Adaptation of Universal Behavioral Supports Within an Alternative Education Setting

Abstract

Alternative education (AE) settings support students with significant social–emotional and behavioral needs. Such settings often implement individualized programming; however, this presents challenges with staffing resources and training. Application of systems to address behavior on a schoolwide level could simplify training, increase staffing flexibility, and decrease use of crisis response procedures. This 2-year, descriptive case study provides an implementation example of universal behavioral supports based on a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework within an AE setting. Over the course of the study, a reduction in staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures was observed. Additionally, staff perceived the framework favorably. Implementation steps are described, along with differentiation of the framework to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student population within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a multi-tiered prevention and intervention framework designed to support students’ social, emotional, and behavioral functioning and academic performance. It is not a manualized program or curriculum, but rather a collection of evidence-based practices that can be adapted within a variety of educational settings. In 2020, over 29,000 schools across the world had adopted PBIS to improve student outcomes (George & Martinez, 2020). PBIS involves implementing a continuum of evidence-based practices to address student needs, using data to monitor progress, and relying on teams to guide implementation. Practices and interventions are organized within three tiers where all students are provided with Tier 1 supports, at-risk students are provided with targeted interventions through Tier 2, and high-risk students are provided with individualized interventions through Tier 3.

Core features of Tier 1 include (a) defining three to five positively stated expectations that apply to all students and staff across settings, (b) explicitly teaching expectations across settings, (c) implementing a system for acknowledging prosocial behaviors, (d) responding to problem behaviors using a consistent continuum of responses that matches the severity of the behavior, and (e) frequently reviewing behavioral data to guide decision-making. Interventions provided at Tiers 2 and 3 build upon and intensify Tier 1 practices, resulting in a comprehensive and cohesive framework. When students do not respond adequately to Tier 3 supports, they may be referred for an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Within general education settings, implementation of Tier 1 practices has been associated with positive behavioral and academic outcomes, including decreased disciplinary incidents and suspensions, increased students meeting state testing benchmarks, and improvements in school climate (Bradshaw et al., 2009, 2010; Childs et al., 2016; Gage et al., 2017, 2019).

Alternative Education Settings

Despite the positive effects of PBIS, students with significant emotional and behavioral difficulties are often best supported within more specialized and restrictive settings. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2021), over 20,000 students with disabilities were placed in separate schools, residential facilities, or correctional facilities during the 2019 to 2020 school year, representing 2.9% of the student population in the United States. These facilities are often referred to as alternative education (AE) settings, as students are typically placed in them following removal from general education settings as a result of significant behavioral difficulties which precipitate the need for more individualized support. Although AE settings can vary widely from state to state, they often serve as transitional educational placements, with students potentially moving to more or less restrictive settings at any point in the school year (Kumm et al., 2020). Behind students with deaf-blindness and multiple disabilities, students with emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) were the third most common group placed in AE settings. Students with hearing impairment and autism represent the fourth and fifth most commonly referred groups, respectively (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Overall, AE settings are tasked with providing evidence-based programming to students with varied and intense behavioral needs.

Alternative education settings face additional, unique challenges in supporting students with a range of significant disabilities. Challenges include high rates of staff turnover, providing adequate supports for staff who are inexperienced in working with students with behavioral difficulties, short-term educational placements leading to frequent turnover of students within the setting, students requiring different levels of support at any given time during placements, as well as the need for staff to be able to work with a variety of students (Baker et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2003; Lehr et al., 2009). As such, there is a need for evidence-based practices to facilitate the provision of high-quality behavioral supports in an efficient and effective way within complex AE settings. Integration of universal, Tier 1 practices within AE settings could potentially reduce the need for more complex, individualized systems, thus maximizing efficiency of both training provided to staff as well as support provided to students. In addition, use of universal practices could increase opportunities for flexible staffing options, as some elements of support would remain similar across students.

A growing body of research suggests that PBIS can be adapted within AE settings to effectively support the social–emotional and behavioral needs of students with significant disabilities. More specifically, implementation of Tier 1 PBIS within AE settings has been associated with increases in on-task and prosocial behaviors, along with decreases in problem behaviors such as defiance and physical aggression (Farkas et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2019; Simonsen et al., 2010). Results of a recent systematic review of 19 studies conducted by Grasley-Boy and colleagues (2021) indicated that use of restraint and seclusion procedures following implementation of PBIS within AE settings almost always decreased and continued on a decreasing trend over multiple years when evaluated over time. These results are particularly meaningful for practitioners working with students with significant behavioral needs, as such restrictive crisis procedures involve removing students from the classroom setting and can increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviors (Magee & Ellis, 2001). In addition, physical restraints can result in lasting psychological effects and even death in rare instances (Couvillon et al., 2010; Mohr et al., 2003). Although physical restraints may be necessary to maintain safety in certain situations, it is important that such procedures are used sparingly. These results suggest that implementation of Tier 1 PBIS may provide a set of practices to decrease use of physical restraints in AE settings through a focus on prevention of behavioral escalation. Results of the review also indicated a reduction in inappropriate behaviors across studies.

Because students supported within AE settings have complex and varied learning and behavioral needs, implementation of PBIS practices within such settings warrants special consideration and adaptation. Clemens and colleagues (2021) suggest that typical Tier 1 practices should be intensified within AE settings. For example, such settings may require more explicit and frequent instruction in expectations and prosocial behaviors that are embedded in routines throughout the day and across settings. This instruction will also need to be differentiated to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student population. Intensification of Tier 1 strategies should also include more frequent acknowledgment and reinforcement of adaptive skills which, again, are differentiated according to student needs.

In addition, implementation of PBIS systems within AE settings requires special consideration with respect to staff support. In their focus group study, McDaniel and colleagues (2014) found that integrating PBIS with existing, more individualized systems within AE settings can present challenges with staff buy-in. In such situations, the researchers recommend simplifying the systems to ensure feasibility. The researchers also note that job responsibilities within AE settings are particularly demanding and complex in comparison to more traditional settings, thus continuing to highlight the importance of efficiency. According to Simonsen and colleagues (2010), ongoing coaching and professional development is needed to support implementation within complex AE settings.

Although a growing body of evidence provides support for the adoption of PBIS within AE settings, there is a need for more specific guidance and examples regarding adaptation of the framework. The purpose of this paper is to share the results of a 2-year, descriptive case study in which Tier 1 universal behavioral supports based on a PBIS framework were implemented within an AE setting in the Northeast. Implementation steps are described along with how the framework was differentiated to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student population. Outcome measures are discussed with respect to staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures and feasibility and acceptability.

Method

Setting

Universal behavioral supports were implemented in a publicly funded, AE setting in the Northeast for students in Pre–K through age 21. The school provided comprehensive special education services to students with a variety of developmental disabilities, including autism, EBD, and complex medical backgrounds. Students presented with a wide range of cognitive abilities and communication modalities, ranging from intellectual disability to superior cognitive functioning and non-verbal to typical verbal communication. Most students in the school received 1:1 adult support throughout the day.

The school supported roughly 60 students. Long-term options and short-term diagnostic support were provided. The school was diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. During the 2020 through 2021 school year, 20% of students in the school identified as Hispanic or Latino, 15% as Black or African American, 45% as White, 15% as two or more races, and 5% as Asian. Fifty-seven percent of students were eligible for free and reduced price meals (PowerSchool, 2021).

Implementation Steps

The school provided high-quality, specialized support rooted in behavior analytic principles. Families, educators, and regional administrators have been noted to value the highly individualized programming the school has to offer. However, developing and implementing solely individualized programming has presented challenges with respect to staff resources and training. The application of systems and processes to address behavior on a schoolwide level was initiated to potentially simplify staff training, enable greater flexibility with staffing resources, and improve the quality of instruction. To lead efforts in systematizing select aspects of teaching, reinforcing, and responding to behavior, a School-Wide Behavior Support Team (SWBST) was created at the beginning of the 2019 to 2020 school year. The team included the school principal, two intensive program coordinators, a school psychologist, a school psychology advanced practicum student, and a social work intern. The team met monthly to guide implementation of key components of a schoolwide behavioral framework over the course of the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 school years. It is important to note that much of this work took place within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, adaptations were made to the framework to maximize student learning within a unique, hybrid instructional environment and to promote safe, health-related behaviors during in-person learning.

Schoolwide Expectations and Matrix

Prior to the start of the 2019 through 2020 school year, schoolwide behavioral expectations were developed by the school principal and intensive program coordinators and included: Take Care of Ourselves, Take Care of Others, and Take Care of Our Environment. In the fall of 2019, a behavioral expectations matrix was developed that defined specific behaviors associated with each expectation across settings within the school. Members of the SWBST, including the school psychology advanced practicum student and the social work intern, assisted in the creation of the matrix. First, they created a blank matrix, identifying critical areas in the school requiring specifically defined expectations. Then, they toured the building, identifying any existing signage with rules listed. Next, staff responsible for the locations were interviewed about expectations and asked to review previously identified expectations (i.e., from signage) for accuracy. Feedback was used to refine the matrix, and language was reviewed to ensure that it was consistent and positively stated. Although the matrix was initially drafted in the fall of 2019, it was updated in the fall of 2020 to include social distancing, hand sanitizing, and mask-wearing expectations, which became pertinent as students returned to school buildings in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The matrix was intended to be a resource for educators to access and refer to when teaching behavioral expectations to students. For example, when teaching students to “Take Care of Ourselves,” teachers referred to the matrix to ensure that they taught students what it “looks like” in the classroom: complete all work, do your best work, ask for help when needed, raise your hand, follow directions the first time, and stay focused. Posters were created and displayed in common areas across the school to remind students of the expectations. They included both pictures and words to increase accessibility for a wide range of learners.

Behavioral Expectations Instruction

Lesson plans were created for each schoolwide expectation (i.e., Take Care of Ourselves, Take Care of Others, Take Care of Our Environment). The lesson plans were designed to provide an overarching framework for lessons following a Model, Lead, Test progression in which skills are first modeled for students, then students have the opportunity to practice skills with adult assistance, and finally students engage in skills independently and receive feedback on their performance. The lesson plans included a bank of resources to facilitate instruction that teachers could adapt to meet the needs of their specific student population. The SWBST felt that this approach would be more feasible than creating scripted lesson plans due to the wide range of developmental levels served by the program.

Lesson plans included links to a variety of online resources, including videos, music, short stories, and books. Developmentally appropriate resources were selected to appeal to student learning through storytelling and guided practice for younger students and reflection on personal experiences and relevant topics such as social media, relationships, and mental health for older students. Each lesson included the following components: setting where lesson would occur; lesson objective; materials required; positive teaching examples; and sample activities that could be used to Model, Lead, and Test students’ understanding of the skills. A variety of activities were described to provide options for facilitating instruction with a range of age levels (e.g., elementary, middle, high school). Lesson plans also included guidance on how to acknowledge students for engaging in expectations, as well as suggestions regarding potential modifications for students with unique needs.

The SWBST created a Behavioral Expectations Lesson Plan Guidelines document to ensure that lessons were taught consistently across the school setting. The guidelines described staff expectations regarding implementation and included a calendar for lesson planning. Teachers were encouraged to adapt the calendar, including the duration of lessons, to meet the needs of their students. However, daily instruction was expected to remain constant.

As previously mentioned, instruction varied based on the needs of the classroom. As such, lesson plans offered potential modifications for teachers to consider based on the needs of their students. For students who are nonverbal, potential modifications included minimizing verbal instructions, increasing the use of visuals, and placing a strong emphasis on explicit modeling and repetition. For higher functioning students with stronger cognitive abilities and verbal communication, potential modifications included increased emphasis on critical thinking and self-reflection. For example, students might be asked to write down personally relevant examples of what it means to “Take Care of Ourselves,” prior to staff sharing examples. Another sample activity for higher functioning students included watching a video about the importance of hard work when learning about the behavioral expectation of Take Care of Ourselves and then participating in a facilitated discussion on the tangible rewards of hard work.

To promote generalization of skills throughout the school, teachers were encouraged to have students practice skills in various locations throughout the building by taking “field trips” to other parts of the school. Within those settings, staff members modeled expected behaviors, led students through activities where they could practice expected behaviors with assistance, and then had students engage in behaviors independently and receive feedback.

Positive Reinforcement System

Beginning at the start of the 2019 to 2020 school year, students were awarded with a Sand Dollar ticket paired with specific praise when they demonstrated one of the schoolwide expectations. The principal selected the Sand Dollar theme to align with the school’s location along the shoreline. When a student demonstrated an expectation, a paper ticket was provided in the moment by the classroom teacher or support staff, and the staff member told the student specifically why they were being awarded the Sand Dollar while also noting the expectation followed. For example, the staff member would say, “I noticed that you asked your friend what was wrong when you saw that he was upset. Great job taking care of others!” The student’s name, date, and specific behavior being acknowledged was written on the ticket. In addition, a box was checked to indicate which schoolwide behavior expectation was met.

The student was able to enter the ticket into a fishbowl in the main office for a weekly prize drawing. At the end of each week, two Sand Dollar tickets were drawn from the fishbowl, one for an elementary student and one for a secondary student. This was done to increase opportunities for students across grade levels to win. Also, when the reinforcement system was initially introduced, it was noted that secondary teachers were awarding Sand Dollars at lower rates than elementary teachers. Subsequent to ensuring that a secondary student was a Sand Dollar winner each week, rates of Sand Dollars awarded to secondary students increased.

When students won the Sand Dollar drawing, they could pick a reward of their choice from a menu of options. A variety of choices were offered to meet a range of preferences and included such things as lunch with the principal, extra time to play outside with friends, and a variety of gift cards in small denominations. Student feedback was sought and utilized when creating the menu and informed ongoing updates. Copies of winning Sand Dollar tickets were also posted on an announcement board in a central location within one of the hallways, and a special note was sent home to the family. Winners were announced over the school intercom, and this quickly became a much anticipated event. Higher functioning students were given the opportunity to announce the winners, which became a preferred activity.

During the 2020 to 2021 school year, the SWBST added an additional schoolwide incentive to the reinforcement system. During monthly meetings, the team set a goal number of Sand Dollars to be awarded schoolwide for the upcoming month based on the number of tickets awarded the previous month. Weekly progress updates were posted on the announcement board, and a schoolwide reward was provided when the predetermined goal was achieved. Students were given the opportunity to vote on schoolwide rewards. Examples of rewards included: movie and popcorn, pajama day and hot chocolate, new recess item and extra time outside, and an ice cream social.

In addition to providing students with reinforcement for displaying expectations, the reinforcement system also involved acknowledging staff for engaging in behaviors consistent with Take Care of Ourselves, Take Care of Others, and Take Care of Our Environment. Any staff member could award another staff member with a Sand Dollar, which was put into a monthly prize drawing with the opportunity to win a gift card of their choice.

To support teacher implementation of the reinforcement system, a Positive Reinforcement System Guidelines document was developed. The document provided teachers and staff with explicit guidance on how to deliver and maintain the system, along with a description of primary components (e.g., student and staff Sand Dollars, weekly drawings, schoolwide rewards, etc.). Classroom teachers were encouraged to collaborate with support staff who worked with their students (e.g., Board Certified Behavior Analysts, social workers) to determine how to best utilize Sand Dollars to meet individual student needs.

During the 2020 to 2021 school year, instruction was provided in a hybrid format for the majority of the year where students engaged in a combination of remote and in-person learning. Staff continued to award students with Sand Dollars during remote instruction, filling out an electronic version of the ticket and posting a picture of the ticket on the online learning platform for the student and family to view. When awarding Sand Dollars during remote instruction, staff also filled out a paper version of the ticket to enter into the weekly drawing.

The SWBST noted that low numbers of Sand Dollars were awarded during periods of prolonged remote instruction. To address this, they created a teacher incentive that used a BINGO-style board that could be customized to meet the needs of each individual classroom. Teachers were asked to fill in the blocks on the BINGO board with behaviors that they might award Sand Dollars for during remote instruction. Each time they awarded a Sand Dollar, they filled in the block on the BINGO board that corresponded with the behavior. Teachers who completed their BINGO board received a gift card.

Ongoing Training and Coaching

Initially, at the start of the 2019 through 2020 school year, the schoolwide expectations and reinforcement system were introduced to staff by members of the SWBST during a staff meeting. The team recognized a need for more explicit and ongoing training for staff at the start of the 2020 through 2021 school year, when students and staff returned to school buildings after a prolonged period of closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In early fall 2020, the SWBST led two short trainings to introduce Behavioral Expectations Lesson Plans to teachers and to re-familiarize staff with the Behavioral Expectations Matrix and School-wide Positive Reinforcement System. Check-ins also occurred with the full staff in October, January, and March to support implementation, gather feedback, answer questions, brainstorm solutions, and share data. In addition, individual consultation sessions were conducted with teachers to gather feedback on perceptions of the framework and to identify additional supports needed. Teachers were provided with strategies to support differentiation of the framework for a variety of learners, and feedback from these individual meetings shaped future professional development.

Communication With Staff and Families

Home–school and schoolwide communication regarding the framework was essential. A Sand Dollar certificate was created and sent home with drawing winners to support home-school communication. In addition, a Sand Dollar Digest was disseminated to teachers to communicate monthly Sand Dollar goals and rewards, as well as to highlight implementation examples and to share data updates. Student progress toward Sand Dollar goals was tracked visually on an announcement board in a community space in the hallway. The most current Sand Dollar Digest was also posted on the announcement board, along with Sand Dollar certificates of drawing winners.

Implementation Fidelity

The Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ) is a fidelity measure and progress monitoring tool that was utilized by the SWBST to inform ongoing implementation of universal behavioral supports. The BoQ is a 53-item, rubric-style measure designed to systematically assess core features of Tier 1 PBIS across 10 key domains (Kincaid et al., 2010). It was chosen as a progress monitoring measure because of its narrow focus on Tier 1 features, which was consistent with the focus of this case study. The BoQ has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity (Cohen et al., 2007) and can be used to inform both initial and ongoing implementation. A total score of 70% or above on the BoQ indicates that Tier 1 supports are currently in place to a degree that can impact students positively (Kincaid et al., 2010).

The SWBST completed the BoQ collaboratively in the summer of 2019 to provide a pre-implementation measure. The team met as a group to complete the measure, coming to a consensus on each item through discussion. The BoQ was completed by the SWBST again in May 2020 and May 2021 as progress monitoring measures.

According to the BoQ, the total implementation score rose significantly from 38% in the summer of 2019 to 71% in May 2020. The most significant growth was seen in the areas of Expectations & Rules Developed, Reward/Recognition Program, and Lesson Plans for Teaching Expectations. Areas of relative weakness included Faculty Commitment, Procedures for Dealing with Discipline, Data Entry & Analysis Plan, PBIS Team, and Evaluation. Post-implementation results of this measure were just above 70% in May 2020, indicating that Tier 1 supports were in place to a degree that could impact students positively at the time. However, the team recognized the importance of ongoing efforts needed to maintain the fidelity of the framework. Action steps for the following school year were developed based on the results of the BoQ and included the following: (a) establish a process for the SWBST to regularly review outcome data (i.e., staff use of restraints and seclusions, number of Sand Dollars awarded), (b) introduce newly developed lesson plans and guidelines for behavioral expectations instruction and reinforcement system, (c) add regular schoolwide rewards along with goal-setting to the reinforcement system, (d) increase opportunities for student and staff involvement in the framework, (e) develop and implement a systematic process for sharing schoolwide data regularly with staff, and (f) provide staff with ongoing training and coaching through regular check-ins and consultation.

The total implementation score rose again from 71% in May 2020 to 76% in May 2021. The most significant growth was seen in the areas of Evaluation, PBIS Team, and Expectations & Rules Developed. Areas of relative weakness included Faculty Commitment, Procedures for Dealing with Discipline, and Data Entry & Analysis Plan. Reward/Recognition Program decreased slightly due to inconsistency in implementation of the staff reward system. Data Entry & Analysis Plan also decreased slightly due to re-conceptualizing these data from a purely schoolwide perspective versus individual student data collection systems. These results were also utilized to develop action steps and recommendations for future work. An area identified for particular focus moving forward pertained to Data Entry & Analysis. Within this AE setting, all students had individualized behavior plans coupled with individualized data systems. Although the staff collected a great deal of individual student data, there were no systems in place to analyze student behavior data on a schoolwide level, which posed challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of the framework. Results of the BoQ are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Results of Benchmarks of Quality.

Design and Data Analysis

This descriptive case study was conducted to assess potential impacts of universal behavioral supports within an AE setting. Data on implementation fidelity were also collected at multiple points to guide intervention planning. Pre–post data on staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures were collected, along with qualitative and quantitative data on feasibility and acceptability.

Results

Staff Use of Restraint and Seclusion Procedures

Data on staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures were collected and documented according to procedures specified by state law. These data were then analyzed monthly during scheduled SWBST meetings. The team identified average restraints and seclusions per student per month as an appropriate progress monitoring measure, as it would account for variations in student attendance over time. Average restraints and seclusions per student over the course of the 2018 to 2019, 2019 to 2020, and 2020 to 2021 school years are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Average Restraints and Seclusions Per Student 2018 through 2021.

Analysis of data indicate that average restraints and seclusions per student were lower over the course of the 2019 through 2020 school year (first year of implementation) in comparison to the 2018 through 2019 school year (pre-implementation). Data were not analyzed for the month of March 2020 because school was closed from 16 March as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, thus a valid comparison to previous months was not possible. Data were not available for the months of April through June 2020 due to the prolonged school building closure as a result of the pandemic. Decreases in average restraints and seclusions per student continued to be observed throughout the 2020 through 2021 school year. More specifically, staff used restraint and/or seclusion procedures with each student on average 3.25 times per month (SD = 1.36) pre-implementation during the 2018 through 2019 school year. Subsequent to implementation of the universal behavioral framework, use of restraint and/or seclusion procedures decreased to an average of 2.09 times per month (SD = 1.21) per student during the first year of implementation (2019 to 2020) and 0.67 times per month (SD = 0.55) during the second year of implementation (2020 to 2021). Overall, a 79% decrease in staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures was observed over the course of this case study.

Feasibility and Acceptability

Usage Rating Profile–Intervention Revised (URP-IR)

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of the universal behavioral framework from the perspective of implementers, teachers were asked to complete the Usage Rating Profile–Intervention Revised (URP-IR) at the end of the 2020 through 2021 school year. The URP-IR is a self-report measure designed to assess factors believed to influence the probability that someone would consider an intervention and subsequently use it over time (Chafouleas et al., 2011). The 29-item questionnaire produces subscale scores related to the areas of acceptability, understanding, family-school collaboration, feasibility, system climate, and system support (Chafouleas et al., 2011).

Teachers rated their overall satisfaction with the universal behavioral framework regarding each factor noted above. Scoring for each scale ranges from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). For each scale, apart from System Support and Home School Collaboration, higher scores are desirable. Lower scores on System Support indicate confidence in independently implementing the framework, and lower scores on Home School Collaboration indicate that a home–school relationship is not imperative to the success of implementing the intervention. Overall, as noted by the Feasibility (M = 4.50; SD = 0.87) and Acceptability (M = 4.77; SD = 0.73) scales, teachers agreed that the universal behavioral framework could be easily implemented and addressed the behavioral needs of students. In addition, they communicated interest in implementing the framework. Teachers agreed that the framework aligns with the school’s mission and system and that the school environment was conducive to implementation, as noted by the System Climate scale (M = 5.03; SD = 0.45). In addition, teachers agreed that they understood the purpose and how to implement the framework, as noted by the Understanding scale (M = 5.25; SD = 0.68). According to the System Support scale (M = 3.60; SD = 1.00), teachers indicated that additional assistance (e.g., resources, consultation, training) would be beneficial to support implementation of the framework.

Teacher Survey

Classroom teachers were also asked to complete a survey shared via Google Forms to gain a better understanding of their perception of the framework within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Feedback provided was as follows:

• Question 1: How did the schoolwide behavior support program fit within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? What were the challenges? What were the benefits?

Staff generally felt that the schoolwide behavior support program fit within the context of the pandemic and that the expectations, specifically Take Care of Self and Take Care of Others, connected well to safety precautions that were necessary. Teachers noted that the program created continuity between remote and in-person learning environments. Challenges were noted with the implementation of the reinforcement system within a remote learning environment, as well as with the integration of multiple reinforcement systems within the classroom.

• Question 2: Do you feel that the schoolwide behavior support program cultivated community, inclusion, and/or connectedness at the school? Please explain.

All staff who completed the survey indicated that they felt that the schoolwide behavior support program helped to cultivate a sense of community and connectedness at school. Specific examples provided included students within classrooms working together to earn Sand Dollars, opportunities to congratulate peers when they won the weekly drawing, and bringing together separate classrooms to work toward a common goal. In addition, one teacher noted that the program provided a foundation for classroom lessons to discuss positive behavior. Another teacher noted that their students sometimes struggled to maintain safety and positivity when Sand Dollar drawing winners were announced, and the schoolwide rewards were confusing for some students who had difficulty drawing connections between remote and in-person learning environments.

• Question 3: Do you have any suggestions to make the schoolwide behavior support program more inclusive for our diverse group of learners?

Teachers suggested the need for more individualization of the Behavioral Expectations Matrix to address the wide variety of student needs. Next, teachers suggested that pairing Sand Dollars with highly preferred items may help to increase student motivation and reinforce behavioral expectations for some students. Another suggestion to make the program more inclusive was to increase opportunities for students with limited communication or functional skills to win the Sand Dollar drawing. Finally, teachers reported a need to utilize strategies to increase “buy in” from higher functioning, secondary students.

Discussion

Alternative education settings provide support to students with a wide range of significant disabilities coupled with intensive social–emotional and behavioral needs. Such settings also face unique challenges including high rates of staff and student turnover, providing adequate training for staff with limited experience supporting students with behavioral difficulties, and the need for staff to be able to work with a variety of students (Baker et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2003; Lehr et al., 2009). Integration of universal, Tier 1 practices within AE settings could potentially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of behavioral supports while also increasing opportunities for flexible staffing options. Implementation of Tier 1 PBIS in AE settings has been shown to increase on-task and prosocial behaviors, decrease problem behaviors, and decrease staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures (Farkas et al., 2012; Grasley-Boy et al., 2021; Griffiths et al., 2019; Simonsen et al., 2010).

Over the course of this 2-year, descriptive case study, aspects of Tier 1 PBIS were integrated with individualized behavioral systems within an AE setting in the Northeast. Adaptations were made to the system to support a student population with a wide variety of needs within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on recommendations from the literature, explicit and frequent instruction in expectations was embedded across settings, an intensified reinforcement system was implemented that included both individual and schoolwide rewards along with staff incentives, and both instruction and reinforcement were differentiated to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student population. In addition, ongoing coaching and professional development were provided to staff to support implementation.

Progress monitoring measures indicated that overall implementation fidelity of key components of Tier 1 PBIS rose from 38% pre-implementation in the summer of 2019 to 76% after 2 years of implementation in May 2021. According to the BoQ, by the end of the first year of implementation, the school had achieved a total score above 70%, indicating that a universal behavioral framework was implemented to a degree that could achieve positive student outcomes. Over the course of the case study, a 79% reduction in staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures was observed. Results of a social validity measure indicated that teachers found the framework to be feasible and acceptable. Qualitative information provided through teacher surveys suggested that staff felt that the framework increased a feeling of connectedness within the school throughout the pandemic. Challenges noted included differentiation of the framework to meet the needs of diverse learners, as well as maintaining consistency between remote and in-person learning environments.

Limitations

These results should be interpreted in light of relevant limitations. First, this case study was conducted within an AE setting in the Northeast that supports students with a range of disabilities, including autism, EBD, and intellectual disability. Some conclusions gathered from the study may not be as directly relevant to AE settings that support students with significantly different developmental disabilities (i.e., deafness, blindness). Second, this case study utilized a combination of quantitative and qualitative data to draw conclusions about implementation of a universal behavioral framework within an AE setting. Although the descriptive methodology used provides important information pertaining to practical application, integration of this information with results of studies using more rigorous empirical methodology will be important in examining specific aspects of implementation that contribute to outcomes. In addition, implementation fidelity data were focused solely on system-level aspects of the framework. Thus, information on classroom-level quality of instruction (e.g., frequency, duration, and differentiation of lessons) was not gathered. It will be important for future researchers to examine both systems- and classroom-level implementation fidelity to strengthen conclusions drawn about the framework and outcome variables. Finally, the results of this case study should be interpreted in light of the fact that the school operated in a hybrid instructional model much of the 2020 through 2021 school year, from September through the end of April. Within this model, all students engaged in remote instruction on Wednesdays, and therefore were not in school buildings. Most students attended school in person 4 days per week during that time period, whereas some families chose to have their child attend school in person fewer days per week or engage only in remote learning. Therefore, there were fewer students attending school than in previous years, and there were also fewer days of in-person learning over the course of the school year. These factors may have contributed to a calmer school environment with a higher staff to student ratio than in other years, thus presenting limitations to interpreting the data. Still, data indicated a reduction in staff use of restraints and seclusions the previous year as well when typical in-person instruction was occurring, thus providing promising evidence for the framework.

Implications for Research and Practice

Results of this case study provide important implications for both research and practice. It will be important for researchers to continue to conduct empirical investigations of PBIS implementation in AE settings to further refine recommendations regarding adaptation of the framework that led to positive outcomes. In addition to including measures of implementation fidelity, social validity, and staff outcomes as this case study did, studies should also include socially important student outcome variables, such as measures of disruptive or unsafe behavior to comprehensively assess efficacy of the framework. Researchers might also examine whether implementation of such frameworks within AE settings could potentially decrease staff turnover.

It will also be important for practitioners to consider how to best aggregate and analyze student data on a schoolwide level in AE settings where many programs utilize individual student data to drive decision-making. One possible option is to identify a small number of behaviors to track schoolwide that would be most impactful on the overall school climate, such as behaviors related to safety (e.g., physical aggression, property destruction, elopement). These behaviors could be easily tracked within an online system, such as the School-Wide Information System (SWIS; see www.pbisapps.org), so that staff could more directly assess whether implementation of a universal behavioral framework impacted student behavior by reviewing schoolwide trends over time.

Although efforts were made to differentiate the framework to meet the needs of diverse learners, the process continued to be noted as a challenge over the course of the study. Differentiation of instruction and reinforcement will likely look different depending upon the unique AE setting and should be an ongoing process involving frequent reflection and modification. Some potential options for strengthening differentiation include asking teachers to adapt behavioral expectations matrices for individual students in their classrooms to promote thinking about how the expectations and reinforcement system can be modified to meet the needs of specific students. It may also be beneficial to consider student representation during leadership team meetings to provide high-functioning students the opportunity to share their voice and cultivate leadership skills. Regardless of specific practices and strategies utilized to differentiate instruction and reinforcement, ongoing coaching and training were noted to be important aspects of this case study that contributed to the success of the framework. In addition, both researchers and practitioners should continue to explore how to best integrate a universal framework for instruction and reinforcement with individualized systems in a way that is both feasible and effective.

Finally, this case study focused on implementation of behavioral expectation instruction and reinforcement. One key component of PBIS, responding to problem behavior using a consistent continuum of responses, was not addressed. Future work should address which aspects of responding to behavior could be feasibly systematized within a school that provides highly individualized supports.

Conclusion

The purpose of this 2-year, descriptive case study was to provide an implementation example of universal behavioral supports within an AE setting and to explore outcomes related to staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures. Overall, results of the case study contribute to a growing evidence base providing promising support for the adoption of universal behavioral supports within AE settings. Consistent with previous research, implementation of Tier 1 behavioral supports based on a PBIS framework with fidelity over the course of 2 years resulted in a reduction in staff use of restraint and seclusion procedures. In addition, staff reported that the framework was feasible and acceptable to implement and strengthened a sense of community within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.