Running head: PBIS SCHS

An Analysis of PBIS at Swartz Creek High School

Sarah Courneya

Shauntel Manning

Marty Shafer

Kristina Wiegand

Dr. Lindson Feun, PhD

Oakland University

March 18, 2020

 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………..…………………………………2
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………....5
 Background…………………………………………………………………………....5
 Assumptions and Limitations…………………………………………………………7
 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………7
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………………………...8
 Introduction to the Action Research Topic: Defining PBIS…………………………..8
 PBIS and Family Involvement………………….……………………………………10
 Misconceptions About PBIS…………………………………………………………11
 Special Education Laws and PBIS…………………………………………………...13
 SWPBS in High School……………………………………………………………...14
 Challenges of PBS Implementation in High School…………………………………15
 Academic Achievement and Implementation in Schools with PBIS………………...16
Chapter 3: Method of the Study…………………………………………………………….........17
 Overview……………………………………………………………………………..17
 Selection of Subjects…………………………………………………………………17
 Research Design……………………………………………………………………...18
 Description of Instruments…………………………………………………………...18
 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...18
 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..18
Chapter 4: Results of the Study……………………………………………………………….…20
 Triangulation of the Data………………………………………………………….…20
 Data Source 1………………………………………………………………………...21
 Data Source 2………………………………………………………………………...23
 Data Source 1-2 Comparison Findings…………………………………………........25
 Data Source 3………………………………………………………………………...26
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………........28
 Overview……………………………………………………………………………..28
 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………..…28
 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………30
 Implications for Further Research…………………………………………………...30
References……………………………………………………………………………………..…32
Appendix A Consent Forms……………………………………………………………………...33
Appendix B Staff Survey………………………………………………………………………...36
Appendix C Staff Survey Responses………………………………………………………….…40
Appendix D Student Survey……………………………………………………………………..46
Appendix E Student Survey Responses………………………………………………………….50
 Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge the students and staff at Swartz Creek High

School for their willingness to complete the surveys given to them, without which this research

would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the principal at SCHS, Mr. Jim

Kitchen, for allowing us to conduct this research study at his school. Finally, we would like to

express our appreciation for the mentoring and guidance of Dr. Lindson Feun throughout this

process. Dr. Feun’s help and support were invaluable to us.

 Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness of PBIS as a program

initiative at Swartz Creek High School. SCHS is composed of a predominantly white student

population, slightly over half of whom are economically disadvantaged. PBIS is a proactive

continuum of positive behavioral support for an entire student body (Bradshaw et al., 2008, pp.

1-2). An overview of the PBIS system at SCHS was presented with a focus on school-wide

preventive structures supporting positive student and staff behaviors. Surveys were administered

to 643 ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade students and 40 staff members to determine the

effectiveness of PBIS during its first year of implementation.

Findings from the study suggested that staff members believe the school should make

additional efforts to thoroughly outline the rules and expectations of the building to school

stakeholders. In addition, an emphasis should be placed on explicitly teaching and positively

acknowledging high levels of respect demonstrated by students, both in their interactions with

the adults in the building and amongst students. Staff members believed specific consequences,

which should be clearly communicated to students, needed to be in place in order to address

specific behaviors. In addition, staff members felt consequences needed to be imposed upon

students more consistently.

This study suggested that students agreed school rules and expectations needed to be

clearly articulated and enforced throughout the building. Students would like to have more

frequent recognition when adhering to the school rules and expectations. Also consistent with

staff findings, students agreed they needed to improve the overall levels of respect they displayed

during interactions with students and staff.

 Swartz Creek High School has made great strides in addressing school-wide behavior.

Through this study, possible next steps in the implementation of PBIS at SCHS were determined.

The school leaders were committed to continuing efforts to improve student behavior, thus

improving the school culture and, ultimately, student achievement.

 Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Swartz Creek High School has almost 1200 students in 9th– 12th grade. SCHS has a staff

of 87 members, including aides, teachers, and administrators. Currently over 50% of the SCHS

population qualifies for free and reduced lunch. Demographically, Swartz Creek High School is

88% Caucasian and 10% African- American.

The city of Swartz Creek is located in Genesee County. According to MI School Data

(2017-2018), Swartz Creek Community Schools serves 3,739 students. During the 2017 school

year, overall SAT data showed that SCHS students scored on average a mean scale score of

488.4 for the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (ERW) and 486.0 mean scale score for SAT

Math. Students in Swartz Creek score slightly below both categories statewide in Michigan.

Average mean scale scores statewide for ERW were 509; likewise, statewide, the average mean

scale scores for math were 495 (College Board, 2018).

In the district 78.6 % of the students are white, 8.7% African American, 51.4% are

economically disadvantaged and 12.9% with disabilities. With the 2017 cohort (MI School Data

2017), there was an 87.6% graduation rate and 5.6% dropout rate. In 2017, Swartz Creek High

School was on the AP District Honor Roll.

Recently, Swartz Creek High School (SCHS) adopted a Positive Behavioral Intervention

and Supports (PBIS) program throughout the school. This program was adopted in an effort to

minimize problematic behavior and improve the school culture.

This research study addressed the effectiveness of the PBIS program at SCHS in

improving student behavior, improving relationships between students and teachers, and

improving relationships between students.

 The rationale for selecting this topic was that all group members had an invested interest

in determining ways to reduce problematic behavior at the secondary and/or collegiate level. In

addition, we all had some degree of knowledge and experience with the implementation of PBIS

in secondary schools. Three of our buildings had varying degrees of implementation of PBIS

within them. Initially, we intended on comparing the effects of the different PBIS systems

within our three buildings. However, after much deliberation, a determination was made that we

needed to focus on one specific building and one specific method of PBIS implementation, in

order to simplify our study.

To determine which of our buildings to focus on, our team discussed the different

components of the PBIS programs within our schools. According to Ennis and Swaszowski

(2011), most commonly, office discipline referral data are used when determining whether

students are responding to PBIS implementation (42). Thus, we compared the level of access

that each of us must present and historical statistical data with regards to student behavior. One

of the team members who is an assistant principal at SCHS had access to the most relevant data

to fit the purposes of our study. For this reason, Swartz Creek High School was selected as our

school of study.

According to Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, and Leaf (2008), school wide PBIS is

when the entire student body receives a continuum of positive behavior support, a model was

originally designed for special education students (2). As opposed to being reactive, or

addressing student behavior problems only after they’ve occurred, PBIS is centered on proactive

strategies that ultimately prevent problematic behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2008, pp. 1-2). In what

follows is our asssumptions and limitations of this study and how it is related to PBIS.
Assumptions and Limitations

In administering this survey to students and staff at Swartz Creek High School, we

assumed both groups would be willing and able to respond to questions freely and honestly. We

also assumed all student and staff responses were accurate. Despite these assumptions we have

for this analysis, it is also important for the sake of program assessment research that we

considered the limitations of this study.

One limitation that we identified was our use of convenience sampling. Convenience or

simple sampling occurs when the respondents are not selected at random and we know who is

taking the survey; thus, the results of our analysis will not be an accurate representation of high

school students across the nation or globally.

Research Questions

In order to analyze the effectiveness of PBIS in Swartz Creek High School, we have

developed a set of research questions to evaluate the initiative:

RQ1: How effective is PBIS at SCHS at improving student behavior?

RQ2: How effective is PBIS at SCHS at improving relationships between teachers and students?

RQ3: How effective is PBIS at SCHS at improving relationships between students?

 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Introduction to the Action Research Topic: Defining PBIS

In order for us to determine the effectiveness of PBIS within Swartz Creek High School,

it is important to first gain an understanding of what PBIS is, what distinguishes PBIS as a

program, and how PBIS has been implemented in other schools across the nation.

We will first begin with a proper definition and then move into other research sites

surrounding the subject. George Sugai et al. (2000) summarize the overall purpose of Positive

Behavioral Support:

“PBIS procedures emphasize assessment prior to intervention, manipulation of

antecedent conditions to reduce or prevent the likelihood that a problem behavior will occur,
development of new social and communication skills that make problem behaviors irrelevant,
and careful redesign of consequences to eliminate factors that maintain problem behaviors and
to encourage more acceptable replacement social skills and behaviors.
PBIS is an approach that emphasizes teaching as a central behavior change tool and
focuses on replacing coercion with environmental redesign to achieve durable and meaningful
change in the behavior of students. As such, attention is focused on adjusting adult behavior
(e.g., routines, responses, instructional routines) and improving learning environments (e.g.,
curricular accommodations, social networks)” (p. 6).

PBIS takes into consideration four crucial elements when making decisions as to what

students would benefit from this kind of intervention. First, data is included for making

appropriate decisions. Next, the outcomes, or what students need to do to for academic behavior

and success, are identified. The third element of PBIS are the practices, or what students

experience to support learning and improvement of academic and behavior success, e.g.,

teaching, prompting, and recognizing expected social behaviors.

Finally, PBIS includes systems. These systems organize educators’ experiences in

supporting evidence-based academic and behavior practices. System-wide, these are school

leadership teams who lead data-based decision making and provide continuous professional
development and coaching (PBIS.org). At the school level, PBIS involves having intentional,

preventative measures in place to ensure the majority of students behave appropriately.

According to Tarsi Dunlop (2013), the overall goal of PBIS is based on simple

prevention logic: preventing problem behaviors from getting worse and reducing the number and

intensity of new problem behaviors (p. 39). Successful implementation of PBIS requires all

school stakeholders to be working toward this common goal. A fully implemented PBIS system

helps to move school staff away from reactive behaviors, instead moving toward a more

proactive goal of addressing concerns in a positive manner and developing appropriate

consequences for misbehavior (Dunlop, 2013, p. 39).

Dunlop also explains how PBIS seeks to improve school climate, reduce discipline issues

and support academic achievement (p. 38). This is done through three tiers: Primary Prevention,

Secondary Prevention, and Tertiary Prevention (Dunlop, 2013, p. 38). The primary focus of

PBIS support involves providing all students access to Tier 1: Primary Prevention. Students who

receive Tier 2: Secondary Prevention services then get access to an additional level of behavioral

support, above and beyond Tier 1 prevention (Dunlop, 2013, p. 39). Students who don’t respond

to Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions get specialized, individualized systems of support (Dunlop,

2013, p.38).

Tier 1 is the universal, school-wide support that is available for all staff and students. Tier

2 is reserved for a subgroup of students who require support in addition to the Tier 1. Often the

support provided is for issues related to social and study skills, attendance, behavior, and dropout

prevention. Lastly, Tier 3 is dedicated to students who require intensive individualized supports

(Freeman, Simonsen, McCoach, Sugai, Lombardi & Horner, 2016). These measures, which are

specifically designed to reach Tier 1 students, include having an all-encompassing, concise list of
school rules that have been developed and mutually agreed upon by various school stakeholders.

These rules are used in explicitly teaching both students and staff about the behavioral

expectations for various areas throughout the school. Appropriate behavior is then reinforced

with positive acknowledgement by all school stakeholders.

Overall, “the three tiers of PBIS allow for a focused concentration on behavioral and

intervention strategies that help the struggling student experience success in the general

education classroom” (Weiland et al., 2014, p. 116).

PBIS and Family Involvement

Although PBIS is rooted within school buildings, it also serves as a framework and

intervention system that can be used elsewhere. One specific example is how PBIS can be

introduced at the homes of students where parents can learn about how PBIS is used in schools.

“Family engagement refers to distinct ways that families support their children, which are

embedded in cultural beliefs and ideologies” (Garbacz, 2018, p. 1). Because the family is the

first group interaction a student will experience in life, this is where most of their identity

formation takes place, including things like socialization, and what kinds of values they should

hold.

According to Blankstein (2004), “The most accurate predictor of student academic

achievement is the ability of the student’s family to create a home environment that encourages

learning; to communicate high, yet reasonable, expectations for achievement; and to become

involved in the student’s education” (p. 168). Additionally, Andrew Garbacz et al. (2015)

concluded a positive correlation exists between family involvement and outcomes for

children/adolescents in math, reading, and academic achievement. When thinking about positive

social behavior, it should be evident that family involvement can be a similar predictor. The
issue, however, is that neither families nor communities have experience with PBIS in their

homes.

Garbacz et al. (2015) proposed a PBIS leadership team to engage families in school

implementation of PBIS, extend the evidence-based positive support practices for home

implementation, and coordinate and align the school and the home systems for home-school

implementation (Garbacz, 2018, p. 2). After the pilot study to implement a PBIS leadership team

for family involvement, Garbacz (2018) identified six universal core objectives of a PBIS

leadership team: “create a schoolwide vision for family engagement; identify sources of family

engagement evidence; engage families to cocreate PBIS at school; provide families with the

knowledge and skills they need to use positive behavior support at home with their children;

form and strengthen positive relationships between families and educators; and align PBIS at

school with parent use of positive behavior support at home” (p. 2).

Misconceptions about PBIS

In order to effectively implement PBIS at SCHS, it is important that we understand the

common misconceptions about PBIS. Several of these misconceptions are addressed and

explained by George Sugai and Brandi Simonsen from the Center for Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports.

First, a common misconception is that “PBIS is an intervention or practice.” As Tarsi

Dunlop said, “You can’t just PBIS someone.” (Dunlop, 2013, p. 38). PBIS in schools is not an

event. It is not a thing that staff perform to convince students to behave better. Rather, PBIS is a

school-wide, systematic behavioral framework that has (a) clearly defined and meaningful

student outcomes, (b) data-driven decision making and problem solving processes, and (c)
systems that prepare and support implementers to use these practices with high fidelity and

durability (Sugai, Simonsen, 2012, p. 4).

Next, Sugai and Simonsen acknowledge that many people believe “PBIS emphasizes the

use of tangible rewards which can negatively affect the development of intrinsic motivation” (p.

4). Rewards associated with PBIS should be viewed in a manner similar to which we view

feedback on academic performance. Students need to know and understand when they are

behaving in a socially acceptable way. They also note that intrinsic motivation is difficult to

measure, but little evidence exists suggesting that the use of positive reinforcement, rewards,

acknowledgements, and recognition has negative effects on academic and social behavior

achievement.

The next misconception that is important to address is that “PBIS is something new that

was designed for students with disabilities” (Sugai, Simonsen, 2012, p. 4). Although there are

some legalities around the implementation of PBIS, which are addressed below, the general

notions that PBIS is comprised of have been around since the 1960s and 1970s. The actual

name, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, was however selected in correlation with

the passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. As explained by Sugai

and Simonsen (2012), PBIS is a combination of behavioral theory, analysis, positive

reinforcements and supports, and prevention and implementation strategies all meant to work

collectively to meet the needs of all students (p. 4).

The last misconception is also noted by Sugai and Simonsen (2012): “PBIS is for

behavior, and RtI is for academics” (p. 4). Sugai and Simonsen (2012) explain that RtI is

understood as a framework for developing and implementing multi-tiered systems of BOTH

academic and behavior support, and is comprised of (a) universal screening, (b)continuous
progress monitoring, (c) continuum of evidence-based practices, (d) team-driven data-based

decision making, and (e) implementation fidelity evaluation (p. 4). Therefore, PBIS is

intertwined with the behavioral aspect of the overarching RtI process (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012,

p. 4).

Special Education Laws and PBIS

The Office of Special Education Programs and the Technical Assistance Center on

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports are collaborative entities existing between the

U.S. Department of Education and 11 technical assistance units across the United States. The

center is directed by Dr George Sugai (University of Connecticut), Dr Rob Horner (University of

Oregon), and Dr Tim Lewis (University of Missouri)” (Weiland, Murkami, Aguilera, Richards,

2014, p. 116).

With the passage of IDEA in 1997, Congress encouraged the use of PBIS due to the

historic exclusion of individuals with disabilities based on unaddressed behavior and strong

evidence supporting the use of PBIS (PBIS and the Law). According to von Ravensberg and

Tobin (2006), the implications of IDEA will ultimately improve school culture and climate (p.

2). Although the use of a Functional Behavioral Assessment is used for students that have been

certified with disabilities, the implications of positive behavior supports and interventions noted

within these assessments would benefit the entire school community (von Ravensberg & Tobin,

2006, p. 4).

Although there is no law requiring schools to implement any degree of school-wide

positive behavioral interventions and supports, the law does encourage the use of PBIS for

special education purposes (PBIS and the Law). Best practices are centered around full school-

wide implementation.
SWPBS in High School

The importance of social value is a key factor within a positive behavior support. At the

high school level, behavior changes are relevant, socially and culturally appropriate. High

schools are complex organizations with multiple administrators, large numbers of staff and

students, and high expectations in place so that students receive diplomas for completion.

Overall, high schools differ from the amount of staff and how they work together, community

relationships, and how districtwide policies are implemented.

According to Colvin and Fernandez, “School-wide positive behavior support in high

school is designed to promote positive teaching and learning climates supporting positive social

behavior and academic achievement” (Colvin and Fernandez, 2000). In the past 10 years,

school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) has increased significantly in high schools as a

way to shift from reactive strategies, such as detention, suspension, and expulsions, toward a

more proactive approach that addresses the entire school and individual students (Colvin &

Fernandez, 2000; Elias, 1998; Mayer, 1995; Nakasato, 2000).

SWPBS has not been implemented in high schools with the same intent as the elementary

and middle schools. The National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports is currently working with 5,359 schools across the country, of

which 579 (11%) are high schools. To date, only a few case studies describing SWPBS in high

schools have appeared in the literature (Bohanon et al., 2006).

In general, SWPBS emphasizes the establishment of a positive and preventive continuum

of behavior support in which behaviorally defined expectations are taught directly and formally

acknowledged, data are used for decision making and action planning, a function-based
continuum of support is established, and durable outcomes and accurate intervention

implementation are stressed.

Challenges of PBIS Implementation in High School

● Students are motivated by peer acceptance rather than adult approval

● Increased need for student voice in school-wide process

● Increased student independence creates supervision challenges

● Academics top priority

● Disconnect between disciplinary policies and social needs

● Establishing and using a reward system

Focus Areas Strategies That Helped Implementation

Student Interventions & supports Student incentives, mentorship programs, administration

support, student involvement, using data to drive decision

making, using SWIS data, and access to resources

Data-based decision making Using data to identify problem areas, data system that allows

for frequent monitoring, SWPBS conference to learn how to

use data, analyzing and changing ways staff look at

behavior, using referral forms that match data entry

Providing meaningful information using SWIS

Consequences for rule violation Staff consistent with all students, accountability (staff to

parents), discipline system using minor/major

Academic Achievement and Implementation in Schools with PBIS

 Since its inception in the late 1990’s at the University of Oregon, Positive Behavioral

Interventions & Supports (PBIS) can be implemented by any school, from preschool to high

school, students with emotional impairments and juvenile facilities. For schools to truly measure

the effectiveness of PBIS, a correlation between improved academic achievement and a decrease

in discipline.

According to Luiselli, Putnam & Sunderland (2002), schools that implement a school-

wide behavior support can improve academic performance, such as student attendance, reduced

suspensions which leads to more time in school, addresses the behavioral needs of all students,

increase instructional time, allows the school to create the “right fit” for students and overall

academic success. Students with problem behaviors are more likely to have academic deficits.

In order to have a successful implementation of PBIS, staff should collaborate by

establishing common area expectations, teaching student expectations with fidelity along with

meaningful reinforcement to students.

Chapter 3: Method of the Study

Overview

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the newly implemented

PBIS program at Swartz Creek High School. The method of the study was to analyze descriptive

survey responses from both staff and students at SCHS.

This data pertains to many different facets of school-wide behavior, including but not

limited to: time of day/year when most incidents occurred, nature of the behavior problem for

each incident, the location of the school where most incidents occurred, and trends regarding

which students are experiencing the highest numbers of behavioral problems.

We surveyed students and school staff members to gain an understanding of their

perspectives on the program’s effectiveness. Consent forms can be located in Appendix A.

Survey forms and responses can be located in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Selection of the Subjects

The selection of participants during this action research was chosen using a sample of

convenience. A sample of convenience is a method in which respondents are selected based on

proximity and easy accessibility. The sample of convenience began with focusing on

participants at Swartz Creek High School, which was accessible due to one of the researchers

working in that building.

The staff included 4 administrators, 32 classroom teachers, 15 special teachers, and 8

special education teachers were included in this sample. Surveys were distributed to 9th-11th

grade students through the math department. Surveys were also distributed to teachers and staff.

Research Design
 This descriptive study was conducted through the use of two separate surveys and

informal interviews. Researchers administered separate surveys to staff and students to gather

data on how they perceive the effectiveness of PBIS in the district. The surveys were

administered with no time limit.

All of the surveys were completed in the winter of 2019. These surveys were

administered during regular class time.

Description of the Instruments

For this research, Google Forms was used to conduct both student and staff surveys

which were answered using the Likert scale. Each survey also included several open-ended

questions. These surveys were distributed electronically to students through their math

instructors in February 2019. Teacher surveys were distributed in February 2019 through Swartz

Creek High School email services.

Data Analysis

All Likert survey responses were converted to a numeric scale and then a percentage was

calculated to determine responses for each question. Each response was given equal weight and

averaged together for an overall result for each question.

Summary

Convenience sampling was used based on accessibility and proximity to participants.

Staff and students from Swartz Creek High School were used in the study because one of the

researchers works at SCHS.

The research design included many different elements and focused on quantitative data.

This quantitative data was collected from surveys to teachers and students. These surveys also
included open-ended questions for participants. The data analysis included descriptive statistical

analysis based on survey results. This method was selected for action research to effectively

analyze Swartz Creek High School’s Positive Behavior Intervention Support system.
 Chapter 4: Results of the Study

Triangulation of Data

For this study, data gathered from anecdotal interviews and two self-obtained survey

instruments were used to analyze the effectiveness of Swartz Creek High School’s PBIS system

following the 2018-2019 school year. Staff surveys were administered to 59 instructional staff

members; 40 responded for a response rate of 68%. Student surveys were administered to 850

ninth, tenth, and eleventh graders; 643 responded for a response rate of 76%.

Nineteen questions on the survey guided this study. The first sixteen questions on both

surveys inquired about the same topics, and on both surveys these questions were comprised of

five-point Likert scale items. The first five questions on the survey asked about perceptions of

school rules and rule following at SCHS. The next five questions inquired about perceptions of

behavior at SCHS at differing points of the school day. The next three questions pertained to the

respectful quality of interpersonal interactions throughout the school day. The remaining three

questions ask about positive and negative interactions between members of Swartz Creek High

School student body.

On the staff survey, question seventeen inquired about teacher participation at incentive

events. Question eighteen was open-ended, pertaining to staff feelings about the PBIS process.

Question nineteen was also open-ended and asked for PBIS improvement suggestions. On the

student survey, question seventeen asked about student perception of the learning environment in

Swartz Creek. Question eighteen asked if students had participated in an incentive event in

Swartz Creek in 2018-19. Question nineteen was open-ended, asking what students liked best

about Swartz Creek High School. Question twenty was also open-ended and asked what

improvements students would like to see occur at SCHS.

 Frequencies and percentages were identified through descriptive statistical analysis of 24

out of 26 questions on the student survey and 20 out of 22 questions on the staff survey. All

statistical analyses of survey instruments were determined through the use of IBM Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Software Version 26.0. Percentages will be used in

discussion of results to standardize reporting. The following analysis is a formative evaluation of

the data with item analysis and discussion of results. The closing items will include a summary

of staff and student responses to the open-ended survey questions.

Data Source 1

The first data source for this action research project was a twenty-two-question survey for

the entire Swartz Creek staff. This survey presents a limitation in that 32% of the staff did not

respond. Of the 68% of the staff that responded to the survey, 55% of them reported that they

knew the rules and expectations of the building and 50% reported that they believe the rules and

expectations are thoroughly explained to students. In addition, 22.5% of staff respondents

believe that the school rules and expectations were posted throughout the school and half of the

staff believed that rules and expectations were consistently enforced. Students who abide by the

school rules and expectations are regularly acknowledged, according to 20% of the staff

respondents.

With regards to the level of respect that is exchanged between students and staff

members, 87.5% of staff believe that students are treated respectfully by their teachers and

37.5% believe that teachers are treated respectfully by the students. Interestingly, only 20% of

staff members believe that SCHS students treat each other respectfully, with 47.5% of staff

members reporting that they witness negative interactions amongst students daily. On the other
hand, however, 65% of staff members witness positive interactions amongst students daily.

Overall, 47.5% of staff members believe SCHS to be a positive learning environment, with

42.5% of staff reportedly having supervised or participated in a behavioral incentive event during

the 2018-2019 school year.

Question eighteen asked what they like best about the PBIS process at Swartz Creek High

School. Of the responses, multiple staff members indicated they enjoy having a wellness room

available, and the fact that positive collaboration is promoted throughout the building. Other

responses indicated the staff is happy to have clear expectations of PBIS and how it’s supposed

to create an overall positive culture for both students and staff. Question 19 of the staff survey

asked what improvements could be made to the current PBIS system at Swartz Creek High

School. The main concern was students aren’t being disciplined or aware of the consequences for

their actions; in addition, the staff suggested there should be more consistency in evaluating

student misbehavior and how students are disciplined. It seems there is some confusion regarding

the policies set in place, so more effective communication between staff members was also

mentioned as a way for improving the current PBIS system. Lastly, the staff also want to make

sure that instruction time isn’t taken away for PBIS related lessons.

Demographically, 67.5% of staff respondents from SCHS were female, 22.5% were male,

7.5% chose not to answer, and 2.5% of staff identified as non-binary. 70% of respondents

identified as Caucasian, while 27.5% of respondents chose not to answer the question about

ethnicity. 20% of staff survey respondents had been teaching under ten years, while 47.5% had

been teaching for 10-19 years. 30% of staff survey respondents had been teaching for 20-plus

years.
Data Source 2

The second data source was the aforementioned twenty-six question survey was

administered to students, primarily in the form of Likert Scale questions. At SCHS, 76% of the

student body completed the survey, and the majority of those that didn’t complete it were high

school seniors. This serves as a limitation for the study. In Question 1, 43.1% of the 643 students

who responded strongly agreed that they understood the rules and expectations of the school.

This figure was followed by the response rates for agree, undecided, and disagree, respectively:

31.7%, 17.1%, and 5.1%. Finally, 3% of students who responded strongly disagreed that they

understood school rules and expectations. Despite 74.8% of students agreeing, to some degree,

that they understood the rules and expectations, 60.1% of students report that the rules and

expectations are thoroughly explained to them in Question 2. Furthermore, in Questions 3-4,

29.3% of students agree that these school rules and expectations are posted throughout the school

and 31% of students find the school rules and expectations to be consistently enforced. Finally,

with regards to the school rules and expectations, 16.3% of students believe that the school

regularly acknowledges students that abide by the rules.

In survey questions 6-10 regarding students’ perceived notions of their own behavior,

22.9% of students agree that SCHS students are generally well-behaved during instructional

times and 18.6% of students believe students are well-behaved during transitional times.

Students agree that they are generally well-behaved during arrival, lunch, and dismissal

respectively at the following rates: 45.1%, 32.4%, and 37.7%.

In survey questions 11-15, students were also asked to respond about their notions of the

level of respect displayed between staff and students at SCHS. 52.6% of SCHS students agree

that their teachers treat them respectfully, while only 19.4% believe that the students generally
treat the students respectfully. In addition, 14.1% of students believe that the students of SCHS

are generally respectful to each other. Also, 57.4% and 46.5% of students report that they

witness negative and positive interactions, respectively, amongst students daily.

When students were asked if they feel safe at SCHS, 43.4% of students agreed, to some

extent. Additionally, 36.7% of students agree that SCHS is a positive learning environment, with

59.8% of students indicating that they’ve attended a positive behavioral incentive event at the

high school in the 2018-2019 school year. With regards to grades, 53.1% of students reported

that they were A/B students, while 23.2% reported that they were B/C students. The vast

majority of students, 87.7%, report that they’ve received 0-3 office disciplinary referrals

throughout the year.

Question nineteen asked students what they liked best about Swartz Creek High School.

Most students gave favorable comments. The following are a representation of documented

comments from the survey:

● “We have a lot of school spirit and support sports.”

● “Extracurricular activities”

● “Teachers are really nice and helpful most of the time”

● “The atmosphere & community”

● “I like learning and fun activities”

● “The counseling system”

One of the open-ended questions in the survey asked the students what improvement(s)

you would like to see at this high school. The following are the top six responses from 643

students in 9th -11th grade.

● Rules: followed consistently all day & enforced 24-7”

 ● Better flow zone

● Cleaner, Newer, Nicer building

● Central Air

● Respect from teachers to students & students to teachers

● Homework graded again

With regards to student demographic questions, when surveyed about gender, 41%

responded male and 47% responded female. There was an “Other” option available that allowed

students to enter their preferred answer; responses included a wide variety, from “giraffe” to

“Kool-Aid Man”. For student ethnicity, 63.9% reported to be Caucasian and 9.5% reported to be

Black/African American. The remaining respondents reported other ethnicities or preferred not

to answer. The responding students were relatively evenly distributed across ninth, tenth, and

eleventh grade, with very few twelfth graders responding.

Data Source 1 & 2 Comparison Findings

When comparing how staff and students responded to the survey questions, there are a

few key takeaways. First, a higher percentage of students than staff responded that they

understood the school rules and expectations, which tells us one of two things: a) The staff

understand and explicitly teach the rules and expectations better than they give themselves credit

for, or b) The students who indicated that they understand the rules and expectations actually

don’t.

Another key takeaway when comparing the two data sources is that it may be beneficial

for SCHS to invest time and money in making sure rules and expectations are posted throughout

the building, because both staff and students indicated that they aren’t consistently posted.
 In addition, through PBIS practices, SCHS could focus on hallway and lunch behaviors,

since the smallest percent of staff and students found students to be generally well-behaved in

those areas. Another major PBIS focus for the building might be to explicitly teach about

respect as the data indicates that there are areas for improvement in terms of the level of respect

that students show the staff and each other.

Finally, it may be important for the staff at SCHS to look for additional ways to

acknowledge students who abide by the rules and expectations, as both students and staff didn’t

feel that students receive consistent acknowledgement. However, this does pose a discrepancy

because although roughly 20% of staff and 16% of students stated that students who abide by the

rules are consistently acknowledged, 60% of students admit to being eligible to participate in at

least one behavioral incentive throughout the year.

Data Source 3

Positive behavior support is a behavior management system used to understand what

maintains an individual’s challenging behavior. The results of the teacher survey indicate that

PBIS is being used at SCHS but not with full implementation. Teachers would like to see more

reminders of expectations to students, enforcement of rules & policies, and better

communication. At Swartz Creek High School, the CREEK rubric stands for:

C- Commit to Learning

R- Respect Others

E- Everyone is Responsible

E- Everyone is Safe

K- Kindness Counts
 After speaking with administrators at SCHS, this rubric could be a way for SCHS to

encourage further good behavior from its students. These behaviors should be supported by

reinforcement. With PBIS, administrators and staff could be teaching students about behavior in

the classroom, before school, in the hallways, during lunch, and after school.

Following the survey, anecdotal interviews revealed that SCHS staff did not do a good

job with a reward system, which is a huge component of the PBIS initiative. Staff and students

both felt the administration had positive intentions of changing the culture of the school with a

system to curb behavior.

 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Overview

Overall, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of PBIS in Swartz

Creek High School to determine whether students are benefitting from the program. Staff at

Swartz Creek High School believe the wellness room and PBIS is a positive aspect of the

building and express positive interest; however, the staff believes students aren’t facing the

appropriate consequences associated with their bad behavior and believe there should be stricter

punishment. This disciplinary policy is described as confusing among staff members. Anecdotal

data reveals that students are happy with the way they’re treated at SCHS and feel well behaved

during school hours. On the other hand, many of the students did not respond with anything

specifically related to PBIS, suggesting that students aren’t aware of the program itself.

Conclusions

After gathering and analyzing survey data from the students and teachers from Swartz

Creek High School, this study has shown that the efforts of staff at SCHS have been effective in

the basic implementation PBIS building wide. SCHS is in the beginning stages of developing

PBIS on a large scale throughout the building, in which they are collecting data to determine the

areas to focus on next. School rules and expectations have been established but need to be more

clearly communicated to students and staff members. One way that these rules and expectations

could be clearly communicated to students and staff is to have them posted throughout the

building. This would involve having staff members formulate expected student behaviors in

every space of the building and displaying those behavior expectations in each specific space. In

addition, time could be set aside once or twice yearly to review these behavioral expectations
with students in each specific location of the building. In doing so, staff and students should feel

that they fully understand the behavioral expectations throughout the building.

The hallways and lunchroom in SCHS seem to be an area of behavioral concern for both

staff members and students. In terms of explicitly teaching expectations, these two areas should

be focal points in the building. In addition, consequences for failure to adhere to the

expectations in these two areas, should be clearly communicated and consistently imposed on

students. Finally, with regards to the hallways and the lunchroom, staff members should be very

intentional about regularly acknowledging positive student behavior in these specific areas.

Students conveyed that they wish for more frequent positive reinforcement and all school

stakeholders agreed that these locations held the biggest need for improvement, so it makes sense

to focus the increased positive acknowledgement on the hallways and the lunchroom. A reward

system could be implemented that, initially, focuses on these two areas.

Another glaring conclusion of our study was the lower level of respect that students

display to one another and to staff members. With regards to students treating each other with

respect, focal points for improvement could, again, be the hallways and the lunchroom along

with any other locations where students are gathered socially. Part of the reward system could

be focused on staff members catching kids being respectful to one another. In terms of

reinforcing respect in the classroom, students could be rewarded for achieving a certain standard

of citizenship ratings on their progress reports and report cards. Another way to subtly

acknowledge students who demonstrate respect to adults might be to have every staff member

send home one positive note or post card each month thanking a specific student for the respect

that they demonstrate.

Recommendations

The basis of our study, as indicated in Chapter One, was to determine if the

implementation of PBIS at SCHS was effective in improving student behavior, improving

relationships between students and teachers, and improving relationships amongst students. At

this point in time, we are unable to conclude that the initial implementation of PBIS has

improved student behavior. We recommend the development of a systematic reward system,

implemented with fidelity throughout the building that specifically acknowledges targeted

student behaviors outlined in the CREEK Rubric. Once this system is fully implemented, it will

be easy to compare pre/post behavioral data to look for trends suggesting that the reward system

has been effective in improving student behavior.

The comprehensive reward system that we are recommending would also need to

acknowledge positive relationships amongst students and between students and staff. This

would help to promote positive character, with the ultimate goal of improving relationships

throughout the building.

Implications for Future Research

Our research has generated the need for further action and investigation. If given more

time, the above-mentioned school-wide reward system would be up and running with fidelity.

At which point, we would be able to pull behavioral data and compare it to the data before the

behavioral reward system was implemented. We would compare pre/post rates of office

referrals, detentions, and suspensions in conjunction with the specific behaviors for which they

were assigned. We would also look for trends in the behavioral data regarding the specific

locations in the building, specific times of day and months of the year in which problematic
behaviors occur most frequently. We would then be able to definitively conclude whether or not

the reward system was successful in improving student behavior.

In addition to the above data collection, we believe that resurveying the staff and students

would help us determine the effectiveness of PBIS over time. Once the school rules and

expectations are explicitly and frequently taught to students and posted around the building, the

reward system has been fully implemented and specific consequences for misbehavior are

developed and consistently imposed, we believe that a second survey would validate the efforts

of the program.

Our research has set the groundwork, outlining the need for the continual development of

PBIS at Swartz Creek High School. Over time, as the PBIS program expands, we expect to see

an improvement in student behavior, stronger relationships amongst students and staff, and an

improved school culture. All of these components will undoubtedly lead to students who are

more engaged in their learning, ultimately becoming more productive, competent members of

society.
 References

Bradshaw, C. P. & Reinke, W. M. & Brown, L. D. & Bevans, K. B. & Leaf, P. J. (2008).

Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

in Elementary Schools: Observations from a Randomized Trial. Education and

Treatment

of Children 31(1), 1-26. West Virginia University Press. Retrieved November 17, 2018,

from Project MUSE database.

Blankstein, Alan M. (2004). Failure is not an option: six principles that guide student

achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

College Board, SAT. (2017, September 26). 2017 Michigan SAT Suite of Assessments Annual

Report[Press release]. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from

https://reports.collegeboard.org/pdf/2017-michigan-sat-suite-assessments-annual-report.pdf

Dunlop, T. (2013). Why It Works: You Can’t Just PBIS Someone. Education Digest, 28-40.

Retrieved December 27, 2018, from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lz_ZePgLUfQNm2WA01ChsINZ1rfGhtLS/view.

Jason, M.H. (2008) Evaluating Programs to Increase Student Achievement. Corwin Press

(2008). Thousand Oaks, CA:ISBN# 978-1-4129-5125-8

PBIS and the Law. (n.d.). Retrieved December 27, 2018, from

https://www.pbis.org/school/pbis-and-the-law

Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012, June 19). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports:

History, Defining Features, and Misconceptions. Retrieved December 27, 2018, from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NtHn1vQI4__vxFsbuYTZm48y7-Tv1K7S/view
Swoszowski, N. C., & Ennis, R. P. (2011). The Top 10 Things to Consider When Implementing

Secondary-Tier PBIS Interventions. Beyond Behavior, 20(1), 42-44. Retrieved November

17, 2018, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24011795.

Von Ravensberg, H., & Tobin, T., PhD. (2006). IDEA 2004: Final Regulations and the

Reauthorized Functional Behavioral Assessment. Retrieved December 27, 2018, from

https://www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/pbisresources/SSRN_d1151394.pdf