Schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and human rights: transforming our educational systems into levers for social justice

Abstract

Positive behaviour support and schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports (PBIS) emerged in response to the misuse of behavioural theory and ableism in educational systems. Yet even with these advances, inequitable outcomes based on ability and race persist. The purpose of this article is to describe an equity-centred schoolwide PBIS approach that harnesses behavioural theory and the PBIS framework to focus specifically on systems change to lead to equitable outcomes. There is emerging evidence of promise for increasing racial equity in student outcomes, and implications and suggestions are provided to increase equity by disability status. In providing practitioners with clear steps to reduce ableism and racism in educational systems, this line of research stands to benefit all students and families.

Across the world, education is considered a basic human right. A landmark consensus document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1949) states that ‘education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. Further, it notes that parents and other caregivers ‘have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children’. However, although education is a well-established right, it may not extend fully to those who most stand to benefit from it. Marginalized groups, including minoritized racial groups and students with disabilities, are more likely to be excluded from typical educational experiences, often through exclusion from the classroom environment as part of discipline procedures (Losen, 2018). As such, it is critical to adopt systems-level approaches with concrete strategies to ensure the right to education is realized by every school-aged child and youth.

Behavioural theory shows distinct promise to improve educational systems, because interventions based on its principles are extremely powerful in changing human behaviour. They are so powerful that it is useful to consider this basic tenet: the more effective the practice, the greater the need to ensure that it is used ethically, even when intent is positive. Given the established evidence base for interventions based on applied behaviour analysis (ABA), caution is necessary when designing support plans. For example, the determination of what behaviours are acceptable and unacceptable, as well as what strategies should be used to change behaviour, is subjective but is often assumed as universal by consultants and implementers, which can lead to adaptive behaviour being labelled as wrong and educators to exclude students from instruction (Machalicek et al., 2021). Thus, without attention to context, behavioural theory thus can be used to deprive students of their rights instead of assuring them.

In response to concerns from a range of ABA researchers and practitioners about misapplication of behavioural theory, the field of positive behaviour support emerged. Positive behaviour support practitioners use theories and principles of behaviour established in basic behavioural research and practices from ABA and organizational/behavioural management (Dunlap, 2006, Leif et al., 2022). However, positive behaviour support has at its core a strong focus on values and dignity of the individual (Carr et al., 2002). Its emergence and differentiation from some misapplications of ABA emerged from concerns about the use of ABA with individuals with disabilities, especially the use of aversive practices, such as electric shock or spraying individuals in the face with water or noxious substances, that seemingly ‘worked’ to decrease unwanted behaviour (Carr et al., 2002). A more ethical alternative was termed nonaversive behaviour support (Horner et al., 1990), an approach that was as or more effective as typical behaviour plans but rejected any practices that induced physical or emotional pain (e.g. intentional humiliation), and instead focussed on teaching and positive reinforcement of acceptable alternative behaviours. Contemporary positive behaviour support (as well as much of modern ABA) leans on evidence from multiple disciplines—including implementation science, positive psychology, and prevention science—to implement systems and plans that emphasize individual voice and choice, as well as the principle of contextual fit, to improve outcomes that are agreed upon by all affected parties (Leif et al., 2022).

Emergence of schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports (PBIS)

The application of positive behaviour support to school systems (known as schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports, or schoolwide PBIS) emerged as educators struggled to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, particularly those labelled with emotional or behavioural disorders. The student-by-student approach of using individual support plans was proving too difficult to implement in classrooms and schools, simply because the number of students requiring support plans and the resources required to implement them required time, resources and personnel (Colvin et al., 1993). An alternative idea was to change the host environment to make it more supportive of all students’ social, emotional, and behavioural growth (Kame'enui and Simmons, 1998). Such an approach was theorized to improve overall behaviour, helping more students be successful without the need for individual support plans, and provide multiple peer models of desired behaviour for students to follow.

Effects of schoolwide PBIS

Over the past two decades, schoolwide PBIS has been shown through rigorous research (e.g. randomized controlled trials and experimental single-case studies) to be effective for a wide range of valued student outcomes. For example, PBIS has been shown to decrease the use of exclusionary discipline in schools (Bradshaw et al., 2010, Bradshaw et al., 2021, Elrod et al., 2022, Flannery et al., 2014, Gage et al., 2018, Horner et al., 2009, Metzler et al., 2001, Solomon et al., 2012), decrease rates of unwanted behaviour (Bastable et al., 2015, Bradshaw et al., 2012, Nelson et al., 2002, Waasdorp et al., 2012), and increase rates of prosocial behaviour and emotional regulation (Bradshaw et al., 2012, Metzler et al., 2001, Nelson et al., 2002). Regarding academic outcomes, schoolwide PBIS has been shown to increase attendance (Flannery et al., 2020, Freeman et al., 2015), engagement (Algozzine and Algozzine, 2007, Flannery et al., 2020), and academic achievement (Angus and Nelson, 2021, Horner et al., 2009, Lassen et al., 2006, Nelson et al., 2002). In terms of adult outcomes, schoolwide PBIS has been shown to decrease teacher burnout and stress (Ross and Horner, 2006, Ross et al., 2012), improve teacher efficacy (Kelm and McIntosh, 2012), and improve school climate (Bradshaw et al., 2008, Horner et al., 2009, McIntosh, Girvan, McDaniel, et al., 2021).

Effects of schoolwide PBIS on students with disabilities

Despite the abundant research base showing positive outcomes of schoolwide PBIS, one important lingering question about its effectiveness goes back to its original intent: the extent to which the positive outcomes of schoolwide PBIS also extend to students with disabilities. In other words, by changing the focus to the school as a whole, are educators achieving the initial goal of schoolwide PBIS, to support students with disabilities? Multiple research teams have examined this question. Tobin et al. (2012) conducted an evaluation to assess whether reductions in exclusionary discipline for students overall were also seen for students with disabilities. They found that students with disabilities in schools implementing schoolwide PBIS with fidelity (i.e. with sufficient critical features in place) had decreases in exposure to office discipline referrals that were similar to decreases seen in the whole student population. Similarly, Swain-Bradway et al. (2019) found that students with disabilities in schools implementing schoolwide PBIS and a schoolwide early literacy model had decreases in exposure to out-of-school suspension and increases in achievement. More recently, Simonsen et al. (2021) found that schools implementing schoolwide PBIS with fidelity suspended fewer students with disabilities than schools not implementing PBIS. These findings provide evidence that schoolwide PBIS is effective in improving outcomes for students with disabilities. However, in each of these studies, students with disabilities remained at greater risk than their peers without disabilities to be issued exclusionary discipline after implementation, meaning that even with reductions in exclusions by students with disabilities, disparities in student outcomes have persisted.

Effects of schoolwide PBIS on students from underserved racial and ethnic groups

These disability-status disparities mirror patterns seen in racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline as well. For as long as they have been measured, there have been racial disparities in the use of exclusionary discipline in the US that continue to this day (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Specifically, Black or African American and Indigenous students are removed from the classroom and suspended from school at disproportionately high rates. From an intersectional lens, Black students with disabilities are at exponentially higher risk of being removed from typical instructional settings (Losen et al., 2015). Fortunately, there is mounting evidence that the implementation of schoolwide PBIS is associated with lower exclusionary discipline rates for students across racial groups and reduced disciplinary inequities for Black students (McIntosh et al., 2018, Vincent et al., 2009, Vincent, Swain-Bradway, et al., 2011) and Indigenous students (Greflund et al., 2014). However, even with these reductions, Black and Indigenous students remain at significantly higher risk of exclusionary discipline, mirroring the evidence supporting the use of schoolwide PBIS for students with disabilities (Gion et al., 2018, Girvan et al., 2021). Reviewing results across both disability status and race, the current research base indicates that without a specific focus on equity, disparities based on disability status and race will not narrow (Fraser, 2008).

The need to center equity in order to achieve equitable outcomes

It may be puzzling to some that schoolwide PBIS—with its focus on systems, evidence-based practices, contextual fit, and data-based decision making—would not automatically increase equity in student outcomes, particularly school discipline. However, this view neglects the larger context of educational systems that exert influence on educator decisions (Skelton, 2019). From the standpoint of Critical Race Theory and DisCrit (the specific application of critical theory to ableism in society), education has been both a force for liberation and a tool for oppression, serving those with power and systematically disenfranchising those who could most stand to benefit (Annamma et al., 2018, Fenning and Johnson, 2022). Ableism, colonialism, and White supremacy are deeply entrenched in all systems, especially education (Fergus, 2021). From a behavioural perspective, systems produce the outcomes they were designed to produce, and thus, without specific attention and changes to improve equity, marginalized student groups will continue to be excluded from having basic human rights and a voice in their education to partner in improving outcomes. Moreover, any attempts to improve outcomes without naming the groups that are most oppressed are unlikely to lead to the systemic changes our students need (Carter et al., 2017, Skelton, 2019). However, many in the field of ABA have begun calling attention to the lack of attention to understanding systemic racism in behaviour analysis and articulating how the science of behaviour analysis can be leveraged for anti-racism (Leif et al., 2022).

An equity-centred schoolwide PBIS approach

In response to both the general effectiveness of schoolwide PBIS and the need to address outcomes for marginalized student groups directly and explicitly, an equity-centred schoolwide PBIS approach has emerged (Cregor et al., 2010, McIntosh, Girvan, et al., 2014, Vincent, Randall, et al., 2011). This approach is rooted firmly in positive behaviour support and is an application of the principles and practices of the schoolwide PBIS framework but intentionally utilizes the framework in efforts for more equitable outcomes for every student group to realize educational rights. Beyond equitable outcomes, however, the approach reflects a broader definition of equity that also includes equity in access to supports, representation within systems, and participation in designing and delivering practices (Great Lakes Equity Center, 2012).

In addition to a foundation in the familiar areas of data-based decision making, a focus on observable behaviours and outcomes, and implementation science, this approach draws on evidence bases from other fields, including cultural responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), educational policy (Fergus, 2017), and a social psychological understanding of explicit and implicit bias (Girvan, 2019). Although this equity-centred approach was initially developed to address racism and racial disparities, it can easily be applied to ableism and disability-status disparities. In particular, it aligns with calls for schoolwide PBIS to focus on more inclusion and support for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Loman et al., 2018).

Elements of equity-centred schoolwide PBIS

The following sections describe the equity-centred approach, with specific examples of application to race and anti-racism (as originally conceived). Figure 1 shows the four familiar, overlapping elements of schoolwide PBIS: outcomes, data, practices, and systems. As shown, equity is placed at the centre, not as its own distinct element, but rather an aspect that permeates each element. How equity is embedded in each element is detailed in this section.

Figure 1.

An equity-centred PBIS approach (reproduced with permission from the Center on PBIS).

Outcomes

A foundational element of schoolwide PBIS has been its focus on improving outcomes for marginalised learners. This focus on ensuring that PBIS is effective is one of the keys to its widespread adoption. Moreover, the framework is flexible enough that teams at all levels can identify outcomes that are valued to them instead of simply adopting the aims and objectives of traditional educational systems. However, an equity-centred approach emphasizes the need for more voices at the table to select the outcomes that are valued by affected parties so that systems can be co-created instead of built on behalf of individuals without voice and agency. In contemporary educational systems, some of the groups most deliberately excluded from decision making are Indigenous groups (and Elders in particular). By sharing the schoolwide PBIS framework with Indigenous groups and building systems together, educators can co-create systems that reflect Indigenous values and goals (Jones et al., 2006, McIntosh, Moniz, et al., 2014).

Data

The use of data (e.g. to assess need, to design plans, to measure implementation, to monitor outcomes) has always been a critical element of schoolwide PBIS implementation. The right data, available when decisions are to be made, can yield benefits that include saving time far beyond what was invested in collection (Horner et al., 2018). However, when examining schoolwide data, particularly student outcomes, there has been more emphasis on examining outcomes for students as a whole, rather than by subgroups. In neglecting to examine outcomes by student group (e.g. racial/ethnic groups, groups by disability category), teams run the risk of assuming that positive effects are experienced by all students and families equally. Instead, teams can disaggregate student outcomes data, such as school discipline data (McIntosh, Barnes, et al., 2014) and school climate data (La Salle, 2020), to identify whether outcomes are equitable and if not, modify plans so that students from each group can be successful.

Practices

Within a traditional schoolwide PBIS approach, practices are selected and implemented based on two criteria: (a) their evidence base and (b) contextual fit (i.e. the extent to which they meet the strengths, needs, and values of recipients and implementers). Although there have been great strides in identifying evidence-based practices in education, including special education (Cook and Odom, 2013), contextual fit has not received the same level of attention. Many experts in the field operate from an implicit understanding of how behaviour (and behaviour plans) are shaped by the environment, but the nuance of tailoring implementation can be lost for novice implementers. In an equity-centred approach, the attention to contextual fit is made explicit, with strategies and tools that make this hidden skill more visible. For example, many schoolwide behaviour expectations are adopted without consideration of how they match the local context (Lynass et al., 2012). Instead, teams can make the expectations work for the context by examining their behaviour expectations and matrices for fit with student and community strengths, values, and needs and co-create them with students and families (Leverson et al., 2021).

Systems

Just as positive behaviour support plans are implemented to help students be more successful, schoolwide PBIS emphasizes systems to support educators in high-quality implementation of selected practices. Typical systems include teaming, training, and coaching for professional learning and application with students. An equity-centred PBIS approach leverages these existing systems but expands the scope to include supporting educators in their own identity development and understanding of how biases operate in daily interactions and decision making. As an example, typical professional development systems would introduce the evidence-based practices of behaviour-specific praise and opportunities to respond, with modelling, practice, and embedded coaching. However, professional development might ignore the research indicating that students with disabilities and students from marginalized racial/ethnic groups receive lower rates of both practices, hampering their success (Sutherland et al., 2008, Van den Bergh et al., 2010, Wehby et al., 2003). However, coaching can assist classroom teachers in providing more equitable rates of praise and opportunities to respond (Bradshaw et al., 2018, Gion et al., 2022, Knochel et al., 2022). As such, equity-centred PBIS professional development would introduce educators to the research and provide strategies and tools to self-assess equity in their implementation of evidence-based practices across student groups (e.g. Be + app; https://www.pbis.org/announcements/track-positive-reinforcement-with-our-be-app).

Evidence of effectiveness

There is emerging evidence that this equity-centred PBIS approach is effective in improving outcomes for students from minoritized racial groups. Experimental single-case research studies (Gion et al., 2022, Muldrew and Miller, 2021) have shown equity-centred classroom strategies within this approach are effective in decreasing discipline gaps. A quasi-experimental study (McIntosh, Girvan, McDaniel, et al., 2021) showed that a full year of professional development on equity-centred PBIS significantly improved school climate (as rated by from students, families, and school personnel) and decreased use of exclusionary discipline. Finally, a randomised controlled trial showed that adding this approach to typical schoolwide PBIS significantly increased racial equity in school discipline (McIntosh, Girvan, Fairbanks Falcon, et al., 2021). Although this approach appears to be applicable to supporting students with disabilities, research is needed to show its promise in anti-ableist work in schools.

Extension of equity-centred schoolwide PBIS to disability

The general concepts of equity-centred schoolwide PBIS as they relate to disability may be apparent, but even so, it is important to elaborate so as not to make assumptions. Ableism ignores the diversity of human ability and instead imposes a norm of functioning that marginalizes those with functioning that differs from the assumed norm. As with racism, ableism can be internalized, interpersonal, and structural. Similarly, it is observed through lowered expectations for students with disabilities and removal from the classroom environment for behaviour that is functional but perceived as unacceptable by educators (Leif et al., 2022). Anti-ableism represents resistance to oppression and respect for diversity of ability, with a goal of dismantling ‘how society has been constructed to limit or restrict how individuals with different abilities can navigate the world and live their lives’ (Newell and Healy, 2022, p. 27). The elements of the equity-centred approach point to specific actions to make equity more achievable for students with disabilities and their families. Examples are provided in this section and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Core elements of equity-centred PBIS applied to disability.

Element	Definition	Application
Outcomes	Systems are developed and implemented to achieve outcomes valued by all affected parties.	Identify and measure outcomes that are valued by affected parties from each group.
Data	Existing and efficiently collected data are used to inform decision making and improve systems.	Ensure that student discipline and perceptions data are disaggregated by disability status to assess differential outcomes.
Practices	Practices are selected and implemented based on their evidence and potential to improve outcomes within the context.	Adopt and adapt practices with universal design for learning features so they can be effective for a wider range of students.
Systems	Supports are identified and put in place to help educators implement practices and collect data fully.	Use professional development systems to equip educators with knowledge and skills to support every student group.

Outcomes

In a focus on disability-status inequities, it is important to include a deep examination of outcomes for students with disabilities and their families, especially as it relates to mindsets of educators. Are specific outcomes for students with disabilities considered or ignored in school action plans? Similar to students and families from marginalized racial groups, individuals with disabilities and their caregivers have been prevented from educational decision making, particularly at the Tier 1 (i.e. schoolwide) level. Providing this space and sharing power to set the direction for PBIS systems is an important foundation for establishing equity.

Data

In many educational systems, there is a strong focus on using data to determine whether students have disabilities but far less once students have been identified. Although there are legal safeguards in place to allow for some assessment of student performance, plans often lack the frequency and specificity to accurately determine whether students are being supported to be successful. This critique extends to both fidelity of implementation and student performance (Kittelman et al., 2018). Without attention that increases as student support moves to Tier 2 and 3, outcomes will not be optimized, and thus, less equitable (Nese et al., in press).

Practices

Regarding practices, one helpful approach to make expectations more effective for every student is to incorporate universal design for learning (Hall et al., 2012). Universal design for learning is an approach that recognizes that many accommodations for students with disabilities would also provide beneficial supports to all students. As such, it allows for more students to be successful with Tier 1 supports, minimizes the need for Tier 2 and 3 supports, and avoids the stigma of different supports for students with disabilities. One example of universal design for learning as applied to schoolwide PBIS is posting and teaching behaviour expectations. Incorporating visuals (i.e. symbols or photos to accompany words) into expectations posters and lessons can support a wider range of students, including students with disabilities and emergent bilinguals, without any negative effects for students who may not need such supports to be successful.

Systems

Many educators already have and use the knowledge and skills to implement some equity-centred PBIS for students with disabilities, but it is important to provide training and coaching in effective approaches across the tiers, including universal design for learning, progress monitoring, family partnerships, and function-based support. Although some educators (e.g. special educators, related service providers) will use these strategies on a daily basis, all educators will need some knowledge of how to provide supports in mainstream settings for services to be delivered in the least restrictive environment.

Implications for university educators and technical assistance providers

These promising initial findings provide some guidance to those who engage in educator training, either in educator preparation or inservice professional development. First, it appears that implementing equity interventions within an existing framework or initiative (as opposed to a new initiative or department) is more effective because it allows teams to leverage existing systems (data, personnel, training) as opposed to having to develop them (McIntosh and Goodman, 2016). Second, it is important not to assume that evidence-based frameworks or practices—even if they are effective overall—are improving outcomes for the most underserved and marginalized student groups. Instead of assuming practices are equally effective across all groups, it is necessary to disaggregate and analyse student outcomes by student group. Third, and relatedly, it is important not to assume that sharing data documenting inequities will motivate educators to take action. Our research has shown that simply sharing data on inequities does not lead to more equitable outcomes, or even more equity goal-setting (McIntosh et al., 2020). In fact, it could lead to further blame of students and their families (Hetey and Eberhardt, 2014). Instead, we recommend sharing data but also focussing on concrete, actionable strategies that educators can use almost immediately to increase positive student-teacher interactions and adapt their systems to support students’ strengths and values.

Conclusion

Although it is optimistic to believe that proclaiming education as a human right will ensure every student receives access to education, or that high-quality implementation of schoolwide PBIS can in of itself eradicate disparities, the research is clear that it is not enough. An intentional and relentless focus on equity is necessary to counter the prevailing educational systems that further marginalize students along predictable lines and deny the right to education. It is important to understand the initial and continued purpose of many educational systems: to teach students in ways that preserve power and further disenfranchise those with less access to resources. However, an equity-centred PBIS approach appears to have promise as one tool for educators to right historical and contemporary wrongs and transform educational systems into levers for social justice, ones that centre and elevate disability and Indigenous rights. This equity-centred approach has now become the Center on PBIS conceptualization of schoolwide PBIS, rather than one of many possible variations. Nevertheless, it will take consistent and deep efforts to counter systemic inequities present in today’s schools to make the right to education a reality for every student.

Author note

The author would like to dedicate this article to the memories of Risha Golby, Michael Marker, and countless Elders who have inspired and contribute to this work.

Funding Statement

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A1800027 to the University of Oregon. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute, Office, or the U.S. Department of Education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.