Positive Behaviour Support

School-Wide Positive
Behaviour Support
Drawing upon twenty years of experience putting the Positive Behaviour

Support (PBS) framework into practice, this is the first definitive handbook to
document the ways in which Australian schools have embraced and applied
school-wide PBS, and to provide guidance on implementation.
Written by key Australian researchers and implementers with extensive
expertise, School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support: The Australian
Handbook is an important contribution to the work of school leaders and
teachers. This book illustrates the significant contribution of PBS to improv-
ing schools and the potential for its systems approach to be expanded across
education systems. The book’s structure corresponds to the theme of a con-
tinuum of supports, addressing the key conceptual foundations of PBS and
its representation within school-wide implementation. Each chapter com-
prises a mix of research, practical case studies and examples, and features
learning intentions, keywords, further reading, advice on applying your
ideas, and links to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
PBS has gained significant attention in Australia over the past two decades
and its principles now underpin many successful systems and practices in
schools and community and disability services. This book will be a founda-
tional resource for implementers and coaches of PBS, educational leaders
and policy advisors, pre- and in-service teachers, as well as researchers.
Katrina Barker is Associate Professor in the School of Education and Director

of the Academic Program (Primary) at Western Sydney University. Katrina’s
research programme centres on the science of evaluation and inclusive edu-
cation, with a particular focus on improving the academic and psychosocial
wellbeing outcomes of disadvantaged children and young people.
Shiralee Poed is Chair of the Association for Positive Behaviour Support

Australia and is an ex officio member of the international Association for
Positive Behaviour Support. She holds the position of Associate Professor
at the University of Queensland and is Honorary Principal Fellow at the
University of Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
Phillip Whitefield has worked as a teacher, school principal, and consul-
tant in New South Wales schools. For many years he has provided tech-
nical assistance to schools implementing School-wide Positive Behaviour
Support. He is currently a research student at the University of Sydney.
School-Wide Positive
Behaviour Support
The Australian Handbook
Edited by
Katrina Barker, Shiralee Poed, and
Phillip Whitefield
Cover image: © Katrina Barker, Shiralee Poed, and Phillip Whitefield
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Katrina Barker, Shiralee Poed, and
Phillip Whitefield; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Katrina Barker, Shiralee Poed, and Phillip Whitefield to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Barker, Katrina, editor. | Poed, Shiralee, editor. | Whitefield, Phillip,
editor.
Title: School-wide positive behaviour support : the Australian handbook /
Edited by Katrina Barker, Shiralee Poed and Phillip Whitefield.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. | Includes
bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022006812
(print) | LCCN 2022006813 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032030128 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781032030111 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003186236 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Behavior modification--Australia. | School management
and organization--Australia. | Educational psychology--Australia. | School
improvement programs--Australia.
Classification: LCC LB1060.2 .S344 2022 (print) | LCC LB1060.2 (ebook) |
DDC 370.15/280994--dc23/eng/20220510
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006812
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022006813
ISBN: 978-1-032-03012-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-03011-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-18623-6 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236
Typeset in Optima
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Contents
List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii
List of Boxes ix
Acknowledgements x
Foreword by Tim Lewis xi
List of Contributors xiii
1 School-wide Positive Behaviour Support within

the Australian context 1
Phillip Whitefield, Shiralee Poed, and Katrina Barker
2 Perspectives on behaviour support in Australian schools 24

Erin Leif, Lisa McKay-Brown, and Phillip Whitefield
3 Tier 1 in the classroom: Interventions to support all learners 45

Lorna Hepburn and Sharonne Telfer
4 Tier 2: Targeted approaches, interventions, and supports 64

Shiralee Poed and Kate de Bruin
5 Tier 3: Intensive approaches, interventions, and supports 86

Lisa McKay-Brown and Tom Tutton
6 Impact of School-wide Positive Behaviour Support on

learners’ wellbeing and engagement 106
Anne Power, Katrina Barker, Mary Mooney, and Jill Schofield
7 Cultural responsiveness and diversity 128

Anthea Naylor, Matthew Harrison, and Sarah Spence
v
Contents
8 Ensuring inclusive outcomes for young people with

disability within School-wide Positive Behaviour Support 147
Julie M. McMillan and Jane M. Jarvis
9 Bullying prevention and prosocial skill development

in school settings 170
Roberto H. Parada
10 Where to from here: The readiness, sustainability, and scale

of School-wide Positive Behaviour Support implementation 189
Shiralee Poed, Russell Fox, and Jennifer Payne
Appendix207
Glossary218
Index223
vi
Figures
1.1 Integrated system of supports 6

1.2 Hierarchy of evidence 9
3.1 SWPBS Four Interactive Elements Model applied in classrooms 47
6.1 Systemic implementation model for PBIS/SWPBS 109
6.2 Three-tiered continuum of SWPBS 110
6.3 Saffron Primary School suspension data, 2005–2009 116
6.4 Magnolia High School suspension data, 2005–2010 122
9.1 Descriptive feedback 178
9.2 Internally focused feedback 179
9.3 Attributional feedback 180
9.4 Corrective feedback 181
vii
Tables
1.1 Professional standards for teachers 2

1.2 Positive Behaviour Support Capability Framework:
Key principles and values 5
1.3 Evidence-based practices common to multiple
environments8
2.2 Defining characteristics of ABA 29
3.2 Rationale for use of six evidence-informed practices 50
4.2 Example of a Tier 2 intervention grid 71
4.3 Template for Tier 2 intervention grid 81
5.2 Steps for reviewing behaviour support plans 99
6.2 Application of SWPBS systems and practices in
case study schools 125
6.3 School SWPBS action plan 125
8.2 Potential adjustments to common Tier 2 practices 155
8.3 Scenario illustrating adjustments to Tier 1 and Tier 2
PBS activities 157
8.4 Examples of Tier 3 adjustments applied to the PTR model
when designing individual behaviour support plans 160
viii
Boxes
2.1 The example of anxiety 31

2.2 Reinforcement versus rewards: What's the difference? 34
4.1 Implementation of Tier 2 at Aitken Creek Primary School,
Craigieburn, Victoria 75
ix
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of country through-

out Australia and their connections to land, sea, and community. We pay
our respects to their elders, past and present, and extend that respect to
all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples reading this publication.
We encourage all schools to seek ways to implement School-wide Positive
Behaviour Support that are culturally responsive, and to continue the jour-
ney towards healing and reconciliation.
The editors also wish to thank the Association for Positive Behaviour
Support Australia as well as the authors within this publication for entrusting
us as editors of this important handbook. This handbook has been written to
acknowledge the thousands of educators across Australia who have tire-
lessly committed themselves to the implementation of School-Wide Positive
Behaviour Support with fidelity in Australian schools. We further acknowl-
edge that we have stood on the shoulders of giants within the international
Positive Behaviour Support community, whose work has informed and
inspired our commitments.
x
Foreword
One universal challenge educators face the world over is promoting the
social, emotional, and behavioural wellbeing of their students including
typically developing students, those at risk, and those with disabilities. As
underscored in this handbook, what is key is developing supportive instruc-
tional environments and differentiating the type and intensity of supports
placed in the environment along a continuum. As noted within the initial
chapters, Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) has its roots in applied behaviour
analysis (ABA) that took centre stage in the 1980s during the non-aversive
movement within the field of severe disabilities. The logic of functional
analysis, a hallmark of ABA, seeks to determine what variables occasion
and maintain behaviour in order to understand why problem behaviour
occurs and what environmental conditions are necessary to promote pro-
social behaviour. This approach provided the building blocks for individual
PBSs which then led efforts to scale individual assessment and intervention
to entire school systems through School-wide Positive Behaviour Support
(SWPBS). The work of scholars at the University of Oregon and colleagues
across the United States in the late 1980s/early 1990s provided the field with
a critical blueprint for building SWPBS. In summary, a problem solving logic
of using data was used to determine student needs and to progress monitor
the impact, as well as to implement core practices to promote social, emo-
tional, and behavioural success. This included differentiating those supports
along a continuum, and ensuring the educators tasked with implementing
effective practices with fidelity accessed systems of supports including on-
going professional learning and technical assistance. Based on the success
in promoting positive student academic and social outcomes at the school
level, work using the SWPBS problem-solving framework expanded into
xi
Foreword
alternative educational settings, state and national initiatives, along with an

expanded scope of foci, including the school climate, dropout prevention,
cultural relevance, and promoting equitable outcomes among all students,
which created a technology that has been replicated and expanded across
the globe.
Key to the expansion of SWPBS implementation are multiple demonstra-
tion sites taking into account cultural and educational variations across mul-
tiple settings. I had the honour to conduct some of the initial SWPBS team
trainings in Australia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. At the outset of all
professional learning and technical assistance at the local, state, and national
levels, I and my colleagues always set a goal to ‘put ourselves out of a job’
by assisting in building local capacity. This handbook is a great example of
how a group of Australian scholars, practitioners, and policy makers, build-
ing on and expanding the core features of SWPBS to fit the Australian con-
text, continue to build local capacity. Each of the chapters summarises the
extant knowledge base related to core features of SWPBS, folds in relevant
teacher competencies, and highlights the Australian educational context. In
particular, the chapters on classroom supports, unique behavioural chal-
lenges, including bullying, and addressing equity among students with dis-
abilities and those from diverse backgrounds highlight the need for
handbooks such as this to assist educators in addressing key challenges
within the unique local context of Australian schools. This handbook should
be adopted within all pre-service teacher preparation programmes and be
required reading for in-service school leadership teams.
Tim Lewis, Ph.D.
Curators’ Distinguished Professor of Special Education,
University of Missouri;
Co-Director, U.S. Department of Education Center
for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
xii
Contributors
Katrina Barker is Associate Professor in the School of Education and Director

of the Academic Program (Primary) at Western Sydney University.
Katrina’s research programme centres on the science of evaluation and
inclusive education, with a particular focus on improving the academic
and psychosocial wellbeing outcomes of disadvantaged children and
young people.
Kate de Bruin is Senior Lecturer in inclusion and disability in the Faculty

of Education at Monash University. She lectures in the faculty’s master
degree programme for experienced teachers in the field of inclusive edu-
cation and multi-tiered systems of support for academic and behavioural
learning.
Russell Fox is an educator with experience teaching in primary, second-

ary, and alternative education settings. He has coached and supported
independent and government schools to implement School-wide Positive
Behaviour Support (SWPBS). His doctoral research was focused on under-
standing how to support the successful and sustained implementation of
PBIS in Victorian schools.
Matthew Harrison is an experienced educator, researcher, and digital creator

with a keen passion for utilising technology to enhance social learning
and inclusion. Matthew is currently coordinating the Autism Intervention
programme and is Co-Director of Student Experience at the University of
Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
xiii
Contributors
Lorna Hepburn has extensive experience as a teacher, head of department,

behaviour consultant, and regional coordinator for Positive Behaviour
Support (PBS). Her most recent role was heading the implementation of
PBS in government schools in Queensland, leading a team of regional
advisers who provide technical assistance, professional development,
and coaching to schools.
Jane M. Jarvis is Senior Lecturer and Co-Chair of the Research in Inclusive

and Specialised Education group at Flinders University. Her work
focuses on differentiated learning experiences for diverse learners,
and contemporary inclusive education. Her professional experience
includes roles as teacher, counsellor, behaviour support practitioner,
and administrator.
Erin Leif is a Board-Certified Behaviour Analyst and Senior Lecturer in the

School of Educational Psychology and Counselling at Monash University.
Her research focuses on the exploration of strategies for building the
capability of the workforce to effectively use positive, preventative,
evidence-based practices when supporting young people with diverse
learning needs.
Lisa McKay-Brown is Director of Professional and Continuing Education at

the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Lisa has extensive experi-
ence as a teacher with a particular focus on students with disability. Her
research focuses on interventions for marginalised youth that impact both
the education and health sectors.
Julie M. McMillan is Senior Lecturer and Co-Chair of Research in Inclusive

and Specialised Education at Flinders University, the Association for
Positive Behaviour Australia (APBS) South Australia Network Lead for
schools, and Co-Chair of the APBS Australia Research Network. Julie’s
interests include teacher professional learning for students with disability,
including students who require extensive support.
Mary Mooney is Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University. Mary was

a researcher on two funded PBS projects in Western Sydney. She has
conducted further research in the fields of teacher education, effective
teaching, drama pedagogy, screen drama, and artists in residence.
xiv
Contributors
Anthea Naylor is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Melbourne

Graduate School of Education. She is experienced in supporting learners
with complex needs, working in both secondary and primary levels in
mainstream and special education settings. Anthea is a passionate advo-
cate for the use of video self-modelling.
Roberto H. Parada is a child and adolescent psychologist and Senior

Lecturer in Adolescent Development Behaviour and Wellbeing in the
School of Education, Western Sydney University, Australia. His research
interests focus on school bullying measurement and intervention, posi-
tive learning environments, wellbeing, and the application of cognitive
and behavioural interventions in schools.
Jennifer Payne is a teacher and psychologist, passionate about educators’ use

of evidence-based approaches to supporting student behaviour. She has
over ten years experience designing, implementing, evaluating, and
researching SWPBS in primary, high, and remote schools. Jennifer loves tak-
ing the research and making it relevant for educators in their daily practice.
Shiralee Poed is Chair of the Association for Positive Behaviour Support

Australia and is an ex officio member of the international Association for
Positive Behavior Support. She holds the position of Associate Professor
at the University of Queensland, and is Honorary Principal Fellow at the
University of Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
Anne Power is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Western

Sydney University. Her research interests include the music curriculum,
equity issues, and intercultural education. Her work with the Association
for Positive Behaviour Australia (APBSA) and service learning converges
with themes of creativity. She has co-edited three books, edited two jour-
nals, and led several research projects.
Jill Schofield has had extensive experience as an educator for over twenty-
five years with the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education.
During this time, she has worked in many leadership roles in public edu-
cation that focus on building the leadership and teacher quality capabili-
ties of teachers and of aspiring and existing leaders to deliver the best
possible learning and wellbeing outcomes for all students.
xv
Contributors
Sarah Spence has worked for various universities and schooling systems and
has her own PBIS consultancy. She has been a teacher, principal, state-
wide PBIS manager, and PBIS coach, and has presented internationally
on PBIS. She has an interest in disability, behaviour, and data systems.
Sharonne Telfer has extensive experience supporting schools with the

implementation of PBS across several Australian states. Her most recent
role is as a director of a not-for-profit organisation. She has a background
in classroom teaching and school administration and a particular interest
in supporting teacher professional learning in PBS practices.
Tom Tutton is Executive Manager, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), sup-

porting its Comprehensive Approach, Inclusion and Autism Friendly
work. Tom has worked for Aspect for fifteen years, supporting autistic
people in challenging situations in schools, family homes, and communi-
ties through direct service, training, writing, and research.
Phillip Whitefield has worked as a teacher, school principal, and consultant

in NSW schools. For many years he has provided technical assistance to
schools implementing SWPBS. He is currently a research student at the
University of Sydney.
xvi
School-wide
1 Positive Behaviour
Support within the
Australian context
Phillip Whitefield, Shiralee
Poed, and Katrina Barker
Learning intentions
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to achieve the following:
• Define and explain Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) including its ori-
gins, assumptions, and key terms.
• Describe the evidence supporting the application of School-wide
Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) across school settings.
• Reflect on the relevance of PBS and a Multi-Tiered System of Supports to
the universal areas of social life, with refences to broader social educa-
tion concerns and to interventions which involve prosocial behaviour,
inclusiveness, and wellbeing.
• Summarise the key ideas of SWPBS as applied to Australian school/
educational settings.
Professional standards for teachers

This chapter covers the Professional Teacher Standards shown in Table 1.1.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-1 1
Phillip Whitefield et al.
Table 1.1 Professional standards for teachers
Focus Descriptor Chapter example

1.2 Understand Demonstrate knowledge and Assess the current evidence
how students understanding of research of SWPBS implementation
learn into how students learn and efforts to support
and the implications for academic and behavioural
teaching. learning.
4.1 Support Identify strategies Review the principles and
student to support inclusive values within the Australian
participation student participation and PBS Capabilities Framework
engagement in classroom to inform school-wide and
activities. classroom practices.
6.2 Engage in Understand the relevant Use the hierarchy of
professional and appropriate sources of evidence to select
learning and professional learning for professional learning
improve practice teachers. that is effective and
evidence-based.
Introduction
Educators in Australia, as anywhere in the world, manage tasks that range
from the mundane to the complex. There is an expectation that educators
can solve problems, particularly where learning and behaviour are deemed
unsatisfactory. It is unreasonable to frame solutions to these complex dif-
ficulties in personal and individual terms, just as it is equally unreasonable
to explain a problem’s origins and reoccurrence in isolation from a social
context. Useful explanatory approaches seek to understand learning and
behaviour in these social contexts, identify the reciprocity of relationships
(Bandura, 1997), and conceptually locate educators’ work within broader
social-ecological systems (Strnadová & Cumming, 2016).
PBS is an applied science that uses educational and systems change
methods to improve the quality of life for populations (van den Akker et al.,
2015). With the adoption of PBS in educational settings across Australia
(Poed & Whitefield, 2020), the need has arisen to document its contribution,
summarise its evidence, and assist its ongoing development. A rationale for
creating and correctly implementing effective approaches is evident from
numerous domains and sources. Exclusionary, punitive, and reactive proce-
dures are used in schools, despite the increased likelihood of antisocial
behaviour and decrease in the quality of student mental health associated
with such approaches (Hemphill et al., 2017, 2020; Herman et al. 2021).
2
School-wide Positive Behaviour Support
There is also a need to decode the relevant broad narratives evident in

Australian educational discourse. The fields of education and psychology
have acquired a technical metalanguage to describe experiences and
interventions, with corresponding acronyms, which may be confusing to
classroom practitioners. Additionally, school education attracts its share of
commercially driven products, some recycled and rebranded, with prom-
ises of transformative change, but with scant scientific evidence of their
effectiveness.
Positive behaviour support

The term ‘positive behaviour support’ has been with us for several decades,
with major influences from the United States (USA) behavioural-analytic
tradition (Kincaid et al., 2016). In terms of its ambitious and optimistic
goals for empirically understanding and enhancing human interactions,
it is a young movement. In the field of behaviour support for young peo-
ple, PBS is now considered the key approach for providing evidence-
based, proactive, skill-building, and non-aversive services (Dew et al.,
2017). For example, a PBS Capability Framework informs the Australian
National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguards
Commission’s protocols for behaviour support practitioners, particu-
larly for individualised behaviour support planning (NDIS Quality and
Safeguards Commission, 2019).
In the area of education, tens of thousands of schools across many
countries are implementing SWPBS as an organisational framework
(Lloyd et al., 2021; Sugai & Horner, 2020). Local contexts have given rise
to different labels, including Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) and
Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Nonetheless, key
elements derived from an Implementation Blueprint can be identified
(Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2015). Since
the emergence of PBS in the mid-1980s, an impressive evidence base has
formed. The experience of experimental and descriptive SWPBS research
has been documented in journals, such as the Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, Education and Treatment of Children, and Intervention in
School and Clinic. Australian studies are beginning to document the posi-
tive outcomes of SWPBS within schools (Centre for Education Statistics
and Evaluation, 2021).
3
Definitions
The word positive has various contemporary meanings and is typically
associated with subjective attributes such as happiness, wellbeing, and suc-
cess. While these terms are applicable to PBS, the name is a derivation of
positivism, a systematic approach to understanding natural phenomena by
using experimentation, replication, and parsimony. Definitions of PBS refer
to an empirically driven approach, derived from behavioural analysis, to
improve the quality of life of people through systems change and multiple
interventions (van den Akker et al., 2015). A useful perspective by Kincaid
et al. (2016) defined PBS as a research-based assessment, intervention, and
decision-making process that involves:
• developing the functional capabilities of people

• preventing behaviours of concern
• creating supportive contexts.
As elaborated in later chapters, the behaviour analytic tradition contin-

ues to fundamentally shape the perspective of PBS and its endeavours to
increase prosocial behaviour. The concept of behavioural function provides
a foundation for understanding the reciprocal relationship between indi-
viduals and environments. Indeed, evidence from interventions that teach
communication strategies and replacement behaviours contributed to the
emergence of PBS (Kincaid et al., 2016). Additionally, these strategies work
best when aligned with the implementer’s strengths (contextual fit), and
within naturalistic or real-life environments (ecological validity), with maxi-
mal meaning to the person (social validity) (Hieneman, 2015).
In contrast to practices that depend on the management of consequences
and on aversive procedures, PBS incorporates human rights principles to
acknowledge the importance of agency and person-centred values. The
Australian PBS Capability Framework (PBSCF; NDIS Quality and Safeguards
Commission, 2019) elaborates key principles and values for service provid-
ers and behaviour practitioners (see Table 1.2).
A contemporary example is the elimination of physical restraints, seclusion,
and other restrictive practices in service provision and institutions. Commen
ting on the limited Australian data, Richardson et al. (2019) note that the cor-
rect use of positive behaviour support, that follows from appropriate training,
is associated with a reduced use of restrictive practices, such as restraint.
4
Table 1.2 Positive Behaviour Support Capability

Framework: Key principles and values
Principles Values
Legally and ethically sound Respect, protect, and fulfil human rights,
practice through meeting obligations under the United
Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD)
Culturally competent practice Person-centred approaches
Reflective practice Strengths-based approaches to increase
capacity of individuals, families, and carers
Evidence-based practice and A holistic approach (recognising the
data-driven decision-making connections between a person’s physical,
emotional, spiritual, and family wellbeing)
Recognition that behaviours of Recognise the importance of mainstream (e.g.,
concern are often the result of medical, justice, and education systems) and
interactions between the person specialist disability services, and their roles in
and their environment, and may the team supporting the person
be affected by multiple factors
Acknowledgement of a lifespan Respect for the person’s ‘voice’
perspective and that as people
grow and develop, they face
different challenges
Commitment to the principles Full participation of people with disability as
of supported decision making citizens in their communities
Collaboration as recognition of the value of
teamwork
Transparency and openness
(NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2019, p. 14.)
Systems perspective
The systems-level scale of implementation of SWPBS contrasts to reactive,
packaged, and stand-alone behavioural programmes. Instead, problem con-
texts are analysed as antecedents, with an intervention’s focus on a person’s
long-term goals and quality of life. A socially inclusive context would likely
impact on the success of person-centred planning.
Educational interventions illustrate the educative approach of PBS, with an
emphasis on the teaching of values, skills, and knowledge that enhance self-
determination, while simultaneously developing systems that seek to rede-
sign contexts surrounding that teaching and learning. In socio-ecological
5
terms, PBS seeks to influence the microsystem factors of families, peer rela-
tionships, and local expectations, as well as macrosystem factors such as
beliefs and society-wide expectations (Strnadová & Cumming, 2016).
In community services, the scale of implementation is typically inten-
sive and individualised, with support encapsulated within individual PBS
planning. In education settings, PBS is scaled to whole-school organisa-
tional units in the form of SWPBS or a Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
(MTSS). In summary, this is the planned use of support strategies along a
continuum, or nested tiers, that matches the intensity of student need (see
Figure 1.1).
SWPBS promotes the use of evidence-based behavioural strategies for all
students to prevent academic and behavioural difficulties and increase the
likelihood of success (Nese et al., 2021). Figure 1.1 indicates that at least
two operational areas are integrated. Firstly, the tiers of support, from uni-
versal to intensive, harmoniously share essential and recognisable features.
These blended tiers relate to differences of individualisation, as measured
by data, resources, and time, and are not intended to be static (Sugai &
Horner, 2020). For example, a school may teach important social-emotional
skills universally, within targeted classroom-based groups, and to students
individually. The process is integrated when the language, instructional
Academic Systems Behavioural Systems
Tier 3 Supports Tier 3 Supports

Individualised Individualised
Assessment-based Assessment-based
Intensive Intensive
Targeted students Targeted students
High efficiency High efficiency
Rapid response Rapid response

Universal Universal
All students All students
All settings All settings
Preventative Preventative
Proactive Proactive
Figure 1.1 Integrated system of supports
6
strategies, practice opportunities, and feedback strategies are in agreement.

Secondly, while the literature sometimes refers to specialised forms of
Multi-Tiered System of Supports (Lloyd et al. 2021), such as MTSS-B
(Behaviour) and MTSS-A (Academic), a key feature of Multi-Tiered System
of Supports is the integration of educational supports. An increase in stu-
dent engagement and reduction in behaviours of concern may be corre-
lated with the explicit teaching of behavioural skills and values, and a
corresponding use of teaching strategies in curriculum areas to develop
academic skills. Without directly addressing academic instruction, SWPBS
may create distal effects on academic achievement by reducing behaviours
of concern (Gage et al., 2017).
Like the earlier Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks, SWPBS uses
the processes of comprehensive data-based screening, assessment, and
progress monitoring. The architects of SWPBS incorporated the findings
from implementation research that addressed the phases of high-fidelity
implementation and organisational logic (Harn et al., 2013). The SWPBS
framework requires leadership structures within a school to manage execu-
tive functions, including stakeholder buy-in, staff capacity, and implementa-
tion functions, including training, coaching, and evaluation (Pearce et al.,
2019). Building systems increases the likelihood that effective interventions
will be used with fidelity and enables the available resources to be invested
to support sustainability and scaling (Sugai & Horner, 2020). The system
focus is also illustrated by the content of the fidelity instruments created for
both school leadership teams and researchers, with key items evaluating
adult practices (McIntosh et al., 2017).
Prevention
As an applied science, PBS has demonstrated a capacity to relate to mul-
tiple perspectives from within the broader based field of preventative inter-
ventions for families and parenting, early childhood, and adolescence.
A unifying feature is the operation of contextual factors that increase the
likelihood of prosocial behaviour: behaviour that benefits the wellbeing of
others. Table 1.3 summarises some common evidence-based practices that
are problem-solving, concrete, collaborative, and flexible.
7
Table 1.3 Evidence-based practices common to multiple environments
• Paying frequent attention to positive • Rearranging situations so that

behaviours. positive behaviours result in
• Providing supportive prompts, enjoyable activities.
coaching, and correction. • Expressing affection and caring
• Setting clear limits and boundaries. frequently.
• Ignoring harmless but annoying
behaviours so children don’t get an • Developing effective ways of
‘audience’ for these. solving daily and recurring
• Recognizing and encouraging problems.
behaviours that are the opposite of • Envisioning the future and setting
any identified problem behaviours. specific and attainable goals.
(Biglan et al., 2020, p. 160).
An additional unifying feature of PBS is its multidisciplinary characteris-

tics. The experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate the importance
of designing and evaluating implementation initiatives. Community health
interventions are multi-tiered, with universal and preventative behaviourally
based practices that require ongoing educative processes. A focus on trans-
mission reduction and lowering prevalence rates in the whole population
through physical distancing, mask wearing, personal hygiene, seeking med-
ical information, and accessing telehealth have been fundamental compo-
nents of implementation. The use of these personal protective and social
measures is associated with reductions in the incidence of COVID-19 (Talic
et al., 2021). Targeted and individualised measures have been designed to
ensure healthcare providers are protected, along with providing a contin-
uum of treatments for people who are unwell (Wensing et al., 2020). While
the mechanisms of universal immunisation have many successful anteced-
ents, the implementation of vaccination programmes depends on behav-
iourally based supports that educate populations (Berman, 2020).
Decades of empirical research indicate that the educative strategies asso-
ciated with PBS are effective, when implemented with fidelity. At scale,
these strategies need to combine with measures that mitigate the impact of
material factors. During the pandemic in Australia and other countries,
inequalities in access to healthcare, or inequitable treatment for vulnerable
populations, have been on display (Wensing et al., 2020). The designers and
implementers of PBS in schools and communities acknowledge the need to
address material factors, such as poverty, inequality, and the marketing of
unhealthy products (Biglan et al., 2020).
8
Characteristics of the SWPBS evidence base

Internationally, and predominantly in the United Kingdom (UK) and USA,
there is a growing evidence base demonstrating the effects of SWPBS on
school, staff, and student outcomes (Lee & Gage, 2020). Notably, the quality
and quantity of this evidence-based research has increased in recent years
(Uslu & Baglama, 2020). This is because researchers have been increas-
ingly applying stringent criteria established by agencies and organisations
(e.g., the American Psychological Association, the Council for Exceptional
Children, What Works Clearinghouse, the Institute for Education Science) to
strengthen experimental rigour and hence the confidence in research find-
ings. There is now a significant body of research evidence in the UK and
USA confirming SWPBS as a trusted practice for implementing at scale.
While the stringent criteria proposed may vary between agencies and
organisations, the underlying hierarchy of evidence underpinning these cri-
teria is relatively consistent. Typically, the levels of evidence are represented
by a pyramid, with the more abundant but smaller and weaker research stud-
ies, such as those using cross-sectional study designs or case series, at the
base of the pyramid (see Figure 1.2). Toward the apex of the pyramid are
Higher
Systematic review
Randomised control studies
Cohort studies Validity

Meta-analysis
Case control studies
Cross-sectional studies
Lower
Case reports
Figure 1.2 Hierarchy of evidence
9
studies achieving higher validity by minimising the impact of bias on the

results, including systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and
meta-analyses. Internationally, from the mid-2000s onwards there has been
a shift in SWPBS research towards intensifying the volume of research apply-
ing designs that produce more robust levels of evidence, including system-
atic reviews and meta-analyses (see, e.g., Blair et al., 2021; Gage et al.,
2018; Lee & Gage, 2020). Consequently, debates about the impact of SWPBS
are being addressed through higher quality contemporary international
research.
International evidence from early childhood,

primary, and secondary schools
To date, the vast majority of SWPBS research has been conducted in early
childhood settings, and primary and secondary schools. Furthermore,
the more rigorous methodological designs have been applied in research
related to Tier 1, followed by Tier 2, and are less prevalent for Tier 3. For
instance, Lee and Gage’s (2020) systematic review predominantly focused
on Tier 1 intervention studies and found statistically significant effects,
albeit of small to medium size, on reductions in school discipline and
improved academic achievement for students in primary and second-
ary schools. These results were a product of aggregating the effect sizes
across studies and utilising robust variance estimation (RVE) meta-anal-
ysis. Interestingly however, when disaggregating the data by examining
each individual study, there were mixed results, with some studies show-
ing positive impacts on some but not all outcomes in the behaviour and
academic domains. Given that consistency is a component of the ‘body of
evidence’ to assess whether findings are consistent across included studies,
it is important to ensure studies are replicable or are sophisticated enough
to be able to account for sample variation. To address consistency in future
international research, SWPBS studies should include examining the pos-
sible differential effects of SWPBS for specific populations, such as stu-
dents with disability and First Nations students (see McDaniel et al., 2020).
Examining populations of interest may have larger estimates of effects as
a result of the greater bias in such studies; however, they are important
to conduct because they help confirm or question the results from ran-
domised trials in larger populations.
10
Evidence base in alternative educational settings

Only a small number of international studies have examined SWPBS in
alternative education settings, such as separate schools for students with dis-
abilities, separate residential facilities, or correctional facilities (Grasley-Boy
et al., 2021). The research in alternative education settings has tended to
focus on the enablers and barriers to implementing SWPBS, and has relied
on qualitative methodologies, with a smaller number of quasi-experimental
studies used to examine the research questions. Future international research
directions should apply the same rigorous criteria applied more recently to
research conducted in early childhood and school settings to strengthen the
evidence base in alternative education settings.
In line with the increased rigour of SWPBS international research,
Australia needs to invest in high-quality research to build the body of evi-
dence. Australian research should follow in the footsteps of the international
SWPBS research by applying more stringent methodological criteria to
examine the consistency, impact, generalisability, and applicability of
SWPBS in an Australian context. Enhancing the scholarship of SWPBS in
Australia will strengthen the evidence base needed to make policy, funding,
and implementation recommendations. The next section of this chapter
reviews the status of research conducted in Australia, and the dissemination
of evidence by Australian authors.
A narrative review of SWPBS as applied to

Australian school/educational settings
SWPBS has been adopted, implemented in, and scaled across Australian
schools for over twenty years (Poed & Whitefield, 2020), with the states of
New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland contributing the bulk of research
into the application of this framework in educational settings and the larg-
est percentages of schools that have been trained in PBS. The first Australian
publications on SWPBS examined the application of the framework in the
early years (Beamish et al., 2001), in a Queensland special school for stu-
dents with disability (Driver, 2003), and in a Queensland secondary (high)
school (Bryer et al., 2005). Fields (2014) conducted an analysis of respon-
sible behaviour plans from Queensland primary schools, including those
11
implementing PBL. Want (2017) examined approaches to enhancing social-

emotional competence in Queensland primary schools. Tier 1 classroom
management practices of Queensland secondary school teachers were
examined by Hepburn (2019a, 2019b) and Hepburn et al. (2021).
In NSW, researchers partnered with schools to explore the cultural trans-
fer of SWPBS (also known as PBL in NSW) as applied in US educational
settings, and how it impacted learning and behaviour in one region of gov-
ernment schools (Mooney et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). Power
(2009) examined the impact of PBL in NSW music classrooms. Barker et al.
(2009a) considered the impact of implementing PBL on teachers’ self-efficacy
in both instruction and management, as well as the relationship between stu-
dents’ positive self-concept and positive behaviour (Barker et al., 2013) and
impact on psychosocial outcomes (Barker et al., 2008). Yeung et al. (2009)
documented the impact of PBL on student learning in NSW primary settings
and on behaviour and motivation for learning (Yeung et al., 2013); these
authors also examined barriers and facilitators to implementation fidelity and
sustainability documented in international sources (Yeung et al., 2016).
A small amount of research has also been published on the implementa-
tion efforts in other Australian states. In Victoria, Wilson (2011) examined
how Tier 3 individualised supports were provided to primary school students
with emotional and behavioural disorders. In 2012, Poed et al. reported the
outcomes of a three-year trial of SWPBS in Catholic primary schools. In the
Northern Territory, Dixon (2012) examined the application of SWPBS in a
middle school in Darwin, while in Western Australia, Havel and Mawer
(2017) discussed teaching values and democratic norms in schools imple-
menting SWPBS. Telfer (2020) examined the effects of coaching on Tier 1
SWPBS using a within-school coaching model in Western Australia.
More broadly, Australian researchers have contributed to the scholar-
ship of SWPBS through offering overviews of the framework (Beamish &
Bryer, 2019; Beamish & Saggers, 2020), conducting reviews of the litera-
ture to determine a framework and guiding principles for managing behav-
iour in Australian schools (de Jong, 2005), collating and publishing
annotated bibliographies of PBS research (Edwards & Soo, 2014; van den
Akker et al., 2015), and documenting a range of classroom management
approaches that include SWPBS and their relationship to the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers (Egeberg et al., 2016). The issues of imple-
mentation fidelity and sustainability have gained attention (Bryer & Beamish,
2019; Fox, 2021; Fox et al., 2021, in press-a, in press-b; Yeung et al., 2016).
12
In relation to Tier 1 of SWPBS, researchers have investigated universal class-

room supports in Australian schools (Barker, 2018; Sargeant, 2020a) as well
as the use of evidence-based practices, such as explicit behavioural expec-
tations (Sargeant, 2020b). Fields (2012) researched the use of praise and
correction when supporting learners with oppositional and defiant behav-
iours. Naylor et al. (2019) investigated the use of video modelling as a
Tier 1 universal approach, while Goodall (2020) examined the universal use
of interoception. Pedrotti (2017) considered the impact of SWPBS, specifi-
cally the use of rewards and acknowledgements, on intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in schools practising values-based education, and Poed and
Hattie (2016) examined the use of token economies in schools.
A small amount of Australian literature has also examined the more tar-
geted and intensive applications of SWPBS. Sargeant (2020c) considered
the use of Tier 2 and 3 approaches to support learners with behaviours of
concern. Howard (2020) examined how Tier 3 approaches could be used to
support children who had experienced trauma, while Montgomery (2014)
explored the relationship between SWPBS and trauma-informed practice
more broadly. O’Neill and Stephenson (2010) investigated the use of func-
tional behaviour assessments for students with behaviours of concern.
Particular attention has been paid to the application of SWPBS as an
approach to enhance school responses to bullying (Rigby, 2010, 2012;
Stutz, 2010). McMillan and Jarvis (2013) also explored the role of SWPBS as
a framework for mental health promotion in schools.
A small body of Australian literature has examined the application of
SWPBS through the lens of different stakeholders, including teachers (Bailey,
2020; Barker et al., 2009b; May, 2020) and parents (Rose, 2017). De Nobile
et al. (2016) considered school leadership practices across Australian pri-
mary schools and how these can effectively promote whole-school approa
ches to behaviour. Some attention has also been paid to the content of
teacher education courses, and whether preservice teachers are being effec-
tively prepared through content on evidence-based behaviour support
approaches, including PBS (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2013, 2014; Page &
Jones, 2018). Bryer and Beamish (2005) examined how to build teachers’
capacity to address behaviours of concern.
Finally, a small number of Australian studies have been critical of SWPBS
implementation. Bleakley and Bleakley (2019) were critical of PBL in
Queensland schools, citing the limited impact it had on school suspension
and expulsion rates, although this study was refuted by Hepburn and Poed
13
(2021). Mackie et al. (2017) also criticised the cultural inappropriateness of

PBS in remote Australian First Nations settings, specifically the focus on
behavioural expectations and on what these authors considered to be com-
pliance behaviour.
Conclusion
This book is the first definitive handbook that outlines the ways in which
Australian schools have embraced SWPBS. The findings that have been docu-
mented indicate that significant outcomes have been achieved, internationally
and in Australia. A key goal for schools, researchers, and advocacy organisa-
tions like the Association for Positive Behaviour Support Australia (APBSA)
is to increase the fidelity of implementation of SWPBS and thereby improve
outcomes for students. The further gathering of Australian evidence, and
extracting ideas to improve implementation, will inform future publications.
The structure of this book corresponds to the theme of a continuum of sup-
ports, while addressing the key conceptual foundations of PBS, and its repre-
sentation within SWPBS. The content explored in each chapter is of equal
importance, and it is useful to briefly mention each chapter’s purpose here.
The theoretical legacy of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) has a distinc-
tive value for implementers and researchers. Leif and colleagues pay par-
ticular attention to the historical influence of ABA within education broadly,
in Chapter 2. The concepts of ABA are explained with reference to PBS.
The tiers of intervention support, integral to the implementation of the
SWPBS framework, are covered in Chapters 3 to 5. In Chapter 3, Hepburn
and Telfer explore the first or universal tier of implementation and how this
has been adopted by Australian schools. In Chapter 4, Poed and de Bruin
explore the application of Tier 2, and then in Chapter 5, McKay-Brown and
Tutton discuss Tier 3 application. Shared across these chapters are clear
explanations of the purpose and functioning of the respective tiers. SWPBS
focuses on the building of systems within a school and depends on valid
data to support evidence-based practices. It is the implementation of a
framework, not a series of programmes or interventions, that captures the
unique character of SWPBS.
In Chapters 6 to 9, specific ways in which the application of SWPBS can
support diversity and inclusion are considered. Chapter 6, by Power and
colleagues, explores the ways in which the application of SWPBS can
14
enhance student wellbeing and engagement. In Chapter 7, Naylor and col-

leagues explore ways to ensure that culturally responsive practices are
included by default into every school, and the role played by SWPBS in this.
The authors discuss these practices for diverse learners, including those who
identify as First Nations, Disabled, or gender diverse. Chapter 8, authored
by McMillan and Jarvis, focuses specifically on ways in which SWPBS can
support students with disability. Chapter 9, authored by Parada, considers
how the ecosystem of SWPBS can reduce bullying and create safe learning
environments for all students. Shared across these chapters is evidence for
how SWPBS can support proven educational programmes by providing an
implementation framework.
In the final chapter of this handbook, Chapter 10, Poed and colleagues
explore the lessons learnt from the application of SWPBS in Australian
schools. Embedded within this discussion are ideas for those exploring or
getting ready to implement SWPBS in a school. Additionally, the chapter
contains insights from the research on the barriers and enablers to the sus-
tainability of SWPBS. This chapter is for those who are aiming to implement
SWPBS with fidelity, for those who provide technical assistance, coaching,
or leadership to schools, and for those who are researching what has been
done, and what is to come.
Apply your ideas

Select one or more articles from the ‘Narrative review of SWPBS’ section
of this chapter. Reflect on the quality of the research design applied in the
article(s) to assist you in determining the rigour of the research and the level
of your confidence in the research findings. Use the hierarchy of evidence
pyramid (see Figure 1.2) to guide the assessment of the quality of the research
in the article(s). Based on your assessment, does the material contribute to
the evidence-base of SWPBS?
References
Bailey, D. (2020). PBS in practice: A teacher’s perspective. In B. Saggers (Ed.),
Developing positive classroom environments: Strategies for nurturing adolescent
learning (pp. 193–208). Taylor & Francis.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
15
Barker, K. (2018). Classroom management: Effective strategies and interventions.

Professional Voice: The Improvement Factor, 12(2), 43–48. https://www.aeuvic.
asn.au/pv122-6
Barker, K., Dobia, B., Mooney, M., Watson, K., Power, A., Ha, M. T., Yeung, A. S.,
Schofield, J., McCloughan, G., & Denham, A. (2008, November 30–December
4). Positive behaviour for learning: Changing student behaviours for sustain-
able psychosocial outcomes [Conference presentation]. Australian Association
for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/
publications/2008/bar08420.pdf
Barker, K., Yeung, A. S., Craven, R., Ali, J., Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Power, A., Schofield,
J., & Whitefield, P. (2013, September 9–11). Does positive behaviour facilitate
self-concept or does positive self-concept facilitate behaviour? [Conference pre-
sentation]. The 2013 Joint Self Biennial Conference and Educational Research
Association of Singapore, Singapore.
Barker, K., Yeung, A. S., Dobia, B., & Mooney, M. (2009a, November 29–December 3).
Positive behaviour for learning: Differentiating teachers’ self-efficacy [Conference
presentation]. Australian Association for Research in Education, Canberra, Australia.
https://www.aare.edu.au/publications/aare-conference-papers/show/5825/
positive-behaviour-for-learning-differentiating-teachers-self-efficacy
Barker, K., Yeung, A. S., Dobia, B., & Mooney, M. (2009b, November 29–December 3).
Positive behaviour for learning: Aiming to implement a workable, positive and
sustainable approach to managing student behaviour [Conference presentation].
Australian Association for Research in Education, Canberra, Australia. https://
repository.nie.edu.sg/handle/10497/16190
Beamish, W., & Bryer, F. (2019). Behavioural support in Australia. In F. Bryer & W.
Beamish (Eds.), Behavioural support for students with special educational needs:
Trends across the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 49–68). Springer.
Beamish, W., Bryer, F., & Wilson, L. (2001). Positive behavioural support: An example
of practice in the early years. Special Education Perspectives, 9(1), 14–29. https://
research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/3867/16584_1.
pdf?sequence=1
Beamish, W., & Saggers, B. (2020). Positive Behaviour Support: An overview of the
three-tiered framework. In B. Saggers (Ed.), Developing positive classroom envi-
ronments: Strategies for nurturing adolescent learning (pp. 3–19). Taylor & Francis.
Berman, J. (2020). Anti-vaxxers: How to challenge a misinformed movement. MIT
Press.
Biglan, A., Elfner, K., Garbacz, A. Komro, K., Prinz, R., Weist, M., Wilson, D., &
Zarling, A. (2020). A strategic plan for strengthening America’s families: A brief
from the coalition of behavioral science organizations. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 23, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00318-0
Blair, K. C., Park, E., & Kim, W. (2021). A meta-analysis of Tier 2 interventions imple-
mented within School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Psychology in Schools, 58, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22443
16
Bleakley, P., & Bleakley, C-L. (2019). The data on deviance: Disintegrative sham-
ing and exclusion in Queensland schools. Interchange, 50, 537–548. https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s10780-019-09374-0
Bryer, F., & Beamish, W. (2005, December 2–4). Supporting students with problem
behaviour in school settings [Conference presentation]. International Conference
on Cognition, Language, and Special Education research, Surfers’ Paradise,
Australia. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/2532
Bryer, F., & Beamish, W. (2019). Issues and insights for the Asia-Pacific region. In F.
Bryer & W. Beamish (Eds.), Behavioural support for students with special edu-
cational needs: Trends across the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 185–191). Springer.
Bryer, F. Beamish, W., Davies, M., Marshall, R., Wilson, L., & Caldwell, W. (2005).
The first step to school-wide positive behaviour support in a Queensland high
school: Laying the foundation for participation. Special Education Perspectives,
14(2), 26–45. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/4237
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2015). Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Implementation Blueprint. University of Oregon.
www.pbis.org
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2021). Positive Behaviour for Learning –
Final report. NSW Department of Education. http://www.cese.nsw.gov.au
de Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student
behaviour in the Australian education context. School Psychology International,
26(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034305055979
De Nobile, J., El Baba, M., & London, T. (2016). School leadership practices that
promote effective whole school behaviour management: A study of Australian
primary schools. School Leadership & Management, 36(4), 419–434. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247041
Dew, A., Jones, A., Cumming, T., Horvat, K., Dillon Savage, I., & Dowse, L. (2017).
Understanding behaviour support practice guide: Children and young people
(9–18 years) with developmental delay and disability. UNSW. https://www.arts.
unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/UNSW_Understanding_Behaviour_
Support_Practice_Guide_Children9to18_colour_0.pdf
Dixon, R. (2012). Turning behaviour around. Australian Educational Leader, 34(3),
37–41. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/aeipt.193261
Driver, C. (2003, January). Positive behaviour support: A school-wide approach
[Conference presentation]. International Conference on Cognition, Language,
and Special Education research, Surfers’ Paradise, Australia. https://search.
informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.007024037377507
Edwards, M., & Soo, C. (2014, December). Annotated bibliography of research on
the implementation of Positive Behaviour Support. The University of Western
Australia.
Egeberg, H. M., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and
national professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory
and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 1–18. https://ro.ecu.
edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss7/1/
17
Fields, B. (2012). Getting the balance right: The challenge of balancing praise and
correction for early school years children who exhibit oppositional and defiant
behaviour. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(4), 24–28. https://doi.
org/10.1177/183693911203700404
Fields, B. (2014). A review of school behaviour management plans: Blueprints for
the management and support of students exhibiting problem behaviours. Special
Education Perspectives, 23(1), 42–56. https://aase.edu.au/journals/
Fox, R. A. (2021). Towards an understanding of school-wide positive behavioural
interventions and supports implementation and sustainability in Victorian schools
[Doctoral dissertation, Monash University]. https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/
thesis/Towards_an_understanding_of_School-wide_Positive_Behavioural_
Interventions_and_Supports_implementation_and_sustainability_in_Victorian_
schools/14411852
Fox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., Furlonger, B., Anderson, A., & Sharma, U.
(in press-a). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained
implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and sup-
ports. Education & Treatment of Children. https://research.monash.edu/en/
publications/a-systematic-review-of-the-facilitators-and-barriers-to-the-susta
Fox, R. A., Sharma, U., & Leif, E. S. (in press-b). The factors that count: Predicting
implementation fidelity of evidence-based behavioural supports in Australian
schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603116.2021.1979669
Fox, R. A., Sharma, U., Leif, E. S., Stocker, K. L., & Moore, D. W. (2021). ‘Not enough
time’: Identifying Victorian teachers’ perceptions of the facilitators and barriers
to supporting improved behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 45,
205–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2021.6
Gage, N. A., Leite, W., Childs, K., & Kincaid, D. (2017). Average treatment effect
of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on school-level
academic achievement in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19,
158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693556
Gage, N. A., Whitford, D. K., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). A review of Schoolwide
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports as a framework for reducing disci-
plinary exclusions. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 142–151. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022466918767847
Goodall, E. (2020). Interoception as a proactive tool to decrease challenging behav-
iour. Scan, 39(1). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.227299
Grasley-Boy, N. M., Reichow, B., van Dijk, W., Gage, N. A. (2021). A systematic
review of Tier 1 PBIS implementation in alternative education settings. Behaviour
Disorders, 46(4), 99–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920915648
Harn, B., Parisi, B., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit:
What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional
Children, 79(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440291307900204
Havel, P., & Mawer, J. (2017). ‘Not just because I say so’: The common good and
behaviour management. Australian Educational Leader, 39(4), 48–51. https://
search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.357317247853964
18
Hemphill, S., Broderick, D., & Heerde, J. (2017). Positive associations between
school suspension and student problem behaviour: Recent Australian find-
ings. Trends and Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 531. https://www.aic.gov.au/
publications/tandi/tandi531
Hemphill, S., Plenty, S., Bond, L., Herrenkohl, T., Toumboourou, J., & Catalano, R.
(2020). Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of school suspension: A lon-
gitudinal study in Victoria, Australia, and Washington State, United States. In A.
Towl & S. Hemphill (Eds.), Safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environments
for young people in crisis and trauma. Routledge.
Hepburn, L. (2019a). Teacher-reported knowledge and implementation of class-
room management practices in Queensland secondary schools: Investigating the
research-to-practice gap [Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University]. http://hdl.
handle.net/10072/386892
Hepburn, L. (2019b). Behavioural support in an Australian government sector. In F.
Bryer & W. Beamish (Eds.), Behavioural support for students with special educa-
tional needs: Trends across the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 101–114). Springer.
Hepburn, L., Beamish, W., & Alston-Knox, C. L. (2021). Classroom manage-
ment practices commonly used by secondary school teachers: Results from a
Queensland survey. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(3), 485–505.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00402-y
Hepburn, L., & Poed, S. (2021). Deviating from the data: A response to Bleakley
and Bleakley. Interchange, 52(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-
021-09431-7
Herman, K., Reinke, W., Thompson, A., Hawley, K., Wallis, K., Stormont, M., &
Peters, C. (2021). A public health approach to reducing the societal prevalence
and burden of youth mental health problems: Introduction to the special issue.
School Psychology Review, 50(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.
2020.1827682
Hieneman, M. (2015). Positive behavior support for individuals with behavior chal-
lenges. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 101–108.
Howard, J. (2020). A tier 3 approach to complex childhood trauma. In B. Saggers
(Ed.), Developing positive classroom environments: Strategies for nurturing ado-
lescent learning (pp. 261–277). Taylor & Francis.
Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., Kern, L., Lane, K., Bambara, L., Brown, F., Fox, L., &
Knoster, T. (2016). Positive Behavior Support: A proposal for updating and refin-
ing the definition. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 69–73. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1098300715604826
Lee, A., & Gage, N. A. (2020). Updating and expanding systematic reviews and
meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behaviour interventions
and supports. Psychology in Schools, 57(1), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pits.22336
Lloyd, B., Carter, E., Shuster, B., Axelroth, T., Davis, A., Hine, M., Porritt, M., Haynes,
R., Fareed, S., & Slaughter, J. (2021). Perspectives on the initial adoption of multi-
tiered systems of support for behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10983007211024378
19
Mackie, I., MacLennan, G., & Shipway, B. (2017). ‘There must be consequences’: The
impact of misaligned behaviour management perspectives in remote Indigenous
education. Journal of Critical Realism, 16(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14767430.2017.1313651
May, C. (2020). Developing and supporting teacher resilience: A foundation of PBS.
In B. Saggers (Ed.), Developing positive classroom environments: Strategies for
nurturing adolescent learning (pp. 123–137). Taylor & Francis.
McDaniel, S. C., Bruhn, A. L., & George, H. P. (2020). Establishing the literature
base of SWPBIS research in schools with large populations of underrepresented
students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
64(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1762158
McIntosh, K., Massar, M., Algozzine, R., Peshak-George, H., Horner, R., Lewis, T.,
& Swain-Bradway, J. (2017). Technical adequacy of the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity
Inventory. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 19(1), 3–13.https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300716637193
McMillan, J. M., & Jarvis, J. M. (2013). Mental health and students with disabili-
ties: A review of literature. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 23(2),
236–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2013.14
Montgomery, M. (2014). Trauma-informed practices and systems in schools (TIPS):
Present dilemmas, future possibilities. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/
main-education/about-us/careers-at-education/scholarships-and-programs/
premiers-teacher-scholarships/2014pts-report/2014PTS-report_Michelle-
MONTGOMERY.docx
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Barker, K., Power, A., Watson, K., & Yeung, A. S. (2008a).
Positive Behaviour for Learning: Investigating the transfer of a United States sys-
tem into the New South Wales Department of Education and Training Western
Sydney region schools. University of Western Sydney. https://researchdirect.
westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:132
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Barker, K., Power, A., Watson, K., & Yeung, A. S. (2008b).
Positive Behaviour for Learning: Investigating the transfer of a United States
system into the New South Wales Department of Education and Training
Western Sydney region schools. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 6(20).
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/positive_behaviour_for_learning,24004.
html?issueID=11469
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Power, A., Watson, K., Barker, K., Yeung, A. S., Denham, A.,
McCloughan, G., & Schofield, J. (2008c, November 30–December 4). Why pos-
itive behaviour for learning: The how’s and why’s of translating a US model for
local sustainable education [Conference presentation]. Australian Association
for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. https://www.aare.edu.au/
publications/aare-conference-papers/show/5719/why-positive-behaviour-for-
learning-the-hows-and-whys-of-translating-a-us-model-for-local-sustainable-
education
20
Mooney, M., Watson, K., Dobia, B., Power, A., Barker, K., Ha, M. T., Yeung, A. S.,
McCloughan, G., Schofield, J., & Denham, A. (2008d, November 30–December 4).
Positive behaviour for learning: Local features of an adapted US model of
behaviour management [Conference presentation]. Australian Association
for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/
publications/2008/moo08203.pdf
Naylor, A., Spence, S. E., & Poed, S. (2019). Using video modelling to teach expected
behaviours to primary students. Support for Learning, 34, 389–403. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9604.12274
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2019). Positive behaviour support
capability framework: For NDIS providers and behaviour support practitioners
(Updated February, 2021). NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. https://
www.ndiscommission.gov.au/pbscapabilityframework
Nese, R., Kittelman, A., Stricklan-Cohen, K., & McIntosh, K. (2021). Examining
teaming and Tier 2 and 3 practices within a PBIS framework. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions. Advance online publication.
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2010). The use of functional behavioural assess-
ments for students with challenging behaviour: Current patterns and experience
of Australian practitioners. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental
Psychology, 10, 65–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ895557
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2013). Classroom behaviour management content
in Australian undergraduate primary teaching programmes. Teacher Education,
23(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.699034
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-based classroom and behaviour
management content in Australian pre-service primary teachers’ coursework:
Wherefore art thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 1–22. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.4
Page, A., & Jones, M. (2018). Rethinking teacher education for classroom behaviour
management: Investigation of an alternative model using an online professional
experience in an Australian university. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
43(11), 94–104. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol43/iss11/5
Pearce, N., Cross, D., Epstein, M., Johnston, R., & Legge, E. (2019). Strengthening
school and system capacity to implement effective interventions to support student
behaviour and wellbeing in NSW public schools: An evidence review. Telethon
Kids Institute. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/student-
wellbeing/attendance-behaviour-and-engagement/media/documents/telethon-
kids-institute-final-report.pdf
Pedrotti, H. (2017). Care, inquiry and values. In G. Geng, P. Smith, & P. Black (Eds.), The
challenge of teaching through the eyes of preservice teachers (pp. 135–144). Springer.
Poed, S., & Hattie, J. (2016, June 9–10). Ethical (and other) considerations in the
use of token economies to modify student behaviour [Conference presentation].
Australian Association of Special Education, Melbourne, Australia.
21
Poed, S., & Whitefield, P. (2020). Developments in the implementation of Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports in Australian schools. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 56(1), 56–60.https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910742
Power, A. (2009, July 10–14). Introducing positive behaviour for learning produces
an environment with real advantages for music teaching and learning [Conference
presentation]. The XVII National Conference of the Australian Society for Music
Education, Launceston, Australia. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.
406581249459789
Richardson, B., Webber, L., & Lambrick, F. (2019). Factors associated with long-term
use of restrictive interventions, Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability,
45(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2019.1639895
Rigby, K. (2010). Enhancing responses to bullying in Queensland schools. Report for
the Department of Education and Training, Brisbane, Australia.
Rigby, K. (2012). Bullying in schools: Addressing desires, not only behaviours.
Educational Psychology Review, 24, 339–348. https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Ken-Rigby/publication/271630179_Bullying_in_Schools_Addressing_
Desires_Not_Only_Behaviours/links/5ddb8ed1458515dc2f4b7f1d/Bullying-in-
Schools-Addressing-Desires-Not-Only-Behaviours.pdf
Rose, M. F. (2017). Parent involvement and positive behaviour for learning in two
Australian schools [Doctoral dissertation, Western Sydney University]. https://
oatd.org/oatd/record?record=handle%5C:1959.7%5C%2Fuws%5C:49055
Sargeant, J. (2020a). Tier 1: Universal interventions that support PBS and class-
room practice. In B. Saggers (Ed.), Developing positive classroom environments:
Strategies for nurturing adolescent learning (pp. 105–122). Taylor & Francis.
Sargeant, J. (2020b). Evidence-based PBS practices: Encouraging engagement and
establishing clear behavioural expectations. In B. Saggers (Ed.), Developing posi-
tive classroom environments: Strategies for nurturing adolescent learning (pp.
67–86). Taylor & Francis.
Sargeant, J. (2020c). Tiers 2 and 3: Strategies to support more challenging behav-
iours in middle-years learners. In B. Saggers (Ed.), Developing positive classroom
environments: Strategies for nurturing adolescent learning (pp. 209–227). Taylor
& Francis.
Strnadová, I., & Cumming, T. (2016). Lifespan transitions and disability: A holistic
perspective. Routledge
Stutz, F. (2010). Bullying in schools: Who’s to blame? Independent Education, 40(2),
9–11. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.183967
Sugai, G., & Horner, (2020). Sustaining and scaling Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional
Children, 86(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919855331
Talic, S., Shah, S., Wild, H., Gasevic, D., Maharaj, A., Ademi, Z., Li, X., Xu, W., Mesa-
Eguiagaray, I., Rostron, J., Theodoratou, E., Zhang, X., Motee, A., Liew, D., & Ilic,
D. (2021). Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of
22
Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and Covid-19 mortality: Systematic review

and meta-analysis. BMJ. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj-2021-068302
Telfer, S. L. (2020). Effects of a within-school coaching model on teachers’ use of
behavioural feedback and opportunities to respond [Doctoral dissertation,
Murdoch University]. https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/59275/
Uslu, R., & Baglama, B. (2020). Evaluation of studies on Positive Behaviour Support
Interventions. Educational Management and Teaching Skills, 8(3), 581–592.
https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2020
van den Akker, J., Edwards, M., & Soo, C. (2015). An integrative review of litera-
ture on the implementation of positive behaviour support. University of Western
Australia. https://acquire.cqu.edu.au/articles/report/An_integrative_review_of_
literature_on_the_implementation_of_Positive_Behaviour_Support/13447265
Want, L. (2017). Developing social and emotional learning competencies in class-
rooms implementing the schoolwide positive behaviour support program: Three
case studies [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland]. https://espace.
library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:511814
Wensing, M., Sales, A., Armstrong, R., & Wilson, P. (2020). Implementation sci-
ence in times of Covid 19. Implementation Science, 15(42), 1–4. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13012-020-01006-x
Wilson, K. (2011). The effectiveness of individualised positive behaviour support
for Victorian primary school students with emotional or behavioural disorders
[Masters dissertation, The University of Melbourne]. https://minerva-access.
unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/37046
Yeung, A. S., Barker, K., Tracey, D., & Mooney, M. (2013). School-wide positive
behavior for learning: Effects of dual focus on boys’ and girls’ behavior and
motivation for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.002
Yeung, A. S., Craven, R. G., Mooney, M., Tracey, D., Barker, K., Power, A., Dobia, B.,
Chen, Z., Schofield, J., Whitefield, P., & Lewis, T. J. (2016). Positive behavior inter-
ventions: The issue of sustainability of positive effects. Educational Psychology
Review, 28, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9305-7
Yeung, A. S., Mooney, M., Barker, K., & Dobia, B. (2009). Does school-wide positive
behaviour system improve learning in primary schools? Some preliminary find-
ings. New Horizons for Learning, 57(1), 17–32. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860815
23
Perspectives on
2 behaviour support in
Australian schools
Erin Leif, Lisa McKay-Brown,
and Phillip Whitefield
Learning intentions
• Describe the core features of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA).

• Explain the relationship between ABA and School-wide Positive
Behaviour Support (SWPBS).
• Explain how ABA and SWPBS have influenced current practices in
Australian schools.
The emergence of SWPBS in the 1990s was facilitated by evidence associ-

ated with influential traditions within psychology and education. The archi-
tects of SWPBS agreed with the belief that science should yield practical and
useful technologies that help solve socially important problems. In Australian
education-related contexts, the term ‘applied behaviour analysis’ (ABA) has
been adopted by various programme providers, particularly in the field of
developmental disabilities. This adoption has perhaps contributed to diver-
gent understandings of what ABA is, and how it has influenced educational
practices and models, such as SWPBS. By explaining the core features of
ABA, its contribution to both SWPBS and other practices adopted and widely
used within Australian schools can be illustrated and better understood.

This chapter covers the following Professional Teacher Standards shown in
Table 2.1.
24 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-2
Perspectives on behaviour support

1.5 Differentiate Develop teaching activities Identifying evidence-
teaching to meet that incorporate differentiated based practices for
the specific strategies to meet the specific enabling curriculum
learning needs of learning needs of students access, such as Universal
students across across the full range of abilities. Design for Learning.
the full range of
abilities
3.3 Use teaching Select and use relevant Understanding
strategies teaching strategies to develop the principles of
knowledge, skills, problem reinforcement to inform
solving, and critical and instructional strategies.
creative thinking.
4.1 Support Establish and implement Identifying current
student inclusive and positive approaches in Australian
participation interactions to engage and schools such as class-
support all students in wide reinforcement,
classroom activities. student voice, and
self-management.
4.2 Manage Establish and maintain orderly Understanding the
classroom and workable routines to create principles of behaviour
activities an environment where student change and identifying
time is spent on learning tasks. behaviours for change.
4.3 Manage Manage challenging behaviour Understanding the
challenging by establishing and negotiating influence of contextual
behaviour clear expectations with factors that occasion
students and address discipline behaviours of concern.
issues promptly, fairly, and
respectfully.
4.4 Maintain Ensure students’ wellbeing Identifying practices
student safety and safety within school by that specifically aim to
implementing school and/ enhance student social
or system, curriculum, and and emotional learning
legislative requirements. and wellbeing.
5.4 Interpret Use student assessment data Understanding the
student data to analyse and evaluate core features of data
student understanding of to enable meaningful
subject/content, identifying decision-making.
interventions and modifying
teaching practices.
25
Erin Leif et al.
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the core tenets and defining char-
acteristics of ABA, describes how ABA has influenced the development of
SWPBS, and describes how SWPBS has extended the science of ABA within
school settings. We discuss how ABA and SWPBS have influenced extant
approaches to learning and behaviour support in Australian schools and
provide recommendations for further aligning them with existing school
improvement initiatives.
Applied Behaviour Analysis: An applied science

ABA is a pragmatic science that is concerned with the development of prac-
tical and effective educational and behaviour support strategies (Moore,
2016). In the field of ABA, the value of research is assessed in terms of
its practical significance; that is, the degree to which interventions derived
from ABA research produce meaningful outcomes for students.
The professional practice of ABA is best conceptualised as an applied
example of evidence-based practice (Slocum et al., 2014). Evidence-based
practice is a decision-making framework in which the professional consid-
ers both the best available research evidence and the goals, values, prefer-
ences, and needs of the direct recipient of services, and uses clinical
judgement to select and individualise evidence-based interventions to sup-
port the person to achieve their goals. According to Slocum et al. (2014),
evidence-based practice recognises that evidence cannot be the sole basis
for a decision; in ABA, decision-making requires clinical expertise in ‘iden-
tifying, defining, and analysing problems, determining what evidence is rel-
evant, and deciding how it should be applied’ (p. 44). Ongoing data
collection and analysis further allows the professional, in this context the
educator, to assess the intervention, and make frequent adjustments to the
intervention to ensure continued progress.
Historically and conceptually, ABA sits within the broader field of behav-
iour analysis, a scientific discipline devoted to understanding and improving
human behaviour (Cooper et al., 2020). This field consists of four branches
that form the foundation for research and clinical practice. The first is radical
26
behaviourism (Johnston, 2014), or the philosophy of the science. This

attempts to understand all human behaviour, including thoughts, feelings,
emotions, cognition, and complex language, in terms of person-centred his-
torical variables (e.g., learning) and biological endowment. The second
branch is the experimental analysis of behaviour (Skinner, 1965), a natural
science approach to the study of basic behavioural processes. The third
branch is applied behaviour analysis (Baer et al., 1968), in which basic
behavioural processes derived from the experimental analysis are applied to
improve socially significant behaviour in real-world settings. The scientific
method is used to show that behaviour change and learning is due to the
careful and specific implementation of the intervention or teaching strategy,
rather than an uncontrolled variable. The fourth branch, the professional
practice of applied behaviour analysis (Cooper et al., 2020), involves the
delivery of applied behaviour analytic interventions in a range of real-world
settings, such as classrooms.
ABA as a scientific discipline represented a move away from other fields
of science that were primarily interested in describing and classifying behav-
iour (Steege et al., 2019). Although traditional psychological assessments
were designed to identify, describe, and classify (e.g., diagnose) problems
experienced by students, there was less emphasis on exploring the underly-
ing causes of student behaviour, or on the design, implementation, and eval-
uation of practical strategies to reduce barriers to learning and teach new
skills. The science of ABA provided a new way of studying the behaviour of
students by focusing on the dynamic interactions between a student’s behav-
iour and the social environment in which they live and learn. In 1968, Baer
et al. published their seminal article describing the characteristics of ABA as
a science and practice. Since then, thousands of studies evaluating the ways
in which environmental variables influence learning and behaviour have
been published (see the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis). Collectively,
this body of research has offered a way of understanding not only what stu-
dents say, do, and learn, but also the contextual variables that influence how
and why students behave in specific ways in specific contexts.
To help teach new skills and address problematic behaviour for students,
educators must be able to identify the variables that directly influence stu-
dent behaviour. One hallmark of ABA is its emphasis on behavioural func-
tion, in addition to form (or what the behaviour looks like). Behavioural
27
Erin Leif et al.
function refers to the ‘why’ of behaviour. In ABA, an emphasis is placed on

identifying the unique and personally relevant factors that influence the
behaviour of each person (Hanley, 2012). A functional account of behaviour
shifts our focus from describing what behaviours look like, to understanding
the contexts in which behaviours occur. If a cause-and-effect relation
between a behaviour and an environmental event can be identified, the rela-
tion can then be modified by (a) changing the environment and/or (b) teach-
ing new skills.
It is possible for behaviours that look similar to serve different functions.
For example, the disruptive behaviour displayed by one student may serve
to escape non-preferred academic tasks, whereas this same behaviour dis-
played by another student may serve to recruit the attention of peers.
Additionally, behaviours that look dissimilar may serve the same function.
For example, a student might verbally ask for help, raise their hand, or tap
their educator on the shoulder. These behaviours serve the same function –
that is, to gain the educator’s attention. Viewing behaviour through the lens
of the three-term contingency (antecedent–behaviour–consequence) allows
researchers and practitioners to understand the motivational variables that
establish the value of specific reinforcers, the discriminative stimuli that sig-
nal the availability of specific reinforcers, the behaviours that produce
access to those reinforcers, and what the unique and personally relevant
reinforcers are for each person.
Defining characteristics of ABA

ABA is not defined as a collection of procedures for use with a specific
population. Rather, it is a conceptually systematic approach to understand-
ing and improving human behaviour that is underpinned by seven defin-
ing characteristics. Baer et al. (1968) recommended that ABA be applied,
behavioural, analytic, technological, conceptual, effective, and capable of
generalisable outcomes (Baer et al., 1968; Cooper et al., 2020), and sug-
gested researchers and interventionists (including educators) should evalu-
ate research and practice against these seven characteristics to determine
whether it should be defined as ABA (see Table 2.2).
28
Table 2.2 Defining characteristics of ABA
Characteristic Definition
Applied ABA seeks to understand and improve behaviours that
are meaningful to the person, to stakeholders (e.g.,
parents and teachers), and to the wider community.
Behavioural In ABA, objective data are recorded on the actual
behaviour in need of change to guide the process of
data-based problem solving.
Analytic In ABA, the scientific method is used to show that
behaviour change occurs as a result of the use of a
specific teaching method or intervention strategy, rather
than as a result of an unknown variable.
Technological A clear, objective, and measurable description of
the procedures used (e.g., teaching strategies or
interventions) is provided so that the procedures can be
implemented consistently and replicated.
Conceptually The specific teaching strategies and intervention
systematic procedures used are based on scientifically supported
principles of learning and behaviour (such as the
principle of reinforcement).
Effective The specific teaching strategies and intervention
procedures used are demonstrated to improve
behaviour in meaningful and practical ways, as
evidenced through the collection and analysis of data.
Capable of generality Improvements in behaviour lasts over time, behaviour
change occurs in new contexts, and the use of teaching
strategies and intervention procedures brings about
meaningful change in other behaviours.
Tenets of ABA
Behaviour as the phenomenon of interest
Behaviour is defined broadly as everything we say, do, and feel. Behaviour

includes: (a) academic skills, such as writing, solving maths equations,
reading aloud, and answering questions about a story; (b) functional liv-
ing skills, such as taking a shower, dressing, or doing household chores; (c)
recreational skills, such as exercising, watching television, or socialising;
29
Erin Leif et al.
(d) language and communication skills, such as telling a story, asking for
help, using a picture to request a snack, or pointing to a toy on a shelf that
is out of reach; and (e) behaviours of concern, such as throwing items,
destroying materials, hitting others, and screaming. In ABA, an emphasis
is placed on identifying, defining, and measuring specific behaviours tar-
geted for change. When identifying behaviours for change, it is important
to engage with the student and their family to determine the degree to
which behaviour change is important and meaningful. Behaviour change
should not be undertaken solely for the convenience of others. Rather,
the behaviour change should directly benefit the student. When selecting
a behaviour for change, it is important to consider whether the behav-
iour change (a) is a prerequisite for a useful and functional skill; (b) will
increase the student’s opportunity to access new environments where
other important behaviours may be learned; (c) will promote the develop-
ment of positive relationships and interactions between the student and
others; (d) will allow the student to access new sources of, or more, rein-
forcement; and (e) is age appropriate (Cooper et al., 2020). If a behaviour
is selected for decrease (e.g., screaming), it is critical that an adaptive
behaviour (such as a more accessible form of communication) will be
strengthened to replace it.
Private events
ABA accounts for both public and private behaviour in one unified account
(Johnston, 2014). This can be contrasted with other theories in psychol-
ogy and education that posit that private events (such as thoughts, feelings,
and emotions) are fundamentally different from public behaviour and thus
require a separate explanatory system. Public behaviours are those that can
be observed and measured by an independent observer. By contrast, pri-
vate events are only accessible to the individual who is experiencing them.
Skinner (1984) defined private events as events that occur ‘inside the skin’.
Private events include private stimuli that we respond to, such as tempera-
ture, hunger, and pain, and private behaviours (or responses to stimuli), such
as thoughts, feelings, and emotions. By viewing private events as behaviour,
rather than the causes of behaviour, we can explore the environmental vari-
ables that influence both public and private behaviour.
30
Box 2.1 The example of anxiety
In everyday language, we often attribute the cause of behaviour to our

thoughts and emotions. For example, we might be tempted to say we
behaved in a certain way because we ‘felt anxious’. However, when
we attribute our behaviour to thoughts, emotions, and other private
events, we may fail to consider how the environment influences us.
Suppose you have an anxious student in your classroom, who often
resists coming to school or participating in certain activities during
the school day. When supporting this student, we might identify and
describe both the public behaviours (e.g., trembling, crying, avoid-
ing the classroom) and private events (e.g., increased heart rate and
respiration, feelings of fear) that are associated with anxiety. The term
‘anxiety’ then becomes a summary label for the public behaviour and
private events, rather than a cause of behaviour. What is causing the
anxiety? To answer this, we can look at the environment to identify
the types of events that happen during the school day that are associ-
ated with anxiety. For example, we might discover that the student
has fallen behind in maths class and needs extra support to be able to
participate. We can then make changes to the environment or provide
individualised and educative support to the student to help them more
fully participate in and enjoy activities at school. This in turn will help
alleviate the student’s feeling of anxiety.
Measurement of behaviour
Educators need reliable and feasible ways to measure learning, and ABA has
contributed significantly to evaluative methods. Once a behaviour has been
identified for change, it should be carefully defined in ways that are objec-
tive, clear, and complete. Objective means that the definition references
observable dimensions of the behaviour, rather than subjective dimensions
(such as thoughts, feelings, and emotions) that might be difficult for an
observer to see and measure. Clear means the behaviour is described in
enough detail that someone else could ‘act out’ the behaviour. Complete
31
Erin Leif et al.
means that the definition of behaviour includes examples and non-exam-

ples, to clearly delineate ‘what counts’ as an instance of the behaviour.
Definitions of behaviour are important for several reasons (Cooper et al.,
2020). ABA is a systematic approach for gathering and organising knowl-
edge about human behaviour. Scientific inquiry, in its most basic form,
relies on replication. Developing observable and measurable definitions of
behaviour permits replication by the same observer over time and by dif-
ferent observers. Reliable measurement enables us to measure the same
behaviours accurately and reliably within or across studies, interpret data in
a meaningful way, and aggregate data across multiple studies to draw more
generalisable conclusions. In addition, definitions allow us to measure the
occurrence of a behaviour (targeted for increase or decrease) before, during,
and after the implementation of an intervention. This allows us to evaluate
behaviour change objectively and systematically for the individual student
(or groups of students) on an ongoing basis, which can provide important
information about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the intervention.
This information can be shared with relevant stakeholders to communicate
student progress or highlight the need for additional support.
Behaviour–environment interactions
In ABA, behaviour can be respondent or operant. Respondent behaviour

is directly caused by a stimulus that precedes it. For example, a loud noise
(a stimulus) might elicit a startle response. Respondent behaviours protect
against harmful stimuli, help regulate the physiological system, and promote
reproduction. Respondent behaviours are part of our genetic endowment,
have survival value, and are unlearned (Pierce & Cheney, 2017). However,
much of our behaviour is not directly caused by the stimulus that precedes
it and appears voluntary. Voluntary, or operant, behaviours are those that are
learned within the lifetime of the person (Skinner, 1965). Operant behaviour
is different from respondent behaviour in that it is selected, shaped, and
maintained by the consequences that have followed it in the past. Each per-
son develops a unique repertoire of operant behaviour due to their unique
learning histories.
The basic unit of analysis when looking at behaviour–environment inter-
actions is the three-term contingency, where the antecedent (A) refers to a set
of stimulus conditions that precedes a behaviour, the behaviour (B) refers to
a specific instance of a response, and the consequence (C) refers to any
32
stimulus change that follows behaviour. Consequences refer to the effects

or outcomes of a behaviour (Steege et al., 2019). Consequences alter the
future likelihood of behaviour. Consequences that follow a behaviour and
increase or strengthen the future likelihood of the behaviour are called
reinforcers. The process by which a consequence strengthens a behaviour
is called reinforcement. Consequences that follow behaviour and decrease
or weaken the future likelihood of the behaviour are called punishers, and
the process by which this occurs is called punishment. It is important to
note that the meanings of the terms ‘reinforcement’ and ‘punishment’ have
a specific meaning in ABA, and the meaning is different from how these
terms may be used in everyday language. Reinforcers and punishers are not
defined based on what they look like, but rather by the effect they have on
behaviour. For example, exiting a student from the classroom might be
considered a form of punishment (i.e., a disciplinary sanction) for a student
who is disruptive in class. However, the student may be engaging in disrup-
tive behaviour to communicate that the academic task is too difficult or
non-preferred. By exiting the student from the classroom, the student no
longer needs to participate in the difficult or non-preferred task, thus meet-
ing a need. The educator notes that the disruptive behaviour increases over
time. Thus, exiting the classroom following disruptive behaviour appears to
be strengthening disruptive behaviour, illustrating the process of reinforce-
ment. Positive reinforcement is the process by which a behaviour produces
access to a desirable stimulus or event, and negative reinforcement is the
process by which behaviour terminates or avoids a non-preferred stimulus
or event. Both types of reinforcement increase the likelihood that the
behaviour will occur again in the future.
Antecedents are stimuli or events that occur prior to a behaviour and
that make a behaviour more probable. Two types of antecedents are moti-
vating operations and discriminative stimuli. Motivating operations are
states that alter the value of a reinforcer (see Box 2.2 for the distinction
between a reinforcer and a reward). In layperson terms, we might say that
someone wants, or is motivated, to do something. Our motivation changes
depending on the current circumstances. For example, if a teacher pres-
ents a difficult or non-preferred task to a student, the student might be
motivated to leave the classroom or get out of doing the task. As a result,
the student might be more likely to display a behaviour (such as asking for
a break from the task or yelling) that has resulted in the removal of diffi-
cult or non-preferred tasks (the reinforcer) in the past. In other situations,
33
Erin Leif et al.
the student might be motivated to get the attention of friends, and may do
so by waving, calling a friend by name, or making a joke. However, the
specific behaviour that is likely to be emitted in context is influenced by
the presence or absence of specific discriminative stimuli. A discrimina-
tive stimulus tells the student that reinforcement is available for a specific
behaviour. For example, students would likely only try to get the attention
of their friends when those friends are present. In this case, the presence
of the friends would be the discriminative stimulus that signals that atten-
tion (the reinforcer) is available. People, places, and things gain their
discriminative properties through repeated associations with behaviours
and reinforcement.
Box 2.2 Reinforcement versus rewards: What's the difference?
In everyday language, we tend to use the terms ‘reward’ and ‘reinforce-

ment’ interchangeably. However, there are important distinctions. A
reward is defined based on what it looks like, such as a sticker, lolly,
or smiley face on the board. Often, rewards are selected by the edu-
cator, are dispensed in the same way to all students in a group, and
are delivered for behaviours that may not be clearly identified and
described to students. Rewards may or may not have any effect on
the behaviour of students. By contrast, reinforcement is a process, not
a tangible item. To use reinforcement effectively, the educator must
be able to (a) describe the specific target behaviours for increase, (b)
identify specific and individualised reinforcers for each student, (c)
deliver the reinforcer following the target behaviour, and (d) dem-
onstrate that the delivery of the reinforcer results in an improvement
or increase in the target behaviour of the student. What functions
as a reinforcer is likely to vary from student to student. Reinforcers
can include social interactions, types of social attention, activities,
events, toys and objects, sensory feedback, and even task completion.
Extrinsic reinforcers are things that are dispensed by other people,
such as activities, stickers, pay cheques, and good grades. Intrinsic
reinforcers are directly produced by the behaviour itself (i.e., are not
delivered by someone else) and may include things like reading a
book, engaging in a hobby, or playing a video game.
34
Relations between ABA and SWPBS

SWPBS is a tiered prevention framework that supports educators to select
and use evidence-based practices to meet the social and behaviour needs
of all students (Horner et al., 2010; Simonsen & Sugai, 2019). At Tier 1, all
students receive access to proactive and preventative support. Changes are
made to the environment to prompt and reinforce desired behaviour. Refer
to Chapters 1 and 3 for a longer discussion of Tier 1. At Tier 2, a smaller
group of students receive more targeted instruction in, and/or more frequent
reinforcement for, desired behaviours. Further discussion of Tier 2 can be
found in Chapter 7. At Tier 3, the smallest group of students receive highly
individualised supports, which are based on the results of a functional
behaviour assessment. A more detailed discussion of Tier 3 can be found
in Chapter 8. Basic behavioural principles (e.g., reinforcement), the three-
term contingency, and an understanding of behavioural function are central
to the development, implementation, and evaluation of practices delivered
within each tier of SWPBS (Simonsen & Sugai, 2019).
Measurement of behaviour is also central to SWPBS. Data are used to (a)
guide the selection and design of educational and behaviour support strate-
gies, (b) monitor the degree to which interventions are implemented as
planned, and (c) evaluate the degree to which support interventions result in
valued outcomes for individuals and the wider community. Finally, like
ABA, SWPBS is also pragmatic: it emphasises the design and implementa-
tion of practical interventions that are effective in the contexts in which they
are implemented (Dunlap & Carr, 2007).
The influence of ABA and SWPBS on current

approaches to learning and behaviour support
in schools
Explicit instruction
In many Australian school systems, ‘explicit instruction’ practices are strongly

associated with successful student outcomes (Centre for Education Statistics
and Evaluation (CESE), 2020b). Explicit teaching includes several prac-
tices that are derived from ABA, including the use of structured materials,
35
Erin Leif et al.
sequenced instructions, demonstrations, active student engagement, con-

tingent feedback, guided practice, and independent practice (Mason &
Otero, 2021). At present, the teaching of reading and spelling to young
students explicitly and systematically is recognised as best practice (Meeks
et al., 2020). An Australian study of secondary school students illustrated
that explicit teaching practices in mathematics during the initial stages of
learning enabled later student-directed learning (CESE, 2020b).
Class-wide reinforcement systems
Many classroom engagement strategies that complement explicit instruc-

tion are also based on ABA principles. Strategies such as behaviour-specific
praise, behavioural momentum, and opportunities to respond (OTR) are
now recognised as essential teaching strategies in Australia (CESE, 2020a).
Group contingencies are an efficient and socially valid universal strategy for
promoting positive classroom behaviour (Murphy et al., 2020). The Good
Behaviour Game (GBG) is a versatile group contingency that uses prompts
and positive reinforcement to promote positive student behaviour. The basic
version of the GBG involves assigning students to teams and allocating
points and reinforcers to teams that achieve a goal. The GBG has demon-
strated effectiveness for reducing externalising behaviours of concern and
increasing student engagement (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2016). These find-
ings are evident across diverse classroom and non-classroom settings, with
long-term term benefits in student outcomes (Collier-Meek et al., 2020).
A manualised version of the GBG was successfully implemented in a small
cohort of Australian schools during a preliminary study (Torok et al., 2019).
New South Wales public schools are currently introducing the GBG state-
wide (Baker, 2021).
Student voice
As discussed later, in Chapter 5, SWPBS involves the whole school and

wider community; as such, student voice is an important component of
this approach. Martinez et al. (2019) note that listening to student voice
and incorporating student strengths, preferences, and needs into school
practices provides a level of buy-in to support collaboration and allows
students to contribute to decision-making at the local level. According
to Rudduck (2007), student voice gives insight into the perspectives of
36
students and can shift the status of students in school from passive to active
community members. It can also shift the educator–student relationship
from one that is tightly hierarchical to one that is more collaborative and
that allows for a stronger sense of partnership (Rudduck, 2007).
Self-management
Self-management is an effective intervention and is used in SWPBS at

all tiers of support (Lower et al., 2016). Self-management strategies can
involve self-monitoring behaviour, matching of educator and peer ratings
with student self-reports, and self-reinforcement (Lower et al., 2016). Self-
management strategies can incorporate strategies such as self-selection of
reinforcers, high rates of praise, high expectations, and social skills sup-
ports (Jenson et al., 2004).
Further ways to operationalise ABA and SWPBS

in school settings
A focus on prevention
ABA and SWPBS share a commitment to preventative practices. To support

behavioural outcomes, the requirements of academic learning are analysed
and operationalised. For example, when viewing behaviour as a form of
communication, students experiencing difficulty accessing the curriculum
may exhibit behaviours of concern to express thoughts and feelings about
academic demands (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health,
2015). In Australian schools, altering instruction and improving curricu-
lum access are two broad preventative approaches. At the classroom level,
differentiated instruction uses goal setting, ongoing assessment, and track-
ing of learner progress relative to goals to adjust instruction according to
learner needs (Hassim et al., 2016). Learners access different avenues to
acquire content and to process and make sense of ideas because educa-
tors have responded to learner differences that may vary across readiness,
interest, and learning needs (Tomlinson, 2017). To assist with curriculum
access, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a planning framework that
focuses on making the curriculum accessible to all learners by examin-
ing the barriers that might occur in the delivery of teaching and learning
37
Erin Leif et al.
activities before teaching commences. This avoids retrofitting or changing

instruction at the point of delivery (Chita-Tegmark et al., 2011), which can
be challenging for educators when delivering teaching and learning activi-
ties to diverse learners. While UDL was originally developed for learners
with disability, Capp (2017) suggests it may be effective for all learners in
all school settings.
A focus on environmental changes
A central tenet of both ABA and SWPBS is that efforts should be made to
change problem environments, not problem ‘people’ (Carr et al., 2002).
ABA and SWPBS can guide educators to analyse the environment around
the student to discover the ways in which the environment may be help-
ing or hindering. This is consistent with a functional approach to under-
standing student behaviour; it assumes that behaviours of concern do
not originate inside the student, but rather, behaviours of concern are a
result of the student’s interaction with their environment. By changing
the environment around the student and creating contexts in which stu-
dents are happy, relaxed, and engaged (Rajaraman et al., 2021), educators
can help the student re-engage in learning and classroom participation,
and can achieve reductions in behaviours of concern as a secondary out-
come. Some examples of environmental changes that may be effective
for improving student engagement include providing academic accom-
modations (e.g., visual supports, worked examples, graphic organisers,
calculators); modifying the classroom climate by adjusting the noise level,
lighting, temperature, and air flow; rearranging student seating arrange-
ments; arranging materials so that they are clearly marked and easily
accessible; providing areas of personal space; and incorporating student
strengths and interests into lesson planning (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010;
Kern & Clemens, 2007).
A focus on social and emotional learning and wellbeing
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) and Positive Psychology (PP) repre-
sent complements and potential enhancements to ABA and SWPBS. SEL
programmes are influenced by social cognitive or cognitive behavioural
theory, with a focus on building social competence and resilience. PP is a
strengths-based approach with a focus on positive emotions and character
38
traits and enabling institutions. Osher et al. (2010) note that while SEL
and SWPBS have different primary aims, with SWPBS ‘developing systems
to manage student behaviour’ and SEL ‘developing assets that foster self-
discipline’ (p. 50), both use an ecological approach focusing on instruc-
tional engagement, use positive rather than punitive responses to prevent
behaviours of concern, and draw on the participation of all members of
the school and wider community. In PP, positive emotions are related to
quality of life, positive character traits are linked to building personal com-
petence and skills, and the concept of enabling institutions aligns with
the SWPBS concept of systems/environmental redesign (Carr & Horner,
2007). There is also an emphasis in PP on student involvement and choice
(Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2014).
A focus on supporting educators
Both ABA and SWPBS are concerned with the development of effective
technologies for supporting educators in their implementation efforts. The
findings of research evaluating educator experiences of implementing
SWPBS practices indicate that implementation can be successful and sus-
tainable when educators are provided with appropriate support and when
practices are adapted to the school (Fox et al., 2021). This requires match-
ing practices to the needs, values, and resources available to the educator,
engaging educators as partners in the planning process, and assisting educa-
tors to identify potential implementation barriers and strategies to address
them (Sanetti et al., 2015). However, Australian research has suggested edu-
cators want access to better initial educator preparation in the practices
used within SWPBS, improved on-the-job support, and more opportunities
for ongoing professional development related to classroom behaviour sup-
port (Hepburn & Beamish, 2020).
Conclusion: A focus on unifying learning,

behaviour, and wellbeing into one framework
The principles of ABA and SWPBS are currently reflected in educational
practices in Australian schools. Understanding the significance of ABA
within SWPBS, and within other evidence-based practices, is valuable for
augmenting the skills and knowledge of educators. However, there is a need
39
Erin Leif et al.
to further integrate practices that support student academic achievement,

SEL, and wellbeing into a unified framework. Interventions that target aca-
demic skills and behavioural needs in isolation may not be as effective as
combined interventions that target both academic skills and behavioural
needs simultaneously (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Importantly, interven-
tions that target SEL, mental health promotion, or student wellbeing have
been found to be positively related to behaviours conducive to academic
success (e.g., Gage et al., 2017). The implementation of SWPBS, as an
example of a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS), increases the likeli-
hood that practices will be successfully integrated. Thus, the integration of
practices that support the academic, behavioural, and social and emotional
needs of students may allow for the sharing of knowledge, resources, and
expertise (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016) and make implementation easier,
more efficient, and more cost-effective. Also, implementing such practices
within a single, unified framework may reduce stress for educators and pre-
vent stakeholders from viewing the implementation of programmes and
practices to improve student academic achievement, behaviour, and well-
being as separate initiatives. In addition, the SWPBS framework protects
against the abandonment of evidence-based practices in one area (i.e., in
the area of behaviour support) due to multiple competing priorities within a
school. The continued application of ABA principles to create educational
insights and inform the systems and practices of SWPBS will enable schools
and their students to flourish.
Apply your ideas

Your school has been implementing SWPBS for over twelve months. As a
head teacher, you have recently joined the school’s team following training
that included concepts from ABA. In your view, the staff need more explicit
help in how to apply the teaching and learning strategies associated with
implementation.
Address the following questions:
1. What data are needed to assess this situation?

2. How can the concept of behavioural function be used to inform univer-
sal supports?
3. With reference to the concept of reinforcement, how would you evalu-
ate the effectiveness of the school’s reward system?
40
References
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Baker, J. (2021, January 12). The game helping NSW students improve marks and get
into uni. Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-game-
helping-nsw-students-improve-marks-and-get-into-uni-20210111-p56t71.html
Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M., Samar Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016).
Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of
single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(3), 180–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715592355
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis
of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
Carr, E., Dunlap, G., Horner, R., Koegel, R., Turnbull, A., Sailor, W., Anderson, J.,
Albin, R., Koegel, L., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an
applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4–16. https://doi.
org/10.1177/109830070200400102
Carr, E. G., & Horner, R. H. (2007). The expanding vision of Positive Behavior
Support: Research perspectives on happiness, helpfulness, hopefulness. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300
7070090010201
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE] (2020a). Classroom manage-
ment – Creating and maintaining positive learning environments. NSW Depart_
ment of Education. https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au//images/stories/PDF/Classroom_
management_literature_review_2020.pdf
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE]. (2020b). What works best:
2020 update. NSW Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/
about-us/educational-data/cese/publications/research-reports/what-works-
best-2020-update#Download0
Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J. W., De Lourdes, M., Serpa, B., Domings, Y., & Rose,
D. H. (2011). Using the universal design for learning framework to support cul-
turally diverse learners. The Journal of Education, 192(1), 17–22. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002205741219200104
Collier-Meek, M., Fallon, L., & DeFouw, E. (2020). Assessing the implementation
of the Good Behavior Game: Comparing estimates of adherence, quality and
exposure. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(2), 95–109. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534508418782620
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd
ed.). Pearson.
Dunlap, G., & Carr, E. (2007). Positive behavior support and developmental dis-
abilities: A summary and analysis of research. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E.
Snell, J. B. Blacher, & H. R. Turnbull (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabili-
ties (pp. 469–482). Guilford Press.
41
Erin Leif et al.
time’: Identifying Victorian educators’ perceptions of the facilitators and barriers
to supporting improved student behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special and
Inclusive Education, 45(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2021.6
Gage, N. A., Leite, W., Childs, K., & Kincaid, D. (2017). Average treatment effect of
school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on school-level aca-
demic achievement in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3),
158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693556
Guardino, C. A., & Fullerton, E. (2010). Changing behaviors by changing the class-
room environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 8–13. https://doi.
org/10.1177/004005991004200601
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths,
overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 5(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391818
Hassim, E., Graham, L., & McKinley, E. A. (2016). Educator education for equity:
Perspectives of interculturality, inclusivity and indigeneity: A discussion paper for
educator education in Australia. Centre for Strategic Education.
Hepburn, L., & Beamish, W. (2020). Influences on proactive classroom management:
Views of educators in government secondary schools, Queensland. Improving
Schools, 23(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219886148
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base
for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906
Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D., Farley, M., & Clark, E. (2004). Positive psychology and
externalizing students in a sea of negativity. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1),
67–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10139
Johnston, J. M. (2014). Radical behaviorism for ABA practitioners. Sloan Publishing.
Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate
classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pits.20206
Lower, A., Young, K. R., Christensen, L., Caldarella, P., Williams, L., & Wills, H.
(2016). Effects of at Tier 3 self-management intervention implemented with and
without treatment integrity. Education & Treatment of Children, 39(4), 493–520.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0022
Martinez, S., Kern, L., Hershfeldt, P., George, H. P., White, A., Flannery, B., &
Freeman, J. (2019). High school PBIS implementation: Student voice. OSEP TA
Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. www.pbis.org
Mason, L., & Otero, M. (2021). Just how effective is direct instruction? Perspectives
on Behavior Science, 44(2-3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-
00295-x
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support:
Blending RTI and PBIS. Guilford Publications.
42
Meeks, L., Madelaine, A., & Kemp, C. (2020). Research and theory into practice:
Australian preservice educators’ knowledge of evidence-based early literacy
instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 25(2), 215–233. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19404158.2020.1832128
Moore, J. (2016). Behavior analytic pragmatism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior,
37(3), 219–245. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44631771
Murphy, J. M., Hawkins, R. O., & Nabors, L. (2020). Combining social skills instruc-
tion and the Good Behavior Game to support students with emotional and behav-
ioral disorders. Contemporary School Psychology, 24(2), 228–238. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40688-019-00226-3
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. (2015). Challenging behaviour
and learning disabilities: Prevention and interventions for people with learn-
ing disabilities whose behaviour challenges. National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence (UK). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng11/resources/
challenging-behaviour-and-learning-disabilities-prevention-and-interventions-
for-people-with-learning-disabilities-whose-behaviour-challenges-pdf-
1837266392005
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve
school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X09357618
Pierce, D. W., & Cheney, C. D. (2017). Behavior analysis and learning. (6th ed.)
Routledge.
Rajaraman, A., Hanley, G. P., Gover, H. C., Staubitz, J. L., Staubitz, J. E., Simcoe, K.
M., & Metras, R. (2021). Minimizing escalation by treating dangerous problem
behavior within an enhanced choice model. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00548-2
Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D.
Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience
in elementary and secondary school (pp. 587–610). Springer Netherlands. https://
doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3367-2_23
Sanetti, L. M. H., Collier-Meek, M. A., Long, A. C., Byron, J., & Kratochwill, T. R.
(2015). Increasing teacher treatment integrity of behavior support plans through
consultation and implementation planning. Journal of School Psychology, 53(3),
209–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.03.002
Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2019). School-wide positive behavioral interventions and
supports: A systems-level application of behavioral principles. In S. G. Little &
A. Akin-Little (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive
strategies (2nd ed., pp. 35–60). American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0000126-003
Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). Coming to terms with private events. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 7(4), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00027400
43
Erin Leif et al.
Slocum, T. A., Detrich, R., Wilczynski, S. M., Spencer, T. D., Lewis, T., & Wolfe, K.
(2014). The evidence-based practice of applied behavior analysis. The Behavior
Analyst, 37(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-014-0005-2
Steege, M. W., Pratt, J. L., Wickerd, G., Guare, R., & Watson, T. S. (2019). Conducting
school-based functional behavioral assessments: A practitioner’s guide (3rd ed.).
Guilford Publications.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically
diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Torok, M., Rasmussen, V., Wong, Q., Werner-Seidler, A., O’Dea, B., Toumbourou, J.,
& Calear, A. (2019). Examining the impact of the Good Behaviour Game on emo-
tional and behavioural problems in primary school children: A case for integrat-
ing well-being strategies into education. Australian Journal of Education, 63(3),
292–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119878480
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2014). Disability and positive psychology. In J. T.
Pedrotti & L. M. Edwards (Eds.), Perspectives on the intersection of multicultural-
ism and positive psychology. Cross-cultural advancements in Positive Psychology
(Vol. 7, pp. 175–188). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8654-6_12
44
Tier 1 in the
3 classroom
Interventions to support
all learners
Lorna Hepburn and
Sharonne Telfer
Learning intentions
• Provide a rationale for using a proactive classroom management

approach.
• Identify ways to build positive teacher–student relationships.
• Contrast core evidence-informed classroom practices.
• Plan a multi-tiered approach to professional learning.

Introduction
A critical feature of School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) is the
implementation of evidence-informed classroom management and instruc-
tional practices. Classroom management practices are inextricably linked
to instructional practices and impossible to separate from these (Cooper &
Scott, 2017). Research has demonstrated that establishing effective classroom
systems is integral to the fidelity and sustainability of SWPBS implementation
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-3 45

4.1 Support Establish and implement Develop positive teacher–
student inclusive and positive student relationships through
participation interactions to engage and employing practices that
support all students in actively engage students,
classroom activities. including opportunities
to respond, behavioural
momentum, and instructional
choice.
4.2 Manage Establish and maintain orderly Use practices to establish and
classroom and workable routines to teach common classroom
activities create an environment where procedures, such as managing
student time is spent on transitions. Use active
learning tasks. supervision to monitor student
learning and participation.
4.3 Manage Manage challenging behaviour Establish clear expectations
challenging by establishing and negotiating for behaviour and provide
behaviour clear expectations with corrective feedback.
students and address discipline
respectfully.
4.4 Maintain Ensure students’ wellbeing Develop positive teacher–
student safety and safety within school by student relationships with the
implementing school and/ use of practices to increase
or system, curriculum, and structure and predictability.
legislative requirements.
(Childs et al., 2016; Mathews et al., 2014). Classroom Positive Behaviour

Support (PBS) systems align with school-wide systems, and are supported
by having strong Tier 1 foundations in place (Simonsen & Myers, 2015a).
Overall, Tier 1 is strengthened when SWPBS practices are embedded in
classroom practices (Yeung et al., 2016). It is critical that schools build and
maintain classroom systems as part of SWPBS Tier 1 implementation.
SWPBS takes a proactive, instructional approach to student behaviour at
the whole-school level, with an emphasis on defining, teaching, and ack
nowledging expected behaviours. At the classroom level, teachers create
positive classroom environments that maximise instructional time and stu-
dent engagement through consistent implementation of evidence-informed
practices. These proactive practices are based on the principle that preven-
tative strategies build momentum for continued positive behaviour, set
46
Tier 1 in the classroom
students up for successful outcomes, and have been found more effective
than using reactive responses (Haydon et al., 2019).
This chapter provides a rationale for the use of proactive classroom prac-
tices aligning with the SWPBS framework, outlines key evidence-informed
classroom management and instructional practices, describes effective pro-
fessional learning, and presents an Australian school case study.
Classroom systems
Classroom PBS reflects key features of SWPBS by building positive rela-
tionships, focusing on prevention, and using data for decision-making.
Figure 3.1 shows the classroom application of the SWPBS Four Interactive
Elements Model (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Support, 2015).
In classrooms, outcomes relate to increases in student engagement,
improvements to teacher wellbeing, a more positive classroom climate, and
Data
Teacher
implementation
Student outcomes
Systems Practices
Professional Examples: Active
learning supervision
Coaching Behaviour-specific
Data collection and praise
analysis Opportunities to
respond
Outcomes
Positive and structured learning
environment Academic achievement
Improved wellbeing
Figure 3.1 SWPBS Four Interactive Elements Model applied in classrooms.

Adapted with permission from www.pbis.org
47
decreases in behavioural errors. Data on student behaviour and teacher

implementation of classroom practices are collected and analysed to moni-
tor implementation and establish the effectiveness of practices and are used
for data-based decision-making. The practices are the evidence-informed
classroom practices that align with the SWPBS framework. Strategic, fre-
quent, and consistent teacher use of these practices has been demonstrated
to assist in achieving the desired outcomes. The consistent use of evidence-
informed classroom practices provides the basis for the provision of high-
quality instruction, which is a fundamental feature of universal student
support (Hulac & Briesch, 2017a). To achieve consistent implementation of
evidence-informed practices, systems need to be in place to support teach-
ers with implementation. Systems include ongoing professional learning,
access to ongoing coaching, and systems for data collection and analysis.
Why teacher practice matters

Consistent use of evidence-informed classroom practices increases aca-
demic engagement and reduces disruptive behaviours (Marzano et al.,
2003). Conversely, ineffective classroom practices can be detrimental to
positive teacher–student relationships and student learning outcomes.
Additionally, teachers using ineffective practices are more likely to suffer
stress and burnout and may even leave the teaching profession prematurely
(Herman et al., 2018; Reinke et al., 2015).
Despite the imperative to use evidence-informed classroom practices to
improve student outcomes and protect teacher wellbeing, research indicates
that teachers use effective practices at less-than-optimal rates. Research in
US schools has demonstrated that teachers rarely provide behaviour-specific
praise and present few opportunities for students to respond (Scott et al.,
2017a). Although evidence-informed classroom practices have been exten-
sively researched and documented, many teachers find it difficult to use
practices known to minimise behavioural problems consistently. Many
teachers are unfamiliar with the practices recommended by research and
are often likely to use unsupported practices (Mitchell et al., 2017).
The under-use of effective practices can partly be attributed to a lack of
systemic support for the development of teacher skills and confidence with
implementation. Australian teachers have reported feeling under-prepared
to manage their classrooms (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2014). This situation is
48
further exacerbated when teachers do not receive opportunities for ongoing

professional learning once they begin teaching (Goss et al., 2017; NSW
Ombudsman, 2017). Lack of preparation in classroom management has
been cited as a contributing factor by teachers who leave the profession
(Harmsen et al., 2018).
Fortunately, schools implementing the SWPBS framework have access to
information and guidelines to support teacher implementation of evidence-
informed classroom practices (Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP),
2015). In the remainder of this chapter, we describe the key practices shown
to increase instructional time and student engagement and reduce disrup-
tive behaviour. We also outline the systems that schools can put in place to
support teacher implementation and professional learning.
Evidence-informed classroom practices

Research has identified proactive core practices which have been shown to
increase student academic engagement and reduce behavioural disruptions
(Lee & Gage, 2020; Simonsen et al., 2008). The consistent and strategic use
of evidence-informed classroom practices allows teachers to establish and
maintain a positive classroom climate (Charlton et al., 2021). We begin this
section by explaining the importance of positive teacher–student relation-
ships for effective classroom management. We then provide an overview of
six core evidence-informed practices. These six practices, shown in Table 3.2,
represent the research consensus on the Tier 1 classroom practices which
can be readily implemented by teachers, and which have the strongest posi-
tive effect on the classroom environment and student outcomes. See, for
example, Gable et al. (2009); Marzano et al. (2003); Mitchell et al. (2017);
and Simonsen et al. (2008).
Building and maintaining positive teacher–student relationships
Positive relationships underpin a proactive classroom management approach

and help to promote student learning and engagement (Greenberg et al.,
2014). The development of positive relationships is strengthened over time
through daily interactions and actions. Strategies such as actively greet-
ing students as they enter class by saying their name and providing a brief
acknowledgement have been shown to reduce behavioural disruptions,
49
Table 3.2 Rationale for use of six evidence-informed practices
Core practice Rationale for use

Setting up and organising An orderly and structured learning environment
the classroom provides a sense of safety and predictability and
encourages greater academic engagement.
Establishing and teaching Teaching expected classroom behaviours helps
classroom expectations students understand exactly what to do and how
to do it. The practice and feedback provided
following explicit teaching builds confidence and
success.
Teaching classroom Teaching classroom procedures helps to create
procedures smooth routines for the achievement of classroom
tasks and activities and teaches students to be
self-managing.
Actively supervising Actively supervising in the classroom allows
teachers to prevent common behavioural errors
and provide immediate feedback on learning and
behaviour.
Providing specific feedback The provision of specific positive feedback
reinforces positive behaviour by clearly explaining
to students what they have done well. Specific
corrective feedback helps students to avoid the
repetition of mistakes by teaching them what to do
next time.
Actively engaging students Intentionally using instructional strategies to
through instructional increase academic engagement reduces disruption
strategies and leads to improvements in academic outcomes.
increase student engagement, and contribute towards positive teacher–

student relationships (Cook et al., 2018). Teachers build positive relation-
ships through showing genuine interest in their students, learning names and
pronouncing them correctly, taking time to learn about student interests, and
sharing non-confidential information. Effective teachers also communicate
high expectations for and confidence in student achievement and regularly
acknowledge student effort and success. They also consider individual prefer-
ences, abilities, and needs while showing interest in and respect for all cultures.
The importance placed on building positive teacher–student relationships
does not detract from the need to establish clear expectations and consistent
boundaries. When teachers act fairly and consistently, have high expecta-
tions, and provide clear structure, they are more likely to gain the respect
and trust of students. Effective teachers develop positive relationships with
50
their students while at the same time implementing evidence-informed

classroom practices which establish structure and create the conditions for
learning to take place.
Classroom setup and organisation
Classroom setup and organisation refers to the physical layout of the

classroom, including the way materials are organised to enhance learn-
ing conditions. The way the classroom space is structured influences stu-
dent behaviour (Hamilton, 2019). The orderly arrangement of furniture,
resources, and equipment sets the scene for student engagement with learn-
ing. A well set up classroom takes into account the movement patterns of
the teacher and students and maximises access to materials and important
information. It also ensures that students can see the teacher and that the
teacher can see all students. Teachers set up the classroom to be free of dis-
tractions, while also having a pleasant appearance.
Establishing and teaching classroom expectations
Establishing a small number of clear expectations and specific behaviours

in the classroom helps to create a positive environment and is a central
tenet of SWPBS. Clearly defined and established classroom expectations
help students to feel safe and secure. Teachers co-construct with students
(where developmentally appropriate) three to five positively stated class-
room expectations which are aligned with the school-wide expectations
(Reinke et al., 2013).
In addition to the classroom expectations, the development of a teaching
matrix with positive, specific, and observable classroom behaviours is rec-
ommended. To develop a matrix, Alter and Haydon (2017) offer seven key
recommendations: (1) limiting the number of rules; (2) involving students in
the development of the matrix; (3) ensuring all expectations are positively
stated; (4) ensuring all expectations are specific; (5) posting the matrix in
visible locations to serve as a prompt for students and staff; (6) explicitly
teaching expectations to students; and (7) ensuring that the expected behav-
iours are tied to positive consequences when met, and corrective conse-
quences if unmet. Once expectations are defined and established, they
need to be made visible, taught, reinforced, periodically reviewed, referred
to regularly, and retaught as needed.
51
Establishing and teaching classroom procedures
Classroom procedures can be thought of as patterns for accomplishing class-

room tasks. Once procedures are established, they form routines that help
students to meet classroom expectations. The use of procedures increases
predictability in a classroom. Students are more likely to be engaged and
less likely to display problem behaviour when they can predict the events
throughout the school day. The purpose of teaching routines is to encourage
independence and social competence, with less need for teacher remind-
ers over time. Since the early days of classroom management research (e.g.,
Brophy, 1988) the establishment of classroom procedures for the achievement
of regular tasks or activities has been recognised as integral to an effectively
run classroom.
Procedures that are used daily to enable the classroom to operate effec-
tively should be taught at the start of the year, practised sufficiently to build
fluency, and reviewed as needed. The selection of other procedures to
teach will be decided based on data from teacher observations and identi-
fication of problem times or activities. Examples of essential classroom
procedures include classroom entry and exit procedures, transitioning
between activities or locations, how to get help, managing and using mate-
rials, and packing up.
Active supervision
Active supervision is a proactive practice aimed at anticipating and pre-

venting problem behaviour. It is a strategy used by teachers to prompt and
encourage behaviour expectations and to provide correction for student
behavioural errors. Active supervision has three components: (1) moving;
(2) scanning; and (3) interacting. The use of active supervision helps stu-
dents to follow procedures and reduces minor behavioural errors. Teachers
who actively supervise in their classrooms communicate involvement in
and consciousness of what occurs at all times. Importantly, moving around
and scanning the room provide increased opportunities for frequent posi-
tive interactions and prevention of behavioural errors. For example, teachers
can provide pre-corrections prior to knowing when and where behavioural
errors are likely to occur, then give positive or corrective feedback to stu-
dents as they move around and monitor. Active supervision in the classroom
also allows teachers to provide immediate learning assistance.
52
Pre-corrections are a particular type of prompt, designed to prevent the

occurrence of predictable behavioural errors by reminding students of the
expected behaviour in advance of known problem times. Combining pre-
correction with active supervision can reduce rates of problem behaviour
(Haydon et al., 2019) and is an effective strategy across Kindergarten
through to Year 12 (K–12) in both general and special education classrooms
(Ennis et al., 2017).
Providing specific feedback
Teacher feedback is a fundamental and essential component of instruction

and a critical factor in the acquisition of skills (Wisniewski et al., 2020).
Providing specific positive and corrective feedback is a non-intrusive, sim-
ple strategy that can be used frequently and contingently by teachers with
students of all ages.
Teacher feedback involves providing information to students on their
academic and social- behavioural development. Feedback describes how
well students are progressing towards agreed goals, provides information on
what was done well, and gives pointers for improvement. For feedback to
be effective, it must be specific, process-oriented, constructive, and aimed
at building self-regulation (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL), 2017).
Academic feedback is a key component of formative assessment (Black &
Wiliam, 2010, 2012); it can be used to confirm and fine-tune understanding
and clarify misunderstanding. It is also important that feedback is provided
immediately following task completion (Oakes et al., 2018). Students ben-
efit from academic feedback by receiving information that helps to improve
their academic performance.
Behaviour-specific feedback may be positive or corrective. Positive feed-
back provides information to students on the aspects of social behaviours
they are performing well. Higher rates of positive behaviour-specific feed-
back are associated with increased teacher and student wellbeing, more
positive classroom environments, and increased academic engagement
(Cook et al., 2017). Corrective feedback about behaviour is provided to
students when they make a behavioural error. It aims to provide informa-
tion to students on aspects of their behaviour that could be improved, with
the goal of shaping positive behaviour and teaching students to become
self-regulated.
53
Instructional strategies for academic engagement
Instructional strategies designed to actively engage students in academic

learning are important because engagement is a prerequisite to improve-
ments in academic outcomes. Australian research has highlighted that stu-
dent disengagement from learning and minor classroom disruptions are
major concerns for teachers (Hepburn & Beamish, 2020). A focus on engag-
ing students in learning is critical, not only to improve student learning
outcomes but also because increasing student engagement simultaneously
decreases disruption rates.
Student engagement is highly dependent on the use of engagement strate-
gies by a teacher during classroom instruction. Effective teachers deliberately
plan to include specific practices during instructional time as a way to
increase student engagement (Scott et al., 2017a). There are a multitude of
strategies that teachers can employ to actively engage students, such as hav-
ing a variety of appropriately matched learning tasks and drawing on stu-
dents’ prior experiences. However, here we focus on three of the most
effective practices for academic engagement: behavioural momentum, incor-
porating choices, and providing multiple opportunities to respond (OTR).
The first of these practices, behavioural momentum, is a simple strategy
consisting of a sequence of easy task requests, followed by a more challeng-
ing request. The use of behavioural momentum has been shown to improve
student behaviour and increase task engagement (Kern & Clemens, 2007).
Students are more likely to attempt more difficult tasks when momentum
has been built by successfully completing a few easier-to-perform tasks.
The second practice, incorporating choices, involves planning lessons to
include two or three options for how students will engage with the learning.
For example, there may be choices for the order of work completion, the
materials to be used, or how students demonstrate their learning. Further,
students may have a choice of where they sit or with whom they work.
While not every lesson or activity needs to incorporate choices, incorporat-
ing some choices daily will have broad impact and give students a sense of
control over their learning (Lane et al., 2018). Choices can be used for the
whole class, groups, and individual students.
The third practice of providing multiple OTR is a deliberate teacher
strategy explicitly designed to elicit an academic response from students.
Response opportunities can be provided to the whole class or individual
students. Research has shown that a combination of whole-group and
54
individual OTR appears to be the most effective in increasing student

engagement (Haydon et al., 2010). Student responses may be verbal, writ-
ten, or non-verbal. OTR allows students to share their knowledge and expe-
rience academic success. When teachers plan lessons that include many
opportunities for student responses, academic engagement is improved,
leading to better academic outcomes (MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015).
Providing students with high rates of OTR has also demonstrated increased
student engagement and a decrease in off-task and disruptive behaviour
(MacSuga-Gage & Gage, 2015). Scott et al. (2017a) found that student
engagement is positively impacted with an OTR rate of 3.0 to 3.5 per minute
during instruction.
Effective professional learning

Although effective classroom practices are well researched, professional
learning is one of the primary means for providing teachers with the knowl-
edge and skills to bridge the gap between research and classroom practice
(Gore, 2021). Teacher professional learning has traditionally relied on work-
shop attendance. Research has shown attendance at one-off workshops to
have limited impact on changing teacher practice and improving student
outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Teachers
need time to practise and receive feedback to build their fluency in the cor-
rect adoption and sustained use of new practices.
Coaching is a critical driver in supporting teacher adoption and the sus-
tained use of evidence-based practices (Freeman, Sugai, et al., 2017; Reinke
et al., 2014). The four key components of effective professional learning are
opportunities for teachers to: (1) learn the purpose, rationale, and evidence
supporting the use of the practice; (2) see many highly focused models of
the practice in action; (3) plan for the implementation of the practice; and
(4) receive feedback through peer coaching on their use of the practice.
While the peer coaching component is considered essential, sustained
classroom implementation of new practices requires the inclusion of all four
components (Joyce & Calhoun, 2016).
Coaching support is generally provided through ongoing direct classroom
observation and performance feedback. Research has shown that perfor-
mance feedback effectively increases teachers’ implementation of evidence-
based practices (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Schles & Robertson, 2019).
55
Performance feedback involves data collection of teacher practices during

direct classroom observations with non-evaluative data-based feedback on
the practices provided to the teacher (Stormont et al., 2015). The collection
and analysis of this classroom data guides and focuses teacher implementa-
tion of new practices (Hafen et al., 2015).
Building school systems for professional learning
Importantly, schools must build systems to ensure follow-up to universal

training. Follow-up should include: (1) goal setting; (2) the provision of
prompts to remind teachers to use an identified practice; (3) monitoring of
implementation, either through self-monitoring or through coach observa-
tion and performance feedback; and (4) opportunities for ongoing collabo-
ration and problem-solving (Freeman, Simonsen, et al., 2017). One way for
schools to provide ongoing teacher support is to establish small professional
learning communities, facilitated by lead teachers. Building a within-school
coaching model eliminates reliance on external trainers and allows for a
contextual and sustainable approach to professional learning, with a focus
on building capacity (Telfer, 2020).
Schools can implement systematic, tiered levels of professional learning
to support teachers in increasing their use of classroom management and
instructional practices by involving all teachers in universal (Tier 1) training
on core evidence-informed practices, followed by teacher self-monitoring.
Teachers requiring additional support (Tier 2) would then receive peer
coaching support and performance feedback to support the acquisition of
new skills, while a small number of teachers may require Tier 3 support
through more intensive data-driven consultation (Simonsen et al., 2014).
Australian case study

A recent study, conducted by Telfer (2020), at a regional high school in
Western Australia examined the effects of a within-school coaching model
on teacher use of behavioural feedback and presentation of OTR. The model
incorporated critical practices and components of effective professional
learning. It included a structured teacher consultation meeting, goal setting,
peer coaching observations, and performance feedback (Telfer, 2020).
56
Consistent with previous research (Hirn & Scott, 2014; McKenna et al.,
2015; O’Handley et al., 2020; Scott et al., 2017a), the findings from the
baseline data, collected in this study through direct classroom observation,
demonstrated low natural teacher rates of specific positive behavioural feed-
back, pre-corrections, and presentation of OTR (Telfer, 2020). The research
demonstrated positive results with individual teachers, including improved
student academic achievement. Social validity data collected during the
study demonstrated that teacher participants found the within-school pro-
fessional learning model to be an acceptable, effective, and feasible
approach to increasing the capacity of school staff to support teachers’ use
of classroom management practices, grounded in evidence (Telfer, 2020).
Conclusion
Consistent and strategic use of effective classroom practices increases stu-
dent engagement with learning and sets the stage for improved acade
mic outcomes. However, despite the ready availability of information on
evidence-informed classroom practices, many schools still lack systems to
support consistent implementation.
There is a critical need for further research on teacher implementation of
evidence-informed classroom management and instructional practices in
the Australian context. Future research should focus on the observation and
measurement of practices and outcomes. Additionally, research is needed
into what enables and hinders teacher implementation of evidence-informed
practices in Australian schools.
Apply your ideas

1. Identify a time or activity where students frequently make behavioural
errors. Develop a procedure to teach expected behaviours to students.
Write down each step in the procedure and explicitly teach each step
to students. Provide practice opportunities and formulate a prompt to
remind students what to do before using the procedure.
2. Select one of the six core evidence-informed practices presented in
this chapter. Formulate a goal to improve your use of this practice.
57
Deliberately use the practice over a two-week period and collect data
on your implementation (e.g., keep a tally, make a video recording, or
use a self-assessment checklist).
3. As a school team, formulate a professional development plan to support
teacher implementation of evidence-informed classroom management
practices. Consider how systems will be set up to provide ongoing sup-
port and to monitor the effectiveness of implementation.
References
Alter, P., & Haydon, T. (2017). Characteristics of effective classroom rules: A review
of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(2), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417700962
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2017). Reframing
feedback to improve teaching and learning. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/research-evidence/spotlight/spotlight-feedback.pdf
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/
003172171009200119
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In
J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–232). https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781446250808.n13
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and stu-
dents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0742-051X(88)90020-0
Charlton, C. T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C. V., & West, R. (2021). A systematic review of
the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher percep-
tions of school climate. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(3), 185–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720940168
Childs, K., Kincaid, D., George, H. P., & Gage, N. A. (2016). The relationship
between school-wide implementation of Positive Behavior Intervention and sup-
ports and student discipline outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
18(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715590398
Cook, C. R., Fiat, A., Larson, M., Daikos, C., Slemrod, T., Holland, E. A., Thayer, A.
J., & Renshaw, T. (2018). Positive greetings at the door: Evaluation of a low-cost,
high-yield proactive classroom management strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 20(3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717753831
Cook, C. R., Grady, E. A., Long, A. C., Renshaw, T., Codding, R. S., Fiat, A., &
Larson, M. (2017). Evaluating the impact of increasing general education teach-
ers’ ratio of positive-to-negative interactions on students’ classroom behavior.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1098300716679137
58
Cooper, J. T., & Scott, T. M. (2017). The keys to managing instruction and behavior:
Considering high probability practices. Teacher Education and Special Education,
40(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417700825
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher profes-
sional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/
sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_
REPORT.pdf
Ennis, R. P., Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., & Griffith, C. E. (2017). A systematic review
of precorrection in PK–12 settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(4),
465–495. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0021
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Goodman, S., Mitchell, B. S., George, H. P., Swain-
Bradway, J., Lane, K. L., Sprague, J., & Putnam, B. (2017). PBIS technical brief on
systems to support teachers’ implementation of positive classroom behavior sup-
port. https://www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-technical-brief-on-systems-to-support-
teachers-implementation-of-positive-classroom-behavior-support
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging
knowing to doing. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405841.2016.1241946
Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics:
Rules, praise, ignoring and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 44(4), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208328831
Gore, J. M. (2021). The quest for better teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 47(1),
45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842182
Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: Creating class-
rooms that improve learning. https://grattan.edu.au/report/engaging-students-
creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning/
Greenberg, J., Putnam, H., &Walsh, K.(2014). Training our future teachers:Classroom man-
agement. United States National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ]. https://www.
nctq.org/dmsView/Future_Teachers_Classroom_Management_NCTQ_Report
Hafen, C. A., Hamre, B. K., Allen, J. P., Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R. C.
(2015). Teaching through interactions in secondary school classrooms: Revisiting
the factor structure and practical application of the classroom assessment scoring
system –secondary. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 651–680. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0272431614537117
Hamilton, L. (2019). Banish the graveyard: How does classroom layout affect stu-
dents’ engagement? In G. Geng, P. Smith, P. Black, Y. Budd, & L. Disney (Eds.),
Reflective practice in teaching: Pre-service teachers and the lens of life experience
(pp. 21–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9475-1_3
Harmsen, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., & van Veen, K. (2018). The relationship
between beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behaviour
and attrition. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13540602.2018.1465404
Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber, B. R., & Orlando, A.-
M. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student
59
academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,

18(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609333448
Haydon, T., Hunter, W., & Scott, T. M. (2019). Active supervision: Preventing behav-
ioral problems before they occur. Beyond Behavior, 28(1), 29–35. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1074295619835190
Hepburn, L., & Beamish, W. (2020). Influences on proactive classroom management:
Views of teachers in government secondary schools, Queensland. Improving
Schools, 23(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219886148
Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., & Reinke, W. M. (2018). Empirically derived pro-
files of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student
outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300717732066
Hirn, R. G., & Scott, T. M. (2014). Descriptive analysis of teacher instructional prac-
tices and student engagement among adolescents with and without challeng-
ing behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 589–610. https://doi.
org/10.1353/etc.2014.0037
Hulac, D. M., & Briesch, A. M. (2017a). Evidence-based strategies for effective class-
room management. The Guilford Press.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2016). What are we learning about how we learn? The
Learning Professional, 37(3), 42–44. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/what-are-we-learning-about-how-learn/docview/1812833687/
se-2?accountid=14723
Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropri-
ate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 65–75. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.20206
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Ennis, R. P., Oakes, W. P., Royer, D. J., & Lane, K. S.
(2018). Instructional choice: An effective, efficient, low-intensity strategy to sup-
port student success. Beyond Behavior, 27(3), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1074295618786965
meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behaviour interventions and
supports. Psychology in the Schools, 57(5), 783–804. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.
edu.au/10.1002/pits.22336
MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Gage, N. A. (2015). Student-level effects of increased
teacher-directed opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(3),
273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9223-2
MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-
directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of
the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(2), 211–239. https://doi.
org/10.1353/etc.2015.0009
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that
works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
60
Mathews, S., McIntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & May, S. L. (2014). Critical features predict-
ing sustained implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 168–178. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484065
McKenna, J. W., Muething, C., Flower, A., Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. (2015). Use and
relationships among effective practices in co-taught inclusive high school class-
rooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13603116.2014.906665
Mitchell, B. S., Hirn, R. G., & Lewis, T. J. (2017). Enhancing effective classroom
management in schools: Structures for changing teacher behavior. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 40(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0888406417700961
NSW Ombudsman. (2017). NSW Ombudsman inquiry into behaviour management
in schools. https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications/
reports/community-and-disability-services/nsw-ombudsman-inquiry-into-
behaviour-management-in-schools-august-2017
Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., & Buckman, M. M. (2018). Instructional
feedback: An effective, efficient, low-intensity strategy to support student success.
Beyond Behavior, 27(3), 168-–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295618799354
O’Handley, R. D., Olmi, D. J., Dufrene, B. A., Tingstrom, D. H., & Whipple, H.
(2020). The effects of behavior-specific praise and public posting in second-
ary classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 57(7), 1097–1115. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.22375
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-based classroom and behaviour
management content in Australian pre-service primary teachers’ coursework:
Wherefore art thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 1–22. https://
doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.4
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learn-
ing. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654311413609
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support.
(2015). Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation
blueprint: Part 1 – Foundations and supporting information. www.pbis.org
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level posi-
tive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for
enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39–50. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459079
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., & Newcomer, L. (2014). Using
coaching to support teacher implementation of classroom-based interven-
tions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10864-013-9186-0
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Wachsmuth, S., & Newcomer, L.
(2015). The brief classroom interaction observation – revised: An observation
61
system to inform and increase teacher use of universal classroom management

practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(3), 159–169. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300715570640
Schles, R. A., & Robertson, R. E. (2019). The role of performance feedback and imple-
mentation of evidence-based practices for preservice special education teachers
and student outcomes: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 42(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417736571
Scott, T. M., Hirn, R., & Cooper, J. (2017a). Teacher and student behaviors: Keys to
success in classroom instruction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-
based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to
practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380. https://doi.
org/10.1353/etc.0.0007
Simonsen, B., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Briere III, D. E., Freeman, J., Myers, D., Scott, T.
M., & Sugai, G. (2014). Multitiered support framework for teachers’ classroom-
management practices: Overview and case study of building the triangle for
teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 179–190. https://doi.
org/10.1177.1098300713484062
Simonsen, B., & Myers, D. (2015a). Classwide positive behavior interventions and
supports: A guide to proactive classroom management. The Guilford Press.
Stormont, M., Reinke, W. M., Newcomer, L., Marchese, D., & Lewis, C. (2015).
Coaching teachers’ use of social behavior interventions to improve children’s
outcomes: A review of the literature. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
17(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300714550657
behavioural feedback and opportunities to respond [Unpublished doctoral the-
sis]. Murdoch University.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A
meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,
3087–3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Yeung, A., Craven, R. G., Mooney, M., Tracey, D., Barker, K., Power, A., Dobia, B.,
Review, 28(1), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9305-7
Further reading
Hulac, D. M., & Briesch, A. M. (2017b). Evidence-based strategies for effective class-
room management. The Guilford Press.
Myers, D., Simonsen, B., & Freeman, J. (2020). Implementing classwide PBIS: A
guide to supporting teachers. The Guilford Press.
62
Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2015) Supporting and respond-

ing to behavior: Evidence-based classroom strategies for teachers. https://
osepideasthatwork.org/supporting-and-responding-behavior-evidence-based-
classroom-strategies-teachers
Scott, T. M., Hirn, R., & Cooper, J. (2017b). Teacher and student behaviors: Keys to
success in classroom instruction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Simonsen, B., & Myers, D. (2015b). Classwide positive behavior interventions and
supports: A guide to proactive classroom management. The Guilford Press.
63
Tier 2
4 Targeted approaches,
interventions, and
supports
Learning intentions
• Outline the function of Tier 2 within a tiered intervention model.

• Explain how data are used to screen and monitor students receiving Tier 2
academic and behavioural supports.
• Describe Tier 2 academic, social, and behavioural supports that can
assist students who need more targeted approaches.
• Identify barriers and enablers to the implementation of Tier 2 with
fidelity.

Introduction
When staff in schools decide to make an investment in supporting stu-
dent behaviour through adopting School-wide Positive Behaviour Support
(SWPBS), they are encouraged to begin by building a firm foundation of
universal approaches. These universal supports, known as Tier 1, were dis-
cussed in detail in Chapter 3. Even when schools build a firm foundation
64 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-4
Tier 2

1.5 Differentiate Develop teaching activities Differentiate by meeting
teaching to meet that incorporate differentiated the needs of students for
the specific strategies to meet the specific whom Tier 1 supports
learning needs of learning needs of students across were insufficient.
students across the full range of abilities.
the full range of
abilities
1.6 Strategies Design and implement teaching Make reasonable
to support full activities that support the adjustments at Tier 1 and
participation of participation and learning of 2 to ensure students can
students with students with disability and participate in learning on
disability address relevant policy and the same bases as their
legislative requirements. peers.
4.3 Manage Manage challenging behaviour Behaviours of concern
challenging by establishing and negotiating are addressed through
behaviour clear expectations with students interventions and
and address discipline issues supports that are
promptly, fairly, and respectfully. informed from an
evidence-base.
5.4 Interpret Use student assessment data Use data to screen
student data to analyse and evaluate and monitor students
student understanding of receiving Tier 2 academic
subject/content, identifying and behavioural
interventions and modifying supports.
teaching practice.
of Tier 1 approaches, for some students (perhaps as many as 20%) these

approaches are insufficient in helping them experience success academi-
cally, behaviourally, and/or socially. Within the literature on SWPBS, limited
attention has been paid to Tier 2 when compared to the research available
on Tier 1 (Draper, 2020). In this chapter, we:
• define what is meant by Tier 2, and its role within a proactive and pre-
ventative framework
• discuss the core features of Tier 2 and how to evaluate their effectiveness
• outline evidence-based practices that can be applied at Tier 2
• identify what enables Tier 2 to be implemented with fidelity as well as
the barriers to implementation
65
• draw on a case example of implementation of Tier 2 within an Australian

school to illustrate how schools are implementing targeted supports for
students.
We offer two cautions for readers of this chapter. First, providing Tier 2 targe
ted supports usually requires schools to invest time and resources, so it is crit-
ical that they identify students for Tier 2 only once the universal approaches at
Tier 1 have been implemented with fidelity (Van Camp et al., 2021). Second,
matching the correct targeted approaches to the student requires schools
to have a functional understanding of student behaviour. This is discussed
in more depth within Chapter 5, but, as you read the current chapter, we
encourage you to consider the reasons why students might not be experi-
encing success.
Finally, a note on language. Within this chapter, at no stage will you see
a student referred to as a Tier 2 student. That is because there is no such thing
as a Tier 2 student. We all, at times, have differing learning requirements.
Using an analogy frequently offered during professional learning by Emeritus
Professor George Sugai from the University of Connecticut, some mornings
we can awaken simply by the sunlight streaming into our room but more
often we may need to set an alarm. Sometimes we might require two alarms,
and on rare occasions, such as when we might be taking an early morning
flight or if we have a changed morning routine, we may ask our partner to
also set their alarm or we may arrange an early morning wake-up call as a
back-up. Students are the same. At times, the universal structures we have in
place to support students academically, behaviourally, socially, and emo-
tionally may be sufficient; but there will be times when students may require
targeted (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) supports and interventions.
What is Tier 2?
Research on Tier 2 adopts a range of terms, including the ‘secondary tier’,
‘secondary prevention’, and ‘targeted interventions’. Tier 2 is essentially the
timely provision of appropriately targeted support that is both supplementary
and complementary to Tier 1. Tier 2 both strengthens and adds to existing core
instruction at the universal tier through the intensification of, and alignment
with, Tier 1. It should not be used to replace instruction at Tier 1; instead, it
should provide additional opportunities for the reteaching of expectations
66
Tier 2
and opportunities for students to practise executing appropriate behaviours

and to receive feedback (Bruhn & McDaniel, 2021). Tier 2 support should
be provided to any student for whom there are clear data indicating that
they are not meeting expectations and for whom there is a risk that they will
continue on a trajectory towards substantial challenges in their learning or
behaviour (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Within the PBIS Implementation Blueprint (US Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, 2015), the preventative purpose of
Tier 2 is described as:
reducing the number of existing cases (prevalence) of problem behav-

iors that are presenting high risk behaviors and/or not responsive to
primary intervention practices by providing more focused, intensive,
and frequent small group-oriented responses in situations where
problem behavior is likely.
(p. 6)
Burns et al. (2016) provide an illustrative example of the need for Tier 2
within a multi-tiered system of support to provide timely intervention for
students without intensive resourcing. They suggest that in a school of 650
students, approximately 130 may require support beyond that provided at
Tier 1. If schools arranged meetings every week to discuss the requirements
of two of these students, the authors note that a school year lasting 65 weeks
would be needed just to discuss the requirements, with no further time
available to discuss progress monitoring. This highlights the importance of
systems to support Tier 2 instruction, as there is quite simply insufficient time
in the school year to respond individually to every student for whom Tier 1
is insufficient. Tier 2 fills this gap by finding interventions and supports that
aim to meet the needs of at least 10–15% of a school’s students for whom
more targeted support is needed. These supports may be offered to up to
20% of a school’s population, acknowledging that for a small percentage
of students (around 5%) Tier 2 may also be insufficient and that intensive
approaches may need to be delivered as part of a Tier 3 plan, as discussed
in Chapter 5.
There is a long-held, and incorrect, view that Tier 3 is the provision of
individualised and intensive supports for students with disability who are in
receipt of additional resourcing, and that Tier 2 is the supports provided for
undiagnosed students, or those who do not meet benchmarks for additional
67
funding. This view can sometimes be heard from teachers working in spe-
cial schools when they describe all enrolled students as ‘Tier 3’, or in
mainstream schools where teachers might say that ‘this student isn’t eligi-
ble for Tier 3 as they aren’t funded, so we are trying to meet their needs at
Tier 2’. In SWPBS schools, students with disability are provided with rea-
sonable adjustments at Tier 1 to enable them to access and participate in
learning on the same basis as their peers (Australian Government, 2018)
and may be provided with Tier 2 supports to target specific skills and sup-
plement the learning occurring at Tier 1. Further, not all students with dis-
ability will require supports beyond Tier 1. With the provision of quality
differentiated teaching practices, some students with disability will experi-
ence success academically, behaviourally, and/or socially with Tier 1 uni-
versal approaches.
The support offered to eligible students at Tier 2 is characterised by an
increase in the efficiency and intensity of the delivery and procedures
used, as well as the deployment of human and financial resources. Ideally,
Tier 2 supports should be available to any student within two or three days
of the school’s identification of their need (Bruhn & McDaniel, 2021). This
means that schools should have the supports already in place and running
so as to provide a rapid response to any issues arising and to prevent any
further escalation.
Most Tier 2 supports should typically require only small adjustments to be
made in relation to existing organisational practices in schools (Mitchell et
al., 2016). Ideally, they should fit easily into classroom practices and require
little time from teachers. However, some might involve more investment of
time or resources. Tier 2 has been characterised as being offered to small
groups of students, but this does not have to equate to small-group pull-out
services being offered. Such arrangements should be the exception rather
than the rule, with Tier 2 being an extension and intensification of existing
learning in regular learning environments, where possible.
As already cautioned, schools should only consider implementing Tier 2
when Tier 1 is implemented with fidelity. One way to identify whether the
implementation of Tier 1 is occurring effectively is to examine whether 80%
of students are meeting behavioural expectations. If too many students are
not and appear to need intervention at Tier 2 then this is a good indication
that Tier 1 is where the focus needs to be. A school may need to refocus on
the explicit teaching of behavioural expectations, as well as providing
opportunities to rehearse and encourage their execution. Tier 1 screening
68
Tier 2
data can be used to improve the primary preventative efforts schools imple-
ment at Tier 1; for example, supporting particular teachers to implement
these practices with fidelity, or supporting the consistency of implementa-
tion across staff.
Screening
As part of robust Tier 1 implementation, schools should undertake system-
atic scheduled academic, behavioural, social-emotional, and attendance
screening for four purposes:
1. identification of any potential changes required to the ways in

which Tier 1 is implemented (particularly if more than 20% of stu-
dents have not met benchmarks set on the screening tool)
2. early identification of potential concerns and to monitor student
growth
3. identification of students who might benefit from more targeted
supports delivered as part of a Tier 2 approach
4. assistance in making decisions about the types of approaches

required by students at Tier 2.
(Draper, 2020)
Given the impact of internalising and externalising behaviour patterns on

student learning, as well as the long-term negative outcomes associated
with these difficulties, screening for early identification is critical (Lane
et al., 2017). Further, once a school collects screening data, it is ethically
required to use these data. There have been some criticisms of the lack
of screening used by schools to determine which students require Tier 2
interventions, and about the inability of the tools to provide schools with
accurate information needed to select these interventions (Cho Blair et al.,
2021). A list of validated behavioural, social, and mental health screening
tools used in Australian schools can be found in the resources provided at
the end of this chapter (Drummond, 1994; Gardon, 2009; Goodman, 1997;
Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007; Kearney & Albano, 2007; Stoiber, 2004).
Schools should also use schedules of assessments that are comprehensive
and that extend beyond behavioural screening alone (e.g., incorporating the
consideration of academic achievement). It is important to understand what
69
underlies the functions of students’ behaviour to avoid making the mistake

of providing more intensive behavioural intervention and support where it is
targeted academic skills instruction that is required. An example of such
misinterpretation might occur with a student who seeks to avoid a task that
they lack the skills to complete by misbehaving and being sent from the
room. A misinterpretation might lead to that student receiving an interven-
tion focused on reducing the frequency of their behaviour rather than receiv-
ing targeted academic skills support. Teaching a student to be polite and
compliant when they cannot access the curriculum will be unlikely to suc-
ceed, and may result in the student receiving a range of alternative Tier 2
behaviour interventions. For this reason, considering student achievement
across key areas of the curriculum within an SWPBS schedule of periodic
assessment is vital.
Selecting students for Tier 2

Once behavioural and academic screening data have been collected, the
SWPBS team determines which students may benefit from targeted support
at Tier 2. For each screening measure, the team needs to set a ‘cut score’
and/or a data decision rule. This rule might state that those students who
achieve above the cut score are those that the team believe are likely to
progress well with only Tier 1 supports, while those who achieve below the
cut score are those that might benefit from targeted supports. Setting the cut
score too high risks staff needing to provide higher levels of targeted sup-
ports, which has resourcing and staffing implications. Setting the cut score
too low risks students falling through the cracks as early identification for
targeted supports is missed. The cut score can differ across schools, reflect-
ing different school demographics. Cut scores might also change annually,
with the students who achieve the lowest 20% on the screening measure
identified for targeted supports.
Once students who might benefit from Tier 2 have been identified, the
team needs to consider which interventions might provide the best support.
One way to increase the precision of selecting students for targeted supports
is to set entry and exit criteria for each intervention, documented on an
intervention grid. This grid assists the SWPBS team when making decisions
about which students to select for Tier 2. An example of an intervention grid
is provided in Table 4.2.
70
Table 4.2 Example of a Tier 2 intervention grid
Intervention Description Entry criteria Progress monitoring Exit criteria

Homework Ten-minute consultations Students reported to the Year • Homework completion Nil reports of incomplete
support in the school library on Level Co-ordinator for failure monitoring cards. homework within a
Mondays, Wednesdays, to complete homework on • Homework support two-week period.
and Fridays, staffed by three or more occasions attendance records.
university students. within one week.
Reading Four times per week Students reading below Weekly curriculum-based Student is reading above the
intervention before school or in the fortieth percentile on measurement probes of fiftieth percentile.
pull-out sessions during Dynamic Indicators of progress.
the school day. Basic Early Literacy Skills
assessments of fluency and
accuracy.
71
Tier 2
When planning to start Tier 2, it is important for school teams to audit all
the supports available; this allows the school’s repertoire of available inter-
ventions to be determined. Non-evidence based programmes should also
be pruned.
Progress monitoring
Brown-Chidsey and Bickford (2015) contend that ‘progress monitoring is
the backbone of tiered supports’ (p. 230). As part of implementing Tier 2
with fidelity, the SWPBS team must ensure that data on student progress in
Tier 2 supports are being regularly and systemically collected. The American
Institutes for Research (2015) suggests that these data should be collected
at least monthly, although more frequent collection provides schools with
increased opportunities to review implementation efforts and to make
adjustments. The SWPBS team monitors the percentage of students receiv-
ing Tier 2 supports, whether they are making progress on these, and the
number of students who exit Tier 2 and can successfully engage at Tier 1.
The team analyses its Tier 2 efforts to determine whether the interventions
and supports provided to targeted students are effective.
Evaluating the impact of Tier 2 approaches

It is vital for individual students that their progress in Tier 2 is evaluated. This
evaluation is necessary to understand whether the intervention provided has
been beneficial and whether the student meets the exit criteria or whether
they need existing supports to be extended, adjusted, or replaced. Equally,
it is important for schools to monitor the effectiveness of the suite of Tier 2
supports that are offered as part of a Tier 2 ecosystem and to have a plan to
deal with two contingencies. First, schools must plan what to do if more than
20% of students are being referred for Tier 2 supports. Second, they must
plan for the possibility that Tier 2 supports being offered to targeted groups
of students might have little or no impact, resulting in more than 5% of stu-
dents being recommended for Tier 3 or large proportions of students staying
on Tier 2 supports indefinitely. The means of determining the effectiveness of
targeted supports for individual students should be planned for when these
students are identified for Tier 2 support through clear entry and exit criteria,
as noted earlier.
72
Tier 2
Evidence-informed supports and interventions

Academic supports
Where screening data indicate that student behavioural concerns are

likely to be associated with academic under-achievement, it is essential
that carefully targeted supports are put in place that precisely align with
the specific area of student need (Burns et al., 2016). It is also impor-
tant that the instructional practices or intervention approaches that
are selected demonstrate alignment with Tier 1 practices in use at the
school, and that they are supported by the strongest evidence available
for their effectiveness and impact in the target area of need (Mitchell et
al., 2016). For example, if universal screening indicates that a student
in their first year of school is reading well below benchmarks, and diag-
nostic screening indicates that the student has poor phonemic aware-
ness (PA), it is vital that the Tier 2 support focuses on that particular
reading subskill. Goldfeld et al. (2020) recommend intervention at
Tier 2 in the area of reading should focus on core skills such as ‘pho-
nemic awareness (identifying, segmenting, and blending sounds orally),
phonics and print knowledge (e.g., letter name and sound correspon-
dence, including consonant and digraphs), fluency (accuracy, speed,
and expression), vocabulary development, and reading comprehension’
(p. 8). Evidence shows that the most effective PA intervention offered in
Australian schools for students in their first year of schooling is MiniLit
(de Bruin, 2019; Quach et al., 2019).
Carefully selecting evidence-based interventions for their documented
benefit and alignment with student need is vital, as there is a wide variety of
commercial academic, social-emotional, and behavioural Tier 2 interven-
tion programmes in use in Australian schools, but not all are aligned with
the science of how students learn, with some lacking research support for
their use in improving students’ specific skills. Despite this, research indi-
cates that there are some common elements within high-quality Tier 2 inter-
vention that align or overlap with each other, and that serve to intensify
effective Tier 1 SWPBS practices (such as those outlined in Chapter 3). These
elements include:
• using instruction which is explicit and systematic

• providing strategy instruction
73
• ensuring that the level of challenge in the task is appropriate for

the student
• providing systematic practice
• ensuring that guided and independent opportunities to rehearse
skills are regularly provided.
(Fuchs et al., 2016)
Social and behavioural supports
Australian schools offer a range of Tier 2 social and behavioural supports

to targeted students. A common support includes some form of mentor-
ing programme. Schools provide students with academic mentoring, social
mentoring, and behavioural mentoring. Borrowing from the USA, many
Australian schools offer a mentoring programme called ‘Check-In-Check-
Out’ or CICO. CICO provides students with daily monitoring, where they
receive immediate feedback from each teacher via a Daily Progress Report,
and they receive increased positive attention from their teachers, parents,
and a mentor to help reduce recurrent behaviours of concern and increase
appropriate pro-social behaviours (Hawken et al., 2021).
Some schools provide targeted explicit instruction in areas of identified
needs (Burns et al., 2016). For some students, academic support might be
offered through homework clubs, where students can attend after school
hours to receive tutoring and support with their homework and assessment
tasks. For other students, targeted instruction might be offered to assist
with organisational skills. Many schools offer targeted supports in explicit
teaching of social and emotional skills, such as anger management train-
ing, resilience or perseverance skills, responsible decision-making and
problem solving, relationship skills, growth mindsets, and so on (Draper,
2020; Fallon & Feinberg, 2017; Majeika et al., 2020). Websites that syn-
thesise the evidence base for social-emotional programmes have been
included in the resources provided at the end of this chapter, including
links for Australia’s Beyond Blue Be You site and Evidence for Learning
site, and the international Collaborative for Academic, Social and
Emotional Learning (CASEL) site.
Some Tier 2 behavioural approaches target the ways in which adults
interact with students. For example, training might be offered to staff so
that they:
74
Tier 2
• change the ways in which they verbally respond to students

• alter antecedents that are known to trigger particular behaviours
• increase reinforcement for desired behaviours
• decrease reinforcement of behaviours they are seeking to change
• adjust the ways they engage with students, including the ways
they repair a situation.
(Kern et al., 2020; Sterrett et al., 2020; Van Camp et al., 2021)
Box 4.1 Implementation of Tier 2 at Aitken Creek Primary

School, Craigieburn, Victoria
Our school is a large metropolitan primary school consisting of 1,100

students in Craigieburn, Victoria. Whilst we work daily to continu-
ously implement Tier 1 universal supports, we strategically plan for
Tier 2 and 3 supports to be implemented. As part of our SWPBS
implementation, the Behaviour Support Team meets on a fortnightly
basis in a case management style meeting to discuss the allocation of
resources and supports required by students experiencing challenges.
The Behaviour Support Team consists of key school staff, including
all principal class members, Program for Students with Disabilities
(PSD) coordinator, English as an Additional Language (EAL) coor-
dinator, heads of departments (cohort leaders) and Wellbeing staff,
including the Clinical Support Officer who has expertise in functional
behaviour.
During this meeting, students who have previously received support
are discussed to assess the success of previously implemented inter-
ventions. Staff have the opportunity to present new students who have
been noted through data collection or anecdotally by teachers to need
additional support. Individual needs are discussed by the team, and
resources are allocated depending on these needs. The Tier 2 supports
are varied and are dependent on student requirements. Social skills
groups are developed to meet the needs of students, and then stu-
dents are placed in age- and skill-appropriate groups with the relevant
Wellbeing staff member. At this meeting it may be identified that some
75
students require the development of Social Stories whilst others require

Check-In-Check-Out processes to be implemented. Student support
group teams are allocated within this process, where plans are further
discussed. For students who require additional support but where the
need is unclear, staff are allocated to collect ABC [antecedent-behav-
iour-consequence] data, and other tracking sets may also be put in
place. The team may also decide that a behaviour de-escalation plan
is required to support both students and staff. This plan identifies both
behavioural and academic supports required. The Clinical Support
Officer supports staff to implement data collection with fidelity.
As a team we consistently discuss the success of supports and inter-
ventions, matching these to the individual needs of the students. We
aim to become more proactive in our approach to addressing student
needs. We are beginning to work towards having established social
skills groups that are focused on supporting the Victorian Curriculum’s
social capabilities, and we expect that through this process we will
be able to support even more students. Currently we are also working
on tracking our successes through a more streamlined data tracking
system that uses the school’s incident reporting system. The team is
becoming more experienced in recognising that Tier 2 supports need
to be matched to the function of the student’s behaviour. All staff are
receiving professional learning to support this.
Lucia Poblete-Katsouris
Assistant Principal, Student Wellbeing & Engagement
Barriers and enablers to implementing and

sustaining high-quality Tier 2
One of the most important facilitators in the success of implementing high-
quality Tier 2 in SWPBS, and indeed in any multi-tiered system of support, is
having a strong foundation at Tier 1. This is because a key structural compo-
nent of the SWPBS ecosystem is the sliding scale of intensity that character-
ises the continuum of tiered supports, meaning that the quality and fidelity
of core universal practice at Tier 1 is the foundation on which the stability
76
Tier 2
of the entire ecosystem rests. For Tier 2 to be feasible and successful, it is

therefore a precondition that schools should have effective Tier 1 class-
room and school-wide practices for teaching, rehearsing, and encouraging
expected behaviours and discouraging unproductive or concerning behav-
iours that are implemented with fidelity.
From our experience of delivering professional learning in schools, and in
conducting evaluations of Tier 2 practices used for both academic and
behavioural support, a pervasive view held by schools is that a single Tier 2
programme, such as CICO, should be sufficient. While there is a strong evi-
dence base to support CICO as a Tier 2 intervention, it is most effective
when used with students for whom the function of a behaviour is to seek
adult attention. Given there are other functions of behaviour, it is important
that schools have a range of Tier 2 interventions that address these functions.
The difficulty often articulated by schools is that there is a dearth of research
to support other Tier 2 evidence-based interventions in behaviour.
Another facilitator of success is to ensure the effective coordination of staff
teaming, training, and decision-making. For example, schools need to have
staff with dedicated roles for coordinating student referrals, implementing
interventions, collecting and monitoring data, and overseeing the fidelity of
implementation, as well as ensuring training and ongoing professional learn-
ing are provided as appropriate to all staff (refer to Chapter 6 for further dis-
cussion of SWPBS leadership teams). It is important that all members of the
team are clear about the core elements and values of SWPBS; this helps sup-
port sustained implementation at scale across the school, rather than relying
on a single staff member to achieve this (Pinkelman & Horner, 2019). Sustained
implementation is further facilitated by effective leaders who demonstrate
belief and commitment in the value of the work and maintain a focus on suc-
cess (Eiraldi et al., 2019). Yet another important facilitator of Tier 2 is effective
communication and genuine two-way partnerships with families, as this helps
get families to ‘buy in’, and facilitates both consistency and collaboration in
implementation. Collectively, these factors support more durable and suc-
cessful changes in students’ behaviour (Strickland-Cohen et al., 2021).
One common barrier to the implementation of SWPBS overall, and that
affects Tier 2, is the provision of sufficient time for staff to complete the
administrative tasks associated with implementation or to implement the
interventions. Another barrier is staff turnover, which leads to a loss of
trained staff with experience in the school’s systems and processes. Perhaps
the most important barrier to effective implementation of Tier 2 is when
77
SWPBS is not sufficiently embedded within the culture of the school. This
can undermine the implementation and success of Tier 2 interventions, as
these interventions may then need to compete with other school initiatives
or may lack the support of leadership (Yeung et al., 2016).
Drawing on the above information, the lessons for creating sustainable
Tier 2 practices are clear (see Chapter 10). Schools need to ensure that they
implement and maintain effective systems for collaboration, such as creat-
ing staff teams and fostering genuine partnerships with parents. They also
need to implement measures to retain staff and to provide them with time
release and appropriate training to undertake the tasks relating to the imple-
mentation of Tier 2 (Kittelman et al., 2021). The role of school leadership is
clear, particularly through holding an unwavering commitment to the
SWPBS framework and embedding it within school culture. However, sup-
port from the education system outside schools, such as from education
authorities and regional offices, is also vital in supporting leaders to achieve
effective Tier 2 implementation; this may be provided through supportive
policies and specialist resources, such as specialist coaches.
The importance of Tier 2

Within a multi-tiered system of support, each tier is designed to supple-
ment support provided at the previous tier. Tier 2 is designed to supplement
Tier 1, but it also serves a secondary purpose. When schools can implement
Tier 2 with fidelity, it can reduce reliance on more intensive, individualised
supports provided at Tier 3 (Kern et al., 2020; McDaniel & Bruhn, 2019).
The provision of Tier 3 is costly for schools, both in terms of resources and
time, so finding ways to efficiently and effectively provide Tier 2 means that
Tier 3 can be reserved for those students who have the most chronic or
intensive requirements (Burns et al., 2016; Majeika et al., 2020).
Conclusion
Tier 2 targeted approaches form an essential component of a multi-tiered
system of support like SWPBS. They provide the essential function of
extending support to students who have not benefitted from universal
approaches, while reducing the resourcing constraints that would arise if
78
Tier 2
schools attempted to meet the needs of all of these students individually. We

have described the role data plays in screening and monitoring students for
whom Tier 2 supports are offered. The relationship between academics and
behaviour has been emphasised, and evidence-based approaches to sup-
port students have been provided, although the scope for providing detailed
research findings about the array of Tier 2 approaches is limited within a
single chapter. We encourage those implementing Tier 2 to continue to read
widely, using the chapter reference list and additional reading (Gulchak
et al. 2020; Jones et al. 2021; Knoster & Drogan, 2016) as a springboard.
Schools already implementing Tier 2 will have no doubt encountered bar-
riers to implementation, but we have also documented known facilitators.
To apply the ideas learnt within this chapter, we encourage you to look at
the following scenarios, and consider how Tier 2 targeted approaches might
benefit the students for whom we offer very brief profiles below.
Apply your ideas

Choose from one of the following scenarios (or write your own) to complete
the activities below.
Scenario 1
Nala is in Year 3. Each morning the other students in the class line up
outside the room upon the teacher’s request. Nala continues to play
and does not follow directions to line up. The teacher will usually get
all the students to enter the classroom and ignore Nala during this
time. The teacher has tried to explicitly teach the routine for lining up.
They have rewarded students who have lined up in a timely manner.
They have retaught Nala the routine individually and as part of a small
group. They have even created and shown a video of lining up, and
had the Year 6 leaders come to the classroom at the start of the day
to assist with lining up. All these universal supports have not changed
Nala’s behaviour. At the moment, once the teacher has the other stu-
dents in the room, they ask the teacher aide to run the morning rou-
tine while they go outside to coax Nala into the classroom. When this
occurs, Nala will usually then enter.
79
Scenario 2
Ari is in Year 8. He has struggled with reading throughout his educa-

tion, particularly with fluency which then affects his comprehension.
Recently, when given worksheets in class, Ari has crumpled them up
or thrown them away. Sometimes, he will then exit the classroom and
wander around the school grounds alone or go into the toilet block
and remain in there until the recess bell. The teacher has explicitly
taught how students can seek assistance when they are having dif-
ficulty. The worksheets given to all students are the same, but the
teacher has noted Ari’s behaviour and incorporated some flexibility
and scaffolds that are offered class-wide. For example, key words or
unfamiliar terms are defined at the start of any activity, the complexity
of the text on worksheets is matched to Ari’s assessed reading age, and
all students are permitted to work independently, in pairs, or in small
groups. Despite these differentiated practices, Ari’s task avoidance has
continued to escalate.
Scenario 3
Imran attends a special school. Until recently he was in Grade 4 at his

local neighbourhood school, but his parents chose to un-enrol him,
as teachers were not adjusting work for him, and he was becoming
increasingly disruptive. He had been suspended following an inci-
dent where he left the school grounds. Imran is in a class with five
other students, all of whom have been assessed with similar cogni-
tive functioning. However, since arriving, Imran has been calling out
in class and bullying other students, and he has clearly expressed
that he does not want to be at the school. The teacher has explicitly
taught students the behaviours expected in the classroom and has
been using a reward system. Imran’s teacher has tried to do some
‘calm down’ activities when they have noticed his behaviour starts
to escalate.
80
Tier 2
Table 4.3 Template for Tier 2 intervention grid
Intervention Description Entry criteria Progress Exit criteria

name monitoring
First, take a moment to document the Tier 1 approaches that have been
used so far to support the student in the scenario you chose. Are there any
other approaches you might suggest?
Next, combine the available data to consider a Tier 2 approach you
might recommend to support the selected student’s behaviour, or aca-
demic or social skills. You may wish to visit the PBIS World website to see
whether one of the Tier 2 interventions suggested there might work: www.
pbisworld.com/tier-2/. To increase the effectiveness of an intervention,
match it to the functional needs of the student.
Complete Table 4.3, describing this intervention in a way that will help
your selected student or their parent understand its purpose. List the criteria
your school might use to determine who can access this intervention.
Describe how you would monitor students who are receiving this interven-
tion. Finally, list the criteria your school might use to determine when a
student no longer has access to this support.
References
American Institutes for Research. (2015). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (formerly
Response to Intervention). https://www.air.org/our-work/education/multi-tiered-
system-supports-formerly-rti
Australian Government. (2018, April 12). Disability Discrimination Act 1992. https://
www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00763
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2015). Progress monitoring. In R. Brown, & R.
Bickford (Eds.), Practical handbook of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Building
academic and behavioral success in schools (pp. 230–238). Guilford Publications.
Bruhn, A. L., & McDaniel, S. C. (2021). Tier 2: Critical issues in systems, practices,
and data. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29(1), 34–43. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1063426620949859
Burns, M. K., Maki, K. E., Karich, A. C., Hall, M., McComas, J. J., & Helman, L.
(2016). Problem analysis at Tier 2: Using data to find the category of the prob-
lem. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. Van Der Heyden (Eds.), Handbook
of response to intervention: The science and practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support (pp. 293–307). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_17
81
Cho Blair, K.-S., Park, E.-Y., & Kim, W.-H. (2021). A meta-analysis of Tier 2 interventions
implemented within School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Psychology in the Schools, 58(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22443
de Bruin, K. (2019). Tier two literacy interventions in Australian schools: A review of
the evidence. Catholic Education Melbourne. https://mtss.education/wp-content/
uploads/2021/02/Tier-2-Interventions-in-Australian-Schools_CEM2021-copy.pdf
Draper, R. S. (2020). The effectiveness and comparison of Tier 2 interventions on
improving social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes in elementary school
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Roberts Wesleyan College.
Eiraldi, R., McCurdy, B., Schwartz, B., Wolk, C. B., Abraham, M., Jawad, A. F.,
Nastasi, B. K., & Mautone, J. A. (2019). Pilot study for the fidelity, acceptabil-
ity and effectiveness of a PBIS program plus mental health supports in under-
resourced urban schools. Psychology in the Schools, 56(8), 1230–1245. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.22272
Fallon, L. M., & Feinberg, A. B. (2017). Implementing a Tier 2 behavioral interven-
tion in a therapeutic alternative high school program. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(3), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1045988X.2016.1254083
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2016). Multilevel Response-to-Intervention
prevention systems: Mathematics intervention at Tier 2. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns,
& A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_18
Goldfeld, S., Beatson, R., Watts, A., Snow, P., Gold, L., Le, HND., Edwards, S.,
Connell, J., Stark, H., Shingles, B., Barnett, T., Quach, J. & Eadie, P. (2020). Tier 2
oral language and early reading interventions for preschool to grade 2 children:
A restricted systematic review. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754
Hawken, L. S., Crone, D. A., Bundock, K., & Horener, R. H. (2021). Responding to
problem behavior in schools (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Kern, L., Gaier, K., Kelly, S., Nielsen, C. M., Commisso, C. E., & Wehby, J. H. (2020). An
evaluation of adaptations made to Tier 2 social skill training programs. Journal of
Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.
2020.1714858
Kittelman, A., Mercer, S. H., McIntosh, K., & Nese, R. N. T. (2021). Development and
validation of a measure assessing sustainability of Tier 2 and 3 behavior support
systems. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2021.02.001
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Crocker, J., & Weist, M. D. (2017). Building strong part-
nerships: Education and mental health systems working together to advance
behavioral health screening in schools. Report on Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders in Youth, 17(4), 93–101. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC6075829/
82
Tier 2
Majeika, C. E., Bruhn, A. L., Sterrett, B. I., & McDaniel, S. (2020). Reengineering Tier 2
interventions for responsive decision making: An adaptive intervention process.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15377903.2020.1714855
McDaniel, S. C., & Bruhn, A. L. (2019). A case example of district-wide adoption of
the Tier 2 identification and intervention framework. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 35(3), 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2018.1545148
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support:
Blending RTI and PBIS. The Guilford Press.
Mitchell, B., Bruhn, A., & Lewis, T. (2016). Essential features of Tier 2 and 3 School-
Wide Positive Behavioral Supports. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden
(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 539–562). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_31
Pinkelman, S. E., & Horner, R. H. (2019). Applying lessons from the teaching-family
model: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Perspectives on
Behavior Science, 42, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00199-x
Quach, J., Goldfeld, S., Clinton, J., Serry, T., Smith, L., & Grobler, A. (2019). MiniLit:
Learning Impact Fund evaluation report. Independent report prepared by the
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne for
Evidence for Learning. https://evidenceforlearning.org.au/research-and-evaluation/
lif/our-projects/minilit/
Sterrett, B. I., McDaniel, S. C., Majeika, C. E., & Bruhn, A. L. (2020). Using evi-
dence informed strategies to adapt Tier 2 interventions. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 36(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1714856
Strickland-Cohen, M. K., Kyzar, K. B., & Garza–Fraire, F. M. (2021). School–family
partnerships to support positive behavior: Assessing social validity and intervention
fidelity. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1913084
US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2015). Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports implementation blueprint: Part 1 – foun-
dations and supporting information. Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://assets-global.website-files.com/
5d3725188825e071f1670246/5d79859de5f68d6b4d775c6f_PBIS%20Part%
201%2018%20Oct%202015%20Final.pdf
Van Camp, A. M., Wehby, J. H., Copeland, B. A., & Bruhn, A. L. (2021). Building
from the bottom up: The importance of Tier 1 supports in the context of Tier 2
interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(1), 53–64. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300720916716
83
Further reading
Gulchak, D., Flores, Y., & Jannasch-Pennell, A. (2020). KOI PBIS Tier 2 Manual: A
knowledge-outcomes-impact model for multi-tiered systems of behavior support
(4th ed.). KOI Education. https://www.koi-education.com/books
Jones, S. M., Brush, K. E., Ramirez, T., Mao, Z. X., Marenus, M., Wettje, S., Finney,
K., Raisch, N., Podoloff, N., Kahn, J., Barnes, S., Stickle, L., Brion-Meisels, G.,
McIntyre, J., Cuartas, J., & Bailey, R. (2021). Navigating SEL from the inside out:
Looking inside and across 33 leading SEL programs – A practical resource guide
for schools and OST providers (preschool and elementary focus). https://www.
wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/navigating-social-and-
emotional-learning-from-the-inside-out-2ed.pdf
Knoster, T., & Drogan, R. (2016). The teacher’s pocket guide for Positive Behaviour
Support: Targeted classroom solutions. Paul H. Brookes.
Tier 2 web resources

www.pbis.org/pbis/tier-2
www.pbis.org/resource/tier-2-systems-readiness-guide
www.pbisworld.com/tier-2/
www.pbis.serc.co/docs/training/year-2/Tier-2-Intervention-Toolbox.pdf
www.koi-education.com/tier-2-resources
https://beyou.edu.au/resources/programs-directory/about
https://www.evidenceforlearning.org.au/the-toolkits/the-teaching-and-learning-
toolkit/full-toolkit/
https://pg.casel.org
https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Marketing%20Content/Interventions-Progress-
Monitoring-Toolkit.pdf?hsCtaTracking=850d5ad5-fb48-4058-85a9-
3d6ced71dfe2%7Cb661e603-39fb-4b64-992b-b393bb70a8b6
Screening tools
Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Josephine County
Mental Health Program. https://www.ci3t.org/screening
Gardon, L. (2009). School Behaviours Rating Scale (SBRS) Student Behaviour
Questionnaires. School Behaviour Solutions. https://schoolbehavioursolutions.
com/products
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research
note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. https://acamh.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
84
Tier 2
Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). BASCTM_2 Behavior and emotional

screening system (BASCTM-2 BESS). Pearson. https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/
Psychology/ChildMentalHealth/ChildADDADHDBehaviour/BASC-2BESS(Behavi
oralandEmotionalScreeningSystem)/BASC-2BESS(BehavioralandEmotionalScreen
ingSystem).aspx
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2007). School refusal assessment scale. Oxford
University Press. https://www.oxfordclinicalpsych.com/view/10.1093/med:psych/
9780195308297.001.0001/med-9780195308297-interactive-pdf-003.pdf
Stoiber, K. C. (2004). Functional Assessment and Interventions System (FAIS).
Pearson. https://psycentre.apps01.yorku.ca/wp/functional-assessment-and-
intervention-system-fais/
85
Tier 3
5 Intensive approaches,
interventions, and
supports
Lisa McKay-Brown and Tom
Tutton
Learning intentions
• Describe the process of functional behavioural assessment (FBA).

• Summarise the technical requirements of FBA, including tools to assess
the quality of behaviour support plans (BSPs), as well as the need for the
plans to include the person, and to be person-centred, culturally respon-
sive, and socially valid.
• Articulate the importance of maintaining Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports when
addressing Tier 3.
• Appraise the enablers and barriers to implementing Tier 3 supports
within the Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) framework, including the
issue of ‘contextual fit’, and identify tools that help to assess and monitor
the fidelity of implementation.
• Identify practical examples from Tier 3 implementation including an
Australian-developed template to support simplified FBA, the use of
Prevent-Teach-Reinforce in schools, and the In2School program, a Tier 3
intervention for school refusal.

A central focus of this handbook is to examine the operation of tiers of
support, primarily in school contexts. Chapter 4 carefully described the
86 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-5
Tier 3

1.6 Strategies Design and implement Use a behaviour support
to support full teaching activities that plan for students exhibiting
participation of support the participation behaviours of concern.
students with and learning of students
disability with disability and address
relevant policy and
4.1 Support student Establish and maintain Implement BSPs in school
participation orderly and workable settings to support students
routines to create an to participate and engage
environment where student in classroom activities.
time is spent on learning
tasks.
4.3 Manage Manage challenging Use FBA to support
challenging behaviour by establishing students with behaviours of
behaviour and negotiating clear concern.
expectations with students
and address discipline
respectfully.
4.4 Maintain student Ensure students’ wellbeing Implement BSPs with
safety and safety within school fidelity to support student
by implementing the safety and wellbeing.
school and/or system FBAs are used to improve
curriculum and legislative student quality of life.
requirements.
5.4 Interpret student Use student assessment Use a range of
data data to analyse and assessments to support
evaluate student the implementation of
understanding of subject/ BSPs and to evaluate their
content, identifying technical adequacy and
interventions and feasibility, and the extent
modifying teaching to which they have been
practice. implemented with fidelity.
7.3 Engage with Establish and maintain Involve parents/carers
parents/carers respectful collaborative with developing FBAs.
relationships with parents/ Wraparound models
carers regarding their of care enable the
children’s learning and participation of parents/
wellbeing. carers.
87
relationship between Tier 2 supports and Tier 1. This chapter continues this
narrative by exploring aspects of Tier 3. The systems focus of SWPBS has
added new dimensions to the current practices of individualised supports
and the field continues to develop, though is yet to be fully established. In
education systems across Australia, the implementation of all three tiers has
been inconsistent (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017; NSW Ombudsman,
2017; Shaddock et al., 2015; Victorian Ombudsman, 2017). This chapter
describes the key features of Tier 3 and the barriers to implementation. It
provides a guide to planning, implementation, and processes for Tier 3.
What are Tier 3 supports?

School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) uses a Multi-Tiered System
of Support (MTSS) to align academic, behavioural, social, and emotional
interventions. Tier 1 supports, as discussed in Chapter 3, are universal and
delivered for all students, whereas Tiers 2 and 3 provide responses in the
form of supplementary strategies, practices, and intervention programmes for
students where other tiered supports have not been sufficiently effective (Lane
et al., 2014). Tier 3 supports are individualised and intensive in their scope.
Typical examples of Tier 3 supports in SWPBS include individualised BSPs
and wraparound models of care, informed by FBA (Algozzine et al., 2012).
Tier 3 supports are ‘intended for 5% or fewer students within a school’
(Horner & Sugai, 2015, p. 81). Tier 3 systems include team processes,
screening practices, data collection, professional development, family col-
laboration, assessments of quality of life, and comprehensive academic
and behavioural supports. To ascertain which students require these sup-
ports, multi-level data-based decision-making must be used. Data systems
are used to identify, collect, and analyse data to inform decision-making.
These systems exist at the school and student level and can be aggregated
(e.g., to the overall school level) or disaggregated for deeper analysis. Data
systems need to provide timely, accurate, and reliable data for decision-
making. Decisions about Tier 3 supports are informed by student and sys-
tem levels of data.
At the school level, Lane et al. (2014) suggest creating a school-wide
assessment schedule to identify data to be collected, specifying the timing
of their collection, and developing procedures to analyse them. Examples of
Tier 1 data that can be collected include academic results, diagnostic
88
Tier 3
assessments, and national testing results (such as the National Assessment

Program – Literacy and Numeracy). Behavioural data can include screening
measures, current rates of adult reinforcement, discipline referrals, and sus-
pension and expulsion data. Social measures can also be collected; these
may include counselling referrals or screening tools, such as the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 2001; Lane et al., 2014). The
Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; Algozzine et al., 2019) can guide the collec-
tion of fidelity data at Tier 3 and ensure that Tier 1 and Tier 2 responses are
still available to students.
Tier 3 interventions are best supported when implemented in a school
that offers Tier 1 and 2 supports that are maintained and layered (Horner &
Sugai, 2015; Sugai & Horner, 2020). As such, it is recommended that
schools ensure that they have achieved fidelity in Tiers 1 and 2 before
attempting to implement Tier 3 supports. While there have been few stud-
ies specifically focused on the outcomes of the additive effect of imple-
menting all tiers (Grasley-Boy et al., 2021), researchers acknowledge the
importance of including increasing levels of intensity to ensure all students
are given the opportunity to succeed in the school environment (Algozzine
et al., 2012; Horner & Sugai, 2015). Grasley-Boy et al. (2021) examined
the outcomes of implementing Tiers 1, 2, and 3 with fidelity on the rates of
out-of-school suspension, out-of-school suspension incidents, and students
referred to law enforcement. Their findings suggested that implementing all
tiers with fidelity can lead to reduced disciplinary exclusions, and they
recommended that schools consider these implications when implement-
ing tiered responses.
What is functional behavioural assessment?

Chapter 2 explained the foundations of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA)
and the significance of understanding behavioural function. FBA is a widely
used process within the SWPBS tiers to support individuals, particularly
where complex behaviours of concern are evident. FBA aims to understand
the circumstances that predict behaviour and the conditions that maintain
it. The FBA process can be conducted in any setting, including schools. It
begins with a clear understanding that the outcome of support is to improve
the quality of life for the student. In this context, Carr et al. (2002) note that
the reduction of behaviours of concern is an important secondary goal, as
89
this can lead to meaningful and ongoing lifestyle and cultural changes for
the person at the centre of the plan (pp. 6–7).
Understanding the function of a behaviour makes support plans more
effective (Carr et al., 1999) but this is only one part of a broader assessment.
A thorough assessment should include a person’s satisfaction with their
quality of life, such as health and wellbeing, and should examine whether a
person’s strengths are utilised and if support needs are routinely provided
for, especially where there may be learning differences, disability, and health
or mental health conditions. The FBA process understands that behaviours
of concern happen as part of an interaction between the person, others, and
their school environment (Hastings et al., 2013). Hirsch et al. (2017) note
that a typical FBA should include an operational description of the behav-
iour of concern, identification of setting events, antecedents, and the conse-
quences that maintain the behaviour. Following that, a functional hypothesis
needs to be developed from a collection of direct and indirect data, and
from this a BSP is developed.
Work as a team
It is important to include all stakeholders in the FBA process. This includes

the student, their parents/carers, and others who know them well. The request
for information is made on the understanding that ‘families are the most
committed, enduring and knowledgeable source of support and are vital
contributors’ to the FBA process (Dunlap et al., 2001, p. 215). Dunlap et al.
(2019) suggest that teams require personnel with three levels of knowledge.
First, team members with direct knowledge of the student (e.g., teacher,
parent/carer) are needed. Next, a facilitator who understands SWPBS and
how to apply behavioural principles to create behaviour support plans needs
to be included. Finally, the team must include someone who has knowledge
of the school and community context, such as a school leader (Dunlap et al.,
2019). To develop a more systematic way of working in teams, a wraparound
model may be used (Scott & Eber, 2003). This model uses a defined plan-
ning process to build constructive relationships and support networks among
educators, students, and students’ families that is community based, cultur-
ally relevant, individualised, strength-based, and family-centred (Eber et al.,
2009; McKay-Brown et al., 2019). As the FBA process needs to address mul-
tiple domains, the wraparound model can be used to focus on improving the
quality of life, psychological wellbeing, and family functioning.
90
Tier 3
Complete an FBA to understand the behaviour
The FBA process can include a variety of data collection methods. Direct
observation, using a detailed ‘antecedent-behaviour-consequence’ (ABC)
observational assessment, explores the range of variables that impact on
behaviour and can reliably identify what precedes and follows behav-
iour. The significance of antecedents and consequences are discussed in
Chapter 2. Indirect assessments, such as structured interviews and rating
scales, can be easier to conduct and less time consuming, and they help
to include others in the FBA process. However, indirect measures can be
subject to recall bias and may generate inaccurate data. The efficiency of
function-based behaviour support can be further improved by recognising
that the intensity of the assessment process can vary depending on the com-
plexity and severity of the behaviour of concern (Crone et al., 2015).
To conduct an FBA takes skill in knowing what details to look for, empathy
in understanding the perspective of the student, taking time to get to know the
student and their circumstances, and diligence in collecting sufficient infor-
mation without judgement. Over the past twenty years, useful manuals have
been created to assist SWPBS teams to conduct FBAs (Crone et al., 2015).
One useful example is the Functional Assessment and Program Development
for Problem Behavior: A Practical Handbook (O’Neill et al., 2015).
How to develop and implement a behaviour

support plan
One key step in the FBA process is the development of a BSP. These plans
can be as long or short as needed, with more complex situations requiring
more comprehensive plans. The sections below highlight elements that will
increase the likelihood of BSPs being implemented successfully.
Developing positive, person-centred plans
Including all students in SWPBS is essential, as discussed in Chapter 7.

Traditionally, PBS is done ‘to’ students rather than ‘with’ them, and this is
particularly true for students with disability, a point reinforced in Chapter
8. Some research (Walker et al., 2018) shows that students with disability
are not routinely included in the ‘universal’ level of SWPBS, but with a
91
few adaptations they can be (Loman et al., 2018). Including students in

SWPBS is likely to result in their increased acceptance and participation
(Mager & Nowak, 2012). As Tier 3 supports are individualised, including
the voice of students is particularly important. Therefore, BSPs should as
much as possible include the student in the development and implementa-
tion of the plan. One example of a person-centred review is the Person-
Centered Positive Behavior Support Plan (PC-PBS) developed by the Kansas
Institute for Positive Behavior Support (see further resources at the end of
this chapter).
Ensuring plans have technical adequacy, are implemented with fidelity, and
have good contextual fit
In reviews of BSPs developed in school settings in the USA, it was found

that nearly half showed little or no link between the information from the
FBA and the behavioural interventions selected (Strickland-Cohen & Horner,
2015). Hirsch et al. (2017) note that there are four elements that can impact
the technical adequacy of a BSP, informed by the FBA process. These are:
(1) mismatched function; (2) identification of skill or performance deficits;
(3) absence of critical environmental variables; and (4) inaccessible rein-
forcement (pp. 372–375). To support the review of a BSP, different tools can
be utilised by schools. One example is the Behaviour Support Plan Quality
Evaluation Guide II (BIP QEII; Wright et al., 2013). Another tool is the Technical
Adequacy Tool for Evaluation (TATE; Iovannone & Romer, 2017), which can
be used to evaluate the technical adequacy of FBAs and BSPs and is linked to
the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) model of FBA (Dunlap et al., 2019).
Implementation fidelity refers to the degree to which a system or practice
is implemented as intended. Within MTSS, the system of support for indi-
vidual students are reviewed as a component of fidelity evaluation. Ensuring
that BSPs are feasible and can be implemented with fidelity requires an
understanding of the multiple factors that can influence whether a plan is
successful. Further, there are a range of resources available to a school lead-
ership team that can be used to examine the fidelity of implementation of a
BSP. While not linked to evaluating a BSP specifically, the TFI enables
schools to examine the systems that support Tier 3 interventions, including
the team process, data collection, family collaboration, quality of life indi-
cators, and the extent to which the supports are comprehensive. The School
Contextual Fit Checklist (Horner et al., 2003) can identify and address
92
Tier 3
barriers in implementing BSPs. This checklist reviews staff knowledge and

beliefs about the plan and whether school staff have the resources and admin-
istrative support to implement the plan. Social validity measurement can be
used to track the feasibility of the FBA process and resulting BSP. While sev-
eral social validity measures are available, one used widely for BSPs is the
Treatment Acceptability Rating Form – Revised (TARF-R; Reimers et al., 1992;
Wacker et al., 1998). The TARF-R examines the acceptability and feasibility
of an intervention in the areas of reasonableness, effectiveness, side effects,
disruptiveness/time required, cost, and willingness (Reimers et al., 1992).
Finally, contextual fit is the match between a written BSP’s strategies and
the student’s, family’s, and school’s priorities, goals, values, and strengths.
BSPs with a good contextual fit can increase teacher willingness to imple-
ment a plan and can impact on the quality of implementation (Monzalve &
Horner, 2021; Sullivan et al., 2021). The Self-Assessment of Contextual Fit in
Schools (Horner et al., 2003) is one tool that can be used to evaluate con-
textual fit (see further resources at the end of this chapter). A recently devel-
oped tool is the Contextual Fit Enhancement Protocol (CFEP; Monzalve &
Horner, 2021). Initial trials using the CFEP to modify BSPs reported improved
implementation fidelity and a decrease in student behaviours of concern
(Monzalve & Horner, 2021).
Barriers to implementation of Tier 3 in school

settings
As highlighted in Chapter 1, the majority of SWPBS implementation research
has focused on universal Tier 1 supports and has identified a range of bar-
riers to implementation, including lack of staff support, commitment, or
buy-in (Feuerborn et al., 2018). Barriers to implementation can include the
time, skills, and resources needed to conduct an FBA and to develop and
implement a BSP, as well as a lack of understanding of the process being
used. Recent research has noted additional barriers to implementing BSPs,
including that the cause of the student’s behaviour of concern could not be
addressed through a BSP, inconsistency of implementation of the BSP by
staff, and the BSP not being effective even when it had been implemented
with fidelity (Robertson et al., 2020).
As noted earlier, MTSS uses a continuum of supports across the three
tiers. Research suggests that ‘most of the behaviours that teachers find
93
difficult are relatively minor, but high in frequency’ (Sullivan et al., 2014,
p. 45). As a result, low level or emerging behaviours of concern are often
responded to with less effective and more exclusionary disciplinary prac-
tices (Sullivan et al., 2014). Given that the process of completing an FBA
and matched intervention across settings can be complex and technical,
the FBA process will likely continue to be inconsistently or inadequately
applied to many students who need it the most. Increasing the number of
skilled staff available and building Tier 1 and 2 systems of support are
important. At Tiers 1 and 2, function-based thinking can provide a frame-
work that enables teachers to intervene early with mild to moderate
behaviours (Hershfeldt et al., 2010). This early intervention relies on teach-
ers’ use of an operational definition of the behaviour and knowledge of the
student and environment to develop a function-based hypothesis and cre-
ate a simplified BSP (Hershfeldt et al., 2010).
Cultural responsiveness (discussed in Chapter 7) is an important consid-
eration in the implementation of SWPBS and BSPs due to the over-
representation of marginalised groups in discipline data (Bal, 2018). The
PBIS Cultural Responsiveness Field Guide (CRFG; Leverson et al., 2021) is a
guidance document that has been developed to encourage schools to exp
lore how to be more responsive to culture. However, as noted by Bal (2018),
in general the literature in the field has not yet provided a robust framework
for how to achieve this aim. At this stage, the CRFG does not include culturally
responsive components for Tier 3, although having an awareness of the fol-
lowing Tier 1 components is important: (1) identity; (2) voice; (3) a supportive
environment; (4) situational appropriateness; and (5) data for equity (Leverson
et al., 2021, p. 7). The FBA process has not been widely reviewed for its ability
to consider the linguistic and cultural diversity of students and families, nor in
terms of the ways cultural considerations of family understandings of behav-
iour may impact on the home–school partnership (Durán et al., 2013). To
counter barriers, Moreno et al. (2014) suggest developing a culturally attuned
FBA process which is centred on communication between home and school.
It has been suggested that undertaking a functional interview can be a positive
step to reduce the over-generalisation of cultural stereotypes and develop a
space of mutual trust and respect (Moreno et al., 2014). Other factors to con-
sider include creating a team that includes family and community members,
defining the behaviour of concern in a culturally sensitive way using positive
language, and ensuring the replacement behaviour and reinforcers selected
are culturally appropriate (Salend & Taylor, 2002).
94
Tier 3
Contextual responses to Tier 3 support in

Australian education settings
Prevent-Teach-Reinforce
The PTR model of individualised FBA has been developed for schools to
use when working with students who exhibit behaviours of concern. Tier 3
system features include the use of teams, direct observation data collection,
family collaboration, and a focus on the quality of life. PTR is a research-
validated, team-based approach to supporting students who exhibit behav-
iours of concern, and is based on ABA principles (Iovannone et al., 2009).
The principles of ABA were discussed in Chapter 2. The PTR model has been
developed for schools (Dunlap et al., 2010, 2019), early childhood settings
(Dunlap et al., 2013), and families (Dunlap et al., 2017). The model includes
linking the BSP to prevent, teach, and reinforce interventions. The prevent
component acknowledges that behaviours of concern are influenced by
events and context. The teach component acknowledges that behaviour has
a function and that replacement behaviours need to be explicitly taught. The
reinforce component identifies consequences or responses to the behav-
iours of concern that can be used to encourage desirable, prosocial behav-
iour (Dunlap et al., 2010, 2019).
PTR has been the subject of two randomised controlled trials in schools
(Iovannone et al., 2009) and early childhood settings (Dunlap et al.,
2018), the outcomes of which showed PTR was associated with a signifi-
cant reduction in behaviours of concern when compared with like con-
trols and when implemented with high levels of fidelity and social validity
(Sullivan et al., 2021). The model has also been researched in a range of
settings using single-case studies (e.g., DeJager & Filter, 2015; Saari, 2010;
Sears et al., 2013; Strain et al., 2011).
PTR has been successfully implemented in natural contexts with high
levels of fidelity of implementation (Sullivan et al., 2021). It is a manualised
model with checks by the team required at each step to ensure consistency
of implementation (Sullivan et al., 2021). It is collaborative and is driven by
a school team led by a facilitator with expertise in behavioural interven-
tions; this approach balances the need for technical adequacy with feasibil-
ity, acceptability, and usefulness for the adults and student involved (Sullivan
et al., 2021). Implementation of the BSP includes coaching for staff, so
there are opportunities to practise and refine the use of interventions and
95
ensure regular monitoring of implementation (Sullivan et al., 2021). Finally,

PTR interventions are function-based and linked to the hypothesis devel-
oped by the team.
In an Australian context, PTR has been highlighted by the Department of
Education and Training (Victoria) as a research-validated intervention for
schools to implement at Tier 3. Over 1,000 teachers and education support
staff have been trained in this model since 2015. As part of this implementa-
tion, the contextualisation of materials was undertaken in consultation with
the international research group; from this, Australian versions of key forms
were created and trialled with education staff.
In2School programme
In2School is an Australian Tier 3 wraparound project for young people who

are school refusing. It brings together education, mental health, students, and
families in a six-month programme to support students to return to school
(McKay-Brown et al., 2019). This three-phase programme commences with
relationship-building and with reintroducing students to a classroom space.
This is followed by a ten-week period in the In2School classroom where
students participate in educational and therapeutic activities. The final
phase includes a return to mainstream schooling with intensive outreach
support. As part of the assessment process, the function of school refusing is
ascertained using the School Refusal Assessment Scale – Revised (SRAS-R;
Kearney, 2002, 2006). This measure uses four functions to identify barri-
ers to engaging with education: (1) avoidance of school-based stimuli that
provoke negative affectivity; (2) escape from aversive social/evaluative situ-
ations; (3) accessing attention from significant others; and (4) accessing tan-
gible reinforcement outside of school (Kearney, 2002, 2006). The In2School
programme uses the results from SRAS-R to support the development of an
individual learning plan that targets the teaching of specific behavioural
and social skills to match function. For example, a student whose function
is avoidance of school-based stimuli that provoke negative affectivity may
be taught to help-seek when feeling worried about completing tasks; or a
student whose function is to escape from aversive social/evaluative situa-
tions may be taught skills in joining a social setting or working in a group
(McKay-Brown et al., 2019). A replicated model called In2School@school is
currently being piloted for alternative and mainstream settings.
96
Tier 3
Aspect PBS template
Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) has developed a simplified FBA tem-

plate that incorporates elements of traditional FBA contingency diagrams
to link FBA with a matched support plan and to assist with technical preci-
sion, as described in BIP QEII. The goal of this template is to make the FBA
process accessible to parents and teachers, encouraging early intervention
with low level or emerging behaviours of concern. This kind of simplified
FBA is not the watering down of principles but rather an adaptation to make
the process more user friendly. Research suggests a simplified FBA process
can be effectively taught to teachers, parents/carers, and other profession-
als (Loman & Horner 2014; Strickland-Cohen & Horner, 2015). For more
information, consult the further resources at the end of this chapter for links
to the template.
Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the characteristics of Tier 3 supports, informed by
FBA. Several barriers that can limit the positive impact of Tier 3 supports
have been noted. To overcome these barriers, researchers and practitioners
need to focus on the high-quality development of person-centred BSPs,
ensuring contextual fit and the consistent implementation of strategies over
time and across settings.
Cultural responsiveness when developing Tier 3 interventions needs to be
an ongoing consideration. With the diverse range of learners present in any
education setting, the need to ensure that responses are cognisant of cultural
needs is paramount. As noted in the discussion about the barriers to imple-
mentation of Tier 3, this is an area of SWPBS that is being developed but not
fully established yet. It is recommended that all implementers of SWPBS
become familiar with the PBIS CRFG and use these documents to guide the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of Tier 3 approaches, ensuring
that families contribute throughout the process. Contextualising the CRFG
for an Australian audience is also recommended to ensure that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and culture, as well as those of other
diverse groups, are reflected.
97
Example using Tier 3 wraparound intervention

to return to school: An In2School case study
Tara (pseudonym) is an eleven-year-old girl with diagnoses of social anxiety
disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Tara reported feeling sad and anx-
ious, with heightened anxiety contributing to decreasing school attendance.
She found it difficult to participate when feeling overwhelmed by an activ-
ity, and this led to her feeling unsafe in the school setting and unable to
communicate these feelings. She was attending school one to two days per
week but spending this time in a withdrawal space. Some attempts had been
made by the school to provide targeted Tier 2 social supports, but these had
not been successful.
Tara’s SRAS-R results indicated that the primary function of her school
refusal was avoidance of school-based stimuli that provoke negative affec-
tivity, with a secondary function of accessing attention from significant oth-
ers. Using a person-centred approach, Tara was encouraged to create goals
while at In2School. The goals she set included independently getting ready
for school, entering the classroom on her own, problem-solving difficult
situations, and completing schoolwork.
To support Tara to achieve these goals, the In2School clinician provided
individual therapy around managing her anxiety and her feeling of being over-
whelmed and developed strategies to use in the In2School classroom, where
she was given academic support and opportunities to learn and practise social
skills with other students in the programme. Parent coaching was provided to
support her family to develop home-based school preparation and entry rou-
tines, and find alternative responses when she said she would not attend
school. Home-based reinforcers were provided when school attendance tar-
gets were met to address the function of accessing attention from her parents.
Tara’s goals upon returning to school were to receive support in finding
ways to feel safe and resolving a difficult relationship with a staff member
and peers. To support her ongoing attendance, additional Year 5–6 transition
days were provided during her graduated return to school. During these, she
was encouraged to use her social skills learning, and she actively partici-
pated with her peers. The clinician provided advice to the school about how
to support Tara to use coping skills when she was feeling overwhelmed. In the
six months after leaving In2School, Tara was maintaining a 96% attendance
rate. This continued, and she successfully transitioned to secondary school
the following year.
98
Tier 3
Apply your ideas

Reviewing behaviour support plans
Once the first draft of the BSP is developed, there are a number of tools that
can be used to review plans; these have been noted throughout the chap-
ter. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the key steps to take when reviewing
behaviour support plans.
Table 5.2 Steps for reviewing behaviour support plans
Step Review Tool Process It is OK to

proceed when
1 Review for BIP QEII Plan developer The plan is scored as
technical reviews the BSP good or superior.
precision using the BIP QEII.
2 Review PC-PBS Plan developer The plan meets all of
for person reviews the BSP the critical features,
centredness using the PC-PBS. and has a score of 2
for items #21, 24, 25,
29, & 30.
3 Review for School Train implementing There are at least
contextual fit Contextual team and use the fourteen areas to
Fit Checklist School Contextual assess for fit and these
Fit Checklist. are scored as either
moderate or strong
agreement.
4 Review TARF-R Team reviews social Implementers report
for social validity measure that areas of need
validity and responds to have been considered
areas that require and addressed.
more support.
Use for ongoing
review of process in
setting.
5 Focus on Implemen Review the Implementers
implemen tation implementation report knowledge,
tation checklist checklist with the confidence, and
and review implementing team. resources to
implement effectively.
99
Once these steps are complete, it is time to implement the plan. Typically,
it is recommended that at least one month of near full implementation is
needed before a review of progress is completed.
Further resources
• Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) PBS template www.autismspectrum.
org.au/about-autism/what-is-autism/positive-behaviour-support-at-aspect
and module via Positive Partnerships website www.positivepartnerships.
com.au
• The Behaviour Support Plan Quality Evaluation Tool (BIP-QEII) https://
pent.ca.gov/bi/essential10/documents/essential10-rubric.pdf
• PBIS Cultural Responsiveness Field Guide (Leverson et al., 2021) www.
pbis.org/resource/pbis-cultural-responsiveness-field-guide-resources-
for-trainers-and-coaches
• Kansas Institute for Positive Behavior Support: Person-Centered Positive
Behavior Support Plan (PC-PBS) https://mnpsp.org/wp-content/uploads/
2016/12/45-Item-Version-PC-PBS-Scoring-Criteria-Checklist-MN.pdf
• Self-assessment measure of contextual fit in schools (Horner et al., 2003)
www.autismspectrum.org.au/uploads/documents/Aspect%20Practice/
PBS/Aspect-Practice-PBS-Aspect-Practice-PBS-Contextual-Fit-Checklist-
for-families-and-Schools-2014_0.pdf
• School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised (SRAS-R: Kearney, 2002,
2006) https://insa.network/resources/questionnaires
• Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI) www.pbis.org/resource/tfi
References
Algozzine, B., Barrett, S., Eber, L., George, H., Horner, R., Lewis, T., Putnam, B.,
Swain-Bradway, J., McIntosh, K., & Sugai, G. (2019). School-wide PBIS Tiered
Fidelity Inventory. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports. www.pbis.org
Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M. B., Algozzine, K., Helf,
S. S., & Duran, G. Z. (2012). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior
instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 45–64.
doi:10.1177/001440291207900103
100
Tier 3
Bal, A. (2018). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports:

A process–oriented framework for systemic transformation. Review of Education,
Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 40(2), 144–174. doi:10.1080/10714413.2017.
1417579
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W.,
Anderson, J., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior sup-
port: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavioral Intervention,
4(1), 4–16. doi:10.1177/109830070200400102
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., McLaughlin, D. M., McAtee,
M. L., Smith, C. E., Ryan, K. A., Ruef, M. B., & Doolabh, A. (1999). Positive
behavior support for people with developmental disabilities: A research synthesis.
American Association on Mental Retardation.
Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2015). Building positive behavior support sys-
tems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment (2nd ed.). Guildford.
DeJager, B. W., & Filter, K. J. (2015). Effects of Prevent-Teach-Reinforce on academic
engagement and disruptive behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology,
31(4), 369–391. doi:10.1080/15377903.2015.1084966
Deloitte Access Economics. (2017). Review of education for students with disability
in Queensland state schools. https://education.qld.gov.au/student/Documents/
disability-review-report.pdf
Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., & Strain, P. S.
(2019). Prevent, teach, reinforce: The school-based model of individualized posi-
tive behavior support (2nd ed.). Paul H Brookes.
Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., Strain, P. S., &
English, C. (2010). Prevent teach reinforce: The school-based model of individual-
ized positive behavior support. Paul H. Brookes.
Dunlap, G., Newton, J., Fox, L., Benito, N., & Vaughn, B. (2001). Family involve-
ment in functional assessment and Positive Behaviour Support. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(4), 215–221. doi:10.1177/
108835760101600403
Dunlap, G., Strain, P., Lee, J. K., Joseph, J., & Leech, N. (2018). A random-
ized controlled evaluation of prevent-teach-reinforce for young children.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37(4), 195–205. doi:10.1177/
0271121417724874
Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Lee, J. K., Joseph, J. D., Vatland, C., & Fox, L. (2017). Prevent
teach reinforce for families: A model of individualized positive behavior support
for home and community. Paul H. Brookes.
Dunlap, G., Wilson, K., Strain, P. S., & Lee, J. K. (2013). Prevent, teach, reinforce for
young children: The early childhood model of individualized positive behavior
support. Paul H Brookes.
Durán, L. K., Bloom, S. E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Adaptations to a Functional
Behavior Assessment with a Spanish-speaking preschooler: A data-based
case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(1), 73–95. doi:10.1353/
etc.2013.0009
101
Eber, L., Hyde, K., Rose, J., Breen, K., McDonald, D., & Lewandowski, H. (2009).
Completing the continuum of schoolwide positive behavior support: Wraparound
as a tertiary-level intervention. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner
(Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior supports (pp. 671–709). Springer. https://
doi.org//10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_27
Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & Beaudoin, K. (2018). Classified staff percep-
tions of behavior and discipline: Implications for schoolwide positive behav-
ior supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 101–112.
doi:10.1177/1098300717733975
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Grasley-Boy, N. M., Gage, N. A., Lombardo, M., & Anderson, L. (2021). The additive
effects of implementing advanced tiers of SWPBIS with fidelity on disciplinary
exclusions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1177/10983007211011767
Hastings, R. P., Allen, D., Baker, P., Gore, N. J., Hughes, J. C., McGill, P., Noone, S.
J., & Toogood, S. (2013). A conceptual framework for understanding why chal-
lenging behaviours occur in people with developmental disabilities. International
Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 3(2), 5–13.
Hershfeldt, P. A., Rosenberg, R. S., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2010). Function-based think-
ing: A systematic way of thinking about function and its role in changing student
behavior problems. Beyond Behavior, 19(3), 12–21.
Hirsch, S. E., Bruhn, A. L., Lloyd, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (2017). FBAs and BIPs:
Avoiding and addressing four common challenges related to fidelity. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 49(6), 369–379. doi:10.1177/0040059917711696
Horner, R. H., Salentine, S., & Albin, R. W. (2003). Self-assessment of contextual fit
in schools. University of Oregon.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of Applied
Behavior Analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis
in Practice, 8(1), 80–85. doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4
Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., & Strain, P.
(2009). Randomized controlled trial of the prevent-teach-reinforce (PTR) ter-
tiary intervention for students with problem behaviours: Preliminary outcomes.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 213–225. doi:10.1177/
1063426609337389
Iovannone, R., & Romer, N. (2017, February). The FBA/BIP technical adequacy tool
for evaluation (TATE): Improving practice. [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the
National Association of School Psychologists, Texas.
Kearney, C. A. (2002). Identifying the function of school refusal: A revision of the
School Refusal Assessment Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 24, 235–245.
102
Tier 3
Kearney, C. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the School Refusal Assess

ment Scale-Revised: Child and parent versions. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 28, 139–144. doi:10.1007/s10862-005-9005-6
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Ennis, R. P., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). Identifying students for
secondary and tertiary prevention efforts: How do we determine which students
have tier 2 and tier 3 needs? Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 58(3), 171–182. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.895573
Leverson, M., Smith, K., McIntosh, K., Rose, J., & Pinkelman, S. (2021). PBIS cultural
responsiveness field guide: Resources for trainers and coaches (Revised). OSEP
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports.
www.pbis.org
Loman, S. L., & Horner, R. H. (2014). Examining the efficacy of a basic functional
behavioral assessment training package for school personnel. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 16(1), 18–30. doi:10.1177/1098300712470724
Loman, S. L., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., & Walker, V. L. (2018). Promoting the accessi-
bility of SWPBIS for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 20(2), 113–123. doi:10.1177/1098300717733976
Mager, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Effects of student participation in decision making
at school. A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational
Research Review, 7(1), 38–61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.001
McKay-Brown, L., McGrath, R., Dalton., L., Graham, L., Smith, A., Ring, J., & Eyre,
K. (2019). Re-engagement with education: A multidisciplinary home-school-
clinic approach developed in Australia for school-refusing youth. Cognitive and
Behavioral Practice, 26(1), 92–106. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.08.003
Monzalve, M., & Horner, R. H. (2021). The impact of the contextual fit enhance-
ment protocol on behavior support plan fidelity and student behavior. Behavioral
Disorders, 46(4), 267–278. doi:10.1177/0198742920953497
Moreno, G., Wong-Lo, M., Short, M., & Bullock, L. M. (2014). Implementing a cul-
turally attuned functional behavioural assessment to understand and address
challenging behaviours demonstrated by students from diverse backgrounds.
Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 19(4), 343–355. doi:10.1080/13632752.
2013.860682
NSW Ombudsman. (2017). NSW Ombudsman inquiry into behaviour management
in schools. https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/47241/
NSW-Ombudsman-Inquiry-into-behaviour-management-in-schools.pdf
O’Neill, R. E., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., Horner, R. H. & Sprague, J. R. (2015).
Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A
Practical Handbook (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Reimers, T. M., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., & De Raad, A. O. (1992). Acceptability
of behavioral treatments for children: Analog and naturalistic evaluations by par-
ents. School Psychology Review, 21(4), 628–643. doi:10.1080/02796015.1992.
12087371
103
Robertson, R. E., Kokina, A. A., & Moore, D. W. (2020). Barriers to implementing

behavior intervention plans: Results of a statewide survey. Journal of Positive
Saari, B. (2010). The effectiveness of prevent-teach-reinforce: Does the presence
of comorbid internalizing behavior problems moderate outcomes for children
with externalizing behaviour problems? [Education Specialist thesis, University
of Southern Florida]. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.
usf.edu/etd/1757
Salend, S. J., & Taylor, L. S. (2002). Cultural perspectives: Missing pieces in the func-
tional assessment process. Intervention in School & Clinic, 38(2), 104–112. doi:1
0.1177/10534512020380020601
Scott, T. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic
school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 131–143. doi:10.1177/109830070300500
30201
Sears, K. M., Blair, K. C., Iovannone, R., & Crosland, K. (2013). Using the pre-
vent-teach-reinforce model with families of young children with ASD. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1005–1016. doi:10.1007/s10803-
012-1646-1
Shaddock, A., Packer, S., & Roy, A. (2015). Schools for all children & young
people: Report of the expert panel on the students with complex needs and
challenging behaviour. https://www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0003/856254/Attach-4-Expert-Panel-Report-Web.pdf
Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-teach-reinforce: Addressing
problem behaviors of students with autism in general education classrooms.
Behavioral Disorders, 36(3), 160–171. doi:10.1177/019874291003600302
Strickland-Cohen, M. K., & Horner, R. H. (2015). Typical school personnel develop-
ing and implementing basic behavior support plans. Journal of Positive Behavior
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral inter-
ventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations.
Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage
them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43–66. https://doi.org//10.14221/
ajte.2014v39n6.6
Sullivan, K., Crosland, K., Iovannone, R., Blair, K.-S., & Singer, L. (2021). Evaluating
the effectiveness of Prevent-Teach-Reinforce for high school students with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(1),
3–16. doi:10.1177/1098300720911157
Victorian Ombudsman. (2017). Investigation into Victorian government school
expulsions. Victorian Ombudsman. https://apo.org.au/node/102446
104
Tier 3
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., Derby, K. M., Asmus, J. M., & Healy,
A. (1998). Evaluation and long-term treatment of aberrant behavior displayed
by young children with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 19(4), 260–266. doi:10.1097/00004703-199808000-00004
Walker, V., Loman, S., Hara, M., Park, K., & Strickland-Cohen, K. (2018). Examining
the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in school-wide positive behav-
ioral interventions and supports. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 43(4), 223–238. doi:10.1177%2F1540796918779370
Wright, D. B., Mayer, G. R., & Saren, D. (2013). Behaviour intervention plan quality
evaluation scoring guide II. The Positive Environments, Network of Trainers.
105
Impact of
School-wide
6 Positive Behaviour
Support on learners’
wellbeing and
engagement
Anne Power, Katrina Barker,
Mary Mooney, and Jill Schofield
Learning intentions
• Explain the impact School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS)

has on students’ wellbeing and engagement.
• Describe how data-driven decision-making addresses the social, emo-
tional, and behavioural needs of students with challenging behaviours
and how this can improve students’ non-academic and academic
outcomes.
• Identify systems for preventing and responding to challenging behaviour.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of SWPBS implementation for increasing pro-
social behaviour in classroom and non-classroom settings.

106 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-6

Impact of SWPBS

1.1 Physical, Use teaching strategies Establish structure
social, and based on knowledge of and predictability
intellectual students’ physical, social, and with routines, which
development and intellectual development and demonstrate familiarity
characteristics of characteristics to improve with students and their
students student learning. characteristics.
1.5 Differentiate Develop teaching activities Teach classroom
teaching to meet that incorporate differentiated expectations and adjust
the specific strategies to meet the specific the approach to address
learning needs of learning needs of students the full range of abilities.
students across across the full range of abilities.
the full range of
abilities
3.7 Describe Plan for appropriate and Involve parents/carers
a broad range contextually relevant and the community
of strategies for opportunities for parents/ in composition of
involving parents/ carers to be involved in their leadership team.
carers in the children’s learning.
educative process
4.3 Manage Manage challenging behaviour Use explicit teaching
challenging by establishing and negotiating of school expectations
behaviour clear expectations with to encourage positive
students and address discipline student choice.
respectfully.
4.4 Maintain Ensure students’ wellbeing Be calm and organised
student safety and safety within school by so that students feel
implementing school and/ the classroom is a
or system, curriculum, and safe environment that
legislative requirements. supports their wellbeing.
5.1 Assess student Develop, select, and use Assess whether students
learning informal and formal, are ready for learning
diagnostic, formative, and in a safe and positive
summative strategies to assess environment.
student learning.
Introduction
Primary and secondary schools implementing SWPBS aim to create
effective and equitable learning environments that benefit all students,
including those who may be disconnected from school and may exhibit
107
Anne Power et al.
behaviours of concern. As discussed in Chapter 2, SWPBS has been linked

to positive impacts on student wellbeing and a reduction in problem
behaviour incidents (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE),
2020, 2021) as well as an increase in students’ engagement levels at
school (Yeung et al., 2013). Schools implementing an SWPBS framework
are well-positioned to incorporate system-based practices to improve
the engagement of learners and promote positive behaviour. Central to
SWPBS is the prevention of disruptive and anti-social behaviour using
data-based decision-making.
This chapter discusses Australian research evidence of SWPBS’s impact
on all learners’ wellbeing and engagement with learning. We draw on a
subset of three case studies; descriptions of these and affiliated data are
presented later in the chapter. The case studies were a component of a
large-scale longitudinal mixed-methods Australian Research Council
(ARC) Linkage project (2008–2012). The project was a collaboration
between Western Sydney University and the NSW Department of Education
(DoE). It investigated how schools implementing SWPBS during the initial
five years improved their approaches to addressing disengaged learners
and learners with behaviours of concern across classroom and non-class-
room settings, as well as the benefits of these approaches to the wellbeing
of learners. This case study research revealed the impact of SWPBS on
school leadership as well as on classroom and non-classroom practices.
Examples of research tools included: interviews; focus groups; artefacts
such as newsletters, meeting minutes, and observations; School-Wide
Evaluation Tool data; and local regional office data. Case study schools in
the South Western Sydney and Western Sydney regions of NSW are
referred to as: (1) Saffron Public School; (2) Bronze High School; and (3)
Magnolia High School. In addition to using case studies, this chapter
draws on more robust research literature on how SWPBS can improve
students’ wellbeing and engagement in learning. International literature is
referenced because the evidence of the effectiveness of SWPBS in Australia
has been mostly limited to case studies and testimonial evidence, with
some quasi-experimental studies. Although we do reference research evi-
dence from some of these quasi-experimental studies and case studies, we
note that there is an urgent need for robust research in Australia to more
rigorously examine the impact of SWPBS on academic and non-academic
outcomes and to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of adapting
SWPBS to an Australian context.
108
Impact of SWPBS
Overview
The case study schools used the SWPBS/PBIS Implementation Blueprint

(Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2004, 2015)
to guide their systemic approach to SWPBS implementation, following a
model that promotes an explicit, structured, team-based, problem-solving
process for developing schools’ capacities to assess and address behaviour
issues (see Figure 6.1).
Centrality of school leadership
Leadership teams in the three case study schools were an essential feature of
SWPBS systemic implementation. The leadership teams, both in the schools
and in the regions, oversaw SWPBS practices, data collection, and analysis
of academic data. The leadership team typically comprised key stakehold-
ers from the school’s community, including representatives from the school
executive, teachers, students, parents, administration staff, Aboriginal elders,
and cultural leaders. The leadership team were responsible for developing
and implementing a three to five-year action plan as a road map for the team
to improve behavioural and academic learning outcomes by improving the
school climate, preventing disruptive and anti-social behaviour, increasing
Supporting Important Culturally

Equitable Academic & Social
Behavior Competence
OUTCOMES
MS
Supporting
DA
Supporting
E
Culturally
ST
TA
Knowledgeable Culturally Valid

SY
Staff Behavior Decision Making
PRACTICES
Supporting Culturally Relevant

Evidence-based Interventions
Figure 6.1 Systemic implementation model for PBIS/SWPBS

Adapted with permission from the Centre on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (2004, p. 15)
109
Anne Power et al.
time spent learning, promoting positive social skills, and delivering effective
interventions, as outlined later in the discussion of the case studies.
In SWPBS, the leadership team develops a continuum of supports from
the most general universal SWPBS strategies (expectations, rules, and rou-
tines) to the most specific interventions (function-based assessment and
function-based interventions). Prevention logic, which is discussed further
in Chapter 10, underpins the development of the SWPBS continuum (see
Figure 6.2). Tier 1 universal interventions, as discussed in Chapter 3, aim
to prevent the development of new cases of behaviours of concern, with a
focus on implementing high-quality learning environments for 100% of
students and staff, across all settings (school-wide, classroom, and non-
classroom). Tier 2 targeted interventions, as discussed in Chapter 4, focus
on reducing the number of existing cases that are challenging or not
responding to the universal interventions by intensifying the support in
situations where the behaviour is more likely to happen. Tier 3 intensive
interventions, as discussed in Chapter 5, focus on reducing the intensity
and/or the complexity of existing cases of disruptive behaviour that are
unlikely to be effectively addressed by universal or targeted supports.
These interventions are individualised to situations where the disruptive
behaviour is likely to occur.
As previously stated, Tier 1 systems practices are foundational for inter-
vention practices at Tiers 2 and 3. To effectively develop this continuum of
supports, the leadership teams use the SWPBS process. Leadership teams
carefully consider the richness of the culture of their schools and commu-
nities. Each time the teams meet, they focus on applying the process. They
Intensive Few
Targeted Some
Universal All
Figure 6.2 Three-tiered continuum of SWPBS

Adapted with permission from www.pbis.org
110
Impact of SWPBS
consider what systems are needed to support the adults to implement the
practices, use data efficiently, and achieve the social and academic out-
comes. The leadership teams select and monitor school data and then
evaluate outcomes to inform decision-making about practices and sys-
tems. Through this, interventions and strategies to achieve the planned
outcomes that are important to the school and its community are evi-
dence-based. An SWPBS coach is identified in the SWPBS Implementation
Blueprint (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports, 2004) as an important support to the school
leadership team. The SWPBS coach from the three case study schools
bridged the research-to-practice gap in building the capacity of the school
team to develop a continuum of support and to implement the SWPBS
process for the benefit of all learners.
SWPBS impact on learners’ wellbeing

SWPBS aligns with the Australian Student Wellbeing Framework (Student
Wellbeing Hub, 2020), with common objectives relating to promoting stu-
dent wellbeing, safety, and learning outcomes. Wellbeing in broad terms is
defined as the quality of a person’s life and is considered in relation to how
we feel and function across several areas, including our cognitive, emotional,
social, physical, and spiritual wellbeing (Student Wellbeing Hub, 2020).
The Australian Government describes a person’s wellbeing as the result
of risk, protective, and contextual factors. It can be influenced by social
and economic factors at the individual, family, and community level, and
each person’s unique circumstances and experiences contribute to their
wellbeing equation. Wellbeing can also influence, and be influenced by, a
person’s interaction with services and formal and informal supports. Across
a large number of international research studies, SWPBS has consistently
been linked to improving students’ wellbeing. For instance, randomised
controlled trial (RCT) studies have found that SWPBS improves students’
social-emotional functioning (Bradshaw et al., 2012), while Benner et al.
(2012) reported that SWPBS improves students’ perceived safety at school.
A recent systematic review demonstrated that SWPBS is associated with
the highest effect sizes in gains to social and emotional learning (SEL)
compared to other interventions designed to improve the school climate
(Charlton et al., 2021).
111
Anne Power et al.
Schools develop a continuum of support aimed at improving student

learning and wellbeing. The continuum of support recognises that, in order
to optimise learning outcomes and wellbeing, students require different
forms of support (social, academic, behavioural) at different times. The Tier 1
(universal supports) continuum, discussed in Chapter 3, involves explicit
teaching and positive messaging to students, which are delivered through
planned lessons that have been developed by the leadership team in response
to data showing where behaviour needs improving. When learning environ-
ments have clear expectations and foster a positive approach, students feel
safe (Benner et al., 2012; Roache & Lewis, 2011). The early intervention
approach fosters a calmer and more affirming environment for students.
Staff also report feeling safe because they feel more empowered. Magnolia
High School, a case study reported in this chapter, conducted an annual
survey on the climate of the school community across four years. Findings
from this survey showed an improvement in the school’s culture and cli-
mate with the implementation of Tier 1. Further evidence of the impact of
SWPBS on wellbeing is evident from a recent evaluation of SWPBS in NSW
schools (CESE, 2021). In this evaluation study, nine out of ten schools
reported that SWPBS was responsible for improving student wellbeing, as
shown in school engagement and retention. These views were substantiated
by school data, observations, and feedback from parents (CESE, 2021).
Much of the focus of the success of SWPBS has been on its impact in a
school setting. However, SWPBS in non-classroom settings and in par-
ticular settings external to a school setting have received less attention.
This chapter highlights, through the case study at Magnolia High School,
the significance and utility of SWPBS beyond the school setting. The
SWPBS Implementation Blueprint provides an organisational model
(OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports, 2004) which was implemented by the school. There have
been subsequent revisions to the Implementation Blueprint (OSEP
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports, 2015, 2020). The example from our case study exemplifies how
systems change, through the selection and implementation of practices
that are ‘fit’ for the culture and needs of the local setting, resulted in the
reduction of teenage violence at the local railway transport interchange.
Team-building and problem-solving skills were applied and reinforced.
The process and the practices that were implemented were functional
112
Impact of SWPBS
and sustainable, and they led to an increase in prosocial behaviour in a

setting in which students travelled to and from school. The SWPBS frame-
work contributed to improvements in students’ feelings of safety and con-
nectedness. The application of SWPBS to settings beyond school was
shown in the Magnolia High School case study to positively impact stu-
dents’ wellbeing.
Tier 2 (targeted support, see Figure 6.2) aims to reduce the number of
existing cases of problem behaviour that are high risk, or not responsive to
the universal supports, by providing more focused, intensive, and small-
group responses in situations where problems are more likely. Although
contextual factors are important, as discussed in Chapter 4, Tier 2 strate-
gies tend to cluster around three main foci: (1) additional social skill
instruction, (2) self-management, and (3) academic support (Yeung et al.,
2016). Wellbeing can be fostered through addressing these three main foci
while simultaneously building positive student–teacher relationships; this
has a reciprocal benefit on students’ academic achievements. SWPBS sys-
tems support teachers with training, leadership, and resources to imple-
ment practices for promoting student wellbeing. Function-based data are
used to match students to a Tier 2 support. Our case study at Saffron Public
School exemplifies Tier 2 support, which has the potential to improve stu-
dents’ wellbeing. This is because some of the practices implemented as
part of Tier 2 aim to increase positive interactions between teachers and
students. Valuing the student through teacher encouragement, and through
recognising and rewarding the student, communicates to them that they
are worthwhile.
The case studies discussed in this chapter are a subset of schools from the
ARC project described above. Overwhelmingly, educators from the case
study schools reported improvements in students’ engagement in learning at
school since implementing SWPBS. The case study schools reported data
showing a declining trend in major (school suspensions and absenteeism)
and minor (discipline referrals) behaviour incidents. These schools perceived
that SWPBS was responsible for reducing disruptive class behaviour, which
increased time for learning. Teacher observations and interview data from
teachers, as well as interviews with students and parents, collectively identi-
fied improvements to students’ engagement levels and increased interest in
learning, since the classroom setting was more conducive to learning, with
fewer disruptions.
113
Anne Power et al.
SWPBS impact on learners’ engagement

In Australia, SWPBS has a dual focus on both learning social behaviour and
positive academic achievements. Over nearly two decades, it has resulted in
improved school behaviour and academic gains in a range of school settings
worldwide (Yeung et al., 2016). Internationally, there is strong evidence that
it contributes to increased student engagement in formal and informal learn-
ing environments. For instance, Lee and Gage’s (2020) systematic review
from twenty-nine studies across the USA and Europe, drawing on a mix of
randomised controlled trials (n = 7) and quasi-experimental group design
studies (n = 22), demonstrated that SWPBS statistically significantly reduced
school discipline and increased academic achievement. Not all the studies
Lee and Gage included in analyses demonstrated implementation fidelity;
however, for those that did, fidelity was deemed instrumental to the success
of SWPBS, and greater effects sizes were attributed to settings with stronger
implementation integrity.
SWPBS was linked to an enhanced school climate and increased atten-
dance rates in an Australian quasi-experimental study conducted in twenty of
the original Western Sydney Region schools that first introduced SWPBS
(Mooney et al., 2008). A total of 827 boys and 888 girls from four Australian
primary and eight secondary schools implementing SWPBS (experimental)
were compared with 188 boys and 226 girls from two primary and four sec-
ondary schools that were not implementing it (control) (total n = 2,129).
Examination of the SWPBS primary schools relative to the non-SWPBS pri-
mary schools revealed higher levels of student engagement, as measured
through students’ perceptions of their school competence, interest in school,
and motivation (Yeung et al., 2009). A multiple-indicator-multiple-indicator-
cause (MIMIC) approach to structural equation modelling found that the
experimental group scored significantly higher in (a) behavioural manage-
ment input, (b) positive behaviours, (c) knowledge about behaviours, (d)
effort goal orientation, and (e) value of schooling. Gender effects were small,
favouring girls. This finding showed that SWPBS may benefit all students in
terms of both behaviour and motivation variables, but more work may be
needed for boys (Yeung et al., 2013). The following case studies, drawn from
the ARC-funded study, provide concrete examples of adult and student expe-
riences during SWPBS implementation.
114
Impact of SWPBS
Saffron Public School case study

Saffron Public School had 570 enrolled primary students, 91% of whom
spoke another language in addition to English. The impact of Saffron’s lead-
ership team, as well as the impact of classroom and non-classroom prac-
tices, emerged through the case study research.
School leadership team at Saffron
The school leadership team at Saffron included the school executive, teach-
ers, students, parents, and the SWPBS coach. Positivity towards SWPBS in the
school was sustained by the strength, expertise, and shared leadership respon-
sibilities within the leadership team and through the school’s committee struc-
ture, whereby each staff member was required to have a role and participate
in a committee. Whenever concerns were raised, the path the team took was
to build up the language of SWPBS so that staff and children understood what
was expected and knew the consequences when school rules were breached.
The Engagement Committee and SWPBS leadership team produced a series
of lessons (an example of a staff support system) embedding Tier 1 supports
into the playground, corridor, and classroom practices. As an example, a typi-
cal classroom practice for low-performing students was observed in a Year 10
History lesson about the 1967 Referendum. At the opening of the lesson the
teacher reminded students of the routine that she would be allocating stamps
to student diaries for readiness for the lesson. Additionally, this history class
also helped the adolescents learn about routines that would help them man-
age their lives and about decisions that affected their wellbeing. This History
class provides an example of SWPBS practices.
Collectively, the leadership team developed the school’s welfare policy
and reward system, linked to SWPBS implementation. As is typical with
Tier 2 interventions, there was a team and a systems-level approach to col-
lecting and monitoring data. In line with SWPBS processes, the Tier 1 sup-
port lessons met specific behavioural challenges, such as transition
movement between class and the library. One Saffron teacher perceived
SWPBS as a process that gave options to students to choose positive behav-
iour. In addition, student behaviour data collected by the school during the
implementation of the SWPBS system showed continuing improvement in
115
Anne Power et al.
learning and a reduction in suspensions over a period of time, aligning the

achievement of students’ learning outcomes with behaviour management.
As Figure 6.3 shows, Saffron achieved a dramatic decline in suspensions
over the initial five years of SWPBS implementation. This reduction in sus-
pensions meant that more children were in class and received the school’s
positive messages, as reported in the case study.
SWPBS impact on classroom practices at Saffron
When a teacher scaffolds a task with instructional talk, allows a wait time for
responses to questions, provides regular positive prompts for behaviour as
well as corrections where necessary, and provides a high ratio of positive to
negative feedback, this demonstrates respect for the students and fosters an
environment in which the students treat the teacher and each other respect-
fully (an example of a practice). Notably, Saffron, with its strong migrant cul-
ture, achieved improved outcomes for students in English and Mathematics
as evidenced from gains in the National Assessment Program – Literacy and
Numeracy (NAPLAN) results across the initial five years of implementing
SWPBS. The school also observed improved outcomes across other cur-
riculum areas, including Science and Technology, Human Society and its
Environment, Health and Physical Education, and the Creative Arts, based
Figure 6.3 Saffron Primary School suspension data, 2005–2009

Note: In 2010, no students were suspended
116
Impact of SWPBS
on summative school assessment results. Whether these improvements were

the direct result of SWPBS is unclear. It was evident from interviews with
staff that they perceived that the achievement of learning outcomes and the
management of behaviour were connected. This had an impact on teacher
practices: ‘I think the explicit systematic processes behind SWPBS have a
massive impact on how we teach’ (school executive interview); ‘The stu-
dents are just more focused. They know what’s expected so they’re ready.
They’re much more ready to learn’ (teacher interview).
For Tier 2 support, a Check-In-Check-Out (CICO) system was used to
establish a relationship between students and the teacher of their choice,
who monitored their following of school expectations. This system was
intended to set the students up for success. The CICO system, an inclusion
into the school’s Learning Support Policy, called on teachers to provide
support and encouragement to students with academic, social, emotional,
or behaviour needs. This accords with research (Majeika et al., 2020)
which asserts that targeted supports are integral to the SWPBS continuum.
Documented evidence of strong staff response to volunteering as a
‘Checker’ in this preventative practice for students at risk was catalogued
during the research at the school. Implementation of this Tier 2 interven-
tion meant that not only did the strategy have a positive effect on disrup-
tive behaviour, with a reduction in discipline referrals, but it also
encouraged strong staff–student relationships.
Members of the parent focus group established as part of the research
project affirmed that they saw the school staff as caring for all children and
endorsed the SWPBS approach (an example of an outcome being achieved).
The parents provided a rich resource to the school, collaborating to ensure
continuing improvement in the learning outcomes of the children.
Bronze High School case study

Bronze School had 1,100 enrolled secondary students, 82% with a lan-
guage in addition to English. Bronze staff perceived that SWPBS processes
created a supportive environment for learning for low achieving students.
The students attended to the lesson content and understood that the work
117
Anne Power et al.
with which they were challenged was achievable. When asked about their
views on SWPBS, a Stage 4 (Years 7–8) student said:
SWPBS means respecting each other, like understanding each other’s

religions, I guess. Like learning how to be able to do more than what
you thought you can do and it helps you to become more than you
imagine what you can be.
School leadership team at Bronze
The leadership team comprised the school executive, students, parents,

and an external SWPBS coach. Observation and interview data confirmed
that the coach and school SWPBS team experienced valuable interactions,
and the evidence suggested that this relationship was critical to the imple-
mentation of SWPBS. The coach at Bronze explained that SWPBS was
brought into the school as a joint staff response to a change of demograph-
ics and to a perceived change in aggressive behaviour and the attitude
with which students were presenting. The coach sought to build resilience
in students by fostering connections between school, community, and
family. In his view:
You can get effective change with children if you can change the
context that they’re in. I think that, with SWPBS, the staff can now
identify the difference between the ‘naughty’ child and the child
needing intervention. The staff are less punitive in dealing with prob-
lem behaviour, which is great.
This was significant for teachers, reaffirming their skills in management of

the learning environment. These teachers valued learning from and with
colleagues.
SWPBS impact on classroom practices at Bronze
A typical classroom practice for low achieving students was observed in a

Year 10 History lesson about the 1967 Referendum. At the opening of the
lesson the teacher reminded students of the routine that she would be allo-
cating stamps to student diaries for readiness for the lesson. In interview the
teacher explained:
118
Impact of SWPBS
I don’t limit [giving stamps] for just safe, respectful learners. If I get
good behaviour from them they’ll get a stamp. If they try to partici-
pate, they’ll get a stamp. That encompasses the whole idea of a safe,
respectful learner.
The teacher felt that SWPBS changed the dynamic in the classroom.
The parents also spoke about their responses to SWPBS:
I think it’s a good way of setting a bar for the kids. The stamps are a
communication link. If you don’t see any stamps in the diary, you ask
questions. You’re not getting the stamps as before, is there a problem?
This accords with engaging parents in the educative process.

A male head teacher commented on the efforts of staff:
SWPBS generally gives all staff a scaffold to work on with our welfare
and discipline policy. For the ones who are less inclined to recognise
good efforts, it gives them a prompt. There are many teachers remind-
ing students: ‘Is this safe, is this respectful?’ That’s got to raise the tone
of the whole school because [SWPBS] is an umbrella. It’s not just
behaviour, but behaviour and learning.
This final statement from a classroom teacher referred to as Jerry, summed

up the approach of this school:
The emphasis is on encouraging the students to be responsible for their

own behaviour in all of its aspects, whether that be behaviour as it
relates to attention in class, respect for the teacher, respect for their
peers. Then that also reflects in respect for themselves and the desire
to achieve their best as a learner. If the student feels that the only way
they get any attention is by being belligerent and argumentative, and is
rewarded for that, then they’ll continue to do it and that would impact
negatively on their academic performance and the performance of
those around them. But if they’re being encouraged to believe that they
are worthwhile and there are other ways to interact with people around
them and get attention in a positive sense, then that in turn reflects on
the ability of the teacher to teach and them to learn and so it’s a posi-
tive cycle. You’ve just got to try and turn it around and spiral upwards.
119
Anne Power et al.
Magnolia High School case study

Research at Magnolia revealed the impact of SWPBS on classroom and non-
classroom practices and on comprehensive leadership. Magnolia had 838
enrolled secondary students, 82% with a language in addition to English.
School leadership team at Magnolia
Magnolia’s SWPBS leadership team comprised comprehensive stakeholder

representation, including seeking advice from parents in decision-making.
Magnolia developed strong efficacy through being guided by the SWPBS
Implementation Blueprint (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports, 2004), with beneficial outcomes.
Magnolia’s leadership team developed and implemented universal sup-
ports, including decisions about the school’s core values (Show Respect,
Take Responsibility, Be Honest) and expectations (Move with the Flow, Keep
on the Go; Keep it Cool, Keep it Clean; Your Dare is to be Fair) that were
developed in forums that included parents, staff, and students, with the aim
of creating a positive environment to benefit all. Parents were purposefully
engaged in the educative process. These decisions included identifying
common areas (canteen) and specific locations (classrooms) where anti-
social student behaviour and behaviours of concern were exhibited. Data
were collected and analysed to identify behaviour patterns across time and
location. These data were presented to staff for collaborative problem solv-
ing and evidence-based intervention. Staff worked within this Multi-tiered
System of Supports to develop systems and practices to address each of the
behaviours of concern. Once these systems and practices were identified,
they formed an action plan for being embedded into lessons for teacher
training and student training. Regular staff updates on the monitoring of
implementation fidelity and student progress highlighted the impact on stu-
dent behaviour. Student involvement in the SWPBS process, such as teach-
ing lessons to younger students, aligned the SWPBS system to students’
needs. This subsequently improved students’ sense of belonging to the
school, as reported by a member of the school executive.
Consistently teaching expectations and delivering consequences, cou-
pled with linking to ubiquitous signage about school expectations, and stu-
dents understanding of these expectations, created a better learning
environment at Magnolia. One teacher commented:
120
Impact of SWPBS
[Signage] makes the life of a teacher on duty also quite good, it’s a
good tool to have. ‘Look at the rules, it’s not my rule, it’s a school
rule. It’s up on display and you have been taught that.’ It was reported
that Year 12 commented in their written evaluations that ‘it’s a better
school, and it feels happier’.
Teachers used an instructional approach to discipline, providing more

positive feedback than negative, and they retaught or prompted students
on the school’s expectations (an example of SWPBS practice). This helped
teachers realise that they were communicating more than just subject
content to help students learn and behave, and to succeed in the future.
This holistic student emphasis improved student and staff wellbeing, cre-
ating greater awareness of the students’ context. This relational approach
enabled staff to be responsive to students’ needs and flexible in their
response to behaviour.
Magnolia’s leadership team used the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET;
Sugai et al., 2001) and Self-Assessment Survey (SAS; Sugai et al., 2000), both
evidenced-based surveys collected by the local education region. These sur-
veys, together with school data, determined a baseline before implementing
school-wide universal interventions; the surveys were repeated annually.
This data enabled the school leadership team to determine what to priori-
tise, and they could evaluate the effectiveness of changes within an SWPBS
systems approach. Data relating to discipline referrals, reinforcements, and
suspensions were recorded in the school’s database (see Figure 6.4 for sus-
pension data).
Every five weeks, school data were analysed to monitor effectiveness
and to assist with ongoing problem solving. These practices assisted
teachers to know how their students were learning and to differentiate
learning to meet the needs of a variety of students across the full range of
abilities. After teaching the classroom expectations and monitoring stu-
dent progress there was an initial rise in the rates of discipline referrals
and the use of corrective responses. The number of referrals decreased
over time, although spikes in referrals were noted on occasions when staff
had a specific focus on expectations. Referrals for more serious behav-
iours of concern (blue forms) decreased. A culture climate survey com-
pleted by the school community over a four-year period demonstrated
dramatic improvements in the school climate during the implementation
of universal supports.
121
Anne Power et al.
Figure 6.4 Magnolia High School suspension data, 2005–2010

Note: The school recorded suspension data using the length of time as a category to reflect
the level of seriousness for the behaviours of concern.
SWPBS impact in classrooms at Magnolia
Magnolia emphasised classroom relationships that engaged all learners,

including student–student and student–teacher relationships. The school
executive linked this social skill support to students’ academic success. As
behaviour improved in classrooms, students enjoyed their classes more and
were more likely to attend school. Teachers understood that their SWPBS
implementation practice in the classroom required using more positive feed-
back than negative, and they retaught/prompted students about the school’s
expectations when needed. SWPBS helped teachers realise that they com-
municate more than just subject content, and to ‘get the best out of’ the
students, they needed to teach them what was expected socially and aca-
demically, so that they could grow into successful lifelong learners. Through
this holistic and relational approach, teachers developed greater awareness
of students’ learning contexts, and were more responsive to their needs and
flexible in their response to their behaviour.
Teachers and students at Magnolia were convinced that SWPBS imple-
mentation increased on-task time in the classroom. Students perceived that
122
Impact of SWPBS
it enabled them to listen, follow instructions, finish their work faster, and
cooperate better with other students. Through a strong focus on implement-
ing the essential features of SWPBS, the school found it had a positive effect
on learning and academic achievement. Teachers and students observed
higher levels of engagement in learning, which was attributed to better rela-
tionships between staff and students, greater efficacy concerning learning
outcomes, better understanding of what expected behaviour looked like,
increased collegiality, and increased on-task time. Within two years of
implementing SWPBS, Magnolia’s Year 9 literacy NAPLAN results showed
growth rates well above the state average with gains in students’ numeracy,
reading, and writing scores. The principal reported:
The students are more on task and teachers can assist individuals, and
this is improved pedagogy. The role of the principal had high visibility
with good people supporting. I also allocated energy and resources:
finances, staff time allowances, and training. The drive of the leader
meant it only took about two years to buy in.
SWPBS impact in the community of Magnolia
Magnolia extended the impact of SWPBS beyond the school when teen-
ager violence at the local transport interchange began causing concern to
police and citizens and gained media attention. Magnolia students, with
the support of their teachers, led a restorative strategy by applying SWPBS
processes to improve behaviour. This involved a systems response. Initially,
Magnolia organised a meeting with stakeholders: police, State Rail, the
Department of Transport, other local government schools in the area, and a
shopping centre. At this meeting a multi-agency interchange safety proposal
was drafted, which included SWPBS problem-solving processes, outlining
a common set of values, appointing an SWPBS coach, and collecting data
via surveys and interviews. Once this proposal was endorsed, Magnolia’s
SWPBS coordinator organised other schools in the area to conduct forums
with their SWPBS coordinators, welfare head teachers, student representa-
tive council members, and four other students from each of the schools. At
these forums, the interchange problems were defined and a set of values
and positive behaviour expectations addressing survey/interview concerns
were developed. The forums: recommended consequences for breaches of
expectations and rewards for appropriate behaviour; designed the signage
123
Anne Power et al.
for the interchange; and designed lessons and created training resources
for peer teaching of younger students about prosocial behaviour and
expectations within the community. This practice proved successful for
enabling student safety, increasing prosocial behaviour in non-classroom
settings, and preventing further problems in the community. There were no
further media reports of problems at the local transport interchange after
the implementation of this strategy. This community application provides
an effective example of how SWPBS became a valued, embedded process
at Magnolia.
It was significant that the Magnolia school executive reported no serious
violence or drug issues within two years of SWPBS implementation.
Students reported that the school’s expectations kept them safe as they ‘pre-
vent trouble occurring’, ‘help the school run more smoothly’, and ‘help
students know what is right and wrong’. One staff member expressed the
difference since implementing SWPBS as: ‘the bigger things are becoming
smaller, and the smaller things are diminishing’. Suspensions and referrals
had fallen, attendance had improved, and staff members felt empowered to
more effectively support behaviour for the benefit of all learners’ wellbeing
and engagement.
Conclusion
These three Australian case studies of SWPBS implementation in Sydney
schools illustrate research challenges and directions for the future.
Suspensions and referrals reduced, attendance improved, and staff mem-
bers felt empowered to more effectively support students’ behaviour, well-
being, and engagement for the benefit of all learners. The research partner,
NSW DoE, found the research provided empirical evidence for the effi-
cacy and pedagogical importance of SWPBS. This research project aligned
with the NSW DoE’s commitment to increase levels of attainment for all
students and to strengthen implementation of proactive student wellbe-
ing approaches. These case study findings highlight that further research
into Australian SWPBS implementation systems is required. Such research
might investigate the impact of Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) imple-
mentation on student wellbeing and engagement within and across class-
rooms compared to other areas in the school. Does universal prevention of
disruptive behaviour reduce the number of students who require targeted
124
Impact of SWPBS
or intensive supports? Moreover, internationally PBS has been demon-

strated to achieve powerful and long-lasting changes in a school’s culture,
particularly relating to the important outcomes of academic achievement
and wellbeing. Given the convincing international evidence on PBS’s posi-
tive impact, it would be valuable to conduct similarly rigorous research
in Australia. It is important to conduct quality research using the highest
levels of evidence in Australia because this will help establish whether
there is consistency in the findings, the extent to which the findings are
generalisable, and what the applicability of the international PBS results is
to school settings in Australia.
Apply your ideas

Select one of the three case studies and identify which SWPBS systems
were utilised, and list the related practices that exemplify the system in
action using Table 6.2. This application can support a school’s action
plan for high-fidelity multi-tiered implementation practices to promote
sustainable support systems that are culturally and contextually relevant
(Table 6.3). Use Table 6.3 to document your school’s leadership team’s
SWPBS action plan.
Table 6.2 Application of SWPBS systems and practices in case study schools
Case study school SWPBS systems Related SWPBS practices

utilised exemplifying the system in action
Saffron Public School
Bronze High School
Magnolia High School
Table 6.3 School SWPBS action plan
Outline your school’s leadership team’s SWPBS action plan.
125
Anne Power et al.
References
Benner, G. J., Nelson, J. R., Sanders, E. A., & Ralston, N. C. (2012). Behavior
intervention for students with externalizing behavior problems: Primary-
level standard protocol. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 181–198. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001440291207800203
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics,
130(5), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2004). Positive behav-
ioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation blueprint. University of
Oregon. http://www.pbis.org
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2015). Positive behav-
ioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation blueprint. University of
Oregon. www.pbis.org
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2020, December).
Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) evaluation blueprint. Center
on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, University of Oregon. https://
www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-evaluation-blueprint
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE] (2020). What works best:
2020 update. NSW Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/
about-us/educational-data/cese/publications/research-reports/what-works-
best-2020-update
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE] (2021). Positive behav-
iour for learning evaluation – Final report. NSW Department of Education.
https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/evaluation-repository-search/positive-behaviour-
for-learning-evaluation-final-report
Charlton, C. T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C. V., & West, R. (2021). A systematic review of
the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher percep-
tions of school climate. Journal of Positive Behavior, 23(3), 185–200. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300720940168
meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behaviour interventions and
supports. Psychology in the Schools, 57(5), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pits.22336
Majeika, C. E., Bruhn, A. L., Sterrett, B. I., & McDaniel, S. (2020). Reengineering
Tier 2 interventions for responsive decision making: An adaptive intervention pro-
cess. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15377903.2020.1714855
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Yeung, A., Barker, K., Power, A., & Watson, K. (2008). Positive
behaviour for learning: Investigating the transfer of a United States system into
New South Wales Department of Education and Training Western Sydney Region
schools: Report. University of Western Sydney.
126
Impact of SWPBS
Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom manage-
ment on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 132–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500204
Student Wellbeing Hub. (2020). Australian student wellbeing framework. https://
studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/educators/framework/
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2000). PBIS Self-Assessment Survey 2.0.
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://www.pbis.org/
resource/sas
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T. L., Todd, A. W., & Horner, R. H. (2001). School-Wide
Evaluation Tool (SET). Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
https://www.pbis.org/resource/school-wide-evaluation-tool-set
Yeung, A. S., Barker, K., Tracey, D., & Mooney, M. (2013). School-wide positive
behavior for learning: Effects of dual focus on boys’ and girls’ behavior and
motivation for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.002
Yeung, A. S., Mooney, M., Barker, K., & Dobia, B. (2009). Does school-wide positive
behaviour system improve learning in primary schools? Some preliminary find-
ings. New Horizons in Education, 57(1), 17–32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ860815.pdf
127
Cultural
7 responsiveness
and diversity
Anthea Naylor, Matthew
Harrison, and Sarah Spence
Learning intentions
• Describe the Australian contexts of diversity, with a focus on gender, the

Autistic1 community, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and
marginalised people.
• Appraise how to maximise voice and agency within an Australian
SWPBS context.
• Use the principles of effective culturally responsive practices within an
SWPBS framework in a school environment.

Introduction
Please note: First Nations peoples should be aware that this chapter contains
the names of people who have passed away.
The importance of empowering the representation of those who are mar-
ginalised by systematic barriers has been on the global conscience since
the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in the USA. In
particular, this has occurred following the horrific events involving the
128 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-7

Cultural responsiveness and diversity

1.3 Students with Design and implement Describe the experiences
diverse linguistic, teaching strategies of a student in a case
cultural, religious, that are responsive to study and design school-
and socioeconomic the learning strengths based solutions.
backgrounds and needs of students
from diverse linguistic,
cultural, religious,
and socioeconomic
backgrounds.
3.7 Engage parents/ Plan for appropriate and Enhance the use of
carers in the educative contextually relevant community voice to
process opportunities for parents/ improve the outcomes for
carers to be involved in students.
their children’s learning.
7.3 Engage with the Establish and maintain Use the Cultural
parents/carers respectful collaborative Responsiveness Field
relationships with parents/ Guide to Australian
carers regarding their school settings to identify
children’s learning and strategies to facilitate an
wellbeing. active voice for parents/
carers.
murder of an unarmed man, Mr George Floyd, by law enforcement officials

(Dreyer et al., 2020). As the BLM movement brought renewed attention to
violence and discrimination against minorities around the world, Australian
institutions, including schools, were pressured to re-evaluate the role of
systemic barriers to community voice (Hazel, 2018). Advocates from diverse
communities have also been vocal in sharing their disapproval of what they
perceive as a cultural bias of ‘zero tolerance’ discipline policies that dis-
criminate against cultural groups, with a reliance on the use of sanctions for
non-compliance (Johnson & Sullivan, 2016; Magor-Blatch, 2011; Taylor &
Kearney, 2018).
Some contend that the response to calls for empowering the voices of
marginalised communities (such as First Nations peoples) has been glacial
at the implementation stage (Cefai & Cooper, 2010; Saggers et al., 2011;
Taylor & Kearney, 2018). Others, such as researchers and policy makers,
have emphasised that mechanisms and systems need to be developed to
ensure that diverse views and values are represented in descriptions of
prosocial behaviour and how to teach it (Harrison, 2019; Tutton, 2019).
129
Anthea Naylor et al.
Culturally responsive environments engage individuals by validating and

affirming their identities, which typically include an individual’s learning
history and their culture (Leverson et al., 2021). As discussed in Chapter 1,
advocates for the implementation of School-wide Positive Behaviour
Support (SWPBS) correctly focus on the value of adopting evidence-based
practices in schools. It seems apparent that culturally responsive peda-
gogy, while not new in Australia, has been the subject of little quantitative
research (Morrison et al., 2019). It is therefore not surprising that, despite
a rigorous literature search by the authors of this chapter, a very limited
number of studies into culturally responsive practices within SWPBS have
been conducted in Australian schools. This finding is reflected in Bottiani
et al.’s (2018) systematic review, which largely relied on US based studies
and identified that only 10 out of the 179 peer-reviewed articles included
in the review had utilised empirical methodologies to examine teacher,
principal, or school-targeted interventions to promote culturally respon-
sive practice. This chapter draws largely on syntheses of evidence, case
studies, and personal accounts to highlight avenues requiring the attention
of local researchers. By highlighting these gaps in the research and gener-
ating hypotheses from qualitative studies, avenues for further investigation
are identified.
Recognising our diversity

Australian schools and communities are increasingly diverse: ‘one in four of
Australia’s 25 million people were born overseas, 46 per cent have at least
one parent who was born overseas, and nearly 20 per cent of Australians
speak a language in addition to English at home’ (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2020). This chapter uses the collective label ‘First Nations people’
to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As at the 2016 cen-
sus, 3.2% of Australians identified as First Nations people (Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2020). The ‘need to nurture an appreciation of and respect
for social, cultural and religious diversity’ was noted in the Alice Springs
(Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council, 2019).
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Australian Government [Federal
Register of Legislation], 2018) and the subordinate legislation Disability
Standards for Education 2005 (Australian Government [Federal Register of
Legislation], 2005) have guided adjustments for the 18.8% of students who
130
received cognitive, physical, sensory, or social-emotional supports and

adjustments in schools in Australia to address diverse learning needs and
disability (Australian Curriculum, 2021). It is also important to consider stu-
dents with differences in gender identity. Australian studies about transgen-
der and gender diverse people have focused mainly on adults, but schooling
systems across Australia in all sectors are slowly becoming more supportive
of this section of the community (Jones et al., 2016). As discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2, the architecture of SWPBS is dependent on understand-
ing contextual variables, and this has implications for supporting diversity
in all forms (Benazzi et al., 2006; Hieneman & Fefer, 2017; Horner et al.,
2000). Without understanding and responding to cultural identity and
diversity within a given context, SWPBS is not being implemented as an
integrated framework. Therefore, cultural responsiveness should be con-
ceived as a core universal feature of SWPBS implementation, and not a
discrete adaptation for specific contexts (Leverson et al., 2021).
Current understandings of cultural responsiveness

within SWPBS in Tier 1
The degree of diversity found within Australian schools has important impli-
cations for educators. The first of these is considering the value of culturally
responsive practices. Australian education systems acknowledge this with
their focus on student voice and agency. Inclusiveness is not only a neces-
sity, but a universal human right enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities [CRPD], 2016) to which Australia is a signatory.
Associated with an increased scaling of SWPBS implementation across
education sectors is a corresponding increase in the capacity of schools to
minimise or even eliminate disproportionate educational success for stu-
dents. Yet currently, disproportionality exists in a number of contexts for
students who are not part of the dominant culture (Fabelo et al., 2011;
Girvan et al., 2017). As an example of a Multi-tiered System of Support, the
Tier 1 systems and practices of SWPBS promote a culture of universality and
inclusion. As discussed in other chapters, the availability of a continuum of
supports is required to enable this inclusivity. To develop SWPBS as a frame-
work to capture all people, we need to be able to disaggregate and under-
stand why some communities appear to slip through the implementation
131
gaps across all the tiers of support. Why might fewer people from certain
cultural communities predictably experience positive outcomes in schools
implementing SWPBS? By focusing on cultural responsiveness, the perspec-
tives of families from historically marginalised populations, including from
the Autistic communities, First Nations communities, and gender diverse
communities, we can improve equity for more students.
Empowering voices through reconsidering the

relationship between behaviour and culture
At a conceptual level, SWPBS researchers and practitioners have been try-
ing to address the complexities of empowering the voices of historically
marginalised communities for some time. As Savage et al. (2011) note, a
disconnect between SWPBS and local values is antithetical to its universal
underpinnings. There is a recognition that the underlying systems and prac-
tices must reflect the values and cultural expectations of those individuals
and groups that SWPBS is intended to support (Rose et al., 2020; Yeung
et al., 2009). One suggested way for doing this is to rethink the relation-
ship between culture and behaviour. In examining the interaction between
culture and behaviour, Sugai et al. (2012) highlight the tensions in some
schools between those in positions of leadership and the marginalised
communities with which they work, often resulting in the reproduction of
systems and practices misaligned with local values. To address such mis-
alignments, Sugai et al. (2012) propose viewing culture through a behaviour-
analytic lens, placing the norms and values of the community at the centre
of how behaviour is analysed, and guiding decision-making in a way that is
grounded in the context. In advocating this approach, they define culture as:
the extent to which a group of individuals engage in overt and verbal

behaviour reflecting shared behavioural learning histories, serving to
differentiate the group from other groups, and predicting how indi-
viduals within the group act in specific setting conditions.
(Sugai et al., 2012, p. 200)
Empowering voice has an important role in building understanding of the

intricacies of these behavioural learning histories and of how long-standing
local norms should shape the expectations of school leadership. Sugai et al.
132
(2012) emphasise that contextually grounded behavioural analysis is a pow-

erful tool for addressing cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication.
Although Sugai et al. (2012) mostly focus on learning these histories through
promoting open dialogues with parents and carers, we contend that stu-
dents are equally vital sources of this information. We argue that at its very
best SWPBS is about creating inclusive environments in which the school
has the tools and knowledge to minimise cultural misunderstandings and
to address miscommunication at the point of need. Who better for teachers
and school leaders to open a dialogue with about cultural norms than the
young people themselves?
Strategies for empowering the voices of students,

family, and community leaders
Guidance is provided by the PBIS Cultural Responsiveness Field Guide:
Resources for Trainers and Coaches (CRFG) on specific strategies to facilitate
an active voice for students, families, and caregivers (Leverson et al., 2021).
The degree to which strategies in the CRFG address Australian historical
structural barriers is a matter for subsequent research.
The core components of cultural responsiveness, accompanied with
SWPBS implementation, are defined within the CRFG (Leverson et al.,
2021). These include:
• identity
• voice and autonomy
• supportive environment
• situational appropriateness
• data for equity.
This CRFG includes a Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI) Cultural Responsiveness

Companion to assist with shaping the implementation of SWPBS in schools
and other settings to better respond to their broader communities (Leverson
et al., 2021). As discussed in other chapters, TFI is an instrument used
by a school leadership team and coach to regularly assess the fidelity
of SWPBS implementation. Of the fifteen items included in the Cultural
Responsiveness Companion (CRC), two items directly address community
133
voice, with item 1.10 focusing on empowering the voices of school staff. In
regard specifically to promoting the agency and voice of students, families,
and carers, the CRC highlights students, family, and community involve-
ment (item 1.11) and team composition (item 1.1) as being avenues for the
inclusion of marginalised voices across all stages of implementation. In both
these areas, the emphasis is on the authenticity of the outreach from school
leadership, which inevitably requires the leadership to go beyond token
gestures and allow genuine engagement with all stakeholders. This section
focuses on involving students, families, and community leaders as the initial
step in the building of trust. This is arguably a precursor to including these
groups as part of multi-tiered teams within our schools.
At the Tier 1 level, it is suggested that authentic family consultation occurs
throughout the development and implementation process. This could apply
when creating a matrix, developing minor and major behaviour definitions,
and designing a token economy, to ensure that these are culturally sensitive
and relevant to families (Lewis et al., 2017). Parents should be informed
when their child is approaching benchmarks for Tier 2 support, and schools
should ensure that parents are updated on their child’s progress. Parents can
be invited to any planning meetings where they can contribute to ideas,
offer input into the context of their student’s challenges, and discuss con-
cerns. At the Tier 3 level, family engagement in the design, implementation,
and monitoring stages of the individual behaviour support plan process
should be facilitated (Lewis et al., 2017).
The following six illustrative examples are quoted from the PBIS CRFG
(Leverson et al., 2021) and they can be viewed as possible strategies for
facilitating voice. By thematically grouping and analysing these strategies,
designed for US schools, we can speculate on their areas of utility as well as
potential tensions in Australian application.
1. Teams reach their communities to determine which ethnic groups

are represented within the broad federal race categories.
(Leverson et al., 2021, p. 23)
With the contemporary emphasis on racial marginalisation and systemic

racism in the USA, it is understandable that the authors of the CRFG pay
particular attention to ethnicity. However, attention is increasingly being
134
given to the marginalisation experienced on the basis of gender, disability,

and neurodiversity, and these are not explicitly represented in the CRFG.
For example, autism rights community and neurodiversity activists have
objected to specific Applied Behaviour Analysis-based interventions for
narrowly defining normalised behaviour and not acknowledging agency
and self-determination (Leaf et al., 2021). In this situation, who decides if
self-stimulatory behaviours are socially acceptable? Australian teachers and
school leaders need to adopt a broader understanding of diversity and ensure
that outreach is fully inclusive. It is also important to consider that different
individuals prefer the use of different cultural labels. An individual who is
entitled to identify as a First Nations person under Australian federal or state
law may choose not to use this label for complex historical reasons, or for
fear of discrimination. In a similar fashion, some children might not want to
labelled as being on the autism spectrum, for fear of bullying or future disad-
vantage due to stereotyping. It is best to have private and sensitive conversa-
tions with individuals and their support networks to find out which labels
they prefer and to respect their agency in this process (Au, 2009).
2. Teams have procedures for specific community outreach actions

to ensure frequent two-way communication with stakeholders.
3. Teams share all information with stakeholders in multiple lan-
guages and delivery (e.g., written, audio, visual).
To understand local norms and values it is vital that effective systems are
established for communication between all stakeholders. While at a sur-
face level this might sound like a self-evident truth, when grounded in the
historical-cultural realities of many Australian communities it can become
a complex process. Guidance from the CRFG emphasises the need for two-
way communication between school leadership and marginalised commu-
nities, requiring careful planning to ensure that students and families feel
enabled to share their experiences without fear of damaging their relation-
ships with staff or leadership. The CRFG authors recognise and highlight
that schools in the USA are often structured in such a way that communica-
tion systems are one-way, on the terms of the school system. At times, the
modes of and availability for communication are circumscribed by school
135
procedures or are reactive after an incident has occurred. Central to the

issue of consultation, and hopefully co-design, is trust, as long-standing ten-
sions between the powerful and the marginalised can suppress the voices
of community members seeking to participate in school decision-making.
Concrete procedures for communication are important, but again these
will only come from first identifying the most appropriate channels of com-
munication, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach (Garbacz et al.,
2018). A first port of call is sharing information in multiple languages, but
this should only be a starting point. Languages can be verbal and non-
verbal, with pertinent examples being the use of augmentative and alterna-
tive communication by many in the Autistic community, and the use of
Auslan by members of the Deaf community in Australia. Staff need to be
proficient in using the modes of communication that work best for the indi-
vidual, not those that are convenient for the school. Even then, it is impor-
tant to remember that just because a group shares a language, this does not
necessarily mean they share an identity. At a broad level in the Australian
context, there is no one universal group that represents the views and val-
ues of every First Nations person (Calma et al., 2017), or a single advocacy
organisation that captures a universally accepted understanding of the dif-
ferences of autism (Armstrong, 2017; Kapp, 2020). Recognising diversity in
the local context is an important first step in tailoring communication sys-
tems that meet the needs of individuals rather than stereotypes. We contend
that further research is required to develop evidence-based communication
systems; such research needs to involve researchers drawn from the local
community with a range of lived experiences to ensure that implemented
practices are meaningful for all students and families.
4. Teams have procedures in place to inform families and commu-

nity members of and actively engage them in volunteer opportuni-
ties within the school (e.g., school-wide or classroom orientations
or celebrations).
It is difficult to object to an open invitation for families and community lead-

ers to visit schools and participate in the schooling of children and young
adults from their community, but the emphasis on volunteering rather than
136
paid roles is problematic for a country like Australia that has a history of
economically exploiting its First Nations and disabled peoples (Hil et al.,
2008). Elders should be compensated for providing traditional Welcome
to Country ceremonies at the beginning of formal events, as this is valued
knowledge and an important part of recognising the unceded sovereignty of
our lands (Davis, 2020). Stemming from an ancient cultural practice, these
ceremonies are important in reconciling traditional owners of the lands with
settlers, and they pay respect to past and present generations of First Nations
Australians (Davis, 2020). Likewise inviting speakers with lived experiences
of disability or neurodiversity to take time off work to share their lived expe-
riences is untenable for many individuals burdened with casualised working
conditions, leaving them to feel guilt and shame for not engaging with their
child’s school. We argue that this can be easily rectified with fair compensa-
tion for their time and expertise.
5. Teams actively seek feedback from stakeholders regarding their

perceptions of and suggestions for Tier 1 SWPBIS systems at least
annually.
6. Teams have procedures to ensure that stakeholders and commu-
nity resources are connected to Tier 1 SWPBIS systems, includ-
ing increasing students’ and families’ access to resources that
specifically address under-represented groups, or under-served
populations.
Stakeholder engagement is key and should be occurring from the outset

(Lewis et al., 2015; Perso, 2012). To be most effective, feedback should
be regularly sought during pre-implementation planning, during imple-
mentation, and when reflecting on implementation (Savage et al., 2011).
Once again, this requires a degree of trust and openness from school
leaders to critically appraise their own systems and practices in light of
this feedback, with an obligation on leaders to demonstrate to those pro-
viding feedback that they have been heard and changes have been made
based on their advice. Not every suggestion needs to be acted upon, but
each one needs to be seriously considered and responded to as part of
this process.
137
It seems clear that a research programme is required in Australian schools

to fully understand the effectiveness of existing and innovative interventions.
A research agenda should include quantitative and qualitative methodolo-
gies to explore the outcomes from culturally responsive practices, with and
without SWPBS as a variable. Jones et al. (2006) present one interesting case
study in a US context of how this might be approached. This study explored
the implementation of SWPBS that included culturally responsive practices
for a population consisting of a large number of Dine (Navajo) students. The
authors describe the positive impact of working with community leaders to
develop Tier 1 systems for establishing procedures that respond to the par-
ticular needs of stakeholders in this community. A series of similar case
studies in different Australian contexts could be a starting point for examin-
ing various approaches that can be effective in working with our diverse
local communities. Other projects could investigate school systems to deter-
mine if expected behaviour matrices are designed to reflect the views and
values of the current school population. As well, there is a need to explore
the lived experience of different communities and to understand their per-
ceptions identifying barriers and challenges to culturally responsive imple-
mentation. Identifying solutions for addressing the barriers and challenges
identified through this research would be critical.
Equity of resource distribution requires careful thought. When resources
have been co-designed with representatives from the community, they
should be freely accessible to those groups who contributed their intellec-
tual property. Digital spaces have emerged as the go-to environment for
collaboration and sharing resources. However, access to high quality digital
sources may create barriers to access, particularly in regional or remote
areas of Australia but also for families that cannot afford to keep pace with
the frequent revisions of computer hardware or the latest tablet device
(Drane et al., 2020).
A case study of culturally responsive practice

In order to consider these recommendations in the context of all the com-
plexities faced by our children and young adults, it is useful to examine
them through the lens of the experiences of a real individual with the pre-
sentation of a case study. The rights of gender diverse and transgender stu-
dents to access education equally has been recognised internationally in
138
the Rio Statement (UNESCO, 2011) and the Born Free and Equal policy
(United Nations, 2019). Gender diversity is rapidly becoming better under-
stood and less stigmatised, with the realisation that more students each year
identify as transgender or gender diverse. However, it nevertheless seems
likely these students will experience lower levels of success and higher lev-
els of bullying compared to their peers (Strauss et al., 2017).
Schools can be challenging environments for transgender students, and
these challenges can be exacerbated by additional layers of discrimination.
The diagnosis rates of depression and anxiety in transgender and gender
diverse young people in Australia are high, at 75% and 72%, respectively
(Strauss et al., 2017). Data from other countries indicate that bullying, assault,
discrimination, and isolation are also common for transgender people, and
these contribute to poor mental health (Earnshaw et al., 2016; Winter et al.,
2016). When all this is combined with disability, the issues are magnified.
Introducing Taylor
Taylor is a Year 11 student in a large regular secondary school in a conserva-

tive outer suburb in Victoria. As an only child with a single mother as parent,
Taylor is optimistic about school and life in general, and navigates the world
through the lens of being transgender.
Taylor has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair; access at school
has been an ongoing challenge. The school is being rebuilt and access is
frequently changing, especially given that it is situated on steep ground,
with slippery surfaces during winter. Taylor is often tired and, depending
on the day, may find themselves starting school at 9 a.m., 10 a.m., or
later. Basic school access and locker access were examples of challenges
which took the school some time to respond to and resolve. School
access was not possible through the regular entrances due to building
works, and access had to be negotiated with the primary school next
door. Taylor needed their own key, and some staff did not support this as
they deemed it a security risk. Also, initially, the lockers were allocated
randomly; since Taylor is in a wheelchair, they could not reach their
locker. Adding to this was the need for a ramp to be installed to be able
to get to the lockers.
The school’s leadership team is typically proactive and responsive, but
with little experience with gender questioning or transitioning students. The
school is not implementing SWPBS, but has undertaken Respectful
139
Relationships (Flood et al., 2009) training which includes elements of

respectful gender relationships. The training appears to have contributed
few positive benefits to Taylor’s experiences. In a secondary school, Taylor
interacts with many adults with different values and levels of understanding
of gender relationships and disability. While the school has formally com-
mitted to the necessary policy positions, it has not undertaken reasonable
adjustments training and not built the staff capacity to understand gender
issues or reasonable adjustments. For example, the correct pronouns are
often not used and inappropriate class discussions are allowed. As a result,
Taylor’s classroom and school experience can be highly varied, from sup-
portive to confrontational. Taylor will often have to advocate for themselves.
Following self-advocacy, the school has begun working with a Regional
Disability Coordinator, who referred the school to the diversity team of the
Department of Education.
Recommendations to support gender diverse students such as Taylor
1. In a secondary school setting, which requires students like Taylor to

frequently interact with a range of staff, capacity building is essential
in both disability and gender understanding. For example, the school
should undertake training in Universal Design for Learning (UDL), rea-
sonable adjustments, inclusion, and relevant legislation. Additionally,
the school should undertake training in gender diversity, from state-
approved government and external organisations. For example, Safe
Schools (Department of Education and Training Victoria) and Transgender
Victoria (a Victorian advocacy body) could provide guidance and
resources for Victorian schools, with similar resources available in other
states and territories.
2. The capabilities of the school’s leadership team should be assessed to
ensure it includes staff with an understanding of both gender and dis-
ability. The PBIS CRFG should be consulted by the leadership team
within the school.
3. The school’s procedures and systems for work programmes, family
meetings, and camps and excursions planning should be reviewed, and
input should be sought from relevant disability and gender advisory
personnel.
4. The school should create a safe, non-judgmental space for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, asexual, and questioning
140
(LGBTIQA+) students to express themselves and share experiences, and

a staff member should be allocated to lead this.
5. The school should assess its preparedness to implement SWPBS, with a
commitment to integrating cultural responsiveness as a core feature of
its school-wide systems and practices. As a part of this assessment, the
capacity of the school’s data system should be reviewed to determine
how students like Taylor are currently supported at Tiers 1, 2, and 3.
Conclusion
Australian schools are recognising and celebrating the diversity of their stu-
dents, staff, families, and broader communities. This chapter has surveyed
ways of meeting the needs of all stakeholders through school systems and
practices that reflect the views, values, and priorities of the local community.
Culturally responsive practices are essential for student success. Through
an understanding of voice and agency, and engaging in effective family-
centred practice, Australian schools can leverage the local knowledge of
their communities to enable the collective ownership of practices and sys-
tems. The co-designing of communication systems that allow multidirec-
tional communication between schools and families will likely be an
important practice. We believe that this is particularly needed for ensuring
that First Nations communities feel empowered to be active participants in
the implementation of SWPBS in their local school communities. The sce-
narios presented in this chapter illustrate how SWPBS can be responsive to
the needs of various populations such as First Nations students, the Autistic
community, and the gender diverse community. However, significantly
more work remains to ensure that all communities feel safe and welcome in
our schools. Ultimately, what really matters is that every member of our
school communities feels they belong and are valued.
Apply your ideas

In your school context, families and students have been requesting a greater
level of involvement in school decision-making. The basis of this request
appears related to concerns regarding students who are marginalised. The
school leadership has over a period of twelve months been assessing its
readiness to implement SWPBS.
141
As a staff member who is committed to revising the school’s processes for

community involvement, you have consulted the PBIS CRFG.
Address the following questions.
1. What data are needed to assess the experiences of students who are
marginalised in your school?
2. What procedures should be followed for creating a representative
SWPBS team?
3. For the school’s systems, which areas will likely require significant
change over the next 12–18 months?
Note
1 As this chapter is about cultural responsiveness, the term ‘Autistic’ with a capital
‘A’ has been adopted to represent those within the community who proudly
claim Autism as part of their identity.
References
Armstrong, T. (2017). Neurodiversity: The future of special education? Educational
Leadership, 74(7), 10–16. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/neurodiversity-the-
future-of-special-education
Au, K. (2009). Isn’t culturally responsive instruction just good teaching? Social Educ
ation, 73(4), 179–183. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/
articles/se_7304179.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Population and components of change –
National. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-
territory-population/dec-2020
Australian Curriculum. (2021). Meeting the needs of students with a disability.
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/meeting-
the-needs-of-students-with-a-disability
Australian Government [Federal Register of Legislation]. (2005). Disability Standards
for Education 2005. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767
Australian Government [Federal Register of Legislation]. (2018). Disability
Discrimination Act 1992. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00125
Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team
composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support
plans. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00224669060400030401
142
Bottiani, J. H., Larson, K. E., Debnam, K. J., Bischoff, C. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2018).
Promoting educators’ use of culturally responsive practices: A systematic review
of inservice interventions. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 367–385. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487117722553
Calma, T., Dudgeon, P., & Bray, A. (2017). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social
and emotional wellbeing and mental health. Australian Psychologist, 52(4), 255–
260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12299
Cefai, C., & Cooper, P. (2010). Students without voices: The unheard accounts
of secondary school students with social, emotional and behaviour difficul-
ties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 183–198. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08856251003658702
Davis, M. (2020, October 29). Reconciliation: Moving beyond acknowledge
ment of country. Reconciliation Australia. https://www.reconciliation.org.au/
reconciliation-moving-beyond-acknowledgement-of-country
Drane, C. F., Vernon, L., & O’Shea, S. (2020). Vulnerable learners in the age of
COVID-19: A scoping review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48, 585–
604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00409-5
Dreyer, B. P., Trent, M., Anderson, A. T., Askew, G. L., Boyd, R., Coker, T. R., Coyne-
Beasley, T., Fuentes-Afflick, E., Johnson, T., Mendoza, F., Montoya-Williams, D.,
Oyeku, S. O., Poitevien, P., Spinks-Franklin, A. A. I., Thomas, O. W., Walker-
Harding, L., Willis, E., Wright, J. L., Berman, S., … & Stein, F. (2020). The death
of George Floyd: Bending the arc of history toward justice for generations of chil-
dren. Pediatrics, 146(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-009639
Earnshaw, V. A., Bogart, L. M., Poteat, V. P., Reisner, S. L., & Schuster, M. A. (2016).
Bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Pediatric Clinics of
North America, 63(6), 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.004
Education Council. (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. https://
www.dese.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/
alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E.
A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A state-wide study of how school discipline relates
to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Council of State Governments
Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/breaking-schools-rules/
Flood, M., Fergus, L., & Heenan, M. (2009). Respectful relationships education:
Violence prevention and respectful relationships education in Victorian sec
ondary schools. Communications Division, State of Victoria (Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development), Australia. https://www.partnersin-
prevention.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Respectful-Relationships-Education-
Violence-prevention-and-respectful-relationships-education-in-Victorian-
secondary-schools.pdf
Garbacz, S. A., McIntosh, K., Vatland, C. H., Minch, D. R., & Eagle, J. W. (2018).
Identifying and examining school approaches to family engagement within school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 20(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717752318
143
Girvan, E. J., Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Smolkowski, K. (2017). The relative con-
tribution of subjective office referrals to racial disproportionality in school dis-
cipline. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/
spq0000178
Harrison, N. (2019). Student voice and agency: Successes and challenges.
Connect, 237, 18–20. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.
448370892202653
Hazel, Y. P. (2018). Bla(c)k lives matter in Australia. Transition, 126(1), 59–67.
Hieneman, M., & Fefer, S. A. (2017). Employing the principles of positive behav-
ior support to enhance family education and intervention. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 26(10), 2655–2668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0813-6
Hil, R., Penglase, J., & Smith, G. (2008). Closed worlds: Reflections on institutional
care and child slavery in Australia. Children Australia, 33(1), 12–17. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1035077200000067
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2000). Elements of behav-
ior support plans: A technical brief. Exceptionality, 8(3), 205–215. https://doi.
org/10.1207/S15327035EX0803_6
Johnson, B., & Sullivan, A. (2016). Against the tide: Enacting respectful student
behaviour polices in ‘Zero Tolerance’ times. In A. Sullivan, B. Johnson, & B. Lucas
(Eds.), Challenging dominant views on student behaviour at school: Answering
back (pp. 163–180). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0628-9_11
Jones, C., Caravaca, L., Cizek, S., Horner, R. H., & Vincent, C. G. (2006). Culturally
responsive schoolwide positive behavior support: A case study in one school
with a high proportion of Native American students. Multiple Voices for
Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 9(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5555/
muvo.9.1.0311x7477113q741
Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2016). School expe-
riences of transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education,
16(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678
Kapp, S. K. (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories
from the frontline. Springer Nature. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/
978-981-13-8437-0
Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., Liu, N., Russell, N., Unumb, L.,
Shapiro, S., & Khosrowshahi, D. (2021). Concerns about ABA-based interven-
tion: An evaluation and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05137-y
Leverson, M., Smith, K., McIntosh, K., Rose, J., & Pinkelman, S. (2021). PBIS cultural
responsiveness field guide: Resources for trainers and coaches. Center on Posi
tive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-
cultural-responsiveness-field-guide-resources-for-trainers-and-coaches. www.
pbis.org
Lewis, T. J., Barrett, S., Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Mitchell, B. S., & Starkey, D. (2015).
PBIS Implementation Blueprint. Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports. https://www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-implementation-blueprint
144
Lewis, T. J., Mitchell, B. S., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2017). Engaging families through
school-wide positive behavior support: Building partnerships across multi-tiered
systems of support. In M. D. Weist, S. A. Garbacz, K. L. Lane, & D. Kincaid (Eds.),
Aligning and integrating family engagement in Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (PBIS) (pp. 31–42). University of Oregon Press.
Magor-Blatch, L. (2011). Beyond zero tolerance: Providing a framework to promote
social justice and healthy adolescent development. The Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 28(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1375/aedp.28.1.61
Morrison, A., Rigney, L. I., Hattam, R., & Diplock, A. (2019). Toward an Australian
culturally responsive pedagogy: A narrative review of the literature. University of
South Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-08/apo-
nid262951.pdf
Perso, T. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and school education: With particular
focus on Australia’s first peoples. Centre for Child Development and Education.
https://www.menzies.edu.au/icms_docs/312407_Cultural_Responsiveness_and_
School_Education.pdf
Rose, J., Leverson, M., & Smith, K. (2020). Embedding culturally responsive practices
in Tier I. Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://www.
pbis.org/resource/embedding-culturally-responsive-practices-in-tier-i
Saggers, B., Hwang, Y. S., & Mercer, K. (2011). Your voice counts: Listening to the
voice of high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Australasian Journal
of Special Education, 35(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajse.35.2.173
Savage, C., Lewis, J., & Colless, N. (2011). Essentials for implementation: Six years
of school wide positive behaviour support in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal
of Psychology, 40(1), 29–37. https://pb4l.tki.org.nz/Media/Files/NZ-Journal-
of-Psychology-Essential-Implementation-Six-years-of-School-Wide-Positive-
Behaviour-Support-in-NZ
Strauss, P., Cook, A., Winter, S., Watson, V., Toussaint, D. W., & Lin, A. (2017).
Trans Pathways: The mental health experiences and care pathways of trans
young people. Telethon Kids Institute. https://www.telethonkids.org.au/projects/
trans-pathways/
Sugai, G., Fallon, L., & O’Keefe, B. (2012). SWPBS: Reconceptualizing & studying
culture. Center for Behavioral Education & Research.
Taylor, E., & Kearney, A. (2018). School discipline and surveillance: Developments in
Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. In J. Deakin, E. Taylor, & A. Kupchik (Eds.), The
Palgrave international handbook of school discipline, surveillance, and social control
(pp. 87–104). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71559-9_5
Tutton, T. (2019). Behavioural support within an Australian non-government organ-
isation. In F. Bryer & W. Beamish (Eds.), Behavioural support for students with
special educational needs (pp. 101–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-7177-6_6
UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD]. (2016). General
comment No. 4 (2016), Article 24: Right to inclusive education. https://www.
refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html
145
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

(2011). Rio statement on homophobic bullying and education for all. UNESCO.
United Nations. (2019). Born free and equal: Sexual orientation, gender identity
and sex characteristics in international human rights law (2nd ed.). Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Publications/Born_Free_and_Equal_WEB.pdf
Winter, S., Diamond, M., Green, J., Karasic, D., Reed, T., Whittle, S., & Wylie, K.
(2016). Transgender people: Health at the margins of society. The Lancet (British
Edition), 388(10042), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8
Yeung, A. S., Mooney, M., Barker, K., & Dobia, B. (2009). Does School-Wide Positive
Behaviour System improve learning in primary schools? Some preliminary find-
ings. New Horizons in Education, 57(1), 17–32. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860815
146
Ensuring inclusive
outcomes for
8 young people with
disability within
School-wide Positive
Behaviour Support
Julie M. McMillan and
Jane M. Jarvis
Learning intentions
• Define disability as a broad category describing individuals with diverse

strengths, aspirations, and educational requirements.
• Contrast specific considerations for students with disability at each tier
of prevention within a School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS)
approach.
• Appraise evidence-based practices to promote prosocial behaviour and
support positive outcomes for students with disability, within a broader
inclusive education framework.
• Plan directions for future Australian research to inform teachers, leaders,
and policy makers about effective practices for diverse learners within
SWPBS.

This chapter covers the Professional Teacher Standards shown in Table 8.1
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-8 147


1.1 Physical, Use teaching strategies Use adjustments to address
social, and based on knowledge the needs of students with
intellectual of students’ physical, disabilities, including students
development, social, and intellectual who require supplementary,
and development and substantial, and extensive
characteristics of characteristics to improve adjustments based on the
students student learning. individual characteristics.
1.5 Differentiate Develop teaching Differentiation of the teaching
teaching to meet activities that incorporate practices and adjustments
the specific differentiated strategies to used to support the learning of
learning needs of meet the specific learning students with disabilities.
students across needs of students across the
the full range of full range of abilities.
abilities
1.6 Strategies Design and implement Apply international human
to support full teaching activities that rights and Australian legislation
participation of support the participation and policy on inclusive
students with and learning of students education, discrimination, and
disability with disability and address restrictive practices.
relevant policy and
4.2 Manage Establish and maintain Use classroom management
classroom orderly and workable practices, such as explicit
activities routines to create an teaching of expectations and
environment where student routines as well as adjustments
time is spent on learning to practices, in order to make
tasks. learning accessible for diverse
learners.
4.3 Manage Manage challenging Use specific teaching strategies
challenging behaviour by establishing employed at Tiers 1, 2, and 3 to
behaviour and negotiating clear prevent behaviours of concern
expectations with students for students with disabilities.
and address discipline
respectfully.
Introduction
Access to inclusive education is a human right for all children (United Nations
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016), the provision of
which is a legal and professional responsibility for educators and a matter
148
Ensuring inclusive outcomes
of policy across jurisdictions (Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Leadership, 2018; Commonwealth of Australia, 2020). Yet recent inquiries
suggest that many Australian children with disability experience educational
exclusion and over-representation in exposure to restrictive practices (e.g.,
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People
with Disability, 2020). For some children with disability, behaviours of con-
cern become a barrier to educational inclusion, particularly when schools
are ill-equipped to provide tailored promotion, prevention, and intervention
within a supportive environment (Kurth & Enyart 2016). In the absence of
academic and social and behavioural supports responsive to learner diver-
sity, young people with disability face continued exclusionary practices and
remain at heightened risk for a range of diminished life outcomes.
This chapter discusses research and practice related to SWPBS, with a
particular focus on the inclusion of students with disability. Despite the sig-
nificant proportion of young people with disability attending Australian
schools, they are often overlooked in the design of behavioural and social
supports across all three tiers of universal, targeted, and intensive prevention
(Kurth & Zagona, 2018). Access to the full range of SWPBS practices is a
particular concern for students with intellectual disability and complex sup-
port requirements – a group conspicuously absent from research into SWPBS
(Shuster et al., 2017).
Disability and behaviour in schools

The Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Commonwealth of Australia,
2020) broadly defines disability to encompass impairment in physical,
intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological, and/or academic learn-
ing domains. Disability is considered not only in terms of ‘the presence or
absence of a particular physical or mental condition’, but its impact on the
person’s capacity to complete a range of everyday activities, and the level
of assistance they may require (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
(AIHW), 2020). For children, this includes the impact on academic learn-
ing and other school activities, and the adjustments required to enable full
participation in education alongside their peers.
According to the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School
Students with Disability (NCCD), 20.3% of school students receive some
level of government-funded educational adjustment to address a disability
149
(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2020). Students

may require educational adjustments related to disabilities categorised as
physical, intellectual, developmental (e.g., autism), sensory and language,
or specific learning disability (e.g., dyslexia). A small percentage (1.6%)
experience disability that translates into ongoing, extensive support require-
ments across multiple domains of activity. While almost 90% of Australian
children with disability attend a mainstream school, many students with
intellectual disability and complex support requirements are still educated
in separate classrooms or in specialist schools. This is despite research estab-
lishing that the most favourable academic and social outcomes are achieved
through inclusive education in mainstream settings (see Hehir et al., 2016,
for a review of evidence on inclusive schooling).
Children with disability are highly diverse, with varied aspirations,
strengths, family and cultural experiences, and educational requirements.
However, in the context of multi-tiered approaches such as Positive
Behaviour Support (PBS), it is important to acknowledge that children with
disability are at heightened risk of developing behavioural and mental
health difficulties (McMillan & Jarvis, 2013), experiencing maltreatment
(Maclean et al. 2017), being subjected to restrictive practices (Royal
Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with
Disability, 2021), and being suspended or excluded from school (Graham et
al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2016). Various studies in American schools have
examined the prevalence of behaviours of concern for children with dis-
ability, such as aggressive, stereotypic, and self-injurious behaviours, and
behaviours categorised as disruptive, destructive, or withdrawn. Rates of
challenging behaviour vary markedly across methodologically inconsistent
studies, with overall rates of between 48 and 60% reported for children
with intellectual disability, approximately 90% for children with autism in
some studies, and just over 40% for children with a specific learning dis-
ability, based on a systematic review by Simó-Pinatella et al. (2019).
Not all students with disability exhibit behaviours of concern. However,
when they do occur, these behaviours can significantly interfere with learn-
ing, social adjustment, and relationships with teachers and peers (Dunlap
et al., 2016), and their presence predicts later social victimisation and
mental health difficulties, including depression and anxiety (Leadbeater &
Hoglund, 2009). Children with disability are more likely to both experi-
ence and exhibit bullying behaviour (Earnshaw et al., 2018; Pinquart,
2017), and being bullied and/or ostracised is a strong predictor of
150
depressive symptoms and anxiety (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012).

Negative social and educational outcomes are by no means inevitable for
students with disability, and much depends on the interplay between the
individual and a range of environmental influences over time. It is critical
that students with disability have inclusive access to supportive environ-
ments and evidence-based practices and interventions to assist the devel-
opment of social competence and prevent or reduce the intensity of
behaviours of concern.
Positive Behaviour Support and students with

disability
PBS emerged in the 1990s as an ecosystem to address support and inter
vention for individuals exhibiting behaviours of concern, predominantly
people with intellectual disability and complex communication and
support requirements, often in segregated settings (Dunlap et al., 2016).
With its emphasis on building adaptive skills, fostering supportive envi-
ronments, and improving quality of life, PBS represented a deliberate
departure from more aversive and humiliating practices perceived to be
associated with applied behaviour analysis (ABA) at that time (Johnston
et al., 2006). Indeed, PBS was influenced by the Disability Rights
Movement, and combined evidence-based practices of ABA with values-
based efforts to promote human dignity, wellbeing, and quality of life for
vulnerable populations (Horner et al., 1990).
Given the origins of PBS, it might be expected that its application within
a school-wide framework would engender inclusive outcomes for stu-
dents with disability and extensive support needs. Somewhat ironically,
this does not appear to be the case. Instead, American researchers have
highlighted a lack of accessibility for some students with disability in both
the design and implementation of SWPBS (Kurth & Enyart, 2016).
Furthermore, little research has documented the participation of students
requiring extensive supports in SWPBS, which means that behavioural,
academic, and other outcomes for these students remain unexamined
(Kurth & Enyart, 2016; Kurth & Zagona, 2018). The inclusion of all stu-
dents, as discussed in Chapter 3, is paramount to ensuring that, in prac-
tice, SWPBS is consistent with its ideals of enhanced dignity and quality
of life for people with disability.
151
Considerations for students with disability

across the PBS continuum
Including students with disability in universal prevention (Tier 1)
Despite the importance of universal preventive practices in SWPBS, consid-

erations for children with disability are rarely discussed in the literature on
Tier 1 supports (Loman & Walker, 2020). For some students with disability,
barriers to inclusion in Tier 1 activities (discussed in Chapter 3) may be evi-
dent, and these may be rooted in broader school and systemic practices.
In a US study, 93% of state SWPBS coordinators agreed that students with
extensive and pervasive support needs (i.e., “severe” disabilities) could par-
ticipate in all SWPBS activities, yet 41% reported that these students were
excluded. Despite coordinators confirming the appropriateness of these stu-
dents participating in all SWPS activities, many were excluded. The cited
reasons for exclusion related to students’ absence from mainstream class-
rooms, the assumption that special educators would deliver content in sepa-
rate settings, and the perceived lack of capacity among mainstream teachers
to adjust SWPBS activities and materials (Kurth & Zagona, 2018, p. 131).
Similarly, fewer than half of the special education teachers who participated
in a study by Shuster et al. (2017) were involved in the initial planning
of SWPBS systems or in PBS training opportunities with their colleagues.
Students with disability were least likely to be involved in universal screen-
ing or data-based decision-making with other students, especially those stu-
dents requiring extensive adjustments (Shuster et al., 2017). Since Tier 1
activities often centre around lessons taught in mainstream classrooms, the
‘physical and programmatic’ exclusion of students with extensive support
requirements from these settings may hinder equitable access to evidence-
based prevention (Kurth & Zagona, 2018, p. 131).
Even when physically present in mainstream classrooms, students with
disability will only benefit from universal supports if these are accessible
(Hawken & O’Neill, 2006). Teachers are most likely to make personalised
adjustments to SWPBS learning experiences when they are already taught,
and practised in, methods for addressing learner diversity. Accordingly,
SWPBS practices should occur in the context of broader inclusive teaching
approaches that address the full range of learners, including differentiated
instruction (Tomlinson, 2017) and Universal Design for Learning (CAST,
2021). Teachers require targeted professional learning and support to build
152
their skills and confidence to implement these practices (Telfer, 2020;

Tristani & Bassett-Gunter, 2020). Building upon a broader differentiated
approach, personalised adjustments may include visual prompts and com-
munication supports, and pedagogies such as systematic instruction,
which involves clearly defining target skills, prompting and reinforcing the
skills, and encouraging generalisation and maintenance (Loman et al.,
2018). Loman et al. (2018) found that when special educators made per-
sonalised adjustments to lesson plans for teaching classroom expectations,
students with disability experienced a reduction in the duration of behav-
iours of concern.
Hawken and O’Neill (2006) make a number of recommendations for
including students with disability in Tier 1 processes. These include: (a)
incorporating appropriate pedagogies when teaching school-wide expecta-
tions (e.g., systematic instruction); (b) considering students with disability in
the initial design of teaching practices and reinforcement procedures to
ensure these are meaningful; and (c) prioritising collaboration between gen-
eral and specialist teachers to design and adapt Tier 1 tools and procedures
(Hawken & O’Neill, 2006). Loman and Walker (2020) further recommend:
including specialist educators in Tier 1 teams to design, implement, and
monitor universal supports; explicitly considering the inclusion of students
with disability when reviewing school-wide practices; and monitoring
SWPBS practices and outcomes for all students. Prioritising communication
and positive relationships with families in SWPBS activities and decision-
making processes is also important for students with disability who exhibit
behaviours of concern (Garbacz, 2019).
Including students with disability in Tier 2 targeted supports
Tier 2 targeted supports are essential within the SWPBS continuum and rep-
resent the bridge between Tier 1 universal prevention and Tier 3 intensive
supports for approximately 15% of students (Majeika et al., 2020). Readers
are referred to Chapter 4 for descriptions of common Tier 2 supports and
processes for entering and exiting these within SWPBS. Despite calls more
than fifteen years ago to include students with disability across tiers (Loman
et al., 2018; Walker et al., 2018), implementing adjustments to Tier 2 inter-
ventions is a relatively recent research phenomenon (Kern et al., 2020).
Adapting targeted interventions to address diverse learners is consistent
with the principles of educational inclusion and enables better outcomes
153
for students. Additionally, it has been motivated by a push for the more effi-
cient use of resources by reducing identification of students for intensive Tier
3 support (McDaniel et al., 2020).
Students requiring extensive supports to access Tier 2 interventions have
received limited attention in the SWPBS literature (Kurth & Zagona, 2018;
Walker et al., 2018). Hawken and O’Neill (2006) provided recommenda-
tions specific to Tier 2, and Loman et al. (2018) applied those recommenda-
tions in their research on adjustments to Tier 1 activities for students with
extensive support needs, although neither systematically examined out-
comes at Tier 2. Nevertheless, proposed protocols for Tier 2 adjustments
(e.g., Majeika et al., 2020; Sterrett et al., 2020) offer useful guidance for
including diverse students.
Recently, researchers have developed a framework of horizontal (prior to
implementation) and vertical (during implementation) adaptations to com-
mon Tier 2 supports (Majeika et al., 2020; Sterrett et al., 2020), describing
flexible features that can be adjusted without compromising the fidelity of
core components. Horizontal adaptations adjust support to match (a) stu-
dent characteristics (e.g., age, function of behaviour, disability) and (b) con-
textual factors (e.g., availability of resources, space, time, and technology).
Vertical adjustments are responsive to individual student progress by increas-
ing or decreasing the intensity of intervention. Horizontal and vertical adap-
tations can be combined for improved outcomes. An area not explicitly
identified within this framework is accessibility, and although the suggested
adaptations mention disability, they reflect a lack of attention to students
with extensive support requirements. To address this gap, Hawken and
O’Neill’s (2006) and Walker and Loman’s (2021) recommendations for Tier 2
adjustments should also be considered. Table 8.2 provides examples of
adjustments relevant to three common evidence-based Tier 2 practices.
Without specific adjustments, Tier 2 materials and methods will remain inac-
cessible to many students with complex communication needs, intellectual
disability, or other developmental disabilities.
The scenario in Table 8.3 involves Michael, a student with autism and
intellectual disability, and illustrates a combination of adjustments to enable
access to Tier 1 and 2 activities. For Michael, these include visual and digital
representations and communication supports, video modelling of expected
behaviours, targeted progress monitoring, and the use of a social narrative
154
Table 8.2 Potential adjustments to common Tier 2 practices
Core intervention Adjustment examples

components
Check-In-Check-Out
Check-In-Check-Out • select preferred mentor/adult
(CICO) meetings • include peer mentor(s)
• explicitly teach behavioural expectations
• include social skills instruction
• add relevant vocabulary to Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC) systems
• visual representations of core content (e.g., visuals
for behaviour expectations and other skills)
Behavioural • reduce number of expectations
expectations on daily • use function-based replacement behaviours
progress report (DRP) • include relevant content on AAC system (e.g., to
communicate, avoid, or obtain functions)
Daily progress report • provide accessible, age-appropriate versions (e.g.,
electronic format)
• graphic representation of behaviours and alternative
ways to represent points (e.g., graphics, tangible
objects/tokens placed on DPR)
• mobile apps (select positive or neutral
representations)
• integrate DPR with student individual daily schedule
using same format (e.g., picture communication
symbols)
Daily goal • change criterion of 80% to suit student needs (prior
to or during implementation)
• gradually increase criterion
• consider weekly goal instead of daily for students
who need more time to learn behaviours
Reinforcement • adjust schedule/type of reinforcement (personalise to
student)
• increase opportunities for reinforcement (e.g., each
lesson or midday)
• provide choices for reinforcement (e.g., visual menu
or objects)
Family communication • electronic forms
Self-monitoring
Target behaviours • select function-based behaviour
(Continued)
155
Table 8.2 (Continued)
Core intervention Adjustment examples

components
Self-monitoring • accessible and age-appropriate format for recording
behaviours (e.g., mobile app, electronic, concrete methods of
monitoring, checklists)
• adult or peer support
• limit number of target behaviours for self-monitoring
• combine DPR and self-monitoring
Intervals for monitoring • adjust length and proportion of intervals (increase
and cueing or decrease) the student is expected to self-monitor
daily or weekly
• mobile apps, digital timers, visual timers, adult or
peer cues
Feedback • peer feedback/encouragement
• teacher compares data with student-recorded data
• provide reinforcement with feedback (e.g., tokens,
break, access to preferred activity or item)
• visual representation of reinforcement choices
Social skills training
Explicit teaching • target specific skills from intervention programme
based on student need
• select function-based replacement behaviours
• use peer-mediated teaching
• include vocabulary for target skills on AAC system
Modelling • peer models or self-model (video modelling)
• consider video modelling apps
Role play • role play with peers
• visual steps, visual social narrative, or visual cues
• provide systematic instruction during role play
Feedback • increase intensity of reinforcement
• feedback with tangible reinforcement (e.g., tokens,
break, access to preferred activity or item)
• use video modelling app
Generalisation • combine/include social skills on DPR
• include social skills teaching in CICO meetings
• visual cues and models across settings and contexts
• reinforcement across settings
• work with teachers to identify times when
reinforcement for social skills can be provided
across settings
Source: Adapted from Hawken and O’Neill (2006), Loman et al. (2018), Majeika et al. (2020),
Sterrett et al. (2020), and Walker and Loman (2021).
156
Table 8.3 Scenario illustrating adjustments to Tier 1 and Tier 2 PBS activities
Making Tier 1 and 2 support accessible for a student with disability

Michael is 10 years old and attends his local primary school. He has dual diagnoses of autism and intellectual disability. Michael uses
limited speech to communicate, but can make some requests using single words and can follow verbal directions (e.g., ‘Go and get
your bag’) with the support of graphics-based visuals (e.g., picture-based instructions). Michael uses multiple forms to communicate,
including gestures, a picture communication book, and an iPad as a speech generating augmentative and alternative communication
(AAC) device with picture symbols and photographs.
At Michael’s school, the Tier 1 SWPBS team have made adjustments to materials and processes. For example:
• School-wide expectations are posted in multiple formats, including posters with print descriptions, photos, and simple narratives
explaining expectations in specific settings.
• In some areas, the expectations are digitally available using embedded video on touch monitors.
• Michael has a PowerPoint presentation on his iPad that includes a behaviour matrix with school-wide expectations in easy English
accompanied by images; behaviours identified for each setting are linked to a video showing Michael and other students modelling
the expectations.
• Michael has vocabulary on his AAC systems to communicate his knowledge of school-wide and classroom expectations.
• All teachers have access to iPads and/or picture symbols to precorrect or correct students when engaging in unexpected behaviour

and provide feedback when acknowledging expected behaviour throughout classroom and non-classroom settings (e.g.,
playground, library).
In addition to specific Tier 1 adjustments, all students are involved in screening to ensure access to Tier 2 supports. This includes
students like Michael who may require substantial or extensive adjustments. Michael’s data are included when making data-based
decisions (e.g., major and minor discipline referrals). Michael’s teachers felt he was exhibiting some behaviours of concern that
needed to be addressed through targeted support and made a referral for this to begin immediately.
157
(Continued)
158

Making Tier 1 and 2 support accessible for a student with disability
The Tier 2 and 3 SWPBS team thought that Michael might benefit from two targeted interventions: Check-In-Check-Out (CICO) and
social skills instruction. The team selected behaviours that were function-based (to obtain items he wanted and avoid non-preferred
tasks) and connected these to two school-wide expectations (Be Kind and Be Respectful). To demonstrate the school-wide expectation
of being kind, the social skills of sharing, taking turns, and asking for materials to replace grabbing were targeted. To demonstrate
being respectful, following teacher directions was targeted. Building these skills will help Michael interact with peers and engage
more effectively in classroom learning.
Educators created an adjusted electronic daily progress report (DPR) using photographs to represent Michael’s schedule, with images
representing expected behaviours. A brief social narrative was included on the DPR; after recess, if Michael reached the adjusted goal
criterion (60%) he could choose a reinforcer from the menu. Michael receives encouraging feedback after each class, with the teacher
checking off three, two or one ‘thumbs up’ on the graphic DPR. The Google Docs DPR can be shared with all Michael’s teachers
and his family. The images for expectations link to videos of Michael engaging in the expected behaviours/targeted social skills.
These videos are viewed at ‘check in’ daily meeting times to review the social skills/expected behaviours and remind Michael he can
choose a reward after recess if earns at least 11/18 thumbs up. Michael has tangible ‘thumbs up’ tokens that he can match to the DPR
to help him understand that when all the tokens are matched, he can select a reinforcer after recess.
Progress against the adjusted goal criterion is reviewed weekly by his teacher and fortnightly by the Tier 2 team; the criterion will be
increased once achieved and additional skills are added (third expectation). After two weeks, if unexpected behaviours continue and
progress is less than expected, the team will conduct a zcomprehensive functional behaviour assessment leading to an individual
behaviour support plan (BSP).
(or social story). Developing a social narrative entails: identifying the social
situation for intervention; defining the target behaviour; collecting baseline
data; writing the social narrative (including pictures, icons, photographs, or
other visual supports); implementing, monitoring, and revising the narrative
as needed; and addressing generalisation and skills maintenance
(Steinbrenner et al., 2020). The approaches in Michael’s case study will not
be relevant for every student with disability, but they illustrate how adjust-
ments can enable access to universal and targeted prevention activities
rather than assuming that only Tier 3 interventions are appropriate for stu-
dents requiring personalised support.
Tier 3 intensive supports for students with

disability
Tier 3 supports are designed for the small percentage (approximately 5%)
of students who require individualised, intensive support for behaviours of
concern (Dunlap et al., 2019; Jameson et al., 2020). Contrary to the cumula-
tive, preventive logic of the SWPBS framework, students with disability may
be immediately identified for Tier 3 intensive intervention, particularly those
students requiring extensive adjustments (Kurth & Zagona, 2018; Loman
et al., 2018). A key challenge is a school’s capacity to provide comprehen-
sive Tier 3 assessment and evidence-based support for students with more
complex needs (Jameson et al., 2020). Adjustments required for students with
disability presented in previous sections can similarly be applied to ensure
accessibility of Tier 3 supports.
Table 8.4 details examples of adjustments to support students with dis-
ability at Tier 3 (for a description of functional behaviour assessment (FBA),
refer to Chapter 5), the competing behaviour pathway, and behaviour sup-
port planning procedures. These adjustments are presented using the
Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) PBS planning model (Dunlap et al., 2019).
The examples are not intended to be exhaustive, nor will they apply to
every student who requires intensive Tier 3 support; rather, they show the
types of adjustments that might be considered, depending on the hypothe-
ses generated from the FBA and the competing behaviour pathway for each
individual.
159
160
Table 8.4 Examples of Tier 3 adjustments applied to the PTR model when designing individual behaviour support plans
Prevent: Setting event and Teach: Replacement and Reinforce: Replacement and
antecedent adjustments desired behaviours desired behaviour, respond to
behaviours of concern
Communication with families regarding Functional Communication Training (FCT). Conduct reinforcer assessment to identify
events, mood, social, environmental, Teach replacement communication skills most preferred social, activity, and tangible
and physiological factors that may affect to avoid/escape (e.g., attention, activities, reinforcers (use observation, visual
behaviour (e.g., Symptom Tracker, Day demands, tangibles, people, environments, supports, AAC, tangibles as needed).
One apps). including sensory sensitivities) Positive reinforcement of desired behaviour
and/or (e.g., computer time after task completion).
teach replacement communication skills to
obtain (e.g., attention, activities, tangibles, • Use visuals of reinforcers.
people, environments, including sensory • Provide choice (e.g., reinforcer menu).
seeking). • Use preferred tokens (e.g., stars, stickers)
Provide access to AAC for students with over points.
limited functional speech and/or language • Use mobile apps to obtain/collect
comprehension. tokens.
• Many opportunities to access
reinforcement during acquisition phase.
• Use Premack principle* (first complete
task and then play a game).
Student access to AAC and vocabulary Provide systematic instruction to teach Use negative reinforcement of replacement
to communicate mood, social, replacement or desired behaviours (e.g., behaviour for avoidance-maintained
environmental, and physiological factors prompting systems). behaviours (e.g., break from task following
that may affect behaviour (e.g., Speech request for break using AAC).
Buddy, SpeechHero AAC, CommBoards-
AAC, Speech Assistant, TalkBoard, • Choice of avoidance activities.
urTalkerPro, iMyVoice Symbolstix, • Visual timers for breaks.
VoiceSymbol AAC, & Proloquo2Go). • Signal start/end of breaks.
Increase or decrease environmental • Negotiate length of break/avoidance
sensory stimulation (e.g., reduce noise, time.
provide calming or stimulating sensory
activities).
Peer support and training (e.g., to promote Visual or audio support to prompt or cue Positive reinforcement of replacement
social participation). replacement and desired behaviours (e.g., behaviour to obtain something (e.g.,
graphic, text, or verbal cues, iPrompts student asks for materials instead of
app). snatching from peers so is given materials
requested).
(Continued)

161
162

Use of visual supports (e.g., SEND Apps Visual supports such as social narratives Reinforce replacement and desired
Made for You, iPrompts). and visual task analyses to teach behaviours while ignoring or redirecting
replacement or desired behaviours (e.g., behaviours of concern (when safe to do
• Visual schedules (text and/or graphic). SEND Apps Made for You, iPrompts, so).
• Object schedules. Special Stories, iCreate, Social Skills
• Visual narratives/social stories to Stories, StoryMaker, Social Skill Builder
prepare students for events, routines, apps).
changes in routine.
• Visual supports to assist comprehension
of demands, instructions, and tasks
(e.g., text or graphic task analyses,
instructions for completing assessments
organised into a sequence of steps or
chunks).
Adjusting challenge (increasing or Use video modelling to teach replacement Match corrective or disciplinary
decreasing difficulty). and desired behaviours (self, peer, or adult) consequences to student cognitive and
(e.g., TherAd for Autism, My Pictures Talk: communication level.
Video Modeling Tool, Stories2Learn apps). Visual supports for corrective feedback
(e.g., social narratives with symbols the
student can comprehend).
Adjust demands (e.g., interspersing or Implement non-violent crisis intervention
alternating simple with more difficult plan for behaviours of concern that
demands or tasks). threaten student and staff safety.
Provide meaningful and relevant activities
(e.g., avoid repetitive busy work).
Provide choice (verbal, text, graphic, or
object as needed).
Prepare students for changes in routine or
schedule.
Prepare, signal, or warn students before
transitioning between activities/classes.
Use visual or audio timers (e.g., iPrompts
app, Time Timer).
Access to AAC systems and vocabulary to
participate in school activities.
Adjust AAC systems to appropriate
communication level of student and
context (e.g., playground versus
classroom).
Provide structure (e.g., planned activities
during free time).

Provide sufficient opportunities to engage.
Provide access to assistive/other
technology to reduce physical and/or
cognitive load in academic tasks.
Source: Adapted from Jameson et al. (2020).
* To learn more about the Premack Principle, visit https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1698-3_1165
163
Restrictive practices
Tier 3 interventions and supports have been recommended as evidence-

based practice to reduce or eliminate the use of restrictive practices when
supporting people with disability who exhibit behaviours of concern
(Jameson et al., 2020; NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS-
QSC), 2020). Restrictive practices in Australia have been defined as ‘any
practice or intervention that has the effect of restricting the rights or free-
dom of movement of a person with disability’ (Australian Government,
2013). These include chemical, mechanical, physical, and environmental
restraint, and seclusion. In Australia, the NDIS-QSC regulates and monitors
disability service providers due to the potential for restrictive practices to
cause human rights violations, including physical or psychological harm.
The NDIS-QSC (2020) recommends restrictive practices only as a last
resort to protect the person with disability and/or others from harm. To
protect the rights and dignity of people with disability, all other proactive
and preventive methods, including FBA and individual PBS plans docu-
menting positive, person-centred support strategies, must be attempted
before resorting to restrictive practices. However, these national compli-
ance and regulatory processes do not apply to the use of restrictive prac-
tices in schools, where restraint and seclusion are authorised as
disciplinary and protective behaviour management practices (Poed,
McCarthy, et al., 2020). Although no national database exists on the inci-
dence of restrictive practices in schools, national and state surveys, the
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of
People with Disability, and media reports indicate that restraint and seclu-
sion in schools are widespread and disproportionately used in relation to
students with disability (Poed, Cologon, et al., 2020). Reducing and elim-
inating the use of restrictive practices through an SWPBS approach will
require consistent state and national statutory reform and support for
teachers to build their capacity for Tier 3 personalised planning and
adjustment (Jameson et al., 2020).
Conclusion
With roots in the Disability Rights Movement and ABA, SWPBS has been
proposed as an inclusive model of behavioural support and intervention
164
for all students, with the potential to build the capacity of all educators to
provide evidence-based teaching practices and establish inclusive environ-
ments (Dunlap et al., 2016). This ideal can only be realised if every student
can access the environments where SWPBS activities are implemented,
and only if activities and supports are fully accessible. There is a need for
Australian research to determine: (a) the extent to which students with dis-
ability are fully included in SWPBS activities; (b) the adjustments required
to enable access and participation for students with disability; (c) the social,
behavioural, and achievement outcomes of participation in SWPBS; and (d)
the capacity of the Tiered Fidelity Inventory to detect inclusive practices.
There is a related need to examine the extent to which teachers feel pre-
pared and supported to make learning accessible for all students at Tier 1
and to provide personalised Tier 2 and 3 supports. In addition, while profes-
sional responsibility for educational adjustments rests with classroom teach-
ers, the inclusion of students with disability in SWPBS must be supported by
ongoing collaboration between mainstream and specialist teachers to adjust
learning experiences and materials and to select, implement, and monitor
personalised strategies.
Realising SWPBS in a way that is inclusive of every student, including
those with disability, has been somewhat neglected in research and prac-
tice. However, as articulated by Kurth and Enyart (2016, p. 216), a focus on
this population is essential to achieving the foundational aims of SWPBS:
Research has documented the capability of SWPBS approaches to

improve outcomes for most students. This focus on ‘most’ fails time
and again to account for all students; thus, the separation and segre-
gation of students on the basis of presumed capacity and needs per-
sist. As a field, we must embrace technologies and strategies that have
the potential to take us in the direction toward inclusivity. Research
on the possible contributions of SWPBS toward realizing this vision
is, therefore, greatly needed.
Apply your ideas

1. Consider a student with a disability and extensive support requirements
in your setting. Identify personalised supports and adjustments that the
student might require to participate in all components of SWPBS in an
165
inclusive environment. Reflect on adjustments to materials, assessments,

teaching approaches, and processes.
2. Develop a plan to implement collaboration between mainstream
teachers, specialist educators, allied professionals, and families to
ensure effective, coordinated supports for students with disability
within SWPBS.
3. What are some priorities for future research to measure the outcomes
of SWPBS for all students, including those with disability and extensive
support requirements, within inclusive Australian settings?
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012, April 29). Being left out puts youths with
special needs at risk for depression. Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2012/04/120429085404.htm
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2020). School students
with disability. https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-
in-australia/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-data-portal/school-
students-with-disability#view1
Australian Government. (2013). National disability insurance scheme act 2013.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00332
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018). Australian professional
standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-
policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW]. (2020). Children with disabil-
ity. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/
health/children-disabilities
CAST. (2021). About universal design for learning. https://www.cast.org/impact/
universal-design-for-learning-udl
Commonwealth of Australia. (2020). Disability standards for education 2005, 2020
review. https://www.dese.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005/resources/
final-report-2020-review-disability-standards-education-2005
Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., & Strain, P. S.
(2019). Prevent teach reinforce: The school-based model of individualized posi-
tive behavior support (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Dunlap, G., Jackson, D., & Greenwald, A. (2016). Positive behavior supports for
students with intellectual disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer & K. A. Shogren (Eds.),
Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual
disability (pp. 199–216). Routledge.
Earnshaw, V. A., Reisner, S. L., Menino, D. D., Poteat, V. P., Bogart, L. M., Barnes, T.
N., & Schuster, M. A. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic
review. Developmental Review, 48, 178–200. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001
166
Garbacz, S. A. (2019). Enhancing family engagement in schoolwide positive behav-

ioral interventions and supports. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(4), 195–
203. doi:10.1177/1053451218782428
Graham, L., McCarthy, T., Killingly, C., Tancredi, H., & Poed, S. (2020). Inquiry
into suspension, exclusion and expulsion processes in South Australian govern-
ment schools. The Centre for Inclusive Education, QUT. https://www.education.
sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/report-of-an-independent-inquiry-into-suspensions-
exclusions-and-expulsions-in-south-australian-government-schools.pdf
Hawken, L. S., & O’Neill, R. E. (2006). Including students with severe disabilities
in all levels of school-wide positive behavior support. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 46–53. doi:10.2511/rpsd.31.1.46
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A
summary of the research evidence on inclusive education. Alana Abt Associates.
https://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_
on_inclusive_education.pdf
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Albin,
R. W., & O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Toward a technology of ‘nonaversive’ behavioral
support. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(3),
125–132. doi:10.1177/154079699001500301
Jameson, R. E., O’Neill, R. E., Ryan, J., & Fletcher, J. (2020). Designing and imple-
menting individualised positive behaviour support. In F. E. Brown, J. McDonnell,
& M. E. Snell (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities: Meeting the
needs of children and youth with intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities, and
autism spectrum disorders (9th ed.). Pearson.
Johnston, J. M., Foxx, R. M., Jacobson, J. W., Green, G., & Mulick, J. A. (2006).
Positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst,
29(1), 51–74. doi:10.1007/BF03392117
Kern, L., Gaier, K., Kelly, S., Nielsen, C. M., Commisso, C. E., & Wehby, J. H. (2020).
An evaluation of adaptations made to tier 2 social skill training programs. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 155–172. doi:10.1080/15377903.2020.17
14858
Kurth, J. A., & Enyart, M. (2016). Schoolwide positive behavior supports and students
with significant disabilities: Where are we? Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 41(3), 216–222. doi:10.1177/1540796916633083
Kurth, J. A., & Zagona, A. L. (2018). Involvement and participation of students with
severe disabilities in SWPBIS. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 131–141.
doi:10.1177/0022466918766523
Leadbeater, B. J., & Hoglund, W. L. (2009). The effects of peer victimization and
physical aggression on changes in internalizing from first to third grade. Child
Development, 80(3), 843–859. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01301.x
Lewis, T. J., Mitchell, B. S., Bruntmeyer, D. T., & Sugai, G. (2016). Schoolwide posi-
tive behavior support and response to intervention: System similarities, distinctions,
and research to date at the universal level of support. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns,
& A. M. Van Der Heyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science
and practice of assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 703–717). Springer.
167
Loman, S. L., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., & Walker, V. L. (2018). Promoting the accessi-
bility of SWPBIS for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior
Loman, S. L., & Walker, V. L. (2020). Promoting inclusion of students with exten-
sive support needs in Tier 1 SWPBIS. Association for Positive Behavior Support
Newsletter, 18(4), 1–4.
Maclean, M. J., Sims, S., Bower, C., Leonard, H., Stanley, F. J., & O’Donnell, M.
(2017). Maltreatment risk among children with disabilities. Pediatrics, 139(4),
e20161817. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1817
Majeika, C. E., Bruhn, A. L., Sterrett, B. I., & McDaniel, S. (2020). Reengineering tier 2
interventions for responsive decision making: An adaptive intervention process.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 111–132. doi:10.1080/15377903.
2020.1714855
McDaniel, S. C., Bruhn, A., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020) Introduction to special issue on
Tier 2 adaptations to behavioral interventions: A focus on innovations and recom-
mendations, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 36(2), 107–110. doi:10.1080/
15377903.2020.1714852
McMillan, J. M., & Jarvis, J. M. (2013). Mental health and students with disabilities:
A review of literature. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(2),
236–251. doi:10.1017/jgc.2013.14
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission [NDIS-QSC] (2020). Regulated restric-
tive practices guide. NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. https://www.
ndiscommission.gov.au/document/2386
Pinquart, M. (2017). Systematic review: Bullying involvement of children with and
without chronic physical illness and/or physical/sensory disability – A meta-
analytic comparison with healthy/nondisabled peers, Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 42(3), 245–259. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsw081
Poed, S., Cologon, K., & Jackson, R. (2020). Gatekeeping and restrictive practices by
Australian mainstream schools: Results of a national survey. International Journal
of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.
1726512
Poed, S., McCarthy, T., Graham, L., Tancredi, H., & Saggers, B. (2020). Submission
in response to the 2020 Disability Royal Commission Restrictive Practices Issues
Paper. Centre for Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology.
Exhibit 7-114.05 - ISS.001.00407_01. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.
au/publications/exhibit-7-11405-iss00100407-01-centre-inclusive-education-
submission-response-2020-disability-royal-commission-restrictive-practices-
issues-paper-submission-response-restrictive-practices-issues-paper
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with
Disability. (2020). Interim report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse,
Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Commonwealth of Australia.
https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/interim-report
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with
Disability. (2021). Overview of responses to the restrictive practices issues paper.
https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/restrictive-practices
168
Shuster, B. C., Gustafson, J. R., Jenkins, A. B., Lloyd, B. P., Carter, E. W., & Bernstein, C.
F. (2017). Including students with disabilities in positive behavioral interventions
and supports: Experiences and perspectives of special educators. Journal of Positive
Simó-Pinatella, D., Mumbardó-Adam, C., Alomar-Kurz, E., Sugai, G., & Simonsen,
B. (2019). Prevalence of challenging behaviors exhibited by children with dis-
abilities: Mapping the literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(3), 323–343.
doi:10.1007/s10864-019-09326-9
Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski,
B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M. N. (2020).
Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Develop
ment Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review
Team. https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/
EBP%20Report%202020.pdf
Sterrett, B. I., McDaniel, S. C., Majeika, C. E., & Bruhn, A. L. (2020). Using evi-
dence informed strategies to adapt Tier 2 interventions. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 36(2), 133–154. doi:10.1080/15377903.2020.1714856
behavioural feedback and opportunities to respond [Unpublished doctoral the-
sis]. Murdoch University.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse
classrooms (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tristani, L. & Bassett-Gunter, R. (2020). Making the grade: Teacher training for inclu-
sive education: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 20(3), 246–264. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12483
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General
Comment No. 4 (2016): Article 24: Right to inclusive education. https://www.
ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/RighttoEducation/CRPD-C-GC-4.doc
Walker, V. L., & Loman, S. L. (2021). Strategies for including students with exten-
sive support needs in SWPBIS. Inclusive Practices. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/27324745211000307
Walker, V. L., Loman, S. L., Hara, M., Park, K. L., & Strickland-Cohen, M. K. (2018).
Examining the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 43(4), 223–238. doi:10.1177/1540796918779370
169
Bullying prevention
9 and prosocial skill

development in
school settings
Roberto H. Parada
Learning intentions
• Define bullying, understand its effects on wellbeing, and identify current

anti-bullying intervention strategies.
• Apply key School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) strategies in
the context of anti-bullying interventions.
• Apply current Australian and international research in the use of SWPBS
to encourage prosocial behaviour and reduce bullying.
• Outline the application of a bullying prevention whole-school strategy
based on SWPBS.
• Apply a framework to evaluate the effectiveness of bullying prevention
strategies in the school setting.

Introduction
School peer victimisation or bullying is an issue of significant concern.
Whereas aggression involves a ‘one-off’ or single event set of actions, bullying
is characterised by sustained and repeated acts of aggression or intimidation
170 DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-9

Bullying prevention

4.3 Manage Manage challenging Adults use enhanced
challenging behaviour by establishing feedback techniques with
behaviour and negotiating clear students, such as internally
expectations with students focused and attributional
and address discipline feedback.
respectfully.
4.4 Maintain Ensure students’ wellbeing Include specific data
student safety and safety within school by elements into a school-wide
implementing school and/ system to identify bullying-
or system, curriculum, and related behaviours.
6.2 Engage in Participate in learning to Specific training is needed,
professional update knowledge and with opportunities provided
learning and practices, targeted to to practise the skills in
improve practice professional needs and supporting environments
school and/or system with colleagues.
priorities.
such as name calling, physical threats, verbal/physical assault, and social

exclusion, commonly referred to as traditional bullying, and communica-
tion and information technology attacks, known as cyberbullying (Li, 2007).
These acts can occur between individuals or groups of individuals and are
in the context of an imbalance of power between the perpetrator (bully) and
their target (victim) (Casper et al., 2020; Marsh, et al., 2004; Olweus, 1991;
Parada et al., 2008). Bullying is associated with future criminality, long-term
depression, and violent behaviour (Ford et al., 2017). Repeated peer victi-
misation can lead to psychological distress, severe depression, deteriorating
physical health, and suicide ideation and attempts (Ford et al., 2017; Islam
et al., 2020). Students witnessing violence at school are more likely to be
aggressive and to be less engaged with school and more likely to truant
(Janosz et al., 2008). Thus, the impact of school bullying and victimisation
is pervasive and enduring, extending beyond bullies and their victims to the
peer group, school, and community.
Prevalence rates of bullying and victimisation around the world and in
Australia have remained steady or increased in the last couple of decades
(Harbin et al., 2019). Australia has no single comprehensive survey of bul-
lying in schools, as such, so estimates need to be drawn from a number of
171
Roberto H. Parada
independent sources. A recent study combining several data sources for

Australian children aged between four and seventeen years reported that, in
total, 28.7% of the schoolchildren were victims of traditional bullying, 11.8%
were victims of cyberbullying, and 11.2% were victims of both traditional
bullying and cyberbullying. Girls were more likely to experience cyberbully-
ing (65.5 vs 34.5%) and both types of bullying (66.3 vs 33.7%) than boys.
Children who were in higher grades and who were from low- or middle-
income families were more likely to be victims of bullying – traditional,
cyber, or both types (Islam et al., 2020). Jadambaa et al. (2019) concluded
after a systematic review and meta-analysis of available Australian reports for
children and adolescents in school between 1990 and 2015 that the twelve-
month prevalence of bullying victimisation was 15.17%, with a prevalence
of 5.27% for bullying perpetration; 8.13% of students were both bullies and
victims. Cyberbullying victimisation and perpetration were not as common,
with lifetime prevalences of 7.02% and 3.45%, respectively. Results of meta-
analytic studies across eighty studies controlling for diverse measurement
and context effects have indicated that estimated rates are unlikely to be a
result of different measurement techniques (see Modecki et al., 2014).
Bullying is therefore a significant issue in Australian schools and requires
urgent attention.
Fortunately, a substantial body of research has highlighted intervention
methodologies which show promise in reducing both bullying and its impact
on young people (see Fraguas et al., 2021; Gaffney et al., 2021). Chief among
the recommendations emerging from this research is the need to create sys-
tem-based school-wide interventions to address bullying that include teach-
ing prosocial skills, including addressing the behaviour of bystanders (Gaffney
et al., 2021; Merrin et al., 2018). SWPBS, with its emphasis on a school-wide
systematic framework, addressing the school climate, and taking a multi-tier
approach, is therefore particularly well suited to the implementation of bul-
lying reduction strategies (Bradshaw, 2013; Ross & Horner, 2009).
SWPBS and bullying prevention

Studies over the last twenty years indicate that SWPBS is an effective
approach for developing a positive school climate which supports students’
learning, behaviour, and wellbeing and reduces rates of bullying (Bosworth
et al., 2018; Närhi et al., 2017; Nese et al., 2014; Ross & Horner, 2009;
172
Bullying prevention
Waasdorp et al., 2012). The SWPBS framework assists schools to organise

their response to bullying reduction at different tiers and develop their inter-
vention over time. In combination, this approach allows for a significant
level of flexibility for schools to implement their anti-bullying intervention
protocols. Additionally, SWPBS fosters a data-driven approach in which
various sources of information (e.g., discipline referrals, school surveys) are
employed to assess the effectiveness of any intervention and make appropri-
ate changes based on the results. To maximise the effectiveness of SWPBS
as an anti-bullying initiative, it is necessary to develop an understanding
of its perspective of bullying behaviours and the significance of a social-
ecological framework for bullying intervention.
Bullying behaviour in SWPBS and the

social-ecological model of bullying intervention
Two defining meta-themes of SWPBS are an emphasis on interventions
being systemic across the whole school (see Chapter 3) and the concurrent
development of interventions tied to tiers that gradually increase in support
intensity (Sugai & Horner, 2020) (see Chapters 4 and 5). As discussed in
Chapter 2, a key underlying principle of SWPBS is that behaviour is func-
tional in nature; it serves a purpose and is reactive to the environment,
increasing or decreasing depending on payoffs to the individual (Freeman
et al., 2016; Sugai & Horner, 2020). Therefore, to avoid factors that may
inadvertently reinforce bullying, such as peer onlookers and a school cli-
mate high in peer conflict (Parada et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2017), schools
must aim for a consistent approach at all levels of the school to manage bul-
lying. Schools with less bullying have positive disciplinary actions, strong
parental involvement, and high academic standards (Gaffney et al., 2021;
Ma, 2002). Notwithstanding these insights, bullying remains a complex phe-
nomenon influenced by a number of individual and context-level factors.
These factors include: attitudes towards bullying held by parents, teachers,
and students (Boulton et al., 2002; Holt & Keyes, 2004); teachers’ ability to
manage bullying through preventative approaches that discourage aggres-
sion in the classroom (Hong & Espelage, 2012; Yoon & Bauman, 2014);
and social-ecological factors like neighbourhood and school climate. This
‘social-ecological model’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) is consistent with SWPBS’s
intervention at multiple levels within the school. Ross et al. (2017) point out
173
Roberto H. Parada
that by just being present, irrespective of motives, all types of onlookers in a

bullying situation may reinforce it. Onlookers play several roles in bullying
incidents, from supporters who encourage or assist in it to protectors who
denounce it and assist victims (Salmivalli, 1999). There is thus a synergy
between the social-ecological model and SWBPS, as both emphasise the
multiple ecological/environmental factors that influence development and
thus a whole-school approach to bullying intervention and prevention.
It is also important to consider SWPBS’s approach to defining bullying.
Adherents of SWPBS have long held that the difficulty in obtaining positive
results in anti-bullying interventions may be due to the difficult conceptuali-
sation used in defining and measuring bullying. Ross and Horner (2009)
commented that the necessity to discern intent to harm, imbalance of power,
repetition, and confirm that the behaviour is aggressive in relation to other
verbal, social, and physical behaviours means that bullying is difficult to
measure and recognise, and therefore intervene in. The SWPBS proposal is
that, as all behaviour is preceded by other behaviour, the focus should be on
the antecedents of bullying. These antecedents include teasing, offensive
language/behaviour, aggressive behaviour, cyber-harassment, and disre-
spect. By targeting these in the contexts in which they occur (cyberspace,
hallway, classroom, excursion, field trip, or bus) along with recognising that
students need support to develop alternative prosocial behaviours, bullying
can be abated (Sugai et al., 2011).
Homing in on observable behaviour in relation to bullying intervention
has additional advantages. Recall that SWPBS is a data-driven approach, and
the need to clearly describe intervention targets, in behavioural terms or at
least in terms of what can be observed and measured, is of significant impor-
tance. Focusing on the behaviours used to bully, or the precursors of these
behaviours, facilitates the measurement of bullying and the education of stu-
dents, teachers, and the school community to recognise such behaviours as
inappropriate. Australian-developed instruments, such as the Adolescent Peer
Relations Instrument – Bully/Target (APRI-BT), which measure peer victimisa-
tion by asking students to rate how often they have experienced various
behaviours consistent with traditional forms of bullying (e.g., verbally teased,
physically assaulted, or being socially excluded), are already available
(Marengo et al., 2019; Marsh et al., 2011; Parada, 2000). Alternatively, check-
lists of these behaviours can be created by schools, and direct observation in
various settings can be used to gauge success. In this way objective data is
kept and used to monitor the success, or otherwise, of any steps to reduce
174
Bullying prevention
bullying and increase prosocial behaviours in schools. The question remains

as to what such interventions would look like from an SWPBS perspective.
Key components of an SWPBS-based bullying

prevention intervention
The role of SWPBS leadership teams
Successfully managing bullying includes addressing observable negative

social behaviours and increasing prosocial behaviours across the whole
school ecosystem. Intervention methods are integrated into school prac-
tice not treated as an additional programme (Bradshaw, 2013; Nese et al.,
2014; Ross & Horner, 2009). The SWPBS leadership team’s role is central
to this goal, with members possessing skills and knowledge in evidence-
based strategies that address negative social behaviours related to bullying
and strategies/programmes that teach replacement behaviours. This latter
requirement is often overlooked; that is, that the strategies implemented
must encourage behaviour swapping rather than behaviour stopping.
School teams are responsible for achieving core components, which gen-
erally indicate a full school-wide implementation of SWPBS (Swain-Bradway
et al., 2015). In reference to school bullying these would be to facilitate: (1)
the development of agreed school-wide expectations, definitions, and rules
specific to bullying behaviours and appropriate social behaviour; (2)
resources and curriculum materials to explicitly teach expectations and
rules to students, staff, and the school community; (3) processes to actively
acknowledge students, staff, and community for engaged and socially
appropriate behaviours; (4) school community-developed and evidence-
based practices for responding to inappropriate behaviour; (5) systems for
bullying-related data collection and response to guide decision-making; (6)
development of administrative supports to implement SWPBS; and (7) politi-
cal support at the district/regional level for the school.
Data-based bullying prevention
As discussed in other chapters, within SWPBS data is regularly collected

with the purpose of informing the initiation, development, execution, and
revision of strategies being implemented (Bradshaw et al., 2015). Therefore,
existing data extracted from discipline referrals for behaviours of concern
175
Roberto H. Parada
that include locational information, attendance (victims often miss school

to avoid being targeted), critical incidents, and direct bullying reports by
students, parents, or caregivers may be relevant for decision-making.
Formal bullying surveys are encouraged as part of data collection. These
surveys, however, need to be representative of the whole school community,
including students, teachers, teacher aides, school ancillary staff, and parents/
carers. By using behavioural descriptors of bullying (see Hamburger et al.,
2011 for a compendium of numerous surveys), participants may be asked
how often they experience verbal, social, physical, and cyber behaviours
consistent with bullying. There is substantial evidence that self-report mea-
sures are sufficient in identifying bullying behaviours; as such, these should
not be overlooked (Marengo et al., 2019). The priority is that the data are
immediately useful. For example, alternative survey styles which incorporate
a school map allow respondents to indicate areas where behaviours of con-
cern occur most often (see Astor et al., 2004 for a comprehensive review).
These maps must include all areas of the school for respondents to indicate
where bullying ‘hot zones’ may be located, and in this way action can be
taken. Often overlooked in any survey about bullying are questions that can
assist in pinpointing what is working. Continuing with the mapping option,
students may also be asked to identify areas where they feel the safest. Asking
questions as to where or to whom they would go for help if bullied, and their
suggestions on what works, is equally important. Analysis of areas where
students feel safe may make it possible to provide other structurally similar
places (e.g., halls, classrooms) for students under similar conditions as the
identified safe zones. Similarly, identifying the people and places respon-
dents turn to for help (e.g., teachers, school counsellors, and other students,
friends, and family) can guide efforts to support those people.
Finally, data collection efforts may start modestly; for example, by only
collecting data by year (grade) level or even at the student level (e.g., a few
students identified to be at risk). This may assist schools to develop their
intervention methods and skills at a sustainable pace. It is important that
bullying and prosocial behaviour levels are assessed, and that the methods
used for assessment are sustainable, practical, and routinely used.
SWPBS and whole-of-school integration to manage bullying
SWPBS encourages active preventative processes so that negative behaviours/

processes are not given time to become school cultural norms or deep
176
Bullying prevention
behavioural repertoires for students. There are numerous ways in which this
is achieved (Bradshaw et al., 2015). However, those which seem most rele-
vant for bullying intervention include: teaching universal expectations; coach-
ing in positive social relations; and correction strategies (see Nese et al., 2014;
Ross & Horner, 2009; Stiller et al., 2013; Sugai & Horner, 2020). A focus on
a consistent set of behavioural expectations for all students in all areas of the
school is common practice in SWPBS. These expectations are usually com-
municated in two or more key statements, such as ‘Be a learner’ and ‘Be
respectful’, which reflect the priorities and values of the school. Developed
through consensus within the school community, they form the basis of
what is to be modelled and practised. Expectations are taught with teaching
matrices which describe what the expectations look like in key areas of the
school (e.g., hallways, classrooms, buses, and playground areas). Matrices
form an integral part of establishing a whole-school approach, as they signal
to staff, parents, and students what is important (see Petrasek et al., 2021).
Thus, expectations which explicitly relate to improving peer relations and
social behaviour need to be developed. For example, ‘Be respectful’ can be
expressed as: ‘We behave, speak, and treat one another in respectful ways’;
‘We understand that everyone is different, and we respect those differences’;
and ‘We look out for one another, and offer our support when others need
our help’. However, it is not sufficient to establish these expectations; it is
also important to assist or coach students towards positive peer relations.
Once established, expectations require school-wide dissemination and
consistent opportunities to be taught and reinforced. The use of matrices, as
previously mentioned, will help, but so will curriculum-based learning, mod-
elling, and attending to students’ positive, naturally occurring prosocial
behaviours. Curriculum resources can be developed or co-opted from exist-
ing anti-bullying programmes. However, it is preferable that students be active
participants in the development of at least some of these lessons. By develop-
ing materials on what bullying looks like, the nature and consequences of it,
self-control strategies, resilience, positive peer interaction skills, how to avoid
reinforcing bullying behaviours, where to seek assistance, and how they can
contribute to promoting a positive school climate, students will engage in
dialogue and communal problem solving, bringing a sense of common con-
cern to the problem of bullying. With support, most young people are keen
and willing to offer realistic suggestions in relation to each of these themes.
The active development of these lessons at the whole-school level is a
key aspect of managing bullying; however, it is also important that school
177
Roberto H. Parada
staff use and/or develop skills that promote positive student–teacher rela-
tionships. This allows staff to reinforce desirable behaviours they witness,
which in turn encourages their use and growth. Research in Australia has
shown that skilling teachers with a number of brief and easy to apply strate-
gies reduces bullying and improves the school climate (Parada et al., 2008).
For example, the use of feedback techniques, such as ‘descriptive feedback’,
has been found to be effective in enhancing prosocial behaviours in a vari-
ety of contexts (Kelm et al., 2014).
As can be seen from Figure 9.1, descriptive feedback is a more structured
form of paying attention to positive behaviours. Individual students and the
class as a whole can benefit from it. Descriptive feedback is a short and
specific form of verbal comment used when a teacher wants to give the stu-
dent feedback about something they have done well.
The ability to encourage students’ prosocial skills is also important.
Enhancing feedback is used with students who need help in enhancing a
particular skill. Students showing aggressive behaviour, for example, may
need help to control their temper or boredom. Targets of bullies, on the
other hand, may need help increasing their confidence about having a par-
ticular skill, such as talking in turn or seeking help. There are two types of
enhancing feedback: internally focused feedback is used to make students
feel good about the skills they have; attributional feedback is used to
Step 1: Gain attention

Step 2: Describe prosocial behaviour
Step 3: Praise behaviour
Examples:
For compliance
Mark Gain attention
You did what I asked straight away Describe behaviour
Thank you for doing what I asked Praise behaviour
Further examples:
For good communication

‘Judy, you were very polite to Sandip, well done.’
For independent problem solving

‘Pho, you worked out the problem you had with Samuel without getting upset,
that was great!’
Figure 9.1 Descriptive feedback

Adapted from Parada (2006)
178
Bullying prevention
encourage students to recognise that their social success is due to their own
effort and ability and not due to luck or other external agents. Figures 9.2
and 9.3 show examples of how these may be applied to encourage proso-
cial behaviours and reduce bullying.
As can be seen from Figures 9.2 and 9.3, specific feedback techniques
provide the opportunity to teach and correct students’ social skills in situ.
As shown in Figure 9.4, corrective feedback treats behaviours of concern
as errors in the application of strategies rather than purposeful negative
actions. This allows teachers to correct students when they have misapplied
or not applied a social strategy (e.g., dealt with criticism in a negative way),
while still promoting the enhancement of a particular prosocial skill for
future use. It is important to note that the use of corrective feedback does not
eliminate the use of separate consequences (Step 5).

Step 2: Praise skill/strategy used
Step 3: Generalise skill/strategy to other areas
Step 4: Encourage internalisation
Step 5: Model internalisation
What’s involved Example Why
You are really Highlights to the student the behaviour that

Step 1–2 not letting Mario has attracted the teacher’s praise to
Describing the get to you, encourage its repetition in the future.
prosocial behaviour because you are
(skill or strategy ignoring the Stating the exact behaviour ensures that
used) things he says teacher reinforcement is contingent upon
and keeping calm. performance and therefore credible.
Knowing how to Generalising the feedback beyond the

keep calm is a specific behaviour observed promotes skill
Step 3 smart thing to do transfer to other situations and valuing of
Generalising the to help you to the skill being praised.
feedback get along with
other people.
You should Encouraging students to internalise the

congratulate feedback by feeling good about what they
Step 4 yourself that you have accomplished enhances self-efficacy.
Encourage kept calm
internalisation despite what was
being said
I know I would
Step 5 feel very pleased Modelling the internalisation encourages
Model with myself if I students to internalise the feedback.
internalisation had kept calm
after all that.
Figure 9.2 Internally focused feedback

179
Roberto H. Parada

Step 2: Describe the prosocial skill/strategy used
Step 3: Attribute success to ability or effort and
the use of the right strategy
Step 1–2 You stayed on Highlights to the student the behaviour

Describing the task rather than that has attracted the teacher’s praise to
prosocial behaviour reacting to John. encourage its repetition in the future. It
also makes it credible.
Higher functioning children naturally

Step 2 (a) attribute their successes to their ability.
Attribute success You certainly Students prefer to be told that they have
to capability/skill have the ability ability/skills.
or to stay focused.
Increases in ability attributions enhance
students’ beliefs that they are capable.
Effort feedback is seen as more credible

by students and can encourage further
Step 2 (b) You achieved persistence on tasks.
Attribute success to that by trying Using strategy feedback helps students
using effort and the hard to ignore indirectly see themselves as having
right strategy John which is a ability, and strategy feedback has been
good strategy to found tomore effectively enhance
use. perceptions of capability than effort
feedback alone.
Figure 9.3 Attributional feedback

These feedback techniques are included here as exemplars for a school

wishing to tackle bullying through an SWPBS approach. A school’s behaviour
management system needs to be proactive, generally implemented at the
time of the student/staff interaction, provide sanctions, and also promote
prosocial skill development. In particular, these exemplars show that skills
taught to staff have to be specific and detailed. Specific training is needed,
with opportunities provided to practise the skills in supporting environments
with other colleagues. This will encourage staff to feel confident in their use,
thus increasing the likelihood of the application of the skills during difficult
exchanges with students.
Finally, there is also a need to establish processes to deal with everyday
minor but consistent departures from expectations. At Tier 1, this includes
the use of individual classroom-level management techniques, as discussed
in Chapter 3. Micro-techniques, for example, are brief, quick, effective
180
Bullying prevention
Step 1: Take student aside

Step 2: Identify skill/strategy NOT used
Step 3: Acknowledge that they have the skill/strategy
Step 4: Link failure to not using the correct skill/strategy
Step 5: Follow through with consequences

No it is not It is important to advise the student what
Step 2 appropriate to the inappropriate behaviour was to
Identifying the hit John when separate it from other behaviours and
error/skill not used he teases you. discourage repetition.
I know you have This component reinforces to the child
Step 3 the ability to that you are not criticising them
Identify the child control yourself. personally and know that they are capable
has capability/skill I’ve seen it of the appropriate behaviour.
before.
Step 4 You will be able Encourages students to persist in

Attribute future to control your implementing the skill at a future date.
success to effort temper when you
and use of the right try hard to Focussing on using the right strategy
strategy ignore silly depersonalises the failure feedback and
comments. encourages future behaviour to be based
on learning and utilising a skill.
Step 5
Attribute future Follow through with consequence. Depending on the situation
success to effort this may be a redirection to use the correct strategy the next
and use of the right time through to initiating some other behaviour management
strategy strategy as directed by the school discipline policy.
Figure 9.4 Corrective feedback

techniques to prevent situations from escalating into full bullying episodes.

Rather than ignoring what may be the beginning of a bullying episode,
micro-techniques (such as standing nearby, calling the student’s name, and
using pre-negotiated secret signals) should be used to defuse the situation
quickly and avoid having to deal with a more difficult bullying situation
(Parada et al., 2008). Active supervision, pre-corrections (cueing a student to
engage in a more appropriate behaviour before the problem behaviour ever
occurs), and explicit timing (carefully monitoring and managing time taken
in transitions between activities) have been shown to reduce unwanted
behaviours in classroom settings (Haydon & Kroeger, 2016). Students can
also be taught signals and pre-rehearsed scripts to assist themselves out of
unwanted situations (see Stiller et al., 2013).
Currently, Tier 2 and Tier 3 approaches to bullying management are still
in development, and there is no consensus in the literature on which pro-
grammes to use at the small group or individual level (see Fraguas et al.,
2021; Gaffney et al., 2021; Kennedy, 2020). There is some evidence that
181
Roberto H. Parada
widely used approaches that present as Tier 2/3 interventions, such as

youth- or peer-facilitated peer mediation, peer-led conflict resolution,
restorative justice, and peer mentoring, may in fact have no effects, or at
times may increase the likelihood of bullying (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
Similarly, care should be taken in the development and application of Tier
2/3 procedures in which similarly aggressive students or peers with similar
concerning behaviours are put together in treatment groups. There is a sub-
stantial history of research around the concept of peer deviancy training that
suggests these groups tend to increase antisocial behaviour rather reduce it
(DeLay et al., 2016; Dishion et al., 1999; Gottfredson, 2010).
For schools today, bullying prevention programmes are available; how-
ever, further studies are needed to ascertain their effectiveness and their
compatibility with SWPBS. Of those studies available, the findings suggest
that programmes enhancing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) using an
SWPBS framework have promise. Studies have shown that these programmes
reduce unwanted behaviours, including bullying, and increase prosocial
behaviours (Barrett et al., 2018; Cook et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2018), and
should be considered in any anti-bullying implementation at the Tier 2 and
3 levels. Likewise, research has found that there is a need to take into con-
sideration the influence of trauma backgrounds, neurodevelopmental diffi-
culties, and other disadvantages that students may experience which require
special attention when being assisted as part of a bullying intervention (see
Ostrander et al., 2018). In other words, the reasons for students not respond-
ing to Tier 1 strategies to reduce bullying may be quite complex and hetero-
geneous. This may explain why specific Tier 2 and 3 interventions are still in
development.
Conclusion
Bullying in its various forms is a complex phenomenon with substantial
negative short- and long-term consequences for all involved. The SWPBS
framework is well suited to support anti-bullying interventions and cre-
ate a comprehensive approach to enhancing prosocial skills. The SWPBS
emphasis on a whole-school approach and social-ecological model of
intervention is aligned with the latest opinions on how to best reduce
bullying in schools. SWPBS’s largely proactive, prevention focus shows
promise in creating safe environments by targeting precursor behaviours
182
Bullying prevention
to bullying. Its emphasis on school-wide expectations, prosocial behav-

iour, and a multi-tiered approach to intervention give it great flexibility.
Schools have the capacity to extend their intervention efforts as imple-
mentation grows, choose the intervention strategies that are used at each
stage and level of intervention, and target interventions at different levels.
Importantly, the SWPBS emphasis on systemic data gathering and feedback
allows continual improvement and the monitoring of effects throughout
implementation.
Apply your ideas

In your school context, families have been reporting incidents of cyberbully-
ing and physical bullying to the school leadership. The perception is devel-
oping among families that the incidence of bullying is increasing, despite
the school having a visible position on responding promptly to it. Comments
by teachers at staff meetings seem to reinforce the perception.
Your school is in the early stages of implementing SWPBS.
As a member of the school’s SWPBS team, address the following
questions:
1. What data are needed to assess this situation?

2. What information will be communicated to families?
3. How could your school’s SWPBS Matrix of Behavioural Expectations be
adapted to address bullying?
4. What specific teaching strategies for bullying could the SWPBS team
explore?
5. What data sources will be used to evaluate the schools anti-bullying
initiatives?
References
Astor, R., Benbenishty, R., & Meyer, H. (2004). Monitoring and mapping student vic-
timization in schools. Theory into Practice, 43, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15430421tip4301_6
Barrett, S., Eber, L., McIntosh, K., Perales, K., & Romer, N. (2018). Teaching social-
emotional competencies within a PBIS framework. OSEP Technical Assistance
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
183
Roberto H. Parada
Bosworth, K., Garcia, R., Judkins, M., & Saliba, M. (2018). The impact of leadership
involvement in enhancing high school climate and reducing bullying: An explor-
atory study. Journal of School Violence, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/153
88220.2017.1376208
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Flemington, I. (2002). Associations between second-
ary school pupils’ definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and tenden-
cies to engage in bullying: Age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28(4),
353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000042390
Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Preventing bullying through Positive Behavioral Interven
tions and Supports (PBIS): A multitiered approach to prevention and integration.
Theory into Practice, 52(4), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.
829732
Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Debnam, K. J., & Lindstrom Johnson, S. (2015). A focus
on implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in
high schools: Associations with bullying and other indicators of school disorder.
School Psychology Review, 44(4), 480–498.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066x.32.7.513
Casper, D. M., Card, N. A., & Barlow, C. (2020). Relational aggression and victim-
ization during adolescence: A meta-analytic review of unique associations with
popularity, peer acceptance, rejection, and friendship characteristics. Journal of
Adolescence, 80, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.012
Cook, C. R., Frye, M., Slemrod, T., Lyon, A. R., Renshaw, T. L., & Zhang, Y. (2015). An
integrated approach to universal prevention: Independent and combined effects
of PBIS and SEL on youths’ mental health. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2),
166–183.
DeLay, D., Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M., Winter, C., & Dishion, T. J. (2016). Changing friend
selection in middle school: A social network analysis of a randomized interven-
tion study designed to prevent adolescent problem behavior. Prevention Science,
17(3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0605-4
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups
and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755–764.
Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bully-
ing and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–148. https://doi.
org/10.4073/csr.2009.6
Ford, R., King, T., Priest, N., & Kavanagh, A. (2017). Bullying and mental health
and suicidal behaviour among 14- to 15-year-olds in a representative sample
of Australian children. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 51(9),
897–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417700275
Fraguas, D., Díaz-Caneja, C. M., Ayora, M., Durán-Cutilla, M., Abregú-Crespo,
R., Ezquiaga-Bravo, I., Martín-Babarro, J., & Arango, C. (2021). Assessment
of school anti-bullying interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical
trials. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.
2020.3541
184
Bullying prevention
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, D. B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R.
(2016). Relationship between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports and academic, attendance, and behavior outcomes in high schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1098300715580992
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Effectiveness of school-based
programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1143.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1143
Gottfredson, D. C. (2010). Deviancy training: Understanding how preventive inter-
ventions harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(3), 229–243. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11292-010-9101-9
Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying victim-
ization, perpetration, and bystander experiences; A compendium of assessment
tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control.
Harbin, S. M., Kelley, M. L., Piscitello, J., & Walker, S. J. (2019). Multidimensional
Bullying Victimization Scale: Development and validation. Journal of School
Violence, 18(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1423491
Haydon, T., & Kroeger, S. D. (2016). Active supervision, precorrection, and explicit
timing: A high school case study on classroom behavior. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(1), 70–78. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.977213
Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D. L.
Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 121–139). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer
victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 17(4), 311–322.
Islam, M. I., Khanam, R., & Kabir, E. (2020). Bullying victimization, mental disorders,
suicidality and self-harm among Australian high schoolchildren: Evidence from
nationwide data. Psychiatry Research, 292, 113364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychres.2020.113364
Jadambaa, A., Thomas, H. J., Scott, J. G., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R.
(2019). Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children
and adolescents in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian
& New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(9), 878–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0004867419846393
Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., Pascal, S., Morin, A. J. S., & Bowen, F.
(2008). Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adoles-
cence? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(6), 600–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2008.04.011
Kelm, J. L., McIntosh, K., & Cooley, S. (2014). Effects of implementing school-wide
Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports on problem behaviour and
185
Roberto H. Parada
academic achievement in a Canadian elementary school. Canadian Journal of

School Psychology, 29(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514540266
Kennedy, R. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of the outcomes of bullying prevention pro-
grams on subtypes of traditional bullying victimization: Verbal, relational, and
physical. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 55, 101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2020.101485
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777–1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2005.10.005
Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Individual and school characteristics of
victims and offenders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(1), 63–
89. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.1.63.3438
Marengo, D., Settanni, M., Prino, L. E., Parada, R. H., & Longobardi, C. (2019).
Exploring the dimensional structure of bullying victimization among primary and
lower-secondary school students: Is one factor enough, or do we need more?
Frontiers in Psychology, 10(770). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00770
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton,
L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and
victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024122
Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A
reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychologi-
cal determinants, and the central role of self-concept. In C. S. Sanders & G. D.
Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom. Academic Press. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-012617955-2/50009-6
Merrin, G. J., Espelage, D. L., & Hong, J. S. (2018). Applying the social-ecological
framework to understand the associations of bullying perpetration among high
school students: A multilevel analysis. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 43–56.
https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000084
Mitchell, B. L. (2018). The state of bullying in schools. In J. U. M. Gordon (Ed.),
Bullying prevention and intervention at school: Integrating theory and research
into best practices (pp. 1–15). Springer International Publishing.
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014).
Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and tradi-
tional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611.
Närhi, V., Kiiski, T., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Reducing disruptive behaviours and
improving classroom behavioural climate with class-wide positive behaviour
support in middle schools. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1186–
1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3305
Nese, R. N. T., Horner, R. H., Dickey, C. R., Stiller, B., & Tomlanovich, A. (2014).
Decreasing bullying behaviors in middle school: Expect respect. School
Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000070
186
Bullying prevention
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and

effects of a school-based intervention program. In K. H. Rubin & D. J. Pepler (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Erlbaum.
Ostrander, J., Melville, A., Bryan, J. K., & Letendre, J. (2018). Proposed modifica-
tion of a school-wide bully prevention program to support all children. Journal
of School Violence, 17(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.13
79909
Parada, R. H. (2000). Adolescent peer relations instrument: A theoretical and empiri-
cal basis for the measurement of participant roles in bullying and victimisation of
adolescence: An interim test manual and a research monograph: A test manual.
Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF)
Research Centre, University of Western Sydney.
Parada, R. H. (2006). School bullying: Psychosocial determinants and effective
intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney,
Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.
Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). The beyond bullying program:
An innovative program empowering teachers to counteract bullying in schools.
In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Self-processes, learn-
ing, and enabling human potential: Dynamic new approaches (pp. 373–426).
Information Age Publishing.
Petrasek, M., James, A., Noltemeyer, A., Green, J., & Palmer, K. (2021). Enhancing
motivation and engagement within a PBIS framework. Improving Schools,
13654802211002299. https://doi.org/10.1177/13654802211002299rh
Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-747
Ross, S. W., Lund, E. M., Sabey, C., & Charlton, C. (2017). Students’ perspectives
on bullying. In L. H. Rosen, K. DeOrnellas, & S. R. Scott (Eds.), Bullying in
school: Perspectives from school staff, students, and parents (pp. 23–47). Palgrave
Macmillan US.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for
intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 453–459.
Stiller, B. C., Nese, R. N., Tomlanovich, A. K., Horner, R. H., & Ross, S. W. (2013).
Bullying and harassment prevention in positive behavior support: Expect respect.
Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional
Children, 86(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919855331
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Reducing the effectiveness of bul-
lying behavior in schools. OSEP Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports. https://www.pbis.org/resource/reducing-the-effectiveness-of-bullying-
behavior-in-schools
187
Roberto H. Parada
Swain-Bradway, J., Pinkney, C., & Flannery, K. B. (2015). Implementing schoolwide

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in high schools: Contextual factors
and stages of implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(5), 245–255.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915580030
Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection:
A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 166(2), 149–156.
Yoon, J., & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bul-
lying prevention and intervention. Theory into Practice, 53(4), 308–314. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947226
188
Where to from here
10 The readiness,
sustainability, and scale
of School-wide Positive
Behaviour Support
implementation
Shiralee Poed, Russell Fox, and
Jennifer Payne
Learning intentions
• Explain factors that indicate an education setting’s readiness to adopt

School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS).
• Describe the various influences that affect the sustainability of imple-
mentation of SWPBS in education settings.
• Identify effective coaching practices that support SWPBS implementa-
tion in educational settings.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of SWPBS implementation in an educational
setting.

Introduction
Educators are constantly seeking ways to improve student outcomes. At
each tier of SWPBS, staff identify structural barriers that increase the likeli-
hood of educational problems, and then systematically work to dismantle
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186236-10 189

Shiralee Poed et al.

4.3 Manage Demonstrate Access resources on
challenging knowledge of practical interventions and supports from
behaviour approaches to manage the Australian Student Wellbeing
challenging behaviour. Framework and implementing
these within the SWPBS
framework.
6.4 Apply Demonstrate an Engage in professional learning
professional learning understanding of the through attending SWPBS
and improve student rationale for continued training, reading published
learning professional learning research, and conducting new
and the implications research, to build the knowledge
for improved student base and contribute to a stronger
learning. evidence-base of Australia’s
SWPBS.
7.4 Engage with Understand the role of Link in with networks, including
professional teaching external professionals the Association for Positive
networks and and community Behaviour Support Australia
broader communities representatives (APBSA) and the International
in broadening Association for Positive
teachers’ professional Behaviour Support (PBS), which
knowledge and can assist with the sustainability
practice. of SWPBS through scaling
efforts and linking members to
professional learning.
these barriers. Regardless of whether an education setting is at the readiness

or adoption phase, three key sciences must inform SWPBS implementation:
(1) prevention science, (2) implementation science, and (3) intervention sci-
ence. Where prevention science focuses on the selection of approaches,
supports, and interventions to prevent educational issues, implementation
science emphasises the systems for implementation and delivery of strate-
gies and approaches used in schools. Further, intervention science considers
the evidence base behind interventions chosen by schools. This requires
schools to adopt approaches that have been rigorously developed and found
to be effective following systematic and robust reviews (Kelly, 2012).
For settings considering implementing SWPBS, it is critical to ponder
what is influencing their decision to adopt it, what perceptions are held by
stakeholders in relation to it, and what capacity building and competency
190
Where to from here
development is required before commencement. For settings already imple-

menting SWPBS, their attention must turn to how to maintain and sustain
implementation fidelity. This demands a deep knowledge of the variables
that impact sustainability and how they interact (Fox, 2021). Finally, for
those who support SWPBS implementation in education settings, their atten-
tion may focus on how to scale the implementation of it with fidelity across
a district, region, or state. This will include a review of the systemic drivers,
structures, protocols, and organisational practices that will be essential in
ensuring it is implemented efficiently and effectively within and across edu-
cation settings (Putnam & Knoster, 2016).
Starting with sustainability in mind

Multiple blueprints and implementation guides (e.g., Implementation
Blueprint; U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (US OSEP), 2015) have been developed and used to support
SWPBS teams to plan for and create the conditions for sustained imple-
mentation with fidelity. The Implementation Blueprint provides an over-
view of the need to secure resources, describes ideal team structures and
actions, articulates the need for alignment with other initiatives, and details
necessary data systems to evaluate implementation progress (George et al.,
2018). Initial and full implementation efforts that adhere closely to the
Implementation Blueprint (US OSEP, 2015) provide the best chance for
sustained implementation from the outset.
As SWPBS teams begin their initial and full implementation efforts, con-
sideration must be given to how these efforts will be sustained over time.
Specifically, the sustainability of implementation must be addressed in plan-
ning in the initial and implementation stages, not simply conceptualised as
only an end goal of implementation (Bertram et al., 2015). During initial
implementation efforts, SWPBS teams support teachers to begin the process
of accurately and fluently implementing Tier 1 (Myers et al., 2020). At the
full implementation stage, all teachers will be supported to make SWPBS
part of their everyday work, expanding implementation to all relevant con-
texts (Kincaid & Horner, 2017; Myers et al., 2020). These same teachers will
be supported to adapt and adjust their existing implementation based on
specific needs identified through analysis of behavioural data collected
(Myers et al., 2020).
191
Challenges to sustaining implementation with fidelity continue to be

observed, and the abandonment of SWPBS implementation is an ongoing
hazard (McIntosh et al., 2015). To address this, researchers have increas-
ingly turned their attention to specific variables that may be barriers or
facilitators to the sustained implementation of SWPBS with fidelity (Horner
et al., 2017).
Readiness and installation

Readiness for change is ‘the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of
either resistance to, or support for, a change effort’ (Armenakis et al.,
1993, p. 681). When considering implementing SWPBS, it is important
to assess the following readiness factors from Greenhalgh et al. (2004).
First, is there a perceived need for change? Is there some urgency or
desire for change? This requires critically considering the outcomes of
what the staff are currently doing, and whether it is working for students
and teachers. Second, is SWPBS the right fit for the school’s culture? This
requires all staff receiving an overview of SWPBS, exploring examples of
how it has been used in other Australian education settings, and asking
questions of someone who has a sound knowledge of its implementation.
Assessing teachers’ and school leaders’ readiness is critically important to
the uptake and sustainability of SWPBS in education settings (Hustus &
Owens, 2018).
Buy-in and staff beliefs about SWPBS
Staff buy-in impacts on the successful and sustained implementation of

SWPBS (McIntosh et al., 2014; Pinkelman et al., 2015). Buy-in has been
operationalised and described as a continued commitment to SWPBS
activities (McIntosh et al., 2014; Pinkelman et al., 2015), staff ownership
and involvement in implementation (Andreou et al., 2015), including staff
‘enthusiasm and encouragement’ (Pinkelman et al., 2015, p. 176).
Staff beliefs that conflict with the SWPBS framework have been found to
negatively impact on its sustainability outcomes (Bambara et al., 2012). In
particular, these findings relate to the belief that punitive approaches to dis-
cipline are more effective and to disagreement with the use of reinforcement
to improve student behaviour.
192
Where to from here
Variables affecting successful and sustained

SWPBS implementation
Researchers have previously reported the following variables as critical to
SWPBS implementation sustainability.
Leadership
Effective leadership has been reported as critical to the successful and sus-
tained implementation of SWPBS (McIntosh et al., 2014). Leaders who are
actively engaged in its implementation have been reported to increase buy-in
and commitment from their staff (Andreou et al., 2015). Furthermore, sup-
portive leaders enhance team effectiveness, align SWPBS with other current
practices, and facilitate effective communication with staff (McIntosh et al.,
2014; Pinkelman et al., 2015).
Resourcing
The provision of adequate resourcing is essential to SWPBS sustainability.

Specifically, it is important to ensure that staff have adequate time to under-
take the activities of implementation, and that initial training is provided,
sufficient staffing is available to manage the workload, and enough fund-
ing is provided to support ongoing implementation (Feuerborn et al., 2016;
McIntosh et al., 2014).
Effective SWPBS teams
Effective teams have been reported to play a vital role in enhancing sustain-
ability outcomes. McIntosh et al. (2013, 2015, 2018) suggest that teams that
frequently share behavioural data with staff, communicate effectively with
colleagues, and meet frequently are more likely to sustain implementation.
Researchers have even suggested that effective SWPBS teams could over-
come deficiencies in other school-level practice variables, such as unsup-
portive school leadership (McIntosh et al., 2013).
Fidelity of implementation
Researchers have emphasised the importance of supporting those imple-

menting SWPBS to observe a visible positive effect of their efforts on student
193
behaviour (McIntosh et al., 2014; Pinkelman et al., 2015). In order to achieve

this, consistent implementation of core SWPBS practices with fidelity is criti-
cal. Specific fidelity-related practices commonly identified as impacting on
sustainability are the consistent use of systems of reinforcement across the
school, effective teaching of expected behaviours, and effective instruction
(Andreou et al., 2015; Feuerborn et al., 2016; Mathews et al., 2014).
Data collection and use
In their research, McIntosh et al. (2013) reported data collection to be the

most significant variable in their sustainability models. In contrast, ineffi-
cient data collection systems, poor data literacy and fluency in analysis, and
insufficient time have been reported as barriers to sustained implementation
(Bambara et al., 2012; Childs et al., 2010; Flannery et al., 2009).
Coaching
Coaching may be required to support staff to implement SWPBS with fidel-

ity. Within the SWPBS field, coaching refers to activities that support staff to
develop the required knowledge and skills to implement SWPBS. Critically,
this ensures that this knowledge translates into sustainable actions in all
school environments (Freeman et al., 2017).
Technical assistance
Technical assistance for SWPBS is the provision of easily accessible written

resources and online training, available at any time, plus access to a person
to call to provide advice when needed. This model has been used success-
fully in Missouri to support education settings to implement SWPBS with
fidelity, and has been found to positively impact on student outcomes with
fewer coaching hours (see Lewis, 2018).
Understanding how sustainability variables

interact
Each of the sustainability variables described above has been presented
as a standalone variable. While it is useful for school leaders and SWPBS
194
Where to from here
coaches to understand each of these sustainability variables independently,

there is a growing body of evidence indicating that these variables func-
tion together and interact in schools (see Fox, Sharma et al., 2021; Yeung
et al., 2016). For example, school leaders are responsible for the allocation
of resources to support implementation, enabling the creation of effective
teams, and allowing for staff to access coaching and technical assistance
within the school. Understanding sustainability variables as interactive may
allow SWPBS implementers to more accurately determine the root cause of
implementation challenges, potentially resulting in more effective alloca-
tion of time, and better focussing of staff efforts to address the underlying
SWPBS sustainability barriers.
Scaling and continuous regeneration

As education standards become more rigorous, and classrooms become
more inclusive of diverse learners, leaders are challenged to ensure that
the academic, social/emotional, and behavioural skills of all students are
nurtured (Fitzgerald & Geraci, 2014). For Australian education systems that
administer schools and other settings, this posits a challenge in addressing
changes needed within the system to support their leaders in this important
work. Knowing the benefits that SWPBS can offer, the question for Australian
education systems is: How can the framework be adopted at scale across the
country? Roadblocks such as time, resourcing, geographic isolation, access
to professional learning and expertise, and competing tensions in policy
positions and philosophical views on how behaviour is addressed are all
barriers to scaling the implementation of SWPBS (Fitzgerald & Geraci, 2014).
In 2015, Horner and Sugai offered four lessons for education jurisdictions
interested in scaling their SWPBS implementation efforts. First, they recom-
mend that systems identify the smallest number of core features, based on
current science, that are needed within their contexts to achieve outcomes
for all learners. As an example, schools implementing SWPBS are encour-
aged to teach expected behaviours to all learners. This is a core feature.
However, the way in which these expected behaviours are taught might vary
in schools based on the cultural makeup of the school community, and the
time and resources available to teach these behaviours. Second, the authors
recommend that schools ensure that they implement the necessary systems
so that settings can sustain the use of effective practices with fidelity.
195
One system example is that a school might need to revise its discipline
policy so that it permits SPWBS to be implemented with fidelity. Third,
schools should guarantee that effective systems are in place to enable set-
tings to use data to make decisions. Schools implementing SWPBS may
need to revise their data collection systems, not just to collect data on the
behaviours of concern, but also to document the perceived function of these
behaviours, so that these data can both inform and match the practices
selected as part of an SWPBS ecosystem. And finally, the authors recom-
mend that attention is given to the implementation of the core features of
SWPBS, including the role of teams in the implementation process, the
stages of implementation, and the development of systems and drivers that
allow research-validated practices to thrive (Horner & Sugai, 2015).
Fixsen (2013) recommends that the social significance of an innovation
like SWPBS is achieved when a minimum threshold of 60% of education
settings within a system are implementing with fidelity. At this stage, 3,000
(31%) of Australian schools have received training to implement SWPBS
(Poed & Whitefield, 2020), but there is a growing body of scholarship sup-
porting the wider implementation of it in Australian schools. Since the early
implementation efforts commenced in Australian schools, education juris-
dictions across the country have sought continuous improvement and regen-
eration of their efforts at scale. Barriers that impede these efforts include:
• the cyclical nature of education funding (where government depart-

ments invest in innovations only for as long as the term held by the cur-
rent minister, and changes in government’s political support jeopardise
the long-term sustainability of innovations)
• the lack of policy to support implementation efforts, as well as lack
of a Multi-tiered System of Support where the application of SWPBS
is viewed within a larger system that supports tiered intervention for
academics, mental health, attendance, and other areas where students
experience difficulty
• the access to coaching, training, and existing behavioural expertise to
facilitate implementation of SWPBS at scale and with fidelity
• evaluation efforts and the ability to demonstrate the impact of SWPBS
implementation.
Formed in 2014, APBSA, a network of the Association for Positive Behavior

Support (APBS), could assist education jurisdictions by working in partnership
196
Where to from here
to assist with their scaling efforts and to link members into professional
learning. As one example, a missing piece of research in Australia is data
on how many schools are implementing SWPBS with fidelity. While these
data are held at the school level, and potentially at the state level, lack
of a data system shared across education jurisdictions places researchers
examining SWPBS implementation at scale at a disadvantage compared to
our fellow US researchers, who can access data held on the School-Wide
Information System (SWIS) Suite (PBISApps, 2021). Strict Australian privacy
legislation prevents schools from providing data that crosses state and terri-
tory boundaries (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010). The creation of
a shared data system that allows implementation fidelity and scaled efforts
to be measured is critical to ensuring the sustained benefits provided to
schools that implement SWPBS with fidelity.
Lessons from and for Australia

Since Australian schools commenced their implementation journey early
this century (Poed & Whitefield, 2020) many lessons have been learnt that
can inform future implementation efforts. In this section, we summarise les-
sons from and for Australia that we believe will enhance the sustainability
and scale of SWPBS in schools.
Lessons for schools
Attention to readiness and sustainability are key to the successful imple-

mentation of SWPBS. The mantra of ‘work smarter, not harder’ is frequently
used in SWPBS training. There is no doubt that educators work hard, but
sadly much of the work occurs in individual education settings in isolation.
Moving forward, we suggest that educators share these systems and prac-
tices by:
• sharing the school matrix on the school’s website

• sharing lesson plans for teaching expected behaviours with other schools
that have the same SWPBS values
• creating an active matrix (Naylor et al., 2019); that is, an electronic ver-
sion of the expected behaviour matrix, where educators can click on
197
each indicator of an expected behaviour which then takes them to a

repository of lesson plans
• joining APBSA and its international counterpart APBS, and presenting at
conferences and webinars
• engaging with the published research and contributing to new research
to add to the knowledge base about the evidence-based application of
SWPBS in Australia.
Lessons for education systems
For education systems, including government education departments, dioc-

esan departments supporting Catholic schools, and independent offices sup-
porting independent schools, the challenge is how to bring about socially
significant educational change at scale, and how SWPBS can support this
change. The most significant barrier to SWPBS implementation being sus-
tained in Australia has been the practice of each education system ‘going
it alone’ and reinventing the wheel. Each system implementing SWPBS has
felt the need to create from scratch its own training and support systems,
with little reference to the work of other states and territories or sectors,
and limited sharing of resources among jurisdictions. This has led to many
inefficiencies and the duplication of effort, and prevents Australian schools
from accessing the best and most up-to-date SWPBS practices. We implore
education systems to work together, instead of in silos – in so doing, millions
of dollars can be saved, and SWPBS could be implemented with improved
outcomes for students. Practically, this could involve collaborating on con-
ferences, the development of shared resource hubs, or shared investment
in the development of data systems. APBSA has been established as a not-
for-profit organisation and is able and willing to bring sectors together and
act as a conduit for information and resource sharing. This model aligns
closely with the ways in which the US-based APBS and Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports operate to offer guidance and support
to systems and schools.
In addition to education systems working together and sharing data and
expertise, we strongly recommend that systems partner with universities
to assist with both training and the evaluation of SWPBS, or to participate
in joint research funded through Australian Research Council schemes.
While outcome data relating to system-wide implementation efforts may
198
Where to from here
be sensitive, public facing research and reporting on these outcomes may

increase the ability of systems to learn lessons from each other and inform
scaling.
Lessons for researchers and policy makers
Across Australia, many academics are teaching SWPBS in undergraduate

and postgraduate courses. We encourage each of those academics to part-
ner with their local education jurisdictions, to form part of their regional/
state leadership team, to guide implementation fidelity, and to report on
evaluation efforts. The establishment of communities of practice or working
groups that include members of departments of education, system leaders,
and researchers may assist in this work. Further, researchers need to look
for opportunities to collaborate on grant applications to support Australian-
focused and contextually relevant SWPBS research. At present, the efforts
expended on implementing SWPBS in Australian schools is not matched
by publication outputs, meaning much of the great implementation work
happening in Australia is hidden from the international research commu-
nity. APBSA supports an emergent network of Australian researchers that
academics are encouraged to join.
The Australian Student Wellbeing Framework (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2020) calls for all schools to develop wellbeing, build relation-
ships, and promote safety. While the development of this framework was
funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Education, Skills and
Employment, the status of this document is unclear, with some education
jurisdictions unaware of its presence, and many schools unfamiliar with both
the framework and its suite of supporting resources. The implementation of
SWPBS can help achieve the vision articulated within the framework, yet
few education jurisdictions have explicitly called for schools to implement it.
Creating a national taskforce, of federal and state education policy officers,
university academics, and the peak association for PBS, would help facilitate
the implementation of this framework and the scale of SWPBS in schools.
Lessons for the peak body
In Australia, APBSA is the peak body; as previously noted, it is an

international network of APBS. As a new organisation, there are many
199
opportunities for it to lead the scale of SWPBS implementation with fidel-

ity. First, the association could provide resources on an open platform to
create a community of practice. Second, the association could consider
the use of national recognition systems for schools achieving high levels
of fidelity of implementation and student benefit. Many other jurisdictions
have these systems, with schools proud to proclaim they are, for example,
‘a gold SWPBS school’ or a ‘silver SWPBS school’. Third, APBSA could
look to supporting the sharing of information between education juris-
dictions, ensuring that materials are no longer secured behind password-
protected walls. APBSA could facilitate professional learning and capacity
development through conferences, and the development of high-quality
training materials that align with the latest research-based evidence.
Finally, APBSA could support evaluation efforts, using the Hexagon Tool
(Metz & Louison, 2018), evaluation briefs (Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports, 2021), and other fidelity measures to report on
the readiness, sustainability, and scale of SWPBS implementation in and
across Australian schools.
Apply your ideas: Readiness in Australian schools

The preceding discussion has indicated the contribution of readiness to
implementation fidelity and sustainability. To increase the availability
of reliable and valid tools to support Australian education settings con-
sidering implementation of SWPBS, the Australian SW-PBIS Readiness
Checklist for Schools and State/Sector 2021 was developed by the third
author of this chapter for this Handbook (see the Appendix for a photo-
copiable version). This tool was compiled using established instruments
created by Davis and Salasin (1975), Greenhalgh et al. (2004), Pinkelman
et al. (2015), and Robbins et al. (2004) but is still subject to validation
and reliability trials.
Part A of this instrument provides a quick survey for educational leaders
considering implementing SWPBS. This offers a measure of the perceived
need for change, and captures staff and leadership buy-in critical for suc-
cess. The responses can be compiled to determine whether an education
setting meets the suggested 80% readiness for implementation criteria; if
not, some actions to try and get to readiness are suggested.
200
Where to from here
Once staff have considered readiness, they next consider the practical
steps required to support implementation using Part B within the organisa-
tion. This more ‘nuts and bolts’ multi-level assessment is to be completed by
staff who showed willingness to be part of the SWPBS leadership team, in
addition to the education setting’s formal leadership.
Apply your ideas: Practical assessment

of sustainability variables
Some reliable and valid survey measures that may be useful in under-
standing how staff perceive sustainability variables include the School-
wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index – School Teams (SUBSIST;
McIntosh et al., 2011), the Assessment of Barriers to Implementation and
Sustainability in Schools (ABISS; Turri et al., 2016), and the Teachers’ Beliefs
and Experiences of Behaviour Support survey (TBEBS; Fox, Sharma, et al.,
2021). TBEBS was specifically designed for use in Australian schools and
uses minimal SWPBS terminology.
Some schools may already be using multiple survey tools and could seek
other means of understanding staff perception of SWPBS sustainability vari-
ables. Open-ended questions have also been used to understand teachers’
perception of SWPBS sustainability variables within their school (e.g.,
Pinkelman et al., 2015). Typically, these questions ask staff for (1) a descrip-
tion of what they perceive to be the greatest facilitators to SWPBS imple-
mentation sustainability, and (2) a description of what they perceive to be
the greatest barriers to its implementation sustainability. Asking open-ended
questions may allow implementers to gather more detailed descriptions of
the specific variables that are affecting implementation sustainability within
their school.
Tips for application in schools
Undertaking additional data collection may be very useful in supporting

school staff to adjust the systems and supports for implementation. The
following suggestions are aimed at maximising the utility of collected sus-
tainability data, while ensuring that any collection efforts do not impose
201
significant additional tasks or constraints on teachers’ existing workloads

(Fox, Leif, et al., 2021). To support the use of sustainability surveys:
1. Organise a whole-school staff meeting with no agenda items but SWPBS

sustainability data collection.
2. Schedule SWPBS data collection activities (e.g., a PBIS Self-Assessment
Survey, Sugai et al., 2003; a Tiered Fidelity Inventory, Algozzine et al.,
2019) away from other school data collection efforts, school reporting
periods, or major school events (e.g., school concerts).
3. Develop online surveys through Google Forms, Qualtrics, or Survey
Monkey to reduce the response effort in completing, collecting, and col-
lating responses.
If survey data present a significant challenge in collection, collation, and

analysis, then open-ended questions may be more useful.
1. Create a safe space for staff to respond with honesty about the facilitators
and barriers they face. Anonymous response options may enhance these
feelings of safety.
2. Online options such as open field responses using the online survey plat-
forms noted above may be useful, as staff can respond in their own time.
References
Algozzine, B., Barrett, S., Eber, L., George, H., Horner, R., Lewis, T. J., Putnam, B.,
Swain-Bradway, J., McIntosh, K., & Sugai, G. (2019). School-wide PBIS Tiered
Fidelity Inventory. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports. www.pbis.org
Andreou, T. E., McIntosh, K., Ross, S. W., & Kahn, J. D. (2015). Critical incidents
in sustaining school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. The
Journal of Special Education, 49, 157–167. doi:10.1177/0022466914554298
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness
for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. doi:10.1177/
001872679304600601
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010). Summary of ‘cross border data flows’
principle. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/for-your-information-australian-
privacy-law-and-practice-alrc-report-108/31-cross-border-data-flows/summary-
of-cross-border-data-flows-principle/
202
Where to from here
Bambara, L. M., Goh, A., Kern, L., & Caskie, G. (2012). Perceived barriers and
enablers to implementing individualized positive behavior interventions and sup-
ports in school settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(4), 228–240.
doi:10.1177/1098300712437219
Bertram, R. M., Blase, K. A., & Fixsen, D. L. (2015). Improving programs and out-
comes: Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social
Work Practice, 25(4), 477–487. doi:10.1177/1049731514537687
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2021). Evaluation briefs.
https://www.pbis.org/resource-type/evaluation-briefs
Childs, K. E., Kincaid, D., & Peshak George, H. (2010). A model for statewide evalua-
tion of a universal positive behavior support initiative. Journal of Positive Behavior
Commonwealth of Australia. (2020). Australian Student Wellbeing Framework.
https://studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/media/9310/aswf_booklet.pdf
Davis, H. R., & Salasin, S. E. (1975). The utilization of evaluation. In E. Struening &
M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (vol. 1, pp. 621–666). Sage.
Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of mid-
dle and high school teacher perceptions of schoolwide positive behavior sup-
ports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 219–229. doi:10.1177/
1098300716632591
Fitzgerald, C., & Geraci, L. (2014, March 19–22). Scaling up rural schools using
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [Conference session]. American
Council on Rural Special Education Conference, Morgantown, West Virginia.
https://www.acres-sped.org/files/d/b835cfac36a24f3698ce7e4c9bd23dde/2014a
cresconferenceproceedings.pdf#page=93
Fixsen, D., (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs.
Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide positive behav-
ior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 11(3), 177–185. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/
10.1177/1098300708316257
Fox, R. A. (2021). Towards an understanding of school-wide positive behavioural
interventions and supports implementation and sustainability in Victorian schools
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Monash University.
Fox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., Furlonger, B., Anderson, A., & Sharma, U.
(2021). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained
implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Education and Treatment of Children. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/
s43494-021-00056-0
time’: Identifying Victorian teachers’ perceptions of the facilitators and barriers
to supporting improved student behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special and
Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/jsi.2021.6
203
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging
knowing to doing. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 29–37. doi:10.1080/00405841.
2016.1241946
George, H. P., Cox, K. E., Minch, D., & Sandomierski, T. (2018). District practices
associated with successful SWPBIS implementation. Behavioral Disorders, 43(3),
393–406. doi:10.1177/0198742917753612
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004).
Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and
recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/
j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of Applied Behavior
Analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis Practice,
8, 80–85. doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Fixsen, D. L. (2017). Implementing effective educational
practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 20(1), 25–35. doi:10.1007/s10567-017-0224-7
Hustus, C. L., & Owens, J. S. (2018). Assessing readiness for change among school
professionals and its relationship with adoption and reported implementation of
mental health initiatives. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47, 829–844. doi:10.1007/
s10566-018-9463-0
Kelly, B. (2012). Implementation science for psychology in education. In B. Kelly &
D. F. Perkins (Eds.), Handbook of implementation science for psychology in edu-
cation (pp. 3–12). Cambridge University Press.
Kincaid, D., & Horner, R. (2017). Changing systems to scale up an evidence-based
educational intervention. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and
Intervention, 11(3–4), 99–113. doi:10.1080/17489539.2017.1376383
Lewis, T. J. (2018, May). Is school-wide positive behavior support an evidence-based
practice? [Invited presentation]. University of Nicosia Symposium on Positive
Behavior Support, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Mathews, S., McIntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & May, S. L. (2014). Critical features pre-
dicting sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interven-
tions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 168–178.
doi:10.1177/1098300713484065
McIntosh, K., Kim, J., Mercer, S. H., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., & Horner, R. H. (2015).
Variables associated with enhanced sustainability of school-wide positive behav-
ioral interventions and supports. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(3),
184–191. doi:10.1177/1534508414556503
McIntosh, K., MacKay, L. D., Hume, A. E., Doolittle, J., Vincent, C. G., Horner,
R. H., & Ervin, R. A. (2011). Development and initial validation of a measure
to assess factors related to sustainability of school-wide positive behavior sup-
port. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 208–218. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300710385348
204
Where to from here
McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., Hume, A. E., Frank, J. L., Turri, M. G., & Mathews,
S. (2013). Factors related to sustained implementation of schoolwide positive
behavior support. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 293–311.
McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., Nese, R. N. T., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., Kittelman, A.,
Hoselton, R., & Horner, R. H. (2018). Factors predicting sustained implementa-
tion of a universal behavior support framework. Educational Researcher, 47(5),
307–316. doi:10.3102/0013189X18776975
McIntosh, K., Predy, L. K., Upreti, G., Hume, A. E., Turri, M. G., & Mathews, S.
(2014). Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sus-
tainability of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior
Metz, A., & Louison, L. (2018) The Hexagon Tool: Exploring context. National
Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/
resources/hexagon-exploration-tool
Myers, D., Simonsen, B., & Freeman, J. (2020). Implementing classwide PBIS: A
guide to supporting teachers. Guilford Press.
Naylor, A., Spence, S. E., & Poed, S. (2019). Using video modelling to teach
expected behaviours to primary students. Support for Learning, 34(4), 389–403.
doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12274.
PBISApps. (2021). SWIS Suite. https://www.pbisapps.org/Applications/Pages/SWIS-
Suite.aspx
Pinkelman, S., McIntosh, K., Rasplica, C., Berg, T., & Strickland-Cohen, K. (2015).
Perceived enablers and barriers related to sustainability of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports. Behavioral Disorders, 40(3), 171–183.
https://doi.org/10.17988/0198-7429-40.3.171
Poed, S., & Whitefield, P. (2020). Developments in the implementation of Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports in Australian schools. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 56(1), 56–60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/
1053451220910742
Putnam. R. F., & Knoster, T. (2016). A reply to the commentaries on ‘School-wide
PBIS: An example of Applied Behavior Analysis implemented at scale of social
importance’ by Horner and Sugai (2015): PBIS is function over form: The clear
behavioral roots and opportunities the PBIS framework presents to the field of
behavior analysis moving forward. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 95–101.
doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0092-x
Robbins, V., Collins, K., Liaupsin, C., Illback, R. J., & Call, J. (2004). Evaluating school
readiness to implement Positive Behavioral Supports. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 20(1), 47–66. doi:10.1300/J370v20n01_04
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Todd, A. (2003). EBS self-assessment survey. Educational
and Community Supports, University of Oregon.
205
Turri, M. G., Mercer, S. H., McIntosh, K., Nese, R. N. T., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., &
Hoselton, R. (2016). Examining barriers to sustained implementation of school-
wide prevention practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42(1), 6–17.
doi:10.1177/1534508416634624
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs [US OSEP].
(2015). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Implementation Blueprint:
Part 1 – Foundations and supporting information. https://www.pbis.org/resource/
pbis-implementation-blueprint
Review, 28, 145–170. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9305-7
Further reading
www.pbis.org/resource/how-to-get-pbis-in-your-school
www.pbis.org/resource/high-school-pbis-implementation-staff-buy-in
www.pbis.org/resource/starting-stopping-or-sustaining-new-empirical-research-on-
implementation-of-swpbis
www.midwestpbis.org/coaches/starting-pbis-at-each-tier/starting-pbis-tier-I
https://pbismissouri.org/tier-1-readiness/
https://kentmcintosh.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/subsist-checklist-1-1.pdf
www.pbis.org/resource/coaches-self-assessment
www.pbis.org/resource/district-level-coaching
206
Appendix
Australian SW-PBIS
Readiness Checklist for
Schools and State/Sector
2021 (Payne, 2021)
This Australian version is made from these

readiness checklist examples, which are
gratefully acknowledged
1. Pennsylvania’s Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
System: Training Readiness Checklist for Individual Schools (Adapted
from SWPBS Readiness Checklist 1.14.05 doc - Florida’s PBS Project at
USF and Illinois PBIS Network: Schoolwide PBIS: Training and Readiness
Checklist for Individual Schools).
2. Missouri Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support: Initial Readiness
Checklist for Individual Schools.
Instructions
This checklist is designed to allow schools and sectors to measure if the
key elements of readiness are in place, before making a commitment to
implement SW-PBIS. It includes suggested actions to increase each readi-
ness factor.
207
Appendix
If you are working in a school, use Part A and

Part B
o Organise for a whole staff awareness of SW-PBIS session. This should
include information about what SW-PBIS is, what the main components
are, Australian implementation examples, the expected outcomes, and
time investment required from staff. This session should include time to
ask questions.
o After this session, provide the Appendix version of Part A to all staff. It
should take about five minutes for all staff to complete this.
o Collate the answers to Part A and use the Actions for a team to get to
readiness to guide your next steps.
o If over 80% of staff answered YES to questions 1–8 on Part A, and you
have a group of people interested in being on the leadership team,
schedule a meeting to complete Part B.
If you are working on the implementation of

SW-PBIS at scale (in a state, region, or sector)
use Form C

o The team responsible for scaling up SW-PBIS implementation to
answer the questions together, and use the Actions for State/Region/
Sector Leadership Team to get to readiness, in conjunction with the
Implementation Blueprints at www.pbis.org to plan actions.
This Readiness Checklist was developed using

these research articles about SWPBS readiness
Davis, H. R., & Salasin, S. E. (1975). The utilization of evaluation. In E. Struening and
M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (vol. 1). Sage.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004).
Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recom-
mendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
208
Appendix
Pinkelman, S. E., McIntosh, K., Rasplica, C. K., Berg, T., & Strickland-Cohen, M. K.
(2015). Perceived enablers and barriers related to sustainability of School-Wide
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Behavioral Disorders, 40(3), 171–
183. https://doi.org/10.17988/0198-7429-40.3.171
Robbins, V., Collins, K., Liaupsin, C., Illback, R. J., & Call, J. (2004). Evaluating school
readiness to implement. Positive Behavioral Supports. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 20(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v20n01_04
Australian SW-PBIS Readiness Checklist (Payne, 2021)

Part A – ALL STAFF in a school considering SW-PBIS
Complete this with your whole school staff AFTER the Overview/Awareness
presentation, BEFORE the school makes a commitment. (This version has Actions
for a team to get to readiness.)
Questions for all staff Answer Actions for a team to get
options to readiness
1. Our school improvement plan o Yes Provide school plans to all
includes school-wide discipline o No staff, review and discuss as
(i.e., active engagement with a staff.
learning, behaviour, school climate,
school safety) as one of our top
three goals.
2. Do we need to change our school- o No Provide information (data
wide behaviour support or discipline o Yes or case studies) about
policy? how the school discipline
system is and is not
working, comparisons
to like schools and PBIS
schools.
3. Our whole school staff have o Yes Provide an overview
participated in a session which o No session and readings –
provided an overview of SW-PBIS, resources are available at
some examples of how it has www.pbis.org
been implemented in Australian
schools, and an opportunity to ask
questions.
4. I am willing to provide input at staff o Yes Provide examples of how
meetings or when working with a o No other schools have used
school-based team to identify school Data Based Decision
concerns and to set goals to address Making.
these.
209
Appendix
5. I am willing to provide input at staff o Yes Provide examples of

meetings or when working with a o No how other schools have
school-based team to make decisions developed expectations
about expectations, rules, routines, and how staff feel this has
and procedures in our classrooms been helpful.
and shared areas.
6. I am willing to actively teach o Yes Show videos of lessons.
students our school behaviours, o No
dedicating some lesson time to doing
so.
7. Our school currently collects data o Yes Show the school’s current
about student behaviour errors, in a o No data system and outputs.
form that can be easily graphed so
we can see change over time.
8. I am willing to collect data about o Yes Provide examples of how
student behaviour errors and o No other schools have used
successes in my learning area, to Data based Decision
be used for whole school decision Making with results that
making and so we can see change change over time.
over time.
9. I would like to be part of the o Yes Provide more information
school SW-PBIS Leadership Team, o No about the training and
attending training and some meeting schedule for
additional meetings after school to the SWPBIS team (time
build systems to support all staff to commitment) team
implement SW-PBIS. processes, roles, and
responsibilities.
Please circle your role AND your
answer
Principal Classroom Teacher
Other staff member (please specify
____________)
Results: to progress SW-PBIS it would be ideal to have over 80% of staff answer YES to ques-
tions 1–8, and for a group which represents the school staff (about 5–10 people, plus Principal)
to answer YES to Q 9.
210
Appendix

Part B – School Admin and PBIS Leadership Team
Complete this as a group – including all the staff who nominated an interest in
being part of the SW-PBIS Leadership Team – after you have all of the data from
Part A.
Use a consensus decision-making strategy to get whole-team answers to these
questions.
Questions Answer Actions for a team to
get to readiness
Internal 80% or more of our school o Yes Give additional
School staff answered YES to most o No information about
Readiness questions in Part A of the SW-PBIS and more time
and Readiness Checklist. to ask questions. Ask
Resources for concerns or barriers
and address them using
information from www.
pbis.org
A Schoolwide Positive o Yes Discuss with those
Behavioural Interventions o No who nominated who
and Supports (SW-PBIS) Team else needs to be on the
is formed and has broad team and approach
representation. them to join.
Staff responsible for making o Yes Discuss with the
discipline decisions are active o No Principal the
participants on SW-PBIS importance of
Team and attend all training leadership support
sessions. for SW-PBIS (see
Pinkelman et al., 2015).
SW-PBIS Team commits to o Yes Discuss with those
meet at least once a month o No who nominated their
during the training/building availability for meetings
phase of SW-PBIS to design and the importance of
the schoolwide systems. meeting regularly.
Some time at whole school o Yes Discuss with Principal/
staff meetings has been o No school leaders the
allocated to reviewing the importance of all staff
draft schoolwide systems having input into the
developed by the SW-PBIS schoolwide systems
team, and for all staff and negotiate some
to review and suggest time or systems for staff
improvements. input.
211
Appendix
SW-PBIS Team commits o Yes Discuss with those

to meet at least once a o No who nominated their
month ongoingly (once availability for meetings
schoolwide systems are and the importance of
built and launched) to meeting regularly.
analyse and problem-solve Read through the
schoolwide data about the information on the TFI
impact of SW-PBIS on student and SAS (fidelity data)
behaviour AND on fidelity of and the collection of
implementation. the ‘Big 5’ about Office
Discipline Referrals/
student behaviour
errors.
School has allocated/secured o Yes Allocate funding to
funding to support their o No cover training, relief,
SW-PBIS initiatives. and a small budget for
printing and resources.
An internal coach/team leader o Yes Identify a person on
has been identified to receive o No the team who has time
additional training on leading available and is keen
SW-PBIS and has some time to learn more about
allocated to co-ordinating the SW-PBIS.
school-wide systems.
Supports We can identify staff o Yes Discuss available
outside employed at the state/district/ o No supports with your
school regional/sector level who are state/district/sector
readiness/ the lead SW-PBIS contact or leaders.
supports coordinator.
We know what kind of data o Yes Read through the
(about fidelity and student o No information on the TFI
impact) we will need to and SAS (fidelity data)
collect and provide to the and the collection of
state/district/sector level. the ‘Big 5’ about Office
Discipline Referrals/
student behaviour
errors. Discuss with
your trainer/technical
assistant how other
schools are collecting
this data.
212
Appendix
We can access training and o Yes Discuss available

ongoing technical assistance o No supports with your
to implement SW-PBIS. state/region/sector
SW-PBIS leadership
team OR engage an
external provider.
We know how long training o Yes Ask your trainer for
will take and can dedicate o No a training map, and
the required time to training discuss meeting
and to regular team meetings frequency as a team.
(fortnightly to monthly
frequency).
Dates are collected, and both o Yes Add the training dates
analysed at monthly meetings o No and meetings to the
to determine priorities as well school calendar.
as to inform training.
Results: to progress SW-PBIS it would be ideal to have YES answers to all the questions above.

Form C for States/Regions/Sectors
Complete this to support decision making and planning for large scale SW-PBIS
implementation – use the PBIS Implementation Blueprint https://www.pbis.org/
resource/pbis-implementation-blueprint and other Blueprints available at www.
pbis.org
Questions Answer Actions for State/Region/
Sector Leadership Team to
get to readiness
We have a reason for doing o Yes Discuss and map with key
SW-PBIS at scale. o No stakeholders.
We have within school, system
and community pressures to do
SW-PBIS
We have a good understanding o Yes Seek information from
of what SW-PBIS is, and what o No www.apbsaustralia.org.au
implementation can achieve.
213
Appendix
Based on the information, we think o Yes Consider the key elements

SW-PBIS is the best fit behaviour o No of SW-PBIS and map
support for our organisation. these against existing
organisation planning
documents and policies.
We have support from the highest o Yes Discuss the adoption of
levels of our organisation to pursue o No SW-PBIS with Executive
SW-PBIS. and/or Minister and explain
how critical leadership
support is to successful
and sustained adoption of
SW-PBIS.
We have a team within our o Yes Provide an overview of
organisation who are passionate o No SW-PBIS to interested
about supporting schools with parties, include the
SW-PBIS. PBIS Implementation
Blueprint https://www.
pbis.org/resource/pbis-
implementation-blueprint
and role of the Leadership
team.
We have sought information o Yes Discuss and map with key
from those who are opposed to o No stakeholders.
PBIS, and have some information
to provide them on why we are
supporting PBIS implementation.
We have a partner organisation to o Yes Seek information from
assist us with planning using the o No www.apbsaustralia.org.
blueprint and regularly evaluating au to find information on
implementation fidelity and partner organisations who
student outcome. can assist with planning,
training, technical
assistance, and evaluation.
Consider leveraging
partnership research funds
to support this work.
214
Appendix
We have mapped out, or have o Yes Discuss with your external

information from other sectors o No partner organisation what
about how they have, the time training will look like
needed (number of days/meetings over the project. See the
for a school team) for sustainable Training and Professional
implementation of all 3 tiers over Development Blueprint for
3–5 years. PBIS
https://www.pbis.org/
resource/training-and-
professional-development-
blueprint-for-pbis
We know the kind of information o Yes See the Evaluation
we need to get from schools to o No Blueprint (https://www.
show pbis.org/resource/pbis-
evaluation-blueprint)
(a) SW-PBIS is being done with and discuss with partner
fidelity organisation.
(b) the impact that this is having on Review the plan for data
students. collection with schools to
ensure it is feasible.
We have funds and personnel o Yes Develop with the external
available to drive this project as o No partner organisation a
per the Blueprint. budget and project plan for
at least 3–5 years.
We can collect and analyse o Yes See the Evaluation
data about student outcome o No Blueprint (https://www.
from pre and during SW-PBIS pbis.org/resource/pbis-
implementation. evaluation-blueprint)
and ensure school-wide
data collection system is
consistent with collecting
(at minimum) the big 5
in graph form, and this
information can be collated
and analysed at the state
level.
215
Appendix
Part A – ALL STAFF photocopy ready version

Part A – ALL STAFF in a school considering SW-PBIS
AFTER overview/awareness presentation, BEFORE commitment
Are you a:
o Principal
o School Leader/Administrator
o Classroom Teacher
o Other (please specify _________________)
1. Our school improvement plan includes o Yes
school-wide discipline (i.e., active o No
engagement with learning, behaviour, school
climate, school safety) as one of our top three
goals.
2.Do we need to change our school-wide o No, it’s working great
behaviour support or discipline policy? o Maybe a bit – some edits
needed
o Yes – it’s not working, and
we need to try something
else
3. Our whole school staff have participated in o Yes
a session which provided an overview of o No
SW-PBIS, some examples of how it has been
implemented in Australian schools and an
opportunity to ask questions.
4. I am willing to provide input at staff meetings o Yes
or when working with a school-based team o No
to identify school concerns and to set goals to
address these.
5. I am willing to provide input at staff meetings o Yes
or when working with a school-based team o No
to make decisions about expectations, rules,
routines, and procedures in our classrooms
and shared areas.
6. I am willing to actively teach students our o Yes
school behaviours, dedicating some lesson o No
time to doing so.
7. Our school currently collects data about o Yes
student behaviour errors, in a form that can o No
be easily graphed so we can see change over
time.
216
Appendix
8. I am willing to collect data about student o Yes

behaviour errors and successes in my learning o No
area, to be used for whole school decision
making and so we can see change over time.
9. I would like to be part of the school SW-PBIS Please circle your role AND
Leadership Team, attending training and some your answer
additional meetings after school to build o Principal Yes/No
systems to support all staff to implement o Classroom Teacher Yes/No
SW-PBIS. o Other staff member
If you choose Yes, please write your name (please specify
here: ____________________)
Yes/No
Do you have any other comments or questions about SW-PBIS?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Thank you!
217
Glossary
Active supervision Purposeful teacher movement and attention to create

frequent opportunities for prompting, teaching, encouraging, and
correcting expected behaviours.
Antecedent A stimulus or an event within an environment that precedes a
behaviour.
Applied Behaviour Analysis The use of scientifically based behavioural
principles to improve socially significant behaviour, and experi-
mental methods to a demonstrate functional relationship between
an intervention and behaviour.
Approach A practice used by a school to support a learner academically,
behaviourally, socially, or emotionally.
Behaviour of concern A general term for ‘problem behaviour’ and ‘chal-
lenging behaviour’, that is typically differentiated by intensity, fre-
quency, and duration. A behaviour of concern relates to contextual
variables that contribute to problems that extend beyond the indi-
vidual. A behaviour of concern is typically associated with lower
levels of participation, performance, social inclusion, and overall
quality of life.
Behaviour Support Plan A written record that summarises the results from
a collaborative behavioural assessment, intervention components,
and evaluation strategies.
Behavioural momentum Using a sequence of easier task requests to build
momentum to complete more challenging task requests.
Classroom procedures The steps needed for students to successfully com-
plete classroom tasks or activities, such as entering and leaving the
classroom.
218
Glossary
Classroom setup and organisation The physical layout of the classroom

and the way furniture, resources, and equipment are organised to
enhance learning conditions.
Coaching Activities that support staff to develop the required knowledge
and skills to develop and implement school-wide systems. Critic
ally, coaching ensures that this knowledge translates into durable
actions in all school environments.
Complexity theory How different elements within an education system
connect and interact with one another, learn from one another,
adapt, and cope with uncertainty or unpredictability.
Contextual fit The level of agreement between the elements of an interven-
tion and the existing knowledge, skills, resources, and values in the
setting.
Continuum of Supports The provision of a range of academic, behavioural,
or social-emotional supports and interventions matched to stu-
dent needs.
Cultural responsiveness Indicates the capacity of an individual or organi-
zation to demonstrate the knowledge, values, and skills that enable
effective supports for people from a culture different to their
own.
Data based decision-making The systematic use of information that con-
tributes to improved student outcomes.
Desired behaviours Socially agreed behaviours that are self-managed, pro-
ductive, and contribute to positive outcomes.
Discipline referrals Refers to an event where a student engaged in behav-
iour that disregarded a school expectation or rule. It is required
that the behaviour was observed and documented by an adult.
Disruptive behaviour The outcomes or effects related to behaviours of con-
cern, particularly in classroom contexts.
Diversity The range of identities that exist in a group of people, including
race, class, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.
Engagement A construct comprising behavioural (observable actions),
emotional (affective reactions), and cognitive (investment in learn-
ing) forms.
Evidence-base A field of knowledge that develops rigorous, peer reviewed
published research with strong internal and external validity.
Evidence-based practice An educational approach that is supported by rig-
orous causal or synthesis research.
219
Glossary
Evidence-informed practice An educational approach that uses evidence

derived from practitioner experience and evidence from formal
research.
Expectations The agreed beliefs, attitudes, and values that inform the
desired behaviour in a setting.
Fidelity The extent to which an implemented practice, programme, or
approach aligns with the evidence that supports its use.
Framework The structures and processes that underpin the development of
school systems and implementation practices.
Functional Behavioural Assessment A systematic process for identifying
problem behaviours, and the events that predict and maintain
those behaviours. It is used to develop preventative and responsive
behaviour support plans.
Function-based support The integration of behavioural function into sys-
tems and practices to promote positive social environments.
Function-based support is multi-tiered, and relates to preventa-
tive practices and response capacity.
Implementation science Research that explores ways to increase the
uptake and sustainability of evidence-based practices and
supports.
Incorporating choices The deliberate provision of two or more options to
students during academic instruction, such as student choice of
activities or materials to be used.
Intervention A change made within the environment designed to alter the
behaviour of a student, or an action taken to improve a student’s
chance at learning and behavioural success.
Intervention science Research that explores evidence-based approaches
that can be used in classrooms and schools to support learners.
Multi-Tiered Framework A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a
data-driven, problem-solving framework to improve outcomes for
all students. It uses a continuum of evidence-based practices
matched to student needs.
Opportunity to respond A curriculum or instructionally based statement,
gesture, or visual cue that prompts a student to respond individu-
ally or jointly with other students.
Performance feedback Information collected during the direct observa-
tions of adult behaviour that is used to improve implementation
fidelity.
220
Glossary
Positive Behaviour Support A research-based assessment, intervention,

and decision-making process that involves developing the func-
tional capabilities of people, preventing behaviours of concern,
and creating supportive contexts
Pre-correction A teacher-delivered cue which specifically states the desired
social behaviour, presented prior to a task or activity where a spe-
cific behaviour is required.
Prevention science Research that explores ways in which to prevent stu-
dents from needing more targeted or intensive approaches, sup-
ports, or interventions.
Professional learning Formal or informal learning experiences undertaken
by educators to improve their individual professional practice.
Prosocial behaviour Behaviour that results in benefits or supports for other
people.
Readiness The preparedness of a school to take on an approach and imple-
ment it with fidelity.
Reinforcement An action, consequence, item, stimulus, or response that
has a specific effect on a behaviour, either ensuring that a behav-
iour is maintained or ceases.
Replacement behaviours Socially acceptable behaviours that are explicitly
taught to replace behaviours of concern, and to support the learn-
ing of desired behaviours. Replacements must be functionally
more efficient, effective, and relevant from the individual’s per-
spective, compared to the behaviours of concern.
Scale The ability of an education jurisdiction to expand the implementa-
tion of an approach to an increasing number of schools, while
maintaining implementation fidelity.
School-wide Positive Behaviour Support An evidence-based multi-tiered
framework to improve and integrate all of the data, systems, and
practices that affect school students.
Screening A proactive process for identifying and predicting students who
might be at risk of academic or behavioural difficulty.
Supports Scaffolds designed to assist a student so that they experience suc-
cess at school.
Sustainability The ability to maintain the implementation of an approach
with fidelity over time.
Technical assistance Support to implement evidence-based practices by
building general-capacity and programme-specific capacity and
221
Glossary
facilitating communication across several systems (researchers,

policy makers, communities, and programme providers).
Tier 1 Universal Supports Tier 1 supports serve as the foundation for behav-
ioural and academic learning in a school. By design, universal sup-
ports are preventative and are provided to all students.
Tier 2 Targeted Supports Tier 2 supports are provided to groups of students
with similar functional needs. These supports provide frequent
opportunities for skill development, practice, and feedback, using
teaching strategies linked to Tier 1 supports.
Tier 3 Intensive and Individualised Supports Tier 3 supports are designed
for individuals to reflect their functional needs, and are docu-
mented in a behaviour support plan. The supports provide inten-
sive levels of skill development, practice opportunities, and
feedback, with teaching strategies linked to Tier 1 supports.
Tiered Fidelity Inventory The TFI is a self-assessment instrument to guide
the initial implementation and sustained use of School-wide
Positive Behaviour Support. The TFI provides scores for the three
tiers and generates information for an implementation action
plan.
Wraparound support A family-centred, strength-based process used to
guide individualised service planning for students with, or at risk
of, emotional/behavioural difficulties and their families.
222
Index
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander x, Barriers 11–12, 15, 18, 27, 37, 39, 42,
97, 109, 128, 130, 143 64–65, 76, 79, 86, 88, 93–94, 96–97,
Academic achievement 7, 10, 18, 40, 104, 128–129, 133, 138, 152,
47, 57, 69, 114, 123, 125 189–190, 192, 194–196, 201–203,
Accessible 30, 37–38, 97, 138, 148, 205–206, 209, 211
152, 155–158, 165–166, 194; Behaviour: Challenging 18, 21, 22,
inaccessible 92, 154 25, 43, 46, 60, 65, 87, 102–104,
Active supervision 45, 47, 52–53, 60, 106–107, 148, 150, 169, 171, 190;
181, 185 Desired 35, 75, 160–163; Disruptive
Adjust 37, 75, 107, 152, 154, 155–156, 28, 33, 48–49, 55, 80, 101,
162–163, 165, 191, 201; Adjustments 108–110, 113, 117, 124, 150, 186;
26, 65, 68, 72, 130–131, 140, Environmental interactions xi, 4–5,
148–150, 152–157, 159–166 27–28, 32–34, 38, 132; Measurement
Adoption 2, 19, 24, 55, 83, 190, 31–32, 35, 174, 187; Of concern
204, 214 4–5, 7, 13, 25, 30, 36–39, 65, 74,
Agency 4, 123, 128, 131, 134–135, 87, 89–91, 93–95, 97, 108, 110,
141, 144 120–122, 148–151, 153, 157, 159,
Antecedent 5, 8, 28, 32–33, 42, 60, 160–164, 175–176, 179, 196;
75–76, 90–91, 160–163, 174 Phenomenon of interest 29; Private
Anxiety 31, 98, 139, 150, 151 events 30–31, 43; Prosocial xi, 1, 4,
Applied Behaviour Analysis xi, 14, 24, 7, 95, 106, 113, 124, 129, 147, 170,
26–27, 89, 135, 151 172, 174–180, 182; Replacement
Assessment xi, 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 21, 4, 94–95, 155, 156, 160–163, 175;
25, 27, 35, 37, 41, 42, 44, 53, 58, Specific praise 36, 47–48, 61
59, 69–71, 74, 85, 86–91, 93, 96, Behaviour Support Plan 3, 86–87, 90–92,
100–104, 110, 116–117, 121, 127, 99–100, 134, 159–160; Behaviour
141, 150, 158–160, 162, 166–167, Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide
176, 184–185, 201–202, 204–206 II (BIP QEII) 92, 100; Person-centred
Association for Positive Behavior Positive Behaviour Support Plan
Support 168, 190, 196 (PC-PBS) 92, 97
Association for Positive Behaviour Behavioural momentum 36, 46, 54
Support Australia x, xiv, xv, 14, 190 Bullying xii, xv, 13, 15, 22, 80, 135,
Attendance 21, 55, 69, 71, 98, 114, 139, 143, 146, 150, 166, 168,
124, 176, 184, 196 170–188
Australian Research Council 108, 198 Buy-in 7, 36, 93, 192–193, 200, 206
Autistic 132, 136, 141–142, 144 Bystanders 172, 185
223
Index
Centre for Education Statistics and 193–194, 196–198, 201–202,

Evaluation 3, 17, 35, 41, 108, 126 209–212, 215–217; Collection 26,
Check In Check Out (CICO) 74, 76, 47–48, 56, 75–76, 88, 91–92, 95,
117, 155, 158 109, 175–176, 194, 196, 201–202,
Choice 39, 43, 46, 54, 60, 107, 117, 215; Direct 90; Indirect 90; Systems
155–156, 160–161, 163 88, 191, 198; Use 25, 65, 87
Classroom: Climate 38, 47, 49, 186; Data based decision making 5, 48, 88,
Practices 2, 45–49, 51, 55, 57, 68, 108, 152, 209–210
108, 115–116, 118; Procedures 46, Differentiate 25, 44, 65, 107, 121, 132,
50, 52; Set up and organisation 51; 148, 169; Differentiation 148
Systems 45–47 Discipline referrals 89, 113, 117, 121,
Coaching 7–8, 12, 15, 22, 47–48, 157, 173, 175, 212
55–56, 59, 61, 62, 95, 98, 169, 177, Disability 3, 5, 10–11, 15, 17, 21, 22, 38,
189, 194–196, 204, 206; Within 44, 61, 65, 67–68, 81, 87, 90–91, 101,
school 12, 22, 56–57, 62, 169 130–131, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142,
Community 6–7, 29, 35–37, 39, 61, 90, 147–154, 157–159, 164–166, 168
94, 101, 107, 109, 111–112, 118, Discrimination 81, 129–130, 135, 139,
121, 123–124, 128–129, 131–138, 142, 148
141–142, 144, 171, 174–177, 184, Disproportionate 131;
190, 195, 199–200, 205, 213 disproportionality 131, 144;
Complex support requirements 149–150 disproportionately 164
Consequences 4, 19, 32–33, 51, 90–91, Diversity 14, 94, 128, 130–131,
95, 115, 120, 123, 162, 177, 179, 135–136, 140–141, 149, 152;
181–182 gender 14, 114, 128, 131–132, 135,
Contextual fit 4, 86, 92–93, 97, 138–141, 143–144, 146; LGBTQIA+
99–100, 102, 103, 142; Contextual 141; neurodiversity 135, 137, 142,
Fit Enhancement Protocol (CFEP) 93, 144; Transgender 131, 138–140,
103; Self-Assessment of Contextual 143–144, 146
Fit 93, 102; School Contextual Fit
Checklist 92, 99 Ecosystem 15, 72, 76–77, 151, 196
Core features xii, 24–25, 65, 141, Enablers 11, 15, 64, 76, 86
195–196 Engagement 2, 7, 14, 21–22, 36, 38–39,
Covid-19 7–8, 22–23, 143 43, 46, 47–51, 53–55, 57, 59–60,
Culture 78, 94, 97, 110, 112, 116, 121, 76, 101, 103, 106, 108, 112–115,
125, 130–132, 145, 192; Cultural 123–124, 134, 137, 143, 145, 167,
bias 129; Cultural Responsiveness 94, 187, 209, 216
97, 100, 103, 128–133, 141–142, Equity 94, 132–133, 138
144, 145; Cultural Responsiveness Evaluating xv, 7, 27, 39, 72, 92
Field Guide (CRFG) 94, 100, 103, Evidence 9–11, 13, 57, 72, 73–74, 108,
129, 133, 144; Culturally responsive 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 124–125,
practices 14, 128, 130–131, 138, 181; Evidence-base 3, 6, 35, 77, 79,
141, 143, 145 111, 120, 198, 219; Evidence-based
Cut scores 70 practice 5, 8, 12, 14, 25–26, 39–40,
Cyberspace 174 45–51, 55, 65, 130, 136, 147,
151–152, 154, 159, 164, 175, 219,
Data xi, 4, 6–7, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 220; Evidence-informed practices 45,
25–26, 29, 32, 35, 40–41, 47–48, 56, 57–58
52, 56–58, 64–65, 67, 69–70, 72–73, Exclusionary practices 149
75–77, 79, 81, 87–92, 94–95, 101, Expectations 6, 12, 13, 50–52, 66–67,
103–104, 106, 108–109, 111–113, 68, 112, 120–124, 132, 153, 155,
115–116, 118, 120–123, 126, 133–139, 157–158, 175, 177, 180, 182, 220;
141–142, 149, 152, 156–157, 159, Teaching 51, 120
166, 171–176, 183, 185, 191, Explicit instruction 35–36, 74
224
Index
Family 30, 88, 90, 92–95, 98, 111, 118, Intervention 4, 7, 10, 14, 26, 29, 32,
133–134, 140, 141, 150, 155, 158; 37, 64, 67, 68, 70–73, 77, 81, 86,
Family-centred 90, 94, 141 93–94, 96–98, 110, 112, 117, 118,
Feedback 6, 34, 36, 50, 52, 53, 120, 149, 151, 154–156, 159, 164,
55–57, 67, 74, 116, 121, 122, 170, 172–177, 182–183, 190, 196,
137, 156, 157–158, 178–181, 220; Grid 70–71, 81; Science 2, 7,
220; Attributional 171, 178, 24, 26–28, 73, 190, 195
180; Descriptive 178; Negative
116; see also Reinforcement –
negative; Performance 55–56, 220; Lessons 54, 55, 112, 115, 120, 124,
Positive 50, 53, 121, 122; see also 152, 177; Education systems 198;
Reinforcement – positive; Specific 50, Policy makers 199; Researchers 199;
53, 179 Schools 197
Fidelity 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 64–66, 68–69,
72, 76–77, 78, 86, 87, 89, 92–93, Marginalisation 134–135; Marginalised
95, 114, 120, 125, 133, 154, 165, 94, 128–129, 132, 134–136, 141–142
191–197, 199–200, 202, 220, 222; Matrix 51, 134, 157, 197
implementation x, xii–xiv, xvi, 2, Mental Health 2, 13, 19, 20, 37, 40,
5–7, 12, 92–93, 114, 120, 191, 43, 69, 82, 84, 90, 96, 139, 143,
197, 200 145, 150, 168, 184, 196, 204
First Nations 10, 13, 14, 128–130, 132, Monitoring 96, 115, 120, 121, 134,
135–137, 141 153, 156, 159, 181, 183; Progress-
Framework 3, 4, 7, 11–15, 26, 35, 37, monitoring 7, 56, 67, 71–72,
39–40, 47–48, 65, 78, 86, 94, 108, 81, 154; Self-monitoring 37, 56,
111, 113, 128, 131, 147, 151, 154, 155–156
159, 170, 172–173, 182, 190, 192, Motivating operations 33
195, 199, 220 Multi-tiered framework 1, 6, 7, 40, 42,
Function 4, 27–28, 35, 64, 76–78, 45, 67, 76, 78, 81, 83, 84, 88, 120,
89–92, 94–96, 98, 111, 113, 155–156, 125, 131, 124, 145, 150, 182, 196
158, 195–196, 220; Functional Multi-Tiered Systems of Support xii, 1,
Behavioural Assessment (FBA) xi, 6–7, 40, 67, 76, 78, 88, 120, 131,
13, 35, 38, 86–87, 89–95, 97, 159, 196, 220
164, 220; Function of behaviour 28,
154; Functional understanding of
behaviour 66, 75, 81 NAPLAN 116, 123
Good behaviour game 36

Observation 55–57, 118, 160; Direct
Group contingency 36
91, 95, 174
Opportunities to Respond (OTR) 36,
Identity 94, 131, 133, 136 46–47, 54–57
Implementation Blueprint 3, 67, 109, OSEP Technical Assistance Center on
111–112, 120, 191 Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Implementation Science 190, 220 Supports 47, 111, 112
In2School 86, 96, 98 Outcomes 8, 10, 12, 14, 28, 33, 35–37,
Inclusion 14, 131, 134, 140, 149, 47–50, 54–55, 57, 69, 106, 108–109,
151–153, 165; Inclusive education 111–112, 116–117, 120, 123, 125,
147, 148, 150 129, 132, 147–165, 189, 192–194,
Instruments 69, 92, 93, 99, 100, 162, 195, 198–199
174, 200; see also Tiered Fidelity Over-representation 149
Inventory (TFI); Self-Assessment
Survey (SAS); School-Wide Evaluation
Tool (SET); Strengths and Difficulties Payoff 173
Questionnaire (SDQ) PBS Capability Framework 3, 4
225
Index
Peers 28, 65, 68, 98, 119, 139, 149, 41, 60, 62, 82, 126, 172, 184–186;
150, 156, 158, 161, 182; Deviancy Randomised control trial 9–10, 95,
training 182; Mentoring 74, 181; 111, 114; Quasi-experimental 11,
Victimisation 150, 170–172, 174 108, 114; Structural equation
Performance feedback 55–56, 220 modelling 114, 186; Systematic
Person-centred 4, 5, 27, 86, 91–92, review 9–10, 18, 19, 22, 58, 59, 60,
97–98, 164 82, 103, 111, 114, 126, 130, 143,
Positive psychology 38 150, 165, 168, 169, 172, 184, 185,
Practices 4, 7–8, 11–14, 24–25, 35–37, 203, 204, 208
39–40, 45–50, 54–57, 65, 68–69, 73, Reward 33, 34, 123, 158
77–78, 80, 88, 94, 108–113, 115–117, Reward systems 40, 80, 115
118, 120–121, 130–132, 136, 137–138, Rights 164; Disability 5, 131, 135, 145,
141, 147–155, 164–165, 175, 189, 148, 151, 164, 169; Human 4, 5, 146
191, 193, 194, 195–196, 197, 198
Precorrection 53 Scale xi, 5, 6, 8, 9, 77, 102, 191, 195,
Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) 86, 92, 196–200, 204, 205, 208, 213
95–96, 159–160 School leadership 7, 13, 15, 17, 77, 78,
Prevention 7, 35, 37, 47, 52, 66, 108, 92, 107, 108, 109–112, 113, 115, 118,
110, 124, 147, 149, 152, 153, 159, 120–121, 125, 132–135, 139–141,
170–172, 174–175, 182, 190, 221 149, 175, 183, 193, 199–201, 208,
Prevention science 184, 190 210, 211, 213, 214, 217
Proactive classroom management 42, Surveys 19, 121, 123, 164, 173,
45, 47, 49, 58, 60, 62, 63 176, 202
Procedures see classroom procedures School climate xii, 58, 109, 111–112,
Professional learning xi–xii, 2, 45, 114, 121, 126, 172–173, 177–178,
47–49, 55–57, 61, 66, 76–77, 152, 183, 209, 216
171, 190, 195, 197, 200 School refusal 85, 96, 98, 100,
Punishment 33 102, 103
School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)
Racism 134 121, 127
Readiness 37, 84, 115, 118, 141, Screening 7, 68, 69–70, 73, 79, 82,
189–192, 197, 200–202, 204–206, 84–85, 88–89, 152, 157
207–217 Seclusion 4, 164
Reinforcement 25, 29, 30, 33–37, 40, Segregated settings 151
75, 89, 92, 96, 121, 153, 155, 156, Self-Assessment Survey (SAS) 121, 212
160, 161, 179, 192, 194; Negative Self-management 25, 37, 42, 113
33; Positive 33; Versus rewards 34 Self-reporting 37, 176
Relationships 6, 30, 47, 87, 90, 122, Social-ecological 2, 5, 173–174, 182,
129, 135, 140, 143, 150, 153, 199; 185, 186
Teacher-student 45, 46, 48–51, 61, Social competence 38, 52, 151
113, 117, 122, 123, 178 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
Research evidence hierarchy 2, 9, 15 38–40, 84, 111, 182, 184
Restorative justice 181 Social skills 37, 43, 75–76, 81, 96, 98,
Restrictive practices 4, 21, 148, 149, 110, 155, 156, 158, 162, 179
150, 164, 168 Staff beliefs 192
Research 2–4, 7, 8, 9–12, 15, 26–28, Strengths 4, 5, 36, 38, 90, 93, 129,
39, 45, 48, 49, 52, 54–58, 65, 66, 147, 150
73, 77, 79, 84, 91, 93, 96, 97, 108, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
111, 117, 120, 124–125, 130, 136, (SDQ) 84, 89, 102
138, 149, 150–151, 153–154, 165, Student connectedness 113
172, 178, 182, 190, 194, 196–200, Student differences 37, 90, 131,
208; Meta-analysis 9–10, 16, 19, 22, 136, 184
226
Index
Student voice 5, 15, 25, 36–37, 42, Tiers (support systems) 6; Tier 1 6,
43, 92, 94, 128, 129, 131, 132–134, 10–13, 18, 22, 35, 45–46, 49, 56,
141, 144, 145 64–70, 72, 73, 75–78, 81, 83, 86,
Supports 5–7; Academic 7, 10, 18, 28, 88, 89, 93, 94, 110, 112, 115,
29, 33, 37, 38, 40, 48–50, 53–55, 131, 134, 137, 138, 152–154, 157,
57, 64, 69–70, 73–74, 76, 77, 79, 158, 165, 168, 180, 182, 191, 206;
81, 88, 98, 100, 108, 113–114, 117, Tier 2 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, 35, 56,
123, 125, 149, 151, 163, 185, 195; 64–85, 86, 88, 89, 98, 103, 110,
Continuum of supports xi, 6, 8, 14, 76, 113, 115, 117, 126, 134, 153–155,
93, 102, 110–112, 117, 131, 152–153; 157–158, 165, 167–169, 181–182;
Intensive see Tier 3; Secondary Tier 3 6, 10, 12–14, 19, 21, 35,
see Tier 2; Social and behavioural 35, 42, 56, 66–68, 72, 78, 86–105,
74, 149; Targeted see Tier 2; Universal 110, 134, 153, 154, 159, 160, 164,
see Tier 1; Wraparound 87, 88, 90, 181–182
96, 98, 102, 104 Tiered fidelity inventory (TFI) 20,
Sustainability 7, 12, 15, 18, 23, 45, 62, 89, 100, 92, 133, 165, 202,
82, 83, 127, 189–202, 203–206, 209 212, 222
Systems within schools xi, 2, 4, 5–7, 14, Tool see Instruments
19, 36, 39–40, 42, 43, 45–48, 56, Trauma 13, 19, 20, 182
58, 59, 67, 77, 78, 81–84, 88, 92, Treatment Acceptability Rating
94, 101, 109, 110–113, 115, 120, Form-Revised (TARF-R) 93
123–125, 129, 131, 132, 137, 138,
141, 142, 145, 152, 175, 190, 191, Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
194–196, 198, 210–212, 217 37–38, 140, 166
Targeted see Tier 2

Validity 4, 9, 186; Ecological 4;
Teams 191, 193, 199, 208; Building
Social 4, 57, 83, 95, 99
134–137, 191, 195–196, 201,
Variables xi, 27, 28, 30, 91, 92, 114,
209–217; Interventions 76, 90, 91,
131, 191–195, 201, 204
95, 153, 157, 158, 183; Leadership
7, 72, 77, 78, 90, 109–111, 175, 193
Technical adequacy 20, 87, 92, 95, Wellbeing xi, 4, 5, 7, 14, 21, 25, 38,
102, 142 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 53, 75, 87, 90,
Technical assistance xi–xii, 15, 47, 106–108, 111–113, 121, 124–125,
61, 83, 100, 103, 111, 112, 183, 127, 129, 143, 151, 170–172, 190,
194–195, 202, 213, 214 199, 203
227

Positive Behaviour Support - Routledge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Positive Behaviour Support - Routledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School-Wide Positive

Drawing upon twenty years of experience putting the Positive Behaviour

Katrina Barker is Associate Professor in the School of Education and Director

Shiralee Poed is Chair of the Association for Positive Behaviour Support

List of Figures vii

1 School-wide Positive Behaviour Support within

2 Perspectives on behaviour support in Australian schools 24

3 Tier 1 in the classroom: Interventions to support all learners 45

4 Tier 2: Targeted approaches, interventions, and supports 64

5 Tier 3: Intensive approaches, interventions, and supports 86

6 Impact of School-wide Positive Behaviour Support on

7 Cultural responsiveness and diversity 128

8 Ensuring inclusive outcomes for young people with

9 Bullying prevention and prosocial skill development

10 Where to from here: The readiness, sustainability, and scale

1.1 Integrated system of supports 6

1.1 Professional standards for teachers 2

2.1 The example of anxiety 31

We wish to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of country through-

alternative educational settings, state and national initiatives, along with an

Katrina Barker is Associate Professor in the School of Education and Director

Kate de Bruin is Senior Lecturer in inclusion and disability in the Faculty

Russell Fox is an educator with experience teaching in primary, second-

Matthew Harrison is an experienced educator, researcher, and digital creator

Lorna Hepburn has extensive experience as a teacher, head of department,

Jane M. Jarvis is Senior Lecturer and Co-Chair of the Research in Inclusive

Erin Leif is a Board-Certified Behaviour Analyst and Senior Lecturer in the

Lisa McKay-Brown is Director of Professional and Continuing Education at

Julie M. McMillan is Senior Lecturer and Co-Chair of Research in Inclusive

Mary Mooney is Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University. Mary was

Anthea Naylor is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Melbourne

Roberto H. Parada is a child and adolescent psychologist and Senior

Jennifer Payne is a teacher and psychologist, passionate about educators’ use

Shiralee Poed is Chair of the Association for Positive Behaviour Support

Anne Power is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Western

Sharonne Telfer has extensive experience supporting schools with the

Tom Tutton is Executive Manager, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), sup-

Phillip Whitefield has worked as a teacher, school principal, and consultant

Professional standards for teachers

Table 1.1 Professional standards for teachers

Focus Descriptor Chapter example

There is also a need to decode the relevant broad narratives evident in

• developing the functional capabilities of people

As elaborated in later chapters, the behaviour analytic tradition contin-

Table 1.2 Positive Behaviour Support Capability

(NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2019, p. 14.)

Academic Systems Behavioural Systems

Tier 3 Supports Tier 3 Supports

Tier 1 Supports Tier 1 Supports

Figure 1.1 Integrated system of supports

strategies, practice opportunities, and feedback strategies are in agreement.

Table 1.3 Evidence-based practices common to multiple environments

• Paying frequent attention to positive • Rearranging situations so that

(Biglan et al., 2020, p. 160).

An additional unifying feature of PBS is its multidisciplinary characteris-

Characteristics of the SWPBS evidence base

Randomised control studies

Cohort studies Validity

Case control studies

Figure 1.2 Hierarchy of evidence

studies achieving higher validity by minimising the impact of bias on the

International evidence from early childhood,

1.1 Integrated system of supports 6

1.1 Professional standards for teachers 2

• Paying frequent attention to positive • Rearranging situations so that

In many Australian school systems, ‘explicit instruction’ practices are strongly

increase student engagement, and contribute towards positive teacher–