Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth

ISSN: 1045-988X (Print) 1940-4387 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

How Do Staff Perceive Schoolwide Positive

Behavior Supports? Implications for Teams in
Planning and Implementing Schools

Laura L. Feuerborn & Ashli D. Tyre

To cite this article: Laura L. Feuerborn & Ashli D. Tyre (2016) How Do Staff Perceive Schoolwide
Positive Behavior Supports? Implications for Teams in Planning and Implementing Schools,
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60:1, 53-59, DOI:
10.1080/1045988X.2014.974489

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.974489

Published online: 21 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 416

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vpsf20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UMinho] Date: 01 July 2017, At: 09:58
Preventing School Failure, 60(1), 53–59, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1045-988X print / 1940-4387 online
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2014.974489

How Do Staff Perceive Schoolwide Positive Behavior

Supports? Implications for Teams in Planning and
Implementing Schools
LAURA L. FEUERBORN1 and ASHLI D. TYRE2
1
University of Washington, Tacoma, WA, USA
2
Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) offers an alternative to reactive and exclusionary school discipline practices.
However, the shift to SWPBS requires substantial change in the practices of staff, and many leadership teams struggle to rally staff
support for implementation. With a more thorough understanding of staff perceptions, level of understanding, and support for
SWPBS, teams may be better positioned to assist staff in the change process. To achieve an understanding of staff perceptions and
how they may differ in schools on the basis of level of implementation, the authors directly assessed staff perceptions in seven
planning schools and seven implementing schools. Significant differences were found between planning and implementing schools in
knowledge of SWPBS, as well as perceptions of behavior and discipline.
Keywords: positive behavior supports, resistance to change, staff buy-in, staff perceptions

Traditional discipline policies do little to facilitate a support-
ive school climate. These policies typically entail a graduated
system of punishments that begin with office discipline refer-
rals, progress to detentions and suspensions, and eventually
culminate in expulsions. It may be no surprise, then, that
such a system built upon removing students from the class-
room environment is fraught with problems and may even
exacerbate student behavioral issues (Skiba & Rauch, 2006).
Conversely, Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
(SWPBS) is a multitiered system of prevention and early
intervention. Using the SWPBS model, schools provide uni-
versal, targeted, and intensive levels of supports to encourage
prosocial, emotional, and behavioral growth in all students.
Universal supports promote a positive school climate
whereby all students are actively taught expectations and
acknowledged for meeting them. Supplemental supports at
the targeted level are provided for those students who fail to
respond to universal supports, and intensive supports are
individualized for students with chronic and severe social,
emotional, and behavioral needs. SWPBS offers an effective
alternative to reactive and exclusionary approaches to school
discipline. Many meaningful outcomes are associated with
SWPBS, including reduced rates of office disciplinary refer-
rals, detentions, and suspensions (e.g., Bohanon et al., 2006;
Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008; Scott &
Address correspondence to Laura L. Feuerborn, Tacoma Educa-
tion Program, University of Washington, 1900 Commerce
Street, Box 358435, Tacoma, WA 98402, USA. E-mail:
feuerl@uw.edu.
Barrett, 2004) and increased instructional time (e.g., Lassen,
Steele, & Sailor, 2006; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Fein-
berg, 2005).
However, the shift from traditional discipline to SWPBS
requires substantial change in the day-to-day practices of
staff. Rallying staff support and commitment to implementa-
tion is a formidable challenge. In interviews of representatives
from high- and low-implementing schools, Kincaid, Childs,
Blase, and Wallace (2007) found that lack of staff support
was the most frequently identified barrier to achieving full
implementation. Several follow-up studies underscored the
importance of staff support in achieving full and sustained
implementation of SWPBS. School-based leadership teams,
coaches, and facilitators all affirmed that staff support for
SWPBS facilitated implementation and lack of staff support
for SWPBS hindered implementation (Bambura, Nonne-
macher, & Kern, 2009; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009;
Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Pal-
mieri, 2008). Moreover, staff-related factors can play an even
more critical role in the implementation of SWPBS in second-
ary schools. Flannery and colleagues (2009) found that less
than one third of participating secondary SWPBS leadership
teams were able to achieve 80% staff support, and teams iden-
tified staff support or buy-in as an essential component to
implementation.
Considering the challenges schools can experience while
obtaining staff support for SWPBS, it is important for
school-based teams to develop an understanding of staff per-
ceptions of behavior and discipline. Although it is recom-
mended in that 80% of staff support or buy-into SWPBS
before implementation (e.g., Handler et al., 2007; McKevitt
54
& Braaksma, 2008; Muscott et al., 2004; Sugai & Horner,
2006), the ways in which staff support is assessed, established,
and sustained are not well elucidated in the SWPBS litera-
ture. Although it is fundamental to SWPBS that local data
(e.g., student referrals and fidelity of implementation) are
gathered to assess the needs of the system (Sugai & Horner,
2006; Sugai, Horner, & McIntosh, 2008), data concerning the
insights and perspectives of school staff, one of the most cen-
tral stakeholder groups, are seldom gathered and considered.
Therefore, this study aimed to gain a better understanding
of staff perceptions of SWPBS in schools at different stages
of implementation. To this end, the authors examined staff
perceptions of behavior and discipline, including perceptions
that can serve as facilitators and barriers to SWPBS in
schools planning to implement and implementing SWPBS. In
addition, this study assessed staff reported knowledge and
support for the SWPBS effort in their schools. The present
study extends the investigations of high and low implement-
ing schools by Kincaid and Lohrman and colleagues (Kin-
caid et al., 2007; Lohrman et al., 2008). Where these
investigations examined the perspectives of coaches and tech-
nical assistance providers, the present study directly assessed
the perceptions of classified and certificated staff working
within schools planning for and implementing SWPBS.
Method
Procedures
Staff perceptual data were gathered from staff in schools in
the planning and implementation stages of SWPBS. Data
were collected in the spring of 2013 through an online survey
distributed to certificated and classified staff who regularly
interact with students. To encourage frank responses, no
identifying information was collected. After the survey was
sent to staff, the level of SWPBS implementation was
assessed in each participating school.
Measures
Staff Perceptions of SWPBS
The Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) sur-
vey assesses staff perceptions of student behavior and the dis-
ciplinary practices associated with SWPBS. The SPBD is
aligned with the SWPBS implementation literature. The sur-
vey assesses staff-related facilitators and barriers and philo-
sophical beliefs identified in the literature. Items measure
staff perceptions of administrative supports, resources, and
involvement, factors first identified by Kincaid and col-
leagues (2007). Also, items assess barriers identified by Lohr-
mann and colleagues (2008), including staff skepticism of the
effectiveness of SWPBS, perceptions of disenfranchisement,
and philosophical differences (e.g., disagreement with the use
of extrinsic reward systems and reliance on punishments to
curb behavioral violations). Furthermore, SPBD items assess
factors identified by Bambara and colleagues (2009), includ-
ing training, time, school climate, and shared vision. Last,
items within the SPBD assess staff-related facilitators and
Feuerborn and Tyre
barriers important to the sustainability of SWPBS including
the aforementioned administrative supports, school climate,
resources, beliefs, and training (Coffey & Horner, 2012).
The SPBD includes 21 Likert-scale items and 2 closed-
choice items to assess level of knowledge and support for
SWPBS. The SPBD has strong internal consistency for the
present sample (a D .81). Items within the SPBD designed to
assess facilitators (e.g., administrative supports, sufficient
resources, and school climate) have a Cronbach’s alpha of
.70, and items designed to assess barriers (e.g., lack of time
and skepticism of the effectiveness of SWPBS) have a Cron-
bach’s alpha of .65. Items designed to assess philosophy (e.g.,
responsibility of teaching behavior expectations to students,
the use of reinforcement, and reactions to behavioral viola-
tions) have a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 in our sample. The
Appendix depicts sample items from the SPBD and identifies
corresponding facilitators and barriers. For full access to the
SPBD, the reader is encouraged to contact the lead author.
SWPBS Implementation
The Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) was administered to
assess the level of SWPBS implementation in each school.
The SET is a well-established tool designed to assess the criti-
cal components of SWPBS including expectations defined,
behavior expectations taught, ongoing system for rewarding
behavior expectations, system for responding to behavioral vio-
lations, monitoring and decision making, management, and
district-level support. The SET has robust test–retest reliabil-
ity (M D 97.3), interobserver agreement (M D 99%), internal
consistency (a D .96), construct validity (Pearson r D .75),
and sensitivity to change (Horner et al., 2004). The SET pro-
cedures include a review of permanent products; observations
of the school common areas, hallways, and classrooms; brief
interviews with students and staff; and an extended interview
with the school administrator. The summary score—the aver-
age percentage of implementation across SET domains—is a
general index of SWPBS implementation. The criterion for
implementation is 80 or higher.
Participating Schools
Fourteen public schools within four districts in Western
Washington participated in the current study, including seven
schools in the planning phase of implementation and seven
schools in initial implementation. Schools in the planning
phase were engaged in planning activities to begin SWPBS
implementation in the following year. Planning activities
most often included forming a leadership team, establishing a
system for gathering student discipline, and attending
SWPBS awareness trainings and conferences. The imple-
menting schools were within the first 3 years of SWPBS
implementation. Implementation activities most often
included teaching schoolwide expectations, acknowledging
students for meeting and exceeding expectations, and review-
ing schoolwide disciplinary data.
Staff Perceptions of SWPBS 55

Planning Schools Data Analysis

Schools in the planning phase of implementation include five
elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school.
An average of 378 students were enrolled in the elementary
planning schools, and an average of 1101 students were
enrolled in the secondary planning schools. The average pro-
portion of students receiving free or reduced lunch was 64%
in the elementary schools and 51% in the secondary schools
(see Table 1).
In anticipation of differences in perceptions of staff in pri-
mary and secondary schools, tests of mean differences based
on school level were conducted separately for schools in the
planning and implementation phases. After conducting these
analyses, independent t tests were conducted to compare staff
perceptions for planning and implementing primary schools
and secondary schools.

Implementing Schools
Implementing schools include five elementary schools and
two middle schools. An average of 458 students were enrolled
in the elementary implementing schools, and an average of
828 students were enrolled in the secondary planning schools.
The average proportion of students receiving free or reduced
lunch was 54% in the elementary schools and 55% in the sec-
ondary schools (see Table 1).
Results
Planning Schools
A total of 244 SPBD survey responses were received from the
planning schools, with an average response rate for certifi-
cated staff of 92% in the elementary schools and 61% in the
secondary schools. Planning schools had average SET scores
of 40%, confirming that the planning schools were not yet
implementing SWPBS (see Table 1). There was a significant

Table 1. SET Scores, Response Rates, and Demographic Information for Participating Schools
Planning schools

SET n Certified staff (n) Classified staff (n) Certified staff response (%) Students F/RPL

Primary schools
A 49 40 28 12 100 371 78
B 51 18 16 2 89 261 48
C 44 31 23 8 96 444 52
D 51 30 24 6 86 398 60
E 45 29 22 7 88 416 83
Total M D 48.0 148 113 35 M D 92.0 M D 378.0 M D 64.0
SD D 3.3 SD D 5.9 SD D 70.6 SD D 15.6
Secondary schools
F 39 36 23 13 55 784 32
G 21 60 53 7 67 1418 72
Total M D 33.0 96 76 20 M D 61.0 M D 1,101.0 M D 52.0
SD D 12.7 SD D 8.5 SD D 448.31 SD D 28.3

Implementing schools

SET n Certified staff (n) Classified staff (n) Certified staff response (%) Students F/RPL

Primary schools
H 80 18 18 0 100 741 64
I 96 31 25 6 100 526 62
J 94 20 16 4 100 235 41
K 90 25 19 6 90 263 79
L 100 38 28 10 100 527 26
Total M D 92.0 132 106 26 M D 98.0 M D 458.0 M D 54.0
SD D 7.6 SD D 4.5 SD D 210.5 SD D 20.9
Secondary schools
M 85 43 41 2 89 920 59
N 88 58 47 11 90 736 73
Total M D 87.0 101 88 13 M D 90.0 M D 828.0 M D 66.0
SD D 2.1 SD D 0.7 SD D 130.1 SD D 9.9
Note. SET D Schoolwide Evaluation Tool. F/RPL = Free or Reduced Price Lunch.
*The number of classified staff working with students could not be confirmed in each school; thus, only response rates for certificated staff are available.
56 Feuerborn and Tyre

difference in total SPBD scores for primary (M D 59.03, SD
D 6.86) and secondary schools (M D 54.83, SD D 6.69); t
(242) D 4.714, p D .000. Among staff in schools planning to
implement SWPBS, staff in primary schools reported signifi-
cantly more favorable perceptions as compared with staff in
secondary schools.
Implementing Schools
A total of 233 SPBD survey responses were received from
implementing schools, with an average response rate for cer-
tificated staff of 98% in the elementary schools and 90% in
the secondary schools. Implementing schools had average
SET scores of 89%, confirming that the implementing schools
reached an accepted level of implementation of SWPBS (see
Table 1). There was a significant difference in scores for pri-
mary (M D 64.02, SD D 6.91) and secondary schools (M D
57.59, SD D 7.16); t(231) D 6.92, p D .000. These results
reveal that staff in primary schools reported significantly
more favorable perceptions of SWPBS as compared with
staff in secondary schools. On the basis of the significant dif-
ferences in staff perceptions across school levels for the plan-
ning and implementing groups, primary and secondary
schools were treated as separate groups.
Staff Perceptions in Planning and Implementing Primary
Schools
For the planning and implementing primary schools, tests of
significance were conducted to compare scores for the total
SPBD, as well as the survey domains of facilitators for
change, barriers to change, and philosophical views of disci-
pline (see Table 2). For the total SPBD, staff in implementing
schools provided significantly higher ratings as compared
with staff in planning schools. At the domain levels, staff in
implementing schools also provided significantly more favor-
able ratings of facilitators for change, barriers to change, and
philosophical views of discipline. These results reveal that pri-
mary school staff in implementing schools report significantly
more favorable ratings on the SPBD.
Independent t tests were conducted to compare self-
reported knowledge of and support for SWPBS in planning
and implementing primary schools. Staff in planning schools
(M D 2.72, SD D 0.77) reported significantly lower levels of
knowledge as compared with staff in implementing schools
(M D 3.22, SD D .57); t(278) D –6.16, p D .000. Similarly,
staff in primary planning schools (M D 3.05, SD D 1.51)
reported significantly lower support for SWPBS as compared
with staff in primary implementing schools (M D 3.59, SD D
.85); t(278) D –3.77, p D .000. For the elementary schools
included in this study, staff in implementing schools report
higher knowledge of SWPBS and support for the SWPBS
effort in their schools as compared with staff in schools plan-
ning to implement SWPBS.
Staff Perceptions in Planning and Implementing Secondary
Schools
For the planning and implementing secondary schools, tests
of significance were conducted to compare scores for the total
SPBD, as well as the domains of facilitators for change, bar-
riers to change, and philosophical views of discipline (see
Table 2). For the total SPBD, staff in planning schools pro-
vided significantly lower ratings as compared with staff in
implementing schools. At the domain level, staff in planning
schools provided similar ratings of facilitators for change as
compared with staff in implementing schools. However, staff

Table 2. Group Comparisons of SPBD Scores for Primary and Secondary Schools
Primary schools

Planning schools Implementing schools

M (SD) M (SD) t df p

Total SPBD 59.03 (6.86) 64.02 (6.90) ¡6.05 278 .000

Facilitators 11.97 (2.07) 12.74 (1.75) ¡3.37 278 .001
Barriers 15.28 (2.44) 16.49 (2.18) ¡1.21 278 .000
Philosophical views 18.91 (2.71) 19.88 (2.95) ¡.967 278 .005
Knowledge 2.72 (0.77) 3.22 (0.57) ¡6.16 278 .000
Support 3.05 (1.51) 3.59 (0.85) ¡3.77 278 .000

Secondary schools

Planning schools Implementing schools

M (SD) M (SD) t df p

Total SPBD 54.83 (7.16) 57.59 (7.16) ¡2.76 195 .006

Facilitators 10.93 (2.15) 11.30 (2.29) ¡3.70 195 .244
Barriers 14.07 (2.34) 15.07 (2.50) ¡2.89 195 .004
Philosophical views 17.18 (2.92) 18.67 (2.93) ¡1.47 195 .000
Knowledge 2.59 (0.72) 3.07 (0.67) ¡4.80 195 .000
Support 3.11 (1.41) 3.35 (0.99) ¡1.33 195 .000
Note. SPBD D Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline.
Staff Perceptions of SWPBS
in planning schools reported significantly more barriers to
change and less favorable ratings of their philosophical views
of discipline as compared with staff in implementing schools.
For the secondary schools included in this study, staff in
implementing schools provided more favorable overall rat-
ings on the total SPBD and for the domains of barriers to
change and philosophical views of discipline, but no differen-
ces were found with respect to facilitators for change.
Tests of significance were conducted to compare self-
reported knowledge and support for SWPBS in planning and
implementing secondary schools. Staff in planning schools
(M D 2.59, SD D 0.72) reported significantly lower knowl-
edge of SWPBS as compared with staff in secondary imple-
menting schools (M D 3.07, SD D 0.67); t (195)D –4.80, p D
.000. Similarly, staff in secondary planning schools (M D
3.11, SD D 1.41) reported significantly lower support for
SWPBS as compared with staff in secondary implementing
schools (M D 3.35, SD D 0.99); t(195)D –1.33, p D .000.
Overall, staff in implementing secondary schools indicated
that they had higher levels of knowledge of SWPBS and com-
mitment to SWPBS efforts in their schools as compared with
staff in schools planning to implement.
Discussion
Previous studies identified the importance of staff perceptions
to the implementation of SWPBS through surveys and inter-
views of SWPBS coaches, facilitators, and leadership team
members (e.g. Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrmann et al., 2008).
This study makes an important contribution to the existing
literature by directly assessing certificated and classified staff
perceptions in planning and implementing schools, thereby
bringing a better understanding of staff perceptions of behav-
ior and discipline and how they may differ in schools on the
basis of level of implementation.
Differences were found between primary and secondary
schools planning to implement and in primary and secondary
schools already implementing SWPBS. Secondary schools,
regardless of implementation level, provided less favorable
ratings on the SPBD. These findings are reasonable given
that secondary school staff may experience greater challenges
with systemic change than may elementary school staff. A
lower percentage of secondary schools throughout the nation
have achieved full implementation (Flannery, Frank, Kato,
Doren, & Fenning, 2013; Horner, 2013). We were unable to
locate an implementing high school within our geographic
region for inclusion in the present study. Secondary schools
tend to be more complex systems, making it difficult for
teams to establish clear lines of communication and obtain
schoolwide consensus (Flannery et al., 2013). This could in
part account for the lower response rate among secondary
planning schools in the present study.
The differences found among the secondary schools have
important implications for research and practice. Future
research could include a more diverse sample with imple-
menting high schools. With the perspectives of staff in imple-
menting high schools represented in the SWPBS literature,
we stand to gain a better understanding of their needs and
57
concerns. Also, it is important that leadership teams in sec-
ondary schools appreciate the value of staff voice and
involvement throughout planning and implementation. With
an advance understanding of the unique aspects and chal-
lenges that secondary schools bring, leadership teams can
anticipate the more complex nature of change at this level,
prevent common misunderstandings, and support their staff
throughout the change process.
At both primary and secondary levels, we found signifi-
cant differences between planning and implementing schools
in knowledge and support for SWPBS. As might be expected,
staff in planning schools rated their level of understanding of
SWPBS significantly lower than did staff in implementing
schools. Most staff in planning schools reported limited to
basic understanding of SWPBS. Most staff in implementing
schools reported basic to high levels of understanding. In
addition, staff in planning schools reported significantly
lower levels of support for SWPBS than did staff in imple-
menting schools. Most staff in both planning and implement-
ing schools reported that they agreed with SWPBS efforts in
their schools, but more staff in implementing schools indi-
cated that they strongly agreed with SWPBS and planned to
be actively involved with the effort. Perhaps in anticipation
of barriers to implementation, staff in planning schools may
be hesitant to become actively involved. Teams can moderate
this hesitation by addressing perceptions of barriers before
they gain traction among staff. For example, to address the
perception that SWPBS is yet another fad, teams can confirm
the long-term allocation of time and training necessary for
sustaining SWPBS. They can ensure these resources are trans-
parent and accessible to all staff. Moreover, they can demon-
strate an ongoing commitment to SWPBS through an
administrator sanctioned, multiyear action plan.
In primary schools, staff in implementing schools held
more favorable perceptions of the facilitators for SWPBS in
their schools as compared with staff in planning schools.
However, secondary school staff, regardless of level of imple-
mentation, reported similar views of the facilitators for imple-
mentation in their schools. Specifically, secondary school
staff across all implementation levels reported low levels of
administrative supports and resources to support implemen-
tation. Again, the challenges of secondary schools discussed
herein appear to apply to our sample of secondary schools.
Both planning and implementing secondary schools may
need to invest more time and energy in preparing the resour-
ces and supports necessary for a shift from traditional, reac-
tive disciplinary systems to a preventive SWPBS system.
Across school levels, staff in planning schools reported sig-
nificantly less favorable perceptions on the SPBD. They
reported greater barriers to the change process and more con-
flict with the philosophical underpinnings of SWPBS as com-
pared with staff in implementing schools. Staff in planning
schools reported less time to teach behavior expectations and
greater skepticism of the effectiveness of SWPBS in their
schools. Also, more staff in planning schools reported discon-
tent with the responsibility of teaching social and behavioral
expectations and likened extrinsic reinforcement to bribery.
Armed with the knowledge of these trends, teams may be
more equipped to prevent resistance and manage it as it
58 Feuerborn and Tyre

arises. For example, if staff report philosophical conflicts we may be better positioned to support them in the individual
with the use of extrinsic reinforcement, teams can openly and change process. We may thereby reach full levels of implemen-
proactively address this issue with staff through targeted pro- tation more efficiently, creating positive, proactive disciplinary
fessional development, professional learning communities, practices and safe school environments for our students.
and focus groups. This training and dialogue would include
the conditions in which reinforcement is most and least effec-
tive, and it would draw clear distinctions between reinforce- Author Notes
ment and bribery.
If the primary difference between the groups of planning Laura L. Feuerborn is an associate professor at the University
and implementing schools was level of SWPBS implementa- of Washington, Tacoma. Her research interests are in the
tion, we might conclude that initial implementation of areas of systemic change, schoolwide positive behavior sup-
SWPBS leads to the formation of more favorable percep- ports, and social-emotional learning.
tions. Experimental research is necessary to substantiate any
causal relation between staff perceptions and level of Ashli D. Tyre is an associate professor at Seattle University in
SWPBS. However, if we speculate, such a relationship would Seattle, Washington. Her research focuses on schoolwide
be consistent with the systemic change literature, markedly positive behavior support, supporting staff in the systemic
Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovations. Specifically, change process, and community-based research.
Rogers postulates that the momentum gained with successful
initial implementation of an innovation facilitates increasing
levels of stakeholder support (Rogers, 2003). In the present
study, planning schools are likely to have formed perceptions References
of SWPBS on the basis of their anticipations. They anticipate
Bambara, L., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-
whether or not SWPBS will be sustainable and effective with based individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers
their students, and they are reasonably skeptical. This rea- and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 161–
soned skepticism, according to systemic change literature, is 176.
an adaptive response to proposed changes to the status quo Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K., Minnis, M., Anderson-Harriss,
(Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008; Noel & Gansle, 2009). Staff S., Moroz, K., . . . Piggott, T. (2006). School-wide application of
in implementing schools, in contrast, likely formed their per- positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 131–145.
ceptions of SWPBS based on direct experiences and observa-
Bradshaw, C., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K., & Leaf, P. (2008).
tions. Through the process of successfully implementing Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
many features of SWPBS, staff may have developed increas- and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a
ingly favorable perceptions. In the process of implementing randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26.
SWPBS, they may have directly observed evidence of the util- Coffey, J., & Horner, R. (2012). The sustainability of schoolwide posi-
ity or value for their students, resulting in less skepticism and tive behavioral interventions and supports. Exceptional Children,
more favorable views of the philosophical underpinnings of 78, 407–422.
Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Cohen, R. M. (2008). Best practices in
SWPBS. system-level change. In A. Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best
Although this evolution in staff perceptions may be a natu- practices in school psychology V (pp. 887–902). Bethesda, MD:
ral part of the change process, the rate and ease at which this National Association of School Psychologists.
evolution occurs is unique to each system. A supportive Flannery, B. K., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide pos-
school climate may act as a catalyst for change in staff per- itive behavior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal
ceptions. A climate that is divisive may stall momentum and of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 177–185.
Handler, M. W., Rey, J., Connell, J., Their, K., Feinberg, A., & Put-
stymie change. If staff needs are neither understood nor pro-
nam, R. (2007). Practical considerations in creating school-wide
actively supported, they may resist implementing SWPBS positive behavior support in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 44,
with fidelity (Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrman et al., 2008). In 29–39.
contrast, if leadership teams respect the perceptions of staff Horner, R., Todd, A., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L., Sugai, G., & Boland
from the onset and make intentional efforts to understand J. (2004). The School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET): A research
their needs, then they can adjust supports accordingly and instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior supports.
create an environment conducive to more efficient and effec- Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 3–12.
Kincaid, D., Childs, K., Blase, K., & Wallace, F. (2007). Identifying
tive change.
barriers and facilitators in implementing school-wide positive
Gathering data in the spirit of attaining a better under- behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9,
standing of staff perceptions may be an important yet over- 174–184.
looked step in the implementation of SWPBS. We stand to Lassen, S., Steele, M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-
make a more powerful, positive effect on school disciplinary wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an
practices by appreciating the importance of staff perceptions. urban middle school. Psychology in Schools, 43, 701–712.
In addition to attending to the procedural components of Lohrmann, S., Forman, S., Martin, S., & Palmieri, M. (2008). Under-
standing school personnel’s resistance to adopting school-wide pos-
SWPBS, it is important we acknowledge and respect the needs itive behavior support at a universal level of intervention. Journal
and concerns of the very people whose practices we are asking of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 256–269.
to change. If we can more thoroughly understand the nature Luiselli, J. K, Putnam, R. F, Handler, M. W, & Feinberg, A. B. (2005).
of staff perceptions of behavior and discipline and of SWPBS, Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effects on student
Staff Perceptions of SWPBS 59

discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psy-
chology, 25, 183–198.
McKevitt, B. C., Braaksma, A. D. (2008). Best practices in developing a
positive behavior support system at the school level. In A. Thomas
& J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 735–
747). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Morin, J., & Battalio, R. (2004). Construing misbehavior: The efficacy
connection in responding to misbehavior. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 6, 251–254.
Muscott, H. S., Mann, E., Benjamin, T. B., Gately, S., Bell, K. E., &
Muscott, A. J. (2004). Positive behavior interventions and supports
in New Hampshire: Preliminary results of a statewide system for
implementing school-wide discipline practices. Education & Treat-
ment of Children, 27, 453–475.
Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educa-
tional systems change to sustainable program implementation:
Coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the
Schools, 46, 79–89.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Free Press.
Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged
in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 21–27.
Skiba, R., & Rauch, M. (2006). School disciplinary systems: Alterna-
tives to suspension and expulsion. In G.G. Bear & K. M. Minke
(Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and interven-
tion (pp. 87–102). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding
and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psy-
chology Review, 35, 245–259.
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & McIntosh, K. (2008). Best practices in develop-
ing a broad-scale system of school-wide positive behavior support.
In A. Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psy-
chology V (pp. 765–780). Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Taylor, L., Nelson, P., & Adelman, H. S. (1999). Scaling-up reforms
across a school district. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15,
303–325.

Appendix
Table A. Sample Items From the SPBD and Associated Facilitators and Barrier
SPBD Likert scale item Facilitators and barriers

I have trust in my administrators’ ability to lead us through change. Administrator support

The climate at this school is positive. School climate
I believe our administration will provide the necessary resources to Resources
support a schoolwide positive behavioral support effort.
My colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline. Shared vision
SWPBS is likely to be yet another fad. Sustainability
I don’t have the time to teach social and behavioral expectations. Time
Schoolwide behavior supports may work in other schools, but I doubt it will work in ours. Effectiveness
I feel that rewarding students is the same as bribing them. Philosophy
I don’t have time to teach the behavior expectations. Time
Supplemental items
When it comes to the concepts and procedures of positive behavior Knowledge
supports, my level of understanding is:
(a) Unfamiliar, I don’t know what it is.
(b) Limited, I need to learn more.
(c) Basic, I could implement.
(d) High, I could teach others.
If you are familiar with schoolwide positive behavior supports, please Support or buy-in
indicate your current level of support or commitment:
(a) I strongly disagree with this effort.
(b) I disagree with this effort, but I will not resist it.
(c) I agree with this effort, but I do not plan to participate in leadership or committee work.
(d) I strongly agree with this effort; I plan to actively support it.

Note. SPBD D Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline. SWPBS = Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support.