick Self-Check’’ (Figure 1) based on these
concerns. We also provided a broad overview of
theoretical and empirical evidence surrounding
these concerns. Finally, we offered simple
recommendations, resources, and strategies to support
implementation, which focused on data, teaching, and
reinforcement. Ultimately, when PBIS is implemented
with fidelity through positive interactions, teaching
and reinforcing of expectations, and data-driven
supports, it is more likely that students’ academic and
behavioral needs will be met. As these goals are
realized through sound, sustained implementation;
administrators and teachers likely will find themselves
equipped to address concerns that may arise.
References
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., &
Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the
organizational health of elementary schools. School
Psychology Quarterly, 4, 462–473. DOI:10.1037/a0012883
23 N
 Reflecting on PBIS
N N
Briesch, A.M., & Chafouleas, S.M. (2009). Review and
analysis of literature on self-management interventions
to promote appropriate classroom behaviors (1988–
2008). School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 106–118.
Bruhn, A.L. (2011). Measuring primary plan treatment
integrity of comprehensive, integrated three-tiered
prevention models. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Bruhn, A.L., Lane, K.L., & Hirsch, S.E. (2013). A review of
Tier 2 interventions conducted within multi-tiered
models of behavioral prevention. Journal of Emotional
Behavior Disorders. Advance online publication.
DOI:10.1177/1063426613476092
Bruhn, A.L., & Watt, S. (2012). Improving behavior by using
multi-component self-monitoring within a targeted
reading intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 38, 3–17.
Bruhn, A.L., Woods-Groves, S., & Huddle, S. (2013). A
preliminary investigation of emotional and behavioral
screening practices in K-12 schools. Manuscript in review.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W.D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward,
and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 363–423. DOI:10.3102/
00346543064003363
Chafouleas, S.M., Hagermoser-Sanetti, L.M., Jaffery, R., &
Fallon, L.M. (2012). An evaluation of a classwide
intervention package involving self-management and a
group contingency on classroom behavior of middle
school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 34–57.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R., & Lee, Y. (1997). Effect of
active supervision and precorrection on transition
behaviors of elementary students. School Psychology
Quarterly, 12, 344–363. DOI: 10.1037/h0088967
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2007). Applied
Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Crone, D.A., Hawken, L.S., & Horner, R.H. (2010).
Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior
education program (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013).
Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural
study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and
student disengagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(3), 861–880. doi:10.1037/a0032464
Fallon, L.M., O’Keeffe, B.V., & Sugai, G. (2012).
Considerations of culture and context in school-wide
positive behavior support: A review of current
literature. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14,
209–219. DOI: 10.1177/1098300712442242
Forness, S.R., Kim, J., & Walker, H.M. (2012). Prevalence of
students with EBD: Impact on general education.
Beyond Behavior, 21, 3–9.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38,
581–586.
N 24
Gresham, F.M. (2005). Response to intervention: An
alternative means of identifying students as
emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of
Children, 28, 328–344.
Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (2008). Social Skills
Improvement System. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Gresham, F.M., Van, M.B., & Cook, C.R. (2006). Social skills
training for teaching replacement behaviors:
remediating acquisition deficits in at risk students.
Behavioral Disorders, 32, 363–377.
Hattie, J.A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Hawken, L.S. (2006). School psychologists as leaders in the
implementation of a targeted intervention: The
behavior education program. School Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 91–111. doi.org/10.1521/
scpq.2006.21.1.91
Hawken, L.S., Vincent, C.G., & Schumann, J. (2008).
Response to intervention for social behavior:
Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213–225. DOI:10.1177/
1063426608316018
Hirsch, S.E., Ennis, R.P., & McDaniel, S.C. (2014). Student
self-graphing as a strategy to increase teacher
effectiveness and student motivation. Beyond Behavior,
22(3), 31–39.
Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L.,
Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A
randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial
assessing school-wide positive behavior support in
elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 11, 133–145. DOI:10.1177/
1098300709332067
Hunt, N., & Marshall, K. (2012). Exceptional children and
youth (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
20 U.S.C. 1 1400 (2004).
Kagan, Dona. M. (1990). How high schools alienate
students at risk: A model for examining proximal
classroom variables. Educational Psychologist, 25,
105–125. DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep2502_1
Kamphaus, R.W., & Reynolds, C.R. (2007). BASC 2,
Behavioral and Emotional Screening System. San Antonio,
TX: Pearson.
Kennedy, M.J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2012). Rationale and
recommended practices for using homegrown video to
support school-wide positive behavioral interventions
and supports, Beyond Behavior, 21, 20–28.
Lane, K.L., Kalberg, J.R., Bruhn, A.L., Mahoney, M.E., &
Driscoll, S.A. (2008). Primary prevention programs at the
elementary level: Issues of treatment integrity, systematic
screening, and reinforcement. Education and Treatment of
Children, 31, 465–494. DOI:10.1353/etc.0.0033
N
Journal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014

N N
Lane, K.L., Kalberg, J.R., & Menzies, H. (2009). Designing
school-wide programs to prevent and manage problem
behaviors: A step-by-step approach. New York, N.Y.:
Guilford Press.
Lane, K.L., Menzies, H.M., Oakes, W.P., & Kalberg, J.R.
(2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support
instruction: From preschool to high school. New York:
Guilford Press.
Lewis, T.J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support:
A systems approach to proactive school-wide
management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24.
Levitt, J.M., Saka, N., Romanelli, L.H., & Hoagwood, K.
(2007). Early identification of mental health problems
in schools: The status of instrumentation. Journal of
School Psychology, 45, 163–191.
McIntosh, K., Filter, K.J., Bennett, J.L., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G.
(2010). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing
scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to
promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47,
5–21.
Mongan, P., & Walker, R. (2012). ‘‘The road to hell is paved
with good intentions’’: A historical, theoretical, and
legal analysis of zero-tolerance weapons policies in
American schools. Preventing School Failure, 56,
232–240. DOI: 10.1080/1045988.2011.654366
National Association of School Psychologists. (2001). Zero
tolerance and alternative strategies: A fact sheet for
educators and policymakers. Retrieved from: http://
www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/zt_fs.aspx.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Advanced educational
psychology: For educators, researchers, and policymakers.
New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Ross, S.W., Romer, N., & Horner, R.H. (2011). Teacher
well-being and the implementation of school-wide
positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 118–128. DOI:
10.1177/1098300711413820
Russell, C.L. (2008). How are your person first skills? A self-
assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 40–43.
Samuels, C. (2013). Tensions accompany growth of PBIS
discipline model. Education Week, 33(2). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/08/28/
2pbis_ep.h33.html?tkn5MXSFjEF1GDncAJbQRe%2
BunOp7w1LMIFJcJWmQ&cmp5ENL-EU-
NEWS1&intc5es
Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D.E. (2011). Comparing
a behavioral check-in/check-out (CICO) intervention
to standard practice in an urban middle school setting
using an experimental group design. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 13, 31–48. doi.org/10.1177/
1098300709359026
Sprague, J., Colvin, G., & Irvin, L. (1996). The Oregon School
Safety Survey. Eugene: University of Oregon.
Stipek, D. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
NJournal of Special Education Leadership 27(1) N March 2014
Reflecting on PBIS
Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2002). The evolution of discipline
practices: School-wide positive behavior supports.
Behavior Psychology in the Schools, 24, 23–50.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-
intervention and school-wide positive behavior
supports: Integration of multi-tiered system
approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237. DOI: 10.1080/
09362830903235375
Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B.V., & Fallon, L.M. (2012). A
contextual consideration of culture and school-wide
positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 14, 197–208. DOI: 10.1177/
1098300711426334
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports: History, defining features,
and misconceptions. Retrieved from http://www.
pbis.org/common/pbisresources/publications/
PBIS_revisited_June19r_2012.pdf.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2001).
Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general.
Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General.
Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic screening
for behavior disorders (SSBD): User’s guide and
administration manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept
of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. DOI:
10.1037/h0040934
About the Authors
Allison Bruhn is an assistant professor of Special
Education at The University of Iowa. She teaches
undergraduate and graduate courses on social and
behavioral interventions, University of Iowa,
Department of Teaching and Learning, N252
Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Email: Allison-bruhn@uiowa.edu
Shanna Eisner Hirsch is a doctoral student at the
University of Virginia majoring in Special Education.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904.
Email: Shanna.hirsch@virginia.edu
Jay Gorsh is a doctoral student at The University of
Iowa majoring in Special Education with a cognate in
Policy and Leadership Studies. University of Iowa,
714 N Linn St Apt A, Iowa City, IA 52245.
Email: Jay-gorsh@uiowa.edu
Chloe Hannan is an undergraduate student at The
University of Iowa majoring in Elementary Education
with a specialization in Special Education and
minoring in Spanish. University of Iowa, Iowa City,
IA 52245. Email: Chloe-hannan@uiowa.edu
25 N
Copyright of Journal of Special Education Leadership is the property of Council of
Administrators of Special Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.