Foundations and Current Issues of Schoolwide

Positive Behavior Supports

Ronald C. Martella, Ph.D.1

Support students with and without disabilities in accessing general education settings and curricula in a successful manner.

2

Overall Goal

Students with disabilities are often segregated; if they are included in the general education environment, they are frequently not integrated into the classroom along with other students (Freeman et al., 2006; Sailor & Roger, 2005).

3

Unfortunately,

“Elementary classrooms that are responsive to the diverse needs of all learners ensure that accommodations and modifications are made to enable students with disabilities, including those with significant needs, to participate in and benefit from general education classroom instruction…. Such efforts create an emotionally and socially supportive culture within the classroom in which all students feel safe, welcome, and integral as members of the learning community” (Salisbury & Strieker, 2004, p. 223).

4

What Our Overriding Goal Should Be

5

• The same holds true for middle schools (Fisher, Frey, & Kennedy, 2004) and high schools (Wehmeyer & Sailor, 2004).

• Thus, we must consider the whole school climate if we are to best meet the needs of all students including those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

• We should use a PBIS perspective to determine how the learning environment can be altered to better support every student (Heflin & Alaimo, 2007; Martella, Nelson, Marchand-Martella, & O’Reilly, 2012).

• Need: Multiple responses because students respond differently to their environments based on varying learning histories.

The Schoolwide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (SWPBIS) approach represents the integration of four key elements (Martella et al., 2012): Systems approach (use of prevention-based practices,

team-based problem solving, active administrative support and participation, data-based decision making, and a full continuum of behavior support to accommodate the range of intensities of problem behavior that occur in schools).

Science of human behavior (ABA) (behavior comes under the control of environmental factors and can be changed).

6

Key Elements to Meets this Goal

Improvement of the living and learning options available to students, their peers, and their families (consideration of all parts of a student’s day [before, during, and after school] and important social contexts [home, school, neighborhood, and community]; enhancement of prosocial behavior that affects living and learning opportunities (academic, family, social, work) (e.g., Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002) [Ecobehavioral approach (EBA)].

Evidence-based and practical interventions (use of assessment information and the teaching and support of adaptive behavior).

7

8

Foundations of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports:

Science of Human Behavior (ABA)

9

Reward◦ Something given to the student

Reinforcement◦ Presentation or removal of something as a

consequence for behavior that increases the frequency of the behavior Cannot be identified beforehand

10

Reward vs. Reinforcement

Positive Reinforcement: (a) presentation of a stimulus, (b) contingent on a behavior, and (c) increases the frequency of the behavior.

Negative Reinforcement: (a) removal of a stimulus [aversive], (b) contingent on a behavior, and (c) increases the frequency of the behavior.

11

Reinforcement

Positive Punishment: (a) presentation of a stimulus [aversive], (b) contingent on a behavior, and (c) decreases the frequency of the behavior.

Negative Punishment: (a) removal of a stimulus [reinforcing], (b) contingent on a behavior, and (c) decreases the frequency of the behavior.

12

Punishment

13

14

15

Not all Students Respond the Same

16

Why is it Important to Distinguish Between

Positive and Negative Reinforcement?

Positive reinforcementNegative reinforcement

17

We Learn for One of Two Reasons:

18

Ms. Smith sees that John is not working on his math but is doodling. She walks over to him and reprimands him for doodling. John continues to doodle.

Ms. Taylor sees that Twana is on-task while she is working on her math. Ms. Taylor approaches Twana and praises her for her work. Twana’s on-task performance decreases.

Joan provides attention to Susie every time she swears. Susie’s swearing increases.

Every time Brian refuses to complete his work, he is sent to time out; however, Brian’s behavior continues.

19

Reinforcement/Punishment Exercise

Ms. Jackson tells Steve that if he continues to get high marks on his assignments, she will recommend him for the “student of the year award.” Steve begins to get lower grades.

John wants to improve Julie’s sharing behavior. Therefore, he asks Julie what she would like to earn if she plays with other children properly. Julie indicates that she would like to earn an extra 5 minutes of recess. John agrees with her request and they set up a behavior contract. John believes that the extra 5 minutes of recess will be a reinforcer because it is something Julie has indicated she wants.

Ms. Jackson indicates that negative reinforcement is not working because John’s swearing behavior continues to get worse. Ms. Jackson says that this shows that negative reinforcement does not work.

20

Behavior is contextual.Behavior serves a function.Removal of the source of reinforcement will result in a reduction of the behavior.

Assessment information will aid in the development of an effective behavior plan.

21

Assumptions of the Functions of Behavior

Potential Functions of a Behavior

22

23

Motivating Factors Linked to Student Behavior (Attention)

Attention (students have been reinforced in the past by attention from others)

Example 1: Teacher is helping another student with a math problem (Antecedent) Billy begins to hit his desk (Behavior) Teacher goes over and reprimands Billy (Consequence)

Example 2: Teacher is helping another student with a math problem (Antecedent) Billy raises his hand (Behavior) Teacher goes over and helps Billy with his work (Consequence)

24

Motivating Factors Linked to Student Behavior (Tangible/Activity) Tangible/Activity (students have been reinforced in the past by obtaining a

tangible object/activity)

Example 1: Tommy is playing on the computer (Antecedent) Sarah pushes Tommy away from the computer (Behavior) Sarah gets access to the computer (Consequence)

Example 2: Tommy is playing on the computer (Antecedent) Sarah asks Tommy is she can play on the computer (Behavior) Tommy lets Sarah play on the computer (Consequence)

25

Motivating Factors Linked to Student Behavior (Escape)

Escape (students have been reinforced in the past by escaping/avoiding an aversive event)

Example 1: Teacher tells Susan to begin her seat work (Antecedent) Susan tells teacher to do the work herself (Behavior) Teacher sends Susan to time out (Consequence)

Example 2: Teacher tells Susan to begin her seat work (Antecedent) Susan asks teacher if she can begin work in 5 minutes (Behavior) Teacher allows Susan to begin work in 5 minutes (Consequence)

Where do Many of Our Behavior Problems

Originate?

26

EBA stresses assessment of instructional environmental factors as well as other factors such as family and school support (Watson, Gable, & Greenwood, 2011).

EBA “provides a sequential picture of the interrelationships between environmental and instructional factors (e.g., classroom settings, type of instruction, and teacher behaviors) and a student’s opportunity to respond” (p. 335).

“The results of EBA studies show that failure to deliver effective instruction compounds the already negative effects of low socioeconomic, cultural, and familial factors that place many young children at risk” (p. 336).

Critical Variables:School Culture Family

27

Ecobehavioral Approach (EBA)

Family, Neighborhood, School, and Social Risk Factors Students are Exposed to:

Modeling of aggression (harsh and inconsistent parenting); emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse; poverty; neglect; drug and alcohol abuse by parents; negative parental attitudes toward schooling; parent criminality; exposure to media violence; family issues (e.g., death, divorce).

28

Risk Path to Antisocial Behavior

(Sprague & Golly, 2005)

Development of Maladaptive Behavioral Manifestations:

Learned coercive interaction patterns, aggression toward peers, defiance of adults, and lack of school readiness and problem-solving skills.

29

This exposure leads to:

Negative Short-Term Outcomes:

Peer and teacher rejection, low academic achievement, high levels of school disciplinary referrals, truancy, frequent movement to different schools, beginning drug and alcohol use, first arrest an an early age (i.e., less than 12 years of age).

30

These manifestations produce:

Negative, Destructive, Long-Term Outcomes:

High levels of school failure and dropout, delinquency, drug and alcohol use, gang activity, violent acts and criminality from a young age through adulthood, and higher injuries and death rates at younger ages.

31

These outcomes lead to:

Community/Social

Home

School

32

Factors Contributing to Antisocial Behaviors

Antisocial network of peers. Lack of prosocial engagements and modeling

of maladaptive interaction styles.

33

Community

Need: Enhance teachers’ general awareness of classroom social structures to increase their skill in creating “contexts that promote students’ productive behavior and reduce problematic peer affiliations and negative perceptions of the peer environment” (Farmer et al., p. 156).

Social interchanges Social network membership and social structures Social roles and reputations Inclusionary and exclusionary peer group processes

“Social dynamics may serve as setting events that promote antisocial patterns that increase students’ risk for involvement in antisocial behavior” (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lambert, 2012, p. 150).

“social structures and peer group processes contribute to the types of bullying and aggression that undergird antisocial behavior in the school context” (Farmer et al., p. 150).

Inconsistent management.

Reactive discipline.

Lack of monitoring.

34

Home

Stressors (e.g., financial—money management, job skills)

Child management/interaction skills (use of coercion) Emotional/attachment issues

35

Understanding and Supporting Families

See Simpson, Peterson, and Smith (2011).

36

Personal Experience

We can reliably predict which children will be oppositional in school by age 3.

The single best predictor of delinquency in adolescence is behavior difficulties exhibited in elementary school.

For those students who have more severe problem behaviors, the problem behaviors do not simply disappear over time.

The stability of aggressive behavior over a 10-year period is about the same as the stability of intelligence over the same time period. The stability of IQ scores is approximately .70 while the stability of aggressive behavior is .60 to .80.

If problem behavior persists after 3rd grade, the likelihood of making successful changes later in a student’s academic career diminishes radically.

After 3rd grade, behavior problems should be viewed as a chronic problem.

Walker, H. M. (1995).

37

Statistics on Problem Behavior

The Development of Antisocial Behavior Patterns

Patterson, G. R. (1982).

38

Studied 42 families:--13 higher SES children--23 middle/lower SES children--6 low SES children

Observed every month for 1 hour for 2.5 years.

Observations began when children were 7-9 months of age.

39

Meaningful Differencesin the Everyday Experiences of

Young American Children (Hart & Risley, 1996)

Children from higher SES families (1200 words).

Children from middle SES families (800 words).

Children from low SES families (580 words).

40

Differences in Vocabulary at 36 months

41

Graphic Display of Vocabulary Growth

In a typical hour, the average child would hear:

High SES family 2,153 wordsMiddle SES family 1,251 wordsLow SES family616 words

42

Actual Differences in Quantity

of Words Heard

High SES 215,000 words of language experience

Middle SES 125,000 words of language experience

Low SES 62,000 words of language experience

43

Cumulative Language Experience in a Typical Week

In a typical hour, the average child would hear:--High SES family

32 affirmations5 prohibitions

--Middle SES family12 affirmations7 prohibitions

--Low SES family5 affirmations11 prohibitions

44

Differences in Quantity of Interaction

High SES 45,000,000 words560,000 more instances of encouraging feedback

Middle SES 26,000,000 words100,000 more instances of encouraging

feedback

Low SES 13,000,000 words125,000 more instances of discouraging

feedback

45

Cumulative Language Experience

at Age 4

46

Graphic Display

Management procedures

Academic instruction

47

School

Non-Alterable and Alterable Variables

48

One of the Most Critical Aspects of Management is the Creation of a Positive School/Classroom Climate

49

Teachers allow over 90% of all appropriate behavior to go unrecognized.

Teachers are two to five times more likely to recognize inappropriate behavior than they are to recognize appropriate behavior.

Teacher attention to inappropriate behavior is typically of such a nature as to increase the probability that the behavior will be strengthened--will occur with regularity.

50

Unfortunately…

Latham (1992)

The least effective response to school violence is:

◦ Punishment

51

Research Findings

Zero tolerance policies.Increased surveillance.Increased suspension & expulsion.In-service training by expert.Alternative programming.

…..Predictable systems response!

52

When behavior doesn’t improve, we “Get Tougher!”

A punishing climate can be a setting event for problem behaviors.

A school climate relying on punishing consequences can provoke problem behaviors (e.g., increases in antisocial behavior, breakdown of student-teacher relations, degradation of school/social climate, and/or decreases in academic achievement).

53

Caution:

Exclusion and punishment are the most common responses to conduct disorders in schools.

Chandler & Dahlquist (2006); Martella et al. (2012); Skiba & Peterson (2000); Sprick, Borgmeier, & Nolet (2002)

Exclusion and punishment are ineffective at producing long-term reduction in problem behavior

Chandler & Dahlquist (2006); Martella et al. (2012)

54

The Challenge

Adapted from OSEP Center on PBIS

Exposure to exclusionary discipline has been shown, not to improve school outcomes, but in fact to be associated with higher rates of school dropout.

Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock (1986); Skiba, Peterson, & Williams (1997); Sprick et al. (2002); Wehlage & Rutter (1986)

55

The Challenge

Punishing problem behaviors (without a proactive support system) is associated with increases in (a) aggression, (b) vandalism, (c) truancy, and/or (d) dropping out.

Chandler & Dahlquist (2006); Kerr & Nelson (2006); Mayer (1995); Mayer & Sulzar-Azaroff (1991); Martella et al. (2012); Skiba & Peterson (1999)

56

The Challenge

Adapted from OSEP Center on PBIS

“We have the knowledge and the skill to make our schools effective instructional environments with a minimal use of suspension and expulsion.”

“We have no evidence that suspension and expulsion make a positive contribution to school safety or improved student behavior; they may in fact have significant unintended negative consequences for students and school climate.”

Russ Skiba, Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, May 2002

57

The Challenge

Student avoids person providing aversive stimulus.

Student may be fearful of the person providing the aversive stimulus.

May stop other student behavior/provokes withdrawal.

Models the use of aversive stimuli.Promotes negative self-esteem.Promotes aggression toward person providing aversive stimulus.

Negatively reinforcing to person providing aversive stimulus/over used.

58

Negative Side Effects of the

Use of Aversive Stimuli

Importance of being positive (5 to 1). Establish a positive relationship with students.

59

Thus, An Important Aspect of SWPBIS is School and Classroom Climate

Marzano and Marzano (2003) meta analysis of more than 100 studies found 31% fewer discipline problems and rule violations for teachers who had positive relationships with their students over the course of a year than teachers who did not have such positive relationships.

60

Importance of Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

Managing behavior:◦ Explicitly teach and encourage classroom-wide

expectations.◦ Explicitly teach classroom routines◦ Aim for a ratio of 5 positive to 1 negative adult-

student interactions.◦ Engage in active supervision.◦ Provide precision requests for minor, infrequent

behavior errors.◦ Use preventative strategies such as pre-

corrections for chronic errors.◦ Ensure that curriculum is matched to student

skill.

61

How to Make Interactions More Positive

Avoid Negative Traps:1. Criticism2. Sarcasm3. Logic4. Threats5. Arguing6. Questioning7. Physical force8. Despair/pleading/hopelessness

62

How to Improve the Quality of Teacher-to-Pupil

Interactions

63

Breaking the Chain

64

Another Important Aspect is Self-Management and Self-Determination

See Fitzpatrick and Knowlton (2009) on self-management and Wehmeyer et al. (2012) on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction.

Should be available to ALL students

65

66

67

Critical Issues of Schoolwide Behavior Supports

Evidence-based and practical interventions?

Over 18,000 schools across the nation

Positive results—expect approximately 50% reduction in ODRs

However………

68

SWPBIS

Validation of SWPBIS and its components Validation of Office Discipline Referrals

(ODRs) Integration of SWPBIS and Response to

Intervention (RTI) (or multi-tiered academic programming)

69

Three Critical Issues for Future Attention

Lane, Robertson, and Graham-Bailey (2006) examined the methodological considerations of 14 SWPBIS studies published between 1990 and 2005.

Results: Several methodological limitations (a) limited demographic information, (b) lack of treatment integrity, (c) use of mostly descriptive research designs, and (d) lack of adequate outcome measures.

Lane et al. concluded that many SWPBIS investigations produced desirable outcomes. However, methodological limitations indicated we can only be “cautiously optimistic” about the effects of SWPBIS.

70

1. Validation of SWPBIS

Horner, Sugai, and Anderson (2010) reviewed 46 articles published between 2000 and 2009 and considered the totality of studies in supporting efficacy of SWPBIS rather than individual studies.

Criteria: (a) the practice and participants are defined with operational precision, (b) the research employs valid and reliable measures, (c) the research is grounded in rigorous designs, (d) the research documents experimental effects without iatrogenic outcomes, and (e) the research documents effects (fidelity and sustainability).

According to Horner et al., “the overall [SWPBS] approach carries sufficient experimental documentation to be classified as evidence based and to warrant large scale implementation” (p. 11).

71

Chitiyo, May, and Chitiyo (2012) used the Horner et al. (2010) criteria but considered them for individual studies.

34 studies published between 1990 and July 2011were included in this review that reported primary level behavioral supports.

24 studies were excluded from the analysis as a result of being descriptive in nature. Thus, 10 studies were considered experimental and were included in the analysis.

2 of the 10 studies (i.e. Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Horner et al., 2009) met all five criteria for the evidence base for SWPBIS. Thus, more validation studies must be conducted.

72

Sanetti, Dobey, and Gritter (2011) reviewed 324 articles from the Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions published between 1999 and 2009; 72 of these met the criteria: (a) published between 1999 and 2009, (b) participants were younger than 19 years of age, and (c) an adequate between- or within-group design or a single-case design was used.

Results: 59.7% (n = 43) had an operational definition of the IV; 26.4% (n = 19) referenced a more detailed definition of the IV; 13.9% (n = 10) had no operational definition of the IV.

There was a decreasing trend in articles that included an operational definition of the IV with a slight increasing trend in articles that included a reference to an operational definition. 73

Treatment Integrity

41.7% (n = 30) included treatment integrity data; 6.9% (n = 5) included a statement about treatment integrity but did not provide data; 51.4% (n = 37) did not monitor or assess treatment integrity.

There was an increasing trend in reporting quantitative treatment integrity data.

74

ODRs are used extensively in SWPBIS research.

Public Posting of ODRs (what is the effect)?

Are ODRs an independent variable or a dependent variable?

75

Treatment Integrity and ODRs

Be specific in what is being done and make sure the system/process is conducted with integrity.

Be cautious on claims regarding the effects of the program.

76

What Schools Should Do:

Screening measure? (e.g., 0-1 [Tier 1], 2-5 [Tier 2], 6 or more [Tier 3] per year) (McIntosh, Frank, & Spaulding, 2010) or more than 5 absences or more than 3 counseling or discipline referrals in a 30-day period (Sadler & Sugai, 2009)

Progress monitoring (McIntosh et al., 2010) Schoolwide behavioral status (climate) and the

effectiveness of schoolwide behavioral supports (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004)

Data-based decision making (Irvin et al., 2006) Representative of changes in student behavior (Nelson,

Colvin, & Smith, 1996 [discussed later])

77

2. Validity of ODRs

Rusby, Taylor, and Foster (2007) found that ODRs in kindergarten and first grade predicted classroom teacher ratings on the Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory and parent ratings of disruptive behavior on the same measure at the end of the school year.

Evidence for the predictive validity of ODRs in elementary classroom settings was also found by Walker, Cheney, Stage, and Blum (2005). Students with two or more ODRs had significantly higher classroom teacher ratings on the problem behavior scale of the Social Skills Rating System.

Irvin et al. (2004) conducted a comprehensive review of the ODR validation literature. These researchers stated, “Office discipline referrals appear to be sensitive measures of the effects of interventions designed to change student behavior and to improve school and classroom climate” (p. 139).

78

Despite the research supporting using ODRs as a dependent variable, further research suggests ODR data should be interpreted with caution.

Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, and Currin (2002) examined the level of false negatives for 103 students who met the borderline or clinical cut-off scores on one or more of the Teacher Report Form scales of the Child Behavior Checklist and had one or more ODR.

Findings of false negatives: Borderline—48.8% (Total Problems) to 87.5% (Withdrawn and Somatic).Clinical—42.8% (Thought Problems), 60% (Total Problems), and 90.1% (Withdrawn).

79

Bezdek (2012) included 315 students: 43.6% of students were correctly identified based on

ODRs (SSBD used as the standard) High level of false negatives:

◦ Externalizing students = 42.3%◦ Internalizing students = 84.6%

ODR data should not be used as a screener to identify students in need of behavioral support (Bezdek, 2011, p. iii).

80

Clonan, McDougal, Clark, and Davison (2007) stated that “emphasis is placed on the use of ODRs as an ongoing barometer of student behavior that is useful to teams in developing and monitoring interventions” (p. 21). However, they also stated ODRs have “the potential for teacher bias in the documentation of student behavior, variations in teacher tolerance for misbehavior, and a lack of independent or objective data related to the behavior” (p. 21).

Hawken, MacLeod, and Rawlings (2007) stated that a change in ODRs “may not always directly correlate with reductions in problem behavior in the classroom” (p. 99).

Putnam, Luiselli, Handler, and Jefferson (2003) acknowledged ODRs were not linked to actual in-class disruptive behavior. In fact, the authors questioned the reliability and validity of the ODR data reported in their study. ODRs “may have decreased because the classroom teacher was singled out or her management skills improved over time” (p. 522).

81

In much of the PBIS literature, ODRs are used as the primary dependent variable despite the fact that many authors note concerns with the reliability and validity of these data in representing actual in-class student behavior.

Schools and teachers use ODRs differently and may not have common definitions of behaviors that result in ODRs. Classroom management, discipline policies, levels of teacher tolerance, and a number of other variables influence the use of ODRs. One critical variable is ethnic bias.

Overall, ODRs are likely more representative of teacher behavior as opposed to student behavior.

82

Nelson et al. (1996) showed ODRs decreasing from 1.2 to .3 in the cafeteria and from 1.8 to .2 in the before-school setting.

However, disruptive behavior decreased from 37% to 18% in the cafeteria and from 44% to 23% in the before-school setting.

83

Representative of Student Behavior?

Investigated the representativeness of ODRs for disruptive classroom behaviors within a PBIS implementation over 17 weeks. In-class reporting and ODRs of 45 total students were gathered across three schools.

25 students received secondary-level supports (4 in special education and 21 in general education) and 20 students received tertiary-level supports (5 in special education and 15 in general education) across 30 classrooms.

A SWPBIS program was in place at all three schools. All schools received extensive training in the model over at least 3 years.

84

Office Discipline Referrals and Teacher Recordings of Disruptive Classroom Behaviors

Martella et al. (2010).

The SET Total scores were 89.0%, 85.9%, and 86.0% for Schools 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Expectations Taught subscale scores for the three schools were 100% for School 1, 70% for School 2, and 100% for School 3, respectively. SET scores were obtained from personnel trained to use the SET who were not associated with the research project.

Behavioral categories included those behaviors considered major at the three schools: inappropriate language, fighting, overt defiance, disruption, harassment/teasing, damage to property, and noncompliance. Operational definitions were provided for each behavior and discussed with participating teachers.

85

Students receiving secondary-level supports had a lower number of in-class behaviors than students receiving tertiary-level supports (M = 151 vs. 444). This result was statistically significant.

Students receiving secondary-level supports had a lower number of ODRs than students receiving tertiary-level supports (M = 1.5 vs. 2.4). This result was not statistically significant.

Students receiving special education services displayed lower frequency of in-class problem behaviors than their counterparts not receiving special education services (M = 217 vs. 298). This result was not statistically significant.

Students receiving special education services had greater frequency of ODRs than those not receiving such services (M = 2.4 vs. 1.8). This result was not statistically significant.

86

Results

A small positive relationship utilizing the Spearman’s rho measure of correlation (rho = .242, p = .109) was found between the frequency of in-class behaviors and ODRs. This correlation was not statistically significant.

87

Repeated off-task behavior (i.e., noncompliance to teacher instructions) resulted in an ODR, whereas other teachers attempted to address the behavior in class. ODRs were frowned upon; there was a reliance on public displays of ODR data. Therefore, it is possible that teachers refrained from sending students to the office given that individual classroom ODR data were reported to all staff.

Due to the recording method, it is not clear if all of the behaviors recorded by teachers were major or minor. However, the behaviors on the recording form were listed as major behaviors at each of the three schools.

Overall: ODRs should not be the primary dependent variable in a schoolwide application.

88

Discussion

Do not make referral/intervention decisions on ODRs alone. Use multiple measures in the decision-making process such as academic progress, tardies, absences, suspensions, teacher nomination, standardized test information (e.g., SSBD), etc.

89

What Schools Should Do:

“The basic message is that academic and behavioral supports must be intertwined…. Combining behavior support and effective instruction may be an important theme for school reform in the United States” (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005, p. 382).

Integrated three-tier reading and behavior models target those students who lack the necessary academic and behavioral resources for a successful education (Martella et al., 2012; Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007; Stewart, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Benner, 2005).

90

3. Critical to Add Academic Programming

Initially reviewed 17 articles on the similarities and differences between and among three-tier models of reading (n = 5) and behavior (n = 7). Additionally, integrated models (n = 5, combining reading and behavioral interventions) were examined.

Descriptive analyses were conducted across three areas including student populations, intervention level, and setting. Finally, a meta-analytic review was completed across 11 of the 17 investigations.

91

Meta AnalysisStewart, Benner, Martella, and Marchand-Martella (2007).

92

Examples:Behavior and Academic Support and Enhancement—Nelson et al. (2009)

Schoolwide Applications Model—Sailor et al. (2006).Effective Behavior and Instructional Support—Sadler and Sugai (2009)

Need: Conduct both Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior (FAAB) as described by Watson et al.( 2011).

93

Need: Integration of Multi-Tiered Academic Model with Multi-Tiered

Behavior Model

94

Can’t Do vs. Won’t Do

Witt and Beck (1999) and also mentioned by Fitzpatrick and Knowlton (2009) and described by Martella et al. (2012).

Read to Achieve (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2010)— ACES (expectations) Attend To The TeacherCollaborate With Your PartnerExpress Yourself Through Thoughtful Comments

And QuestionsShow Your Best Work

Address motivational issues and behavior management concerns within curriculum (Martella & Nelson, 2003).

95

Integrated Within Curriculum

Support students with and without disabilities in accessing general education settings and curricula in a successful manner.

When considering comprehensive academic programming (i.e., RTI) or behavior programming (SWPBIS), they should be considered together.

96

What Schools Should Do:

97

Ending Story