Positive Behavior Interventions And Supports¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 5 studies (4 causal, 1 review), q3–q4 · 0 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a multi-tiered framework for establishing the social culture and behavioral supports needed for all students to achieve social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Rather than reacting to misbehavior with punishment, schools explicitly define, teach, and reinforce a small set of behavioral expectations (typically 3–5, such as "be respectful, be responsible, be safe") across all settings, and monitor implementation data to escalate support for students who need more than universal prevention.

Design Implications¶

PBIS treats behavior as a learnable skill rather than an innate trait, applying the same instructional logic to conduct as to academics: expectations are modeled, practiced, and reinforced Horner et al.'s randomized trials show schoolwide PBIS reduces office discipline referrals and suspensions. [+S]. Acknowledgment systems work because contingent, frequent reinforcement of expected behavior outcompetes attention paid to problem behavior Behavior is shaped by its consequences. [+S]. The framework's tiered structure (universal, targeted, intensive) mirrors Scaffolding logic: most students thrive on universal supports alone, while a minority receive progressively more individualized intervention.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A leadership team with administrator support and dedicated time for data review
• 3–5 positively stated, schoolwide expectations operationalized with concrete examples per setting (classroom, hallway, cafeteria)
• Explicit lesson plans for teaching expectations at the start of the year and re-teaching after breaks (Demonstration plus Practice)
• A low-effort, high-frequency acknowledgment system (e.g., tokens, tickets) tied to specific expectations
• Behavioral data systems (office referral data) reviewed at least monthly to guide tier placement
• A small team with administrator support that meets regularly to review behavioral data
• 3–5 positively stated, schoolwide expectations (e.g., "Be respectful, be responsible, be safe") defined with behavioral examples for each setting
• Explicit teaching of expectations at the start of the year and re-teaching after breaks, using Modeling and Practice of specific behaviors
• A continuum of acknowledgment (e.g., token systems, praise) with a reinforcement ratio weighted toward positive contacts
• Consistent, data-informed consequences that are instructional rather than exclusionary

Constraints¶

• Implementation without fidelity — adopting the token economy but skipping explicit teaching of expectations — produces weak or null effects [-M]
• Acknowledgment systems can backfire when rewards feel controlling or are applied inconsistently across staff Extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation when perceived as controlling. [~M] — tokens should function as feedback, not payment
• Punitive responses (exclusionary discipline) remain counterproductive even as a backstop; suspensions predict worse academic and behavioral trajectories [-S]
• Effects on academic achievement are smaller and less consistent than effects on discipline outcomes [~M]
• Inconsistent staff implementation is the most common failure mode; a framework adopted by some teachers but not others loses its predictability advantage
• Weak implementation fidelity erodes effects; schools implementing fewer than 80% of critical features show diminished reductions in problem behavior [-S]
• Tier 1 alone is insufficient for students with chronic, intensive behavioral needs — withholding Tier 2/3 supports on the assumption that "good Tier 1 fixes everything" delays needed intervention [-M]
• Token reinforcement systems can lose effectiveness if acknowledgment becomes decoupled from specific, labeled feedback about which expectation was met [~M]
• Exclusionary discipline (suspension) used alongside PBIS undermines the framework; punitive responses disproportionately harm students with disabilities and students of color [-S]

Implementation Variability¶

• Tier 1 (universal): schoolwide expectations, teaching matrices, acknowledgment systems — for all students
• Tier 2 (targeted): Check-In/Check-Out mentoring, small-group social skills instruction — for roughly 10–15% of students
• Tier 3 (intensive): individualized function-based behavior support plans — for roughly 1–5% of students
• Classroom-only variants exist but lose the setting-wide consistency that drives much of the effect
• Culturally responsive adaptations embed family and community input into expectation definitions rather than imposing a single behavioral norm
• Tier 2 options include Check-In/Check-Out (CICO), mentoring, and social skills groups; CICO is the most widely validated and easiest to scale
• Tier 3 typically uses functional behavioral assessment (FBA) leading to individualized behavior intervention plans
• Variants include schoolwide PBIS, classroom-level adaptations, and integration with academic multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS)

Target Learners¶

• All students in a school benefit from predictable, explicitly taught expectations; effects are strongest on discipline outcomes in elementary and middle grades [+S]
• Students with repeated office referrals benefit most from Tier 2 supports layered on the universal system
• Students experiencing exclusionary discipline disparities — PBIS data review makes disproportionate referrals visible and actionable; pairing with empathic discipline messaging reduces suspensions Brief empathic discipline interventions cut suspension rates among middle school students. [+M]
• All students benefit from Tier 1 universal expectations, but the largest gains accrue to students at risk for behavioral difficulty [~S]
• Students with emotional or behavioral disorders require Tier 3 individualized function-based support; universal supports alone do not meet their needs [-M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Procedural skill acquisition: knowing what expected behavior looks like in each setting
• Self-regulation: internalizing expectations so monitoring shifts from external tokens to self-management Self-regulated learning develops through modeled strategies and gradual transfer of control. [+M]
• School climate and belonging: predictable, positively framed environments increase students' sense of belonging Belonging interventions improve student outcomes. [+M]
• Procedural knowledge of behavioral expectations in specific settings
• Self-regulation and social-emotional skills at Tiers 2 and 3

Instructions¶

1. Define 3–5 positively stated expectations with a leadership team and staff input.
2. Operationalize each expectation into a teaching matrix: concrete, observable examples of what it looks like in every school setting.
3. Teach expectations directly at the start of the year using Demonstration (modeling with narration), Practice (students rehearse routines), and Non-Examples (contrasting expected vs. unexpected behavior); re-teach after breaks.
4. Reinforce expected behavior with a high-frequency, low-effort acknowledgment system tied to specific expectations; deliver acknowledgment with specific behavioral feedback ("You waited your turn — that's being respectful"), not just tokens.
5. Monitor office discipline referral and acknowledgment data monthly; use data to identify settings needing re-teaching and students needing Tier 2 supports such as Check-In/Check-Out.
6. Escalate support for non-responders: function-based individual plans at Tier 3, developed with family input.
7. Sustain through annual staff training, fidelity self-assessment, and celebrating implementation wins — treat adult behavior with the same reinforcement logic as student behavior.

Related Strategies¶

• Check-Ins — the Tier 2 Check-In/Check-Out structure is a formalized daily check-in with a consistent adult
• Clear Structure — PBIS is clear structure applied to the social environment rather than the lesson
• Action-Oriented Feedback — effective acknowledgment names the specific behavior, functioning as feedback rather than reward
• Implement clear, consistently enforced rules and routines, including a uniform schoolwide discipline plan
• Sustained, needs-based PBIS professional development with in-classroom coaching to build teacher capacity
• Check-In/Check-Out — the most common Tier 2 support within PBIS
• Restorative Practices — a complementary approach to discipline that replaces exclusionary consequences
• Social-Emotional Learning — teaches the underlying self-regulation skills PBIS expectations presuppose
• Sustain and resource statewide PBIS scale-up with emphasis on advanced-tier implementation support
• Implement multi-tiered supports focused on acceleration, not remediation
• Target school-climate improvement within individual schools and communities, using schoolwide behavior systems, social-emotional learning, and compensatory supports
• School-level strategies for improving school climate

Examples¶

• Center on PBIS — the national technical assistance center; hosts implementation guides, fidelity measures (Tiered Fidelity Inventory), and state implementation networks.
• Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools — statewide PBIS scale-up evaluated in randomized trials by Bradshaw and colleagues, showing reduced suspensions and improved climate ratings.
• Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) — the most widely adopted Tier 2 intervention: students receive a daily point card reviewed morning and afternoon with a mentor, aligning Tier 2 support with the universal acknowledgment system.
• Center on PBIS — the national technical assistance center providing implementation guides, fidelity measures (TFI, SAS), and state implementation networks across the U.S.
• Maryland PBIS Partnership — a statewide implementation spanning 800+ schools; Bradshaw et al.'s randomized trials of Maryland PBIS showed reduced suspensions and improved school climate.
• Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) — a Tier 2 intervention in which a mentor greets the student each morning, reviews goals, and provides point-based feedback each period, with a brief end-of-day check-out.

Key Sources¶

• 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
• 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
• Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp. 307–326). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_13
• 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
• Simonsen, B., & Myers, D. (2015). Classroom Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
• Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). Schoolwide positive behavior support. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors (pp. 359–390). Guilford Press.
• Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
• Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5221–5226. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523698113