School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is a framework based on several tiers tailored to assist learners to develop positive behavior. The program is currently implemented in different levels in schools such as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Each tier is designed to meet specific behavioral goals, which implies that the complexity of the interventions increases with the advancement of the tiers (Cressey et al., 2014). The implementation of the school-wide program is the most common approach in most learning institutions, especially at the early stages. Instructors are generally required to teach and support a culture that encourages positive behavioral expectations (Cressey et al., 2014). The use of a reward system, setting consequences, outlining the diversity of instruction, and using data to determine key metrics are some of the common methods and practices adopted in schools to foster generalized behavior support (Goodman-Scott et al., 2015). This excerpt focuses on a review of the role of school counselors as coaches for teachers on the implementation of PBIS as well as how SWPBIS becomes more solution-focused for at-risk students. The review also examines how solution-focused results are analyzed and interpreted to understand the changes achieved.
School Counselors as Coaches for Teachers on Implementation of PBIS
Different scholars have examined the contribution of school counselors towards the effectiveness of PBIS in schools. The current theoretical perspective shows that PBIS is effective when implemented from a team approach that includes counselors, principle, teachers, and parents. According to Cressey et al. (2014), school counselors have extensive knowledge and skills based on the nature of the professional training they undergo. In this case, they are aware of how data about student behavior could be used to inform the interventions to improve the process of behavioral change. For Goodman-Scott (2014), school counselors play a central role in PBIS implementations by being part of the systematic change that is required to achieve the multitiered behavioral targets in schools. The practitioners offer guidance and knowledge regarding the possible approaches to the development of a supportive environment that fosters positive behavior among learners and other parties in a school setting. The findings by Goodman-Scott et al. (2015) showed that school counseling could be integrated with PBIS programs where teachers and the counseling professionals work together to achieve the expected goals. Over the years, school counseling has been used to develop behavioral changes initiatives for the teacher, students, and other school professionals to create a safe and secure learning environment. Such a move, according to Goodman-Scott et al. (2015), enhances the student outcomes in the long-run. Hatch (2013) argued that the need to incorporate the dimension of cultural diversity calls for a collaborative approach to the implementation of PBIS in schools where parties such as the school counselors could work closely with teachers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Galassi and Akos (2012) postulated that the skills of counselors could be used to reinforce the efforts of teachers when implementing PBIS interventions. Successful implementation of PBIS is a key concern in schools; however, Galassi and Akos (2012) argued that the skills of school counselors is essential and could be used to mitigate the challenges that impede successful PBIS implementations. In line with the initiative geared towards creating safe and successful schools through structural improvement, school counselors are considered as the firm mental health professionals in schools. At the same time, they are the people with a diverse understanding of behavior development and risks. Therefore, counselors offer guidance to teachers when planning and implementing PBIS programs. According to Cowan et al. (2013), linking teachers and school counselors offers the opportunity to create a safe learning environment that focuses on behavioral improvements in line with the needs of the students. Teachers spend most of their time with the learners at a different level. The information they gather about the behavior of their students could be used to focus the interventions based on the experience of each learner. At the same time, school counselors are trained on how to promote and monitor issues that influence the well-being and the behavioral climate in schools (Cowan et al., 2013). When these two professional capacities and dimensions are combined through skill sharing and influence, the process of PBIS implementation will be effective. According to Lassen, Steele, and Sailor (2006), effective school-wide behavior systems that are based on team efforts have a positive impact on student achievements.
The outcome of PBIS interventions depends on the level of training among teachers. Denton and Hasbrouck (2009) found out that additional training for teachers enhances their level of professionalism in line with the implementation of a change program. When teachers interact with other professionals as they are being coached on how to implement a program, then their level of experience and skill development equally improves. According to Sugai and Hormer (2006), the use of a coaching model for teachers when implementing PBIS programs in schools ensures that they acquire the appropriate skills to effectively support behavioral change among at-risk students. The integration of counselors’ ability to coach and support teachers when implementing PBIS stems from their capacity to combat disproportionality. Different learners have varying needs both academically and in terms of behavior support. School counselors are equipped with knowledge that could be used to account for this diversity and could be shared with the teacher through coaching and training (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009). At the same time, the knowledge acquired by counselors regarding the implementation of culturally responsive programs is a key advantage for teachers in terms of professional development through training when seeking to successfully support and implement PBIS initiatives (Fallon, O’Keeffe, & Sugai, 2012). The study by Fallon, O’Keeffe, and Sugai (2012) showed that there is a significant relationship between the effectiveness of PBIS programs and the use of counselors’ coaching skills in schools to improve the capacity of teachers and other parties involved in behavior cultivation among learners. The process of behavior development in school is a team responsibility, which implies that the teachers require additional support through training to achieve the desired strategic change for learners at risk of chronic behavior (Hershfeldt et al., 2012).
Development of how SWPBIS Becomes More Solution-Focused for At-Risk Students
SWPBIS is a flexible framework that is characterized by three tiers designed to assist the students to develop positive behavior. The framework is adopted in schools as a set of organized intervention geared towards a proactive approach to addressing behavior concerns among learners. SWPBIS focuses on the introduction, modeling, and reinforcement of positive behavior as opposed to corrective measures. In this case, the needs of students are taken into account in this framework (Fallon, O’Keeffe, & Sugai, 2012). The first tier is a universal initiative that supports all students in the school of the district. This is considered the primary level of SWPBIS where it involves supporting the students on what they should do. The first tier, therefore, entails positively outlined expectations with strategies of supporting the practice of these positive behaviors. The learners are expected to comply with these provisions or guidance since they are defined by a high rate of reinforcement. At this level, students are subjected to clear routines, which enhances the probability of success. The second tier is more advanced than the primary level of SWPBIS. In this case, it includes smaller groups with targeted behavior-based objectives. The second tier is meant for learners with the need for additional interventions to meet the outcomes just like the other students (Hershfeldt et al., 2012). While this is not a rigorous approach, it involves self-managed initiatives for the affected students with the purpose of social skill development and academic support.
In some cases, a student could develop chronic behavioral patterns. In such a scenario, the first and second tier interventions become focused and individualized to assist learners facing extreme changes in behavior. In the SWPBIS framework, this individual-based behavior support plan that is founded on the functional assessment of learners with chronic behavior pattern is called the third tier. Each learner recruited for this program receives tailored support to improve their response to SWPBIS interventions. At this level, the initiatives are intensive, routinized, and in line with the behavior needs of each affected student. It is also important to note that each of the three tiers in SWPBIS framework is flexible and characterized by general guidelines, which could be modified to meet the specific scenario being addressed. According to McKevitt and Braaksma (2008), it is not possible to have a generic approach to be adopted in all schools because of the variation in terms of resources and setting. Moreover, the needs of learners change and are not universal in line with positive behavior development. However, the use of a third-tier approach is more focused on assisting the learners who are unable to cope up with the generalized interventions. Leaners in need of tier three support are those who are unable to be responsive to the interventions in the previous tiers. Tools used for screening include attendance records, discipline referrals, social skills improvement system, behavior, and emotional screening system, and the systematic screening for behavior disorder (McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008). Once the students have been identified through a multi-dimensional scanning process, they are subjected to the team-based assistance, which involves school, community, and home components to support behavioral change. Each student is matched to an expert according to the student’s needs as well as their strengths. At this level, the resources are also allocated to enhance the outcomes.
Moreover, individualized SWPBIS framework could be implemented in different forms to address the specific student-centered needs. The school-wide strategies are tailored to teach and to acknowledge positive behavior expectations. While this is a component commonly incorporated in the first and second tiers, it is also important in tier three interventions. Definition of rule violations still applies in the third tier. McKevitt and Braaksma (2008) argued that the use of individualized SWPBIS has become a preferred choice in most schools to enhance the target change. Each decision is based on data dimensions and rules, which informs the nature of support to be included for each group in tier three. The non-classroom strategies entail active supervision, where the teachers constantly remind the students of what they are expected to do while setting specific routines. In the classroom, the instructors and behavior supervisors in schools focus on academic instruction, high praise, and constant supervision, which could create a consistent culture and learning environment. Additionally, the third tier is entirely based on functional practice with supportive interventions to foster explicit social skills and individualized progress. Regardless of the SWPBIS tier, the objective of the implementation is to encourage a preventive culture as opposed to a corrective approach to positive behavior support; however, when a learner develops chronic behavior pattern, the use of tier three initiatives could lead to positive results because it is individual-focused (McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008).
Analysis of Solution-Focused Results
The implementation of PBIS in schools becomes complete when the evaluation of assessment processes are incorporated to determine the progress achieved. Scholars have presented diverse theoretical perspectives regarding the assessment approach and result evaluation for solution-focused interventions. As noted earlier in this review, the third tier is characterized by an individualized assessment with problem-solving frameworks. The assessment is, therefore, multidimensional, which combines academic, medical, vocational, and behavioral interventions. The assessment process is carried out to determine the strengths and needs of targeted learners, which is used to design and plan for a comprehensive PBIS strategy. According to Scott et al. (2010), the successful evaluation of results depends on the extent to which the set criteria incorporated the variables that determine the maintenance of student behaviors. When the PBIS framework includes the essential strategies to prevent chronic behaviors, then the evaluation of results equally includes the achievement in terms of control and resilience achieved. However, the challenge, according to Scott et al. (2010), emanates from the inability to link prosocial behavior goals and the actual limitations facing the students.
The outcomes of the SWPBIS intervention is essential for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis approach goes a long way in improving the use of the framework to enhance the behavioral outcomes among learners. The use of implementation fidelity measures is a common analytical strategy for focused initiatives among learners with chronic behavior patterns. Team Implementation Checklist, as noted by PBIS (2019), is derived from point counts that represent the SWPBIS calculations. According to Bradshaw et al. (2009), the findings from a randomized trial study showed that the use of a number of points when analyzing SWPBIS results does not have a strong implication on implementation fidelity; however, it provides essential insight regarding the effectiveness of the interventions used during the program. On the other hand, functional assessment results indicate team outcomes or achievement. The evaluation of team-based functional assessment also incorporates the implication on resources, since it is an intensive and complex process. Data from focused SWPBIS originate from observations made by practitioners in terms of behavioral change before and after interventions. The data is important because it reveals the occurring positive or negative deviations.
References
Brandshw, C. P., Kothe, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide positive behavior intervention and supports Findings from a group randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10; 100-115.
Cowan, K. C., Vaillancourt, K., Rossen, E., & Pollitt, K. (2013). A framework for safe and successful schools [Brief]. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Cressey, J. M., Whitcomb, S. A., McGilvray-Rivet, S. J., Morrison, R. J., & Shander-Reynolds, K. J. (2014). Handling PBIS with care: Scaling up to the school-wide implementation. Professional School Counselling , 18; 90–99. doi:10.5330/prsc.18.1.g1307kql2457q668.
Denton, C. A. & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation . 19:150– 175.10.1080/10474410802463296.
Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2012). Preparing school counselors to promote academic development. Counselor Education and Supervision , 51(1); 50-63.
Goodman-Scott, E. (2014). Maximizing school counselors’ efforts by implementing school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: A case study from the field. Professional School Counseling , 17; 111–119. doi:10.5330/prsc.17.1.518021r2x6821660.
Goodman-Scott, E., Betters-Bubon, J., & Donohue, P. (2015). Aligning comprehensive school counseling programs and positive behavioral interventions and supports to maximize school counselors’ efforts. Professional School Counseling , 19; 57–67. doi:10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.57.
Hatch, T. (2013). The use of data in school counseling . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K., Sechrest, R., Pas, E. T., and Bradshaw. C. P. (2012). Lessons Learned Coaching Teachers in Behavior Management: The PBISplus Coaching Model. J Educ Psychol Consult , 22(4): 280–299. doi:10.1080/10474412.2012.731293.
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 the Schools , 43(6); 701-712.
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide Positive Behavior Support. School Psychology Review , 35:245–259.
McKevitt, B. C. & Braaksma, A. D. (2008). Best Practices in Developing a Positive Behavior Support System at the School Level. Best Practices in School Psychology, 741.
