Skip to content

Positive Behavioral Interventions And Supports

Pattern · All patterns
Evidence · 44 claims (32 for, 10 mixed, 2 against) · 30 studies (14 causal, 6 quant-synthesis, 6 review, 2 theoretical, 1 associational, 1 design), q1–q4 · 9 of 30 report an effect size · 38 claims rest on one study

Description and scope

A reusable, school-wide policy for behaviour as something taught: a leadership team chooses three to five positively stated expectations → defines what each looks like in every setting → teaches them like academic content and re-teaches them when data show a need → acknowledges students who meet them, specifically and often → corrects briefly and without exclusion where it can → reviews discipline data on a fixed cycle → adds a daily small-group support (Tier 2) for students who do not respond → adds an individual, function-based plan (Tier 3) for those who still do not respond → checks how faithfully each tier is running. The intended change is behavioural: fewer office referrals, in-school and out-of-school suspensions and days lost to them, and more time in class (behavioural outcomes, pre-k-12). Gains in achievement are, at most, indirect.

How it sits beside its neighbours, each of which owns its own model: the Effective Classroom Management Plan principle holds one teacher's plan for one room, which is what the universal tier asks of every classroom; the Functional Behavior Assessment principle holds the individual plan this pattern places at Tier 3; the Social-Emotional Learning pattern teaches named social and emotional skills, where this pattern teaches and acknowledges setting-specific expectations; and Self-Monitoring is where acknowledgment can hand over to the student. This page owns the school-wide, tiered configuration and does not restate those models.

What the claims in this wiki test. The relationship is tested by one group-randomized effectiveness trial: 37 Maryland elementary schools, 21 trained in school-wide PBIS (SWPBIS) and 16 comparison schools, with four years of outcome data on 12,344 children, reported in four articles (Bradshaw et al. 2010, 2012 and 2015; Waasdorp et al. 2012) that the wiki records across about 25 claims. Against the comparison schools, children in SWPBIS schools were 33% less likely to receive an office discipline referral [+M] (AOR 0.67), but out-of-school suspensions did not differ [-M] (AOR 0.97, CI 0.69–1.36; equivalence not tested). Teacher-rated aggressive and disruptive behaviour [+M] (ES 0.12), concentration problems [+M] (ES 0.08), emotion regulation [+M] (ES 0.11) and prosocial behaviour [+M] (ES 0.17) all moved in the expected direction by small amounts, and the effects on referrals and school services were largest for children rated at-risk or high-risk at baseline [+M]. School-level achievement gains did not differ [~M]. The claim pages do not say which tiers the trained schools ran; the trial measured fidelity with the School-wide Evaluation Tool, on which all trained schools reached and kept the 80% threshold [+M]. One quasi-experiment, Gage et al. (2025), recorded across four claims, compares PBIS schools with propensity-score-matched schools on 2020–21 federal discipline data: schools running at least the universal tier with fidelity did not differ from their matches on any exclusion outcome, and the 40 schools running all three tiers with fidelity had about half the out-of-school suspensions. Read together, and only for what they tested: whole-school PBIS in elementary schools lowers referrals and teacher-rated problem behaviour by a small amount, most for children already at risk; a difference in out-of-school suspensions appeared only where the intensive tier ran with fidelity, in a different study and an unusual year. One pre-post study of 37 students with emotional disturbance (Benner et al. 2008) without a comparison group is recorded across five claims. The other claims bear on single parts (taught expectations, universal classroom management, reward design, empathic discipline) or on school-based exclusion programmes in general. No claim here tests PBIS in secondary schools or compares the tiers with each other by random assignment. Each step below says which kind of evidence it has.

Inputs: establish the design brief

Field Record or elicit
Learners and starting observation Before choosing anything, pull the last year's discipline data: referrals, in-school and out-of-school suspensions and days lost, by setting, time of day, grade and student group; how many students account for most referrals; and how many students already have individual plans or are in self-contained settings. Record what is unknown (for example, referrals that were never written down) rather than assuming it. Where teachers can rate every child at the start, a brief behaviour and social-emotional rating shows how many are at risk: in the Maryland trial's elementary schools baseline teacher ratings sorted children into high-risk (6.6%), at-risk (23.3%), normative and socially-emotionally skilled classes [~M], and African American children were more likely to be placed in the at-risk and high-risk classes [~M], so read any such rating beside the disaggregated referral data. Age band (child, adolescent) and school type.
What counts as the behaviour The school's current rules and referral categories, which behaviours are handled in class and which go to the office, and how subjective categories ("defiance", "disrespect") are defined. These decide what the data can show.
Context and activities Number of staff and who could serve as a Tier 2 mentor, time available for staff training and for teaching expectations, whether a leadership team can meet monthly, whether a fidelity tool is already in use, whether learning is in person, mixed (some remote) or online, and any district discipline policy that fixes responses.
Learner-valued goal Ask students (and families) what they want from school behaviour systems: to feel safe, to be treated fairly, to avoid being singled out, to have privileges. Record where it differs from the school's objective, especially for students most often disciplined.
Designer objective Which the school will weigh: fewer office referrals, fewer out-of-school suspensions, a smaller gap between student groups, more instructional time, perceived safety and climate, or students' self-management. Name the one the review cycle reports first.
Outcome and horizon The measure (referral counts, suspension counts and days, a climate survey, observed engaged time) and when it is read: monthly for decisions, end of year for evaluation, and across two or three years for whether the system has taken hold.

A request to "implement PBIS" does not specify these. Ask what the data show, which outcome matters and how much staff time exists before choosing expectations, an acknowledgment system or tier entry rules.

Sequence and conditional policy

The sequence is the earlier page's, with doses and decision rules added. The whole package, as the Maryland trial trained it in elementary schools, has a randomized test (above); single steps do not. Steps 1–3 and 7 have a neighbouring or partial claim; step 8 rests on the one quasi-experimental comparison; steps 5, 7 and 9 also draw on the trial's subgroup and fidelity findings; the doses, timings and entry rules are untested proposals unless a claim is named.

  1. Form a team and read the data (before the year starts; one or two half-day meetings, then monthly for 45–60 minutes). An administrator, three to six staff across grades and roles, and where possible a family member and, in secondary schools, students. Disaggregate the data by student group from the first meeting. Evidence status: untested proposal; tracking discipline data by student group can show disparate practice [+W] (a policy report citing research, no effect reported).
  2. Choose three to five positively stated expectations and build a setting matrix ("be safe, be respectful, be responsible", with two or three observable behaviours for each setting: classroom, corridor, cafeteria, playground, bus, online). Evidence status: developing and using clear behaviour expectations is rated as strong evidence in a practice guide resting on 14 studies [+M] (teacher-delivered interventions in grades K–5; the number of expectations and the matrix form are the earlier page's, untested).
  3. Teach the expectations like content. Proposed dose: in the first week, a 10–15-minute lesson per setting, taught in that setting, with modelling, a non-example, and practice; in weeks 2–6, a 5-minute booster two or three times a week; re-teach after each long break and within a week of any month in which data show a setting or time spike. Early in the year the adult models and students rehearse; later, students lead the re-teaching and new students are taught by peers. Evidence status: universal classroom management practices reduce problem behaviour [+M] (12 classroom studies, K–12, not school-wide PBIS); the dose is an untested proposal.
  4. Acknowledge expected behaviour, specifically and often. Specific verbal acknowledgment naming the expectation met, from every adult, in every setting; a school-wide token or recognition only if the team wants one. Proposed ratio, untested: about four acknowledgments for each correction, checked by brief observation. Across sessions, move from frequent and tangible (early primary, early in the year) to intermittent, social and privilege-based (later in the year, older students), and from adult-given to student self-monitoring. Evidence status: expected tangible rewards reduce later free-choice engagement with an already-interesting task, while verbal praise does not [~S]; autonomy support increases intrinsic motivation and engagement [+S]. Both come from laboratory and meta-analytic work on interest in tasks, carried here to school acknowledgment systems by extrapolation.
  5. Correct briefly, privately and without exclusion where possible. Name the expectation, re-teach it, and return the student to the activity; decide in advance which behaviours are handled in class and which go to the office. Prepare teachers to treat misbehaviour as a relationship moment. Evidence status: a brief empathic-discipline exercise for teachers reduced suspensions [+M]: middle-school maths teachers in randomized field experiments; the preregistered replication's overall effect was small and marginal, its effect on the gap between student groups larger. The claim's table counts 3 distinct studies. Expect this step to take hold last: in the Maryland trial, the fidelity subscale for responding to behavioural violations was the one of seven that did not change significantly across all four years, differing only between year 1 and year 4 [~M], and out-of-school suspensions did not differ from comparison schools [-M]; a school that wants fewer suspensions has to change its response rules, not only add the universal tier.
  6. Review data on a fixed cycle (monthly, 45–60 minutes). Look at where, when, who and what: setting, time, grade, student group, behaviour category. Each review ends with one or two changes (re-teach a setting, add supervision, adjust acknowledgment) and names students for Tier 2. Evidence status: untested proposal.
  7. Tier 2 for students who do not respond. Proposed entry rule, untested: two to five office referrals in a term, or a teacher nomination backed by classroom data. Default support: Check In/Check Out, a 2–3-minute morning check-in with one adult, a point card with the school's expectations rated each period, and a 2–3-minute check-out with feedback, the card going home. Review at 4–6 weeks: a student who meets the daily point goal (for example 80% of points) on most days for four consecutive weeks moves to self-monitoring and then exits; a student who does not moves to step 8. Evidence status: untested proposal for the rule and the dose; the CICO page's own claims are carried from belonging, empathic discipline and feedback work, not from CICO trials. The children this step is for are the ones the school-wide system already helped most: in the Maryland trial, at-risk children in SWPBIS schools were less likely to receive an office referral than at-risk children in comparison schools (41.3% against 46.5%) [+M], less likely to be referred to special education (23.2% against 27.0%) [+M] and less often received counselling for behaviour [+M] (29.8% against 35.7%), each with a small printed d (−0.12 to −0.15). So read Tier 2 nominations after the universal tier has run for a term; some students the baseline data would have named no longer need it.
  8. Tier 3 for students who still do not respond: a function-based individual plan with family involvement, built from a functional behaviour assessment and integrated with any IEP and accommodations. Evidence status: schools running all three tiers with fidelity had fewer out-of-school suspensions, days lost and incidents than matched non-PBIS schools [+M], and the authors attribute the reduction to the intensive tier [~W] (their interpretation, not a tested contrast); intensive interventions should be planned from data and guided by evidence-based practices [+W] (guidance, no study); for students with emotional disturbance in self-contained classes, externalizing and total problems fell over a year of teacher PBIS training [+M] (pre-post, 37 students, no comparison group).
  9. Check fidelity before judging results (once or twice a year with a fidelity tool, such as the TFI the earlier page names). Report each tier's fidelity beside its outcomes; a tier running below fidelity is fixed before it is judged. Evidence status: teachers' knowledge and skill in PBIS interacted with changes in student problem behaviour [+M] and low-fidelity teachers tended not to see large improvements [~W] (the same 37-student study); in the matched comparison, at least Tier 1 fidelity alone showed no effect on exclusions [~M]. Fidelity is attainable with training: in the Maryland trial all trained schools reached and kept the 80% threshold on the School-wide Evaluation Tool, and no comparison school consistently did [+M], and staff ratings of school-wide, non-classroom, classroom and individual support systems all improved [+M] (d 1.08–1.71). Those are measures of the system being in place, not of students' behaviour.

Across years (the schedule is untested; the earlier page says full effects typically take 2–3 years): the Maryland trial read its outcomes over four years, and its teacher-rated effects were small differences in growth rather than early drops: bullying [+M] and peer rejection [+M] rose more slowly in SWPBIS schools, while both rose over the four years in both kinds of school [~M]. Effects were stronger for the youngest: children who started in kindergarten gained most on prosocial behaviour and emotion regulation [+M], and the rejection effect was the one grade-cohort interaction found, with older comparison-school children's rejection rising most [+M]. So judge the system over years, and start it in the earliest grades a school has. In year 1, the universal tier and the data cycle; Tier 2 begins once the data cycle names students reliably, usually in the second term; Tier 3 is built in year 1 for the few students already in crisis and becomes systematic in year 2. Expectations are re-taught every year, and the acknowledgment system is reviewed each spring with students.

Observation Discriminating probe Proposed action, with its uncertainty
Referrals cluster in one setting or time (the cafeteria at lunch, the corridor after third period) Compare referral counts by setting and time with the setting matrix and with supervision rotas; observe the setting once. If expectations for that setting were never taught, re-teach in place within a week. If they were taught but supervision is thin, change supervision or routines first. Untested.
Referrals concentrated in one student group, especially in subjective categories ("defiance") Disaggregate by group and category; compare who refers and for what; check whether definitions are written down. If the gap lies in subjective categories, write observable definitions, add a brief empathic-discipline exercise for staff and review the gap monthly. Empathic discipline [+M] narrowed a gap between groups in one preregistered trial; the definitions step is untested.
A student on Check In/Check Out is not improving after four to six weeks Check whether the routine ran (cards completed, check-ins held most days) before asking why the behaviour persists; then ask what the behaviour gets the student (adult attention, escape from a task). If the routine did not run, fix it before changing the plan. If it ran and the behaviour seems to bring escape from work, CICO's adult attention may not meet the need: move to an individual plan. Both branches are untested.
Acknowledgments are frequent but behaviour is unchanged, or older students mock the tokens Ask students what acknowledgment they value; observe whether acknowledgment names the behaviour or is generic. Shift to specific verbal acknowledgment, privileges and student-designed recognition; drop tangible tokens for older students. Rewards and interest [~S] is about interest in tasks, carried here by extrapolation.
Staff report that "PBIS isn't working" Read the fidelity tool and observation before the outcome data. If fidelity is low, retrain and coach the tier that is low; do not conclude the pattern failed. If fidelity is high and outcomes flat, check whether Tier 3 exists at all. Fidelity interacted with change [+M] in one small study.
Suspensions fall but in-school exclusions or informal send-homes rise Count all removals from class, including unrecorded ones. Treat a shift between categories as no reduction; review the office-versus-classroom decision list. Untested.
Office referrals fall but out-of-school suspensions do not Check whether the suspension decision rule changed at all, and whether Tier 3 plans exist for the students who are suspended. This is the pattern the one randomized trial found: fewer referrals [+M], suspensions unchanged [-M]. Change the suspension rule and build Tier 3; the matched comparison found its suspension difference only with three tiers at fidelity [+M]. The combined reading is a proposal.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • Whether the school can run the intensive tier, not only the universal one. In the one matched comparison recorded here, schools with only universal (or universal and targeted) fidelity did not differ from their matches on exclusions; schools with all three did. In the randomized trial, whole-school PBIS lowered referrals but not out-of-school suspensions. If unstated, ask: who will conduct functional assessments and write individual plans, and how many students need one now?
  • Which outcome matters and how severe it is. In the randomized trial office referrals fell and suspensions did not; across school-based programmes, milder exclusions fell more readily than out-of-school suspension or permanent exclusion. If unstated, ask: is the target referrals, in-school exclusion, out-of-school suspension, a gap between groups, teacher-rated behaviour, or climate?
  • The age of the students and who sets the acknowledgment. Concrete, frequent tokens suit young children in the earlier page's guidance; with adolescents, rewards seen as controlling risk the interest the school wants. If unstated, ask: what grades, and will students help write the expectations and the recognition?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
Elementary school, child learners (K–5) Picture-based setting matrix; teach each setting in place with role-play; frequent specific praise and a simple class-wide token, faded to intermittent praise by the second term. Start in kindergarten and keep the system running across grades; expect fewer referrals and small changes in teacher-rated behaviour over years, not a quick drop. The randomized trial was in elementary schools: fewer referrals [+M], less disruptive behaviour [+M] (ES 0.12), strongest for children first exposed in kindergarten [+M]; clear behaviour expectations [+M] (K–5, teacher-delivered); the token and fade are untested
Secondary school, adolescent learners Students co-write the expectations and the matrix; acknowledgment by specific verbal recognition, privileges and positive contact home rather than tokens; add self-monitoring early. Autonomy support [+S] and rewards and interest [~S], carried from task-interest studies to school behaviour systems; the randomized trial's results are from elementary schools and are carried here untested
Many students already rated at-risk or high-risk at baseline (a high-need school) Run the universal tier first and fully; expect it to do most for these students; read Tier 2 nominations after a term of it rather than from the baseline list; track referrals, special-education referrals and counselling use for this group. Effects greatest for at-risk and high-risk children [+M]; fewer referrals for at-risk children [+M]; fewer special-education referrals [+M] (one trial, elementary schools; the timing rule is untested)
The target includes bullying or peer rejection Keep the universal tier school-wide and start it in the earliest grades; expect bullying and rejection to grow more slowly rather than fall; add a programme aimed at bullying if the target is a decline. Slower growth in teacher-rated bullying [+M] and rejection [+M]; both still rose in both conditions [~M]; adding a bullying programme is untested
Students with emotional or behavioural disabilities in self-contained classes Start with Tier 3: function-based plans tied to IEP goals; train the classroom teachers and check their skill in the practices before judging the plan. Externalizing and total problems fell [+M] and fidelity interacted with change [+M]: one pre-post study of 37 students, no comparison group
The target is fewer out-of-school suspensions or permanent exclusions Build Tier 3 in year 1 alongside the universal tier; set a written rule that suspension requires a team review of the student's data and plan; expect milder exclusions and referrals to fall first; compare against a school or year without PBIS, not only against the school's own baseline. Suspensions did not differ in the randomized trial [-M]; suspension rates fell within SWPBIS schools and not within comparison schools, without the two being tested against each other [~W]; three-tier fidelity and fewer out-of-school suspensions [+M] (one quasi-experiment, 2020–21); severe sanctions less responsive [~M] (school-based programmes in general, not PBIS alone)
Discipline falls unevenly across student groups Disaggregate every monthly review; write observable definitions for subjective referral categories; give all teachers the brief empathic-discipline exercise; set a target for the gap, not only the total. Empathic discipline [+M] (middle-school maths teachers); tracking data by group [+W]; in the randomized trial sex and special-education status did not moderate the effects on bullying and rejection [~M] (a null interaction, not a test of equal effects), so PBIS alone is not shown to narrow a gap
The goal includes achievement Pair PBIS with an academic intervention and measure each separately; do not report achievement as a PBIS outcome. School-level reading and maths proficiency gains did not differ in the randomized trial [~M] (37 schools; gains tended to favour SWPBIS schools, not significantly); fewer socially-emotionally skilled children were held back a grade [+M] (one of four baseline classes); school-based programmes reduced exclusion by a small amount [+M]; the pairing is untested
One teacher, no school-wide system Run the universal tier in one room: three to five posted expectations, taught in the first week, a greeting at the door, specific praise, a short consistent correction; keep a simple tally of incidents. Universal classroom management [+M]; positive greetings at the door [+M] (middle school)
Scarce adult time (a mentor with a busy shift, volunteers, one counsellor for many students) Keep Check In/Check Out to 2–3 minutes at each end of the day with a fixed adult; let teachers rate the card in seconds per period; review cards weekly in a 15-minute slot; reserve counsellor time for Tier 3. Untested proposal
A single session or one training day only Do not attempt the full pattern; use the day to read the data, agree the expectations and setting matrix, and schedule the first week's lessons and the first monthly review. Untested proposal
A fixed short time budget for teaching expectations (for example 10 minutes a week) First week: two 10-minute lessons for the two settings with most referrals; afterwards one 10-minute booster a week, rotating settings by the data. Untested proposal
mixed mode: some students remote, some in the room, or phone-only Add an online setting to the matrix (camera, chat, turn-taking); acknowledge in chat or by message home; run check-in and check-out by message or short call; count remote incidents in the data. Untested; Tier 1 fidelity showed no effect in the pandemic year [~M], when much schooling was remote
Students with trauma histories, or low confidence or literacy Emphasise predictable routines and one trusted adult; teach regulation skills beside the expectations; picture or spoken versions of the matrix; correct privately. Untested; from the earlier page
Adults in work or adult-education settings Co-write a short set of norms with the group, acknowledge informally, and handle repeated problems individually; drop tokens and tiers of points. Untested proposal; the claims here are with school students
The brief names its own routine (the school's existing rules, point card, referral form or fidelity tool) Keep it. Change only what the evidence bears on: make the expectations positively stated and taught, make acknowledgment specific, read fidelity before outcomes, and add the intensive tier if it is missing. Untested proposal; three-tier fidelity [+M] for the last change
The school's own categories or criteria for behaviour (its referral categories, its values) Use its words in the expectations and matrix; do not substitute "safe, respectful, responsible" if the school already has three values. Untested proposal
Behaviour data or plans concern sensitive matters (disability, trauma, family circumstances) Keep individual data and plans to the team and family; show staff only setting-level data; let the student and family decide what the daily card says and who sees it. Untested proposal

Eleven of the eighteen rows cite a claim. Four draw on the Maryland randomized trial (elementary schools, at-risk children, bullying and rejection, achievement) and two more use it beside other claims (suspensions, group disparities); with the rows for older students, students with emotional disturbance and one teacher alone, these nine rest on claims, each carried beyond what its claims tested as the Basis says. Two (mixed mode, a named routine) are untested proposals that cite a claim for one part. The other seven are untested proposals or the earlier page's guidance.

Choosing configurations from evidence

Do not read a fall in suspensions in one school after adoption as an effect of PBIS: the 41% drop at one middle school [+W] has no comparison. Do not read a null result as equivalence, and do not judge a tier that was not running with fidelity. Do not read the randomized trial's fewer referrals as fewer suspensions: it found the first and not the second. A precise abstention names the missing comparison (in the wiki: PBIS in secondary schools against usual practice, randomized; and the intensive tier added or not, randomized, on out-of-school suspensions) and the local observation that would stand in for it: the school's own disaggregated data before and after, read beside its fidelity scores.

The evidence by question

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Claims the earlier page cited that are not part of the model above, and claims found while converting it.

Illustrative design instance and observation record

Invented illustration, not a tested programme. A 600-student middle school (adolescent, classroom, term-plus) has 140 out-of-school suspensions a year, most for "defiance", and Black students are suspended at three times the rate of others. The table changed the default in three places: students co-wrote the expectations ("be ready, be kind, be honest", kept from the school's existing values) and chose privileges as acknowledgment rather than tokens; all teachers took the brief empathic-discipline exercise in September and "defiance" was redefined as three observable behaviours; and because the target was out-of-school suspension, the counsellor and a behaviour specialist began function-based plans for eight students in the first term instead of waiting for Tier 2 to run. Expectations were taught in 10-minute lessons per setting in the first week and re-taught in the corridor after the October data showed a spike there; Check In/Check Out started in November with two teaching assistants as mentors. A student group said they wanted to stop being "sent out for nothing"; the school's objective was fewer suspensions. They agreed to report both the total and the gap, and to report removals from class beside suspensions. The claims cover matched schools in one year and teachers in middle-school maths classes, not this school; these are local choices to observe.

Record: expectations and setting matrix → lessons taught, where and when → acknowledgment form and observed ratio → referral categories and their definitions → monthly data by setting, time, group and category → changes made at each review → Tier 2 entry, card completion and exit → Tier 3 plans, the function each assumes and the student's response → fidelity by tier → year-end suspensions, days lost, removals from class and the gap between groups. Keep students' and families' stated aims and any change in them. An agent may summarise this record but must not fabricate missing inputs or predict an individual student's response from a school average.

Elements and limits

Clear structure, reinforcement, behaviour-specific praise, feedback, check-in, Check In/Check Out, functional behaviour assessment, accommodations and belonging. Theories: Behaviorism (reinforcing expected behaviour rather than punishing the unwanted), Social Learning Theory (expectations learned by modelling) and Self-Determination Theory (acknowledgment that informs rather than controls, supporting autonomy); the long-term aim of self-management connects to Self-Regulated Learning. Neighbouring principles: Building Empathy, Culturally Responsive Classroom Norms and Wise Feedback Across Difference for corrections given across difference.

This pattern is scoped to a school-wide, tiered system of taught and acknowledged expectations with data-based decisions. It is not an academic intervention, not a single classroom's plan (see the classroom management principle) and not, by itself, an answer to trauma or severe emotional need, which the intensive tier and other services must address. In the claims recorded here, the one randomized trial found whole-school PBIS in elementary schools lowered office referrals and slightly improved teacher-rated behaviour over four years, most for children at risk, without changing out-of-school suspensions or achievement; the one matched comparison found a suspension difference only where all three tiers ran with fidelity. Whether it works the same way in secondary schools, and which tier produces which change, remains untested in the claims recorded here.

  • Social-Emotional Learning — teaches named social and emotional skills; PBIS teaches and acknowledges setting-specific expectations, and the two are often run together
  • Direct Instruction — PBIS borrows its instructional logic (model, practice, reinforce) and applies it to behavioral expectations
  • Cooperative Learning — prosocial expectations taught in Tier 1 create the behavioral foundation that collaborative structures require
  • Constructive Alignment — shares the systems logic of aligning stated goals (expectations), activities (teaching), and consequences (acknowledgment)

Examples

  • PBIS Technical Assistance Center: The national OSEP-funded center provides implementation guides, fidelity measures (e.g., TFI, SAS), and state-level implementation data for thousands of U.S. schools.
  • Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3): A statewide initiative combining school-wide PBIS with climate measurement; randomized evaluation showed improved climate and reduced suspensions in high-need schools (the earlier page's statement; no claim page in this wiki records that evaluation). The randomized SWPBIS trial this page draws on was also in Maryland elementary schools.
  • Check-In/Check-Out (CICO): A widely used Tier 2 program in which a mentor greets the student each morning, reviews goals, and closes the day with feedback and points shared with family — a structured daily check-in cycle.
  • Celebratory traditions: quarterly awards, bridging ceremonies and MVP Button recognition — school-wide recognition of citizenship and contributions in a middle school using PBIS

Key Sources

  • Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., O'Brennan, L. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of black students in office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 508–520. doi:10.1037/a0018450
  • Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
  • 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), e1136–e1145. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0243
  • Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2015). Examining variation in the impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0037630
  • 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. doi:10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906
  • 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.
  • Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259. doi:10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989
  • Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. M. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315–350). NASP Publications.
Page metadata
Field Value
type pattern
id positive-behavioral-interventions-and-supports
title Positive Behavioral Interventions And Supports
description For a whole school, teaching three to five positively stated expectations in every setting, acknowledging them specifically, reviewing disaggregated discipline data monthly and adding daily small-group and then function-based individual support for students who do not respond is expected to reduce referrals and exclusions; one group-randomized trial in 37 Maryland elementary schools found fewer office referrals and small gains in teacher-rated behaviour, largest for children at risk at baseline, but no difference in out-of-school suspensions, and one quasi-experiment found fewer suspensions only where all three tiers ran with fidelity.
status review
grain_size program, school
author Sugai & Horner
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.