Identifying and removing ableism from Tier 1 school-wide positive behaviour support practices

Abstract

Across Australia, almost one third of schools have been trained to implement school-wide positive behaviour support (SWPBS). As part of a Tier 1 approach, students are expected to demonstrate expected behaviours. By defining these behaviours in conjunction with students and families, and explicitly teaching these to students, schools implementing SWPBS can create climates where students can thrive both academically and behaviourally. However, many students with disability continue to be over-represented in discipline data in all schools, including those implementing SWPBS. We argue this is because defining the behaviours we want to see and celebrate is only part of the solution. Implementation is destined to fail if we do not, in tandem, address the conditions we created that act as barriers for students with disability. Further, through an analysis of Australian SWPBS matrices, we show that structural ableism exists in the way some expected behaviours are framed by requiring a greater response effort from students with disability if they are to meet the standard expected. We offer suggestions for schools to both recognise and remove ableism from Tier 1 SWPBS practices.

In disability oppression theory, ableism refers to ‘deeply held negative attitudes towards disability that are analogous to racism’ (Hehir 2005, p. 10). Entrenched societal views regarding productivity, independence, standards of behaviour, and the value of human life have made, and continue to make, gaining access to education, social opportunities, independence, and post-school employment a struggle for students with disability (Jeanes et al. 2019). Like all isms, ableism can be a conscious act, where a person with a disability is deliberately discriminated against by being treated differently on the basis of their disability or an unintentional act that still results in a discriminatory outcome (Blumenfeld and Raymond 2000). In schools where entrenched ableism might exist, this can obscure focussing on the culture of the environment as well as institutional and individual practices. Each of these elements may presume expectations of ablebodiedness, thus further marginalising students with disability (Bogart and Dunn 2019). Critically, expectations of ablebodiedness apply to both the observable (physical) body as well as to other expressions of neurodivergence, differences in cognitive function, or communicative skills.

Conversely, disability oppression theory is also concerned with the pathway towards empowerment and equal opportunity for those with disability, not through ‘correcting’ them so that they ‘fit’ but through the creation of systems and structures that remove the barriers inhibiting full participation and inclusion in all of society (Castañeda and Peters 2000, p. 320). School-wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) is one evidence-based framework that, when implemented with fidelity, may support the achievement of this goal. Critically, implementation of SWPBS targets the creation of effective environments that allow all students to succeed, as well as the development of systems to support educators to select and adopt the necessary interventions and supports to address goals that are relevant to students and the school community more broadly.

Social validity and equity

Social validity refers to three components, the ‘social significance of the goals’ of intervention, the ‘appropriateness of the procedures’, and the ‘importance of the effects’ (Wolf 1978, p. 207). Equity extends the concept of social validity beyond the assessment of the goals, impact, and acceptability of intervention at the level of the individual to examine the degree to which all stakeholders (e.g. regardless of race, gender, or disability status) across the school benefit from such socially valid intervention (Sugai et al. 2012). Within this special issue, McIntosh (2023) describes how the field of Positive Behaviour Supports (PBS; including the application of PBS school-wide) developed in response to the use of aversive and punitive behaviour change procedures seen in earlier applications of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA). The effectiveness of specific procedures to bring about behaviour change alone was deemed insufficient. Instead, the need to embed the theoretical and scientific principles of behaviour analysis within a values-driven framework focused on increasing the quality of life of those receiving support was clear (Carr et al. 2002).

While this history is clear, prominent voices within the field of ABA have, for a long time, called for a values-driven approach to the selection of behaviour change goals and targets (see Sidman 1989, Wolf 1978). For example, in his foundational description of social validity, Wolf (1978) noted that assessments of the significance of goals, procedures, and outcomes needed to centre the values of individuals receiving supports, as well as the views and values of society more broadly.

Effective implementation of SWPBS has been shown to have significant positive impact on student outcomes across academic, social, and behavioural domains (Sugai and Horner 2020), yet questions remain about who benefits most from implementation. Pleasingly, Simonsen et al. (2021) reported that students with disability in schools implementing SWPBS with fidelity were less likely to experience school exclusion than in schools not implementing SWPBS. However, as McIntosh (2022) notes, students with disability are still at a disproportionally increased risk of poorer outcomes. This may raise important questions about the effectiveness, equity, and social validity of SWPBS implementation. Ongoing assessments of the social validity of implementation of a framework such as SWPBS are critical, as more effective methods of delivering SWPBS supports and interventions may be identified that do not require additional effort or resourcing on the part of the implementer (Kazdin 1980). Such assessments may also identify practices, systems, or approaches that are ableist in nature and warrant further investigation.

Response effort

Response effort has been defined as the effort an individual must engage in to successfully complete a behaviour (Casella et al. 2010, Friman and Poling 1995). In applied settings, the dimensions of response effort that have been explored most frequently related to the distance, force, or number of discrete behaviours required to successfully engage in a behaviour (Wilder et al. 2021). Other examples of response effort have also been considered, such as the relative ease or difficulty of a student successfully responding correctly to mathematics problems (Neef et al. 1994). In this sense, response effort may be associated with fluency of an individual’s skill use (Friman and Poling 1995). By extension, it may be important to consider the degree to which an individual possesses the repertoires of behaviour required to engage in behaviours in the first instance.

Considerations of response effort are important as they have been shown to relate to the frequency with which an individual engages in target behaviours. While differing from punishment in meaningful ways (i.e. does not involve the removal or withholding of stimuli, nor is it response contingent; Wilder et al. 2021), increased response effort has been associated with reductions in behavioural frequency (Casella et al. 2010, Friman and Poling 1995). Friman and Poling (1995) discussed the importance of considering response effort when assessing and planning for the functional needs of people with disability, suggesting that an individual’s needs and the environment around them can increase or decrease the response effort required for them to engage in a given behaviour. Importantly, Friman and Poling (1995) noted that an assessment of response effort may be more practically useful than assessments of motivation to engage in behaviours. The application of this thinking to student responses to staff SWPBS implementation efforts may offer a pathway to assessing and improving equitable outcomes for all learners.

School wide positive behaviour support

School wide positive behaviour support (SWPBS) is an applied science, adopted by approximately one third of Australian schools, that can assist educators to create environments where all students can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally (Poed and Whitefield 2020, Whitefield et al. 2022). Within SWPBS, there is a framework of evidence-based practices designed to teach students the knowledge, skills, and values essential for success in schools and society, while simultaneously guiding staff to redesign environments to create supportive and safe environments. To support educators, schools implementing SWPBS design a matrix of expected behaviours. This matrix, co-constructed using input from students and families, documents the standard of behaviour expected for all learners (Algozzine et al. 2019).

The matrix of expected behaviours follows a typical format in most schools. Down the left-hand column are listed three to five values that staff, students, and families have voted as important for all students to uphold. Typically, this might include words such as ‘Respect’, ‘Responsibility’, ‘Integrity’, or actions such as ‘Be a Learner’, ‘Strive to do our best’, or ‘Act kindly’. Across the top, column headings usually list locations around the school (such as classrooms, library, hallways, etc.) or less commonly, routines that students follow (such as when ‘working independently’, ‘using technology’, ‘moving between classes’, etc.). The spaces in the grid are then populated with indicators of how the student can exhibit that value when in that location or following that routine (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Sample PBS matrix.

Once a matrix is created, teachers use the matrix to design a behavioural curriculum that allows them to teach the expectations. Importantly, this provides opportunities for students to practise engaging in expected behaviours and delivering performance feedback to these learners on their progress (Leverson et al. 2021). There are a multitude of ways that teachers then teach these behavioural expectations. Some teachers may implement this curriculum in a ‘one focussed lesson per week’ approach; others may create short (five-minute) lesson segments that they deliver to explicitly teach routines and procedures (such as how to ask for assistance when working independently). The main function of the indicators described in behaviour matrices is to remind teachers of the behaviours that are expected to be taught, prompted, and corrected or reinforced.

Bambara et al. (2015) highlighted that SWPBS should ‘focus not on manipulating consequences to manage or suppress problem behaviour but on preventing problem behaviour by improving the environment and teaching’ (p. 11). But some critics argue that the application of the evidence that supports SWPBS has failed. They suggest that there is an over-reliance in schools, particularly for students with disability and mental health diagnoses, on a manage-and-discipline model (Armstrong 2018). To ensure that socially valid and equitable implementation of SWPBS is achieved, an examination of ableism within behaviour matrices was warranted.

Aim and research questions

The aim of this preliminary study was to examine the degree to which ableism might be embedded within a preliminary sample of SWPBS matrices drawn from schools in two Australian states. While a subjective assessment of embedded ableism in SWPBS matrices using a critical approach was warranted and likely instructive, we used the concept of response effort to determine whether behavioural indicators in our preliminary sample of behaviour matrices reflected standards of behaviour that were achievable by all students or signalled a disproportionately increased response effort for individuals with a disability.

The research questions that guided this examination were:

1. Does the way the behavioural indicator is written place an extra response effort on a student with a disability?

2. Are there examples of behavioural indicators listed within a school’s SWPBS matrix that could reflect ableist views of student behaviour, potentially affecting the disproportionate management of behaviour for students with disability?

Method

This small-scale study aimed to examine whether behavioural indicators listed in the matrices of Australian schools implementing SWPBS might reflect ableist views around student behaviour. A mapping review (Grant and Booth 2009) was selected as a way of piloting a search strategy for two reasons. First, to determine whether sufficient matrices could be located online to address the research questions. Second, to determine whether either a large-scale, critical review of behaviour matrices, or an umbrella review that examines the matrix alongside teaching resources, is warranted. Unlike a mapping review of literature, the artefacts for analysis in this study were behaviour matrices.

Procedure

Search strategy

To be included for analysis, the matrix needed to be published on the website of a primary (elementary), secondary (middle or high), or special school (a school attended by students who have a diagnosed disability, with criteria used to define disability differing across the country). To locate matrices, a Google search was undertaken in February 2022 using the following search terms: (Victoria OR Queensland) + (SWPBS OR PBL) + Matrix + (Primary OR Secondary OR Special OR College). We limited our search to Australian State (government-funded) schools located in the states of Victoria or Queensland, the work location of the two authors, given our familiarity with the implementation of SWPBS, and its strong uptake in schools in each of these jurisdictions. We excluded matrices from other Australian states as well as matrices from private schools.

Matrices that met the inclusion criteria were then stored in raw form in a shared folder accessible by both researchers. Matrices were downloaded as either image files, or as word or PDF documents, which in some cases, were contained in a broader behaviour management policy. Each matrix downloaded was based on the order they appeared in the Google search with no other inclusion criteria applied. Once the target number of matrices for each sector of schooling was reached, we ceased downloading further matrices for that jurisdiction.

Sample size

Selecting an appropriate sample size for qualitative research has been an area of uncertainty, with data adequacy, pragmatics, saturation, and generalisability of findings all considered by researchers when justifying the sample (Vasileiou et al. 2018). As there is no agreed amount considered an appropriate sample for qualitative studies (Elo et al. 2014), we selected a 10% sample size for this qualitative mapping review.

To determine how many matrices would be representative of a 10% sample, we first needed to determine how many government-funded schools in each State were trained in SWPBS (the name used by schools in Victoria) and Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL, the name used by schools in Queensland). From there, based on our work histories in each State and our roles within the Association for Positive Behaviour Support Australia, we were aware that approximately 50% of schools in Queensland were trained in PBL and 30% of schools in Victoria were trained in SWPBS. Data are not available in each State to indicate whether there is an even proportion of primary, secondary, and special schools that have been trained.

There are 1,241 Government schools in Queensland (Queensland Government Statistician’s Office 2021). Based on 50% being trained in PBL, this represents approximately 620 schools. A 10% sample size would be 62 schools. 64.1 percent of government schools in Queensland are primary, 15.8% secondary, and 5% special schools (where the remaining schools are combined primary/secondary) . Based on this breakdown, we determined the representative sample of matrices should include 40 matrices from primary, 10 from secondary, and three from special schools.

There are 1,553 Government schools in Victoria (Victorian State Government [Education and Training], 2021). Based on 30% trained in SWPBS, this represents approximately 466 schools. A 10% sample size would be 47 schools. 73 percent of Government schools in Victoria are primary, 16% secondary and 5% special schools (and where the remaining schools were combined primary/secondary or language schools). Based on this breakdown, we determined the representative sample of matrices should include 34 matrices from primary, eight from secondary, and two from special schools. Table 1 provides a summary of the sample.

Table 1.

Sample of Australian schools trained in SWPBS.

	Queensland			Victoria
Total number of schools	1,241			1,533
% Trained in SWPBS	50%			30%
No. of SWPBS trained schools	620			466
10% sample of SWPBS schools	62			47
	Primary	Secondary	Special	Primary	Secondary	Special
% of school types	64.1%	15.8%	5%	73%	16%	5%
Sample of school types	40	10	3	34	8	2

Data analysis

To guide our data analysis, we followed the six phases recommended in the analytic process for reflexive data analysis, as recommended by Braun and Clarke (2022). First, to familiarise ourselves with the dataset, three Excel spreadsheets were created: one for primary schools, one for secondary schools, and one for special schools. Using a similar approach to that of Lynass et al. (2012), the matrix for each school was assigned a unique identifier to maintain anonymity. The unique identifier did allow the research team to distinguish between Queensland and Victorian schools. As noted previously, for this pilot study our focus was only on the classroom setting and then the behavioural indicators that applied to classroom settings were manually extracted and recorded in the Excel spreadsheet against the school’s identifier. The expected behaviours for classrooms were typically located in either a column marked ‘classrooms’ or ‘when learning’ or in an ‘always’ column. As the study was preliminary in nature, data extraction, analysis, and reporting were focussed on behavioural indicators designed for the classroom contexts. As such, data were extracted from columns described above as they most commonly represented classroom settings. The decision to focus on classroom settings was made as these contexts represent the area of the school in which students typically spend the majority of their time.

In the second phase, we each independently searched for implicit meaning and applied a ‘latent code’ (Braun and Clarke 2022, p. 35) to each behavioural indicator that, in our view, reflected a statement that could potentially require an additional response effort by some students with disability to achieve a successful outcome. Third, we independently generated initial themes where we noticed a pattern across the dataset. The initial themes generated were centred on the types of difficulties learners might share in classroom settings which had the potential to be exacerbated by the response effort needed to successfully meet the behaviour indicator. For example, students who experience receptive language difficulties may struggle to follow directions, so the code ‘receptive language difficulty’ was applied to all behavioural indicators that potentially posited a challenge for this set of learners. At this stage, we commenced write up of our analysis based on the theme of receptive language.

As this current research reflected a preliminary examination of ableism in SWPBS behaviour matrices, an exploration of all of the potential ways in which indicators may represent increased response effort for individual students with disabilities was beyond the scope of the current research. In addition, it is recognised that the interactions between, and impacts of, an individual’s experience of disability and the environments within which they engage and learn are likely to be unique (Friman and Poling 1995). Educators are encouraged to understand ableism as a dynamic construct. It is incumbent on the profession to review data to determine whether students with disability are disproportionately subject to disciplinary consequences, and to reflect upon whether the unmet behavioural indicators required an increased response effort by students. As such, generating an exhaustive list of themes was beyond the scope of this study.

The following process was used to develop preliminary themes that could be applied to assess the presence and prevalence of ableism in behaviour matrices. First, a review of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data on children and young people identified with disabilities indicated that 7.7% of young people aged up to 14 years old were identified as having a disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019). Second, the types of difficulties the young people experienced were reviewed. The most commonly identified challenges were learning difficulties, challenges connecting socially, and difficulties in communication (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019). Effective executive functioning is linked with academic and social engagement and success (Best et al. 2011, Jacobson et al. 2011). While multiple definitions for executive functions exist, they are considered to be a range of top-down mental processes that are linked with one’s ability to plan, engage in goal directed behaviour, and inhibit inappropriate actions while engaging in appropriate responses (Diamond 2013). For the purposes of this preliminary review, inhibitory control and goal directed persistence were considered when assessing behavioural indicators for a potentially disproportionally increased response effort. Communication was included as a theme as it was the third most commonly identified area of difficulty for children with disability in schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019).

Fourth, the research team then discussed and refined the themes that were generated. A wide number of indicators had the potential to posit difficulties for students with poor executive functioning. Fifth, following discussion, we divided these into sub-sets including inhibitory control, organisational skills, and goal-directed persistence. We concluded our analysis with writing up and refining our results by combining these with a discussion of the literature as relevant to each theme. To ensure credibility, fortnightly debriefing sessions were conducted. During these sessions, we discussed our biases and assumptions, debriefed on our coding of indicators selected as examples of ableism, revised the Excel spreadsheet that served as the audit trail where we documented our decisions, and ensured that our results were sorted and coded systematically and that our conclusions were derived from data rather than assumptions (Brantlinger et al. 2005).

Positionality

Before discussing the findings from this research, it is important for us to offer a positionality statement. Our assumptions come before our analysis. Our assumptions are that all students can achieve, and that behaviour is a product of its environment. Further, we believe that teachers should hold high expectations for all learners and seek ways for all learners to be successful while, at the same time, have the capacity to differentiate how expectations can be met. It is our position that Positive Behaviour Support has the capacity, within the framework through its emphasis on equity, to challenge the dominant discourses on behaviour at school. We argue that it is ableist to require all learners to meet school values (e.g. respect, responsibility, resilience) in the same ways as evidenced by the disparities in discipline among students with disability (McIntosh, 2022).

Results and discussion

Following an initial review of the 97 identified matrices, two were excluded from further analysis. One primary matrix from Queensland was excluded because the behavioural indicators were not mapped against locations. Instead, the three selected values (respect, pride, and friendship) were aligned against what the school described as social learning goals, such as ‘getting along’, ‘organisation’, ‘confidence’, ‘resilience’, and ‘persistence’. As we wanted to explicitly explore behavioural indicators for classroom use, this matrix was excluded. Additionally, one secondary matrix from Queensland was also excluded as only one of the values (responsible) had behavioural indicators mapped against locations. Two values (involvement and self-management) simply contained a bulleted list of indicators, and the remaining value (respectful) was mapped against ‘self’, ‘others’, ‘environment’, ‘staff’, and ‘property’. Figure 2 provides a summary of the number of schools by State and Schooling Type.

Figure 2.

Summary of schools by state and schooling type.

Values and actions

Across all 73 primary matrices, a total of 43 values/actions were listed, with 11 values/actions used by both Queensland and Victorian primary schools. In Queensland primary schools, the most common values/actions were ‘Respect’ and ‘Safety’ tied at 85% of all schools, ‘Be a learner/care for learning’ used in 69% of matrices, and ‘Responsibility’, used in 51% of matrices. In Victorian primary schools, ‘Respect’ was also the leading value/action, used in 91% of matrices, with ‘Responsibility’ (53%) and ‘Being a Learner/Caring for Learning’ (41%) coming in second and third.

Across all 17 secondary matrices, a total of 23 values/actions were listed, with five values/actions used by both Queensland and Victorian secondary schools. In both Queensland and Victorian secondary schools, the most common values/action was ‘Respect’, used in 78% of Queensland and 100% of Victorian secondary schools. This was followed by ‘Being a learner’, used in 56% of Queensland and 33% of Victorian secondary schools. Also used by 33% of Victorian secondary schools was ‘Responsibility’. In Queensland, the third most listed value/action was ‘Be safe’, used by 44% of secondary schools.

Across the five special school matrices, 11 values/actions were listed, with six used in both States. In Queensland Special Schools, the most common were ‘Be a learner/care for learning’ used in all three schools, followed by ‘care for self’ and ‘care for others’ used in two of the schools. In Victorian special schools, the values/actions listed in both settings were unique, with no replication.

Behavioural indicators

For the remainder of this section, we discuss whether the response effort required to successfully achieve a behavioural indicator is disproportionately higher for students with disability. In total, there were 1,931 specific behavioural expectation statements included in all primary school behavioural matrices. There were 427 individual expectation statements included and analysed from secondary schools, and 80 expectation statements from specialist settings.

Receptive language skills

The foundations for school success are built on strong communication skills, including receptive language ability. In primary classrooms, it is argued that 50–75% of the day is spent listening to teacher direction (Bourdeaud'hui et al. 2018). For this reason, you would expect that a matrix of expected behaviours would include a focus on listening. However, students diagnosed with a range of disabilities can have difficulties with receptive language skills, so reflecting on the wording of such indicators is valuable. In the matrices studied, 100% of the Queensland primary and special schools, and 89% of secondary matrices, as well as 88% of the Victorian primary and 100% of Victorian secondary and special school matrices had indicators related to receptive language skills. Of the 35 discrete behavioural indicators related to receptive language skills, five focussed on listening to adults and staff, with no reference to listening to classmates.

Other behavioural indicators relating to listening lacked sufficient detail to assess the presence or absence of the behaviour, such as ‘we are good listeners’ or ‘listen carefully to others’. In other examples, there was an emphasis on an observable behavioural outcome, for example ‘follow instructions’. Of the 73 primary matrices, 21 mention ‘whole body listening’ (Truesdale 1990), a phrase not used in the secondary matrices. The phrase was also found in one special school matrix. For successful whole body listening, students are encouraged to not just listen with their ears, but also to keep their bodies still, their mouths silent, and to take a mental note of what is being said. This requires self-regulation, working memory, and fully developed receptive language skills. Some schools further increase the response effort, with 15 primary and three secondary matrices adding that students must follow directions ‘first time, every time/promptly/immediately’.

A further challenge in the wording of behavioural indicators related to receptive language skills exists for students who have difficulty with theory of mind or the capacity to take another’s perspective. Students were expected to ‘listen to other people’s thoughts, ideas and/or opinions’, ‘listen to others and value their opinions’, ‘actively listen and acknowledge the rights of others to hold and express their views’, ‘let others have a say’, and to ‘listen and learn from others’. One matrix expected students to ‘complete adult requests cheerfully’ while another expected students to be able to ‘listen before acting’.

To reduce ableism, it is recommended that schools consider amending their behavioural indicators to reduce the response effort needed to demonstrate success. Wording such as ‘I use wait time and questioning to ensure I can follow directions’ or ‘I watch when my teacher is modelling and ask clarifying questions’ allow students to meet the expected behaviour with the supports they need. The wording also prompts teachers to allow wait time and to prompt learners to ask questions.

Inhibitory control

Inhibitory control is a core executive function that enables individuals to direct their attention, regulate their emotional responses, and exert control over their own behaviours (Diamond 2013). In classrooms, teachers typically expect students to be able to maintain attention, stay emotionally regulated, and to not call out or disrupt the ‘good order of the classroom’ (Rivera-Calderon 2019, para. 44). As such, it was expected that matrices would include statements relating to a need for students to demonstrate inhibitory control. However, challenges relating to inhibitory control are common for neurodiverse students (i.e. students diagnosed with ADHD or Autistic students; Sibley et al. 2019), individuals with intellectual disability (Flanigan et al. 2019), and those diagnosed with a range of other disabilities (e.g. oppositional defiance disorder and conduct disorder; Bonham et al. 2021). In the included matrices, behavioural expectation statements that reflected a higher response effort for individuals with inhibitory control challenges were identified in every primary, secondary, and special school matrix analysed. One or more behaviour indicators were located under 79% of the values/actions identified by primary schools, 87% of those in secondary schools, and 100% of those in special schools. Common behavioural indicators included ‘focus on learning and let others learn’ or ‘allow the teacher to teach and students to learn’ which appeared in 37 primary matrices and 10 secondary matrices.

Knowing how to use wait time effectively can be a challenge for many teachers. Providing sufficient wait time has been found critical to increasing language and vocabulary skills and improving the quality of student responses (Paul 2020, Wasik and Hindman 2018). For this reason, teachers usually require students to raise their hand to respond to questions or to initiate conversations. ‘Raising my hand to speak’ was recorded in 21 primary matrices but only four secondary matrices. However, students with poor working memory may often forget their response while waiting to be called upon; some students will raise their hand to every question and call out if not called upon, some students with physical disability may not be able to raise their hand; and some students will raise their hand to appear compliant while not understanding what is being taught. For students with regulation difficulties, those with a poor concept of time, those with poor social awareness, and students who are bored, waiting can be particularly challenging (Middletown Centre for Autism 2022). Specifically, our analysis revealed 24 statements included the term ‘wait’ as part of a broader descriptor around raising hands to speak, waiting for a turn, or when lining up or entering/exiting the room. Five of these statements specified that students should do this ‘patiently’ or ‘politely’.

To reduce the response effort required when waiting, teachers could look for ways to increase opportunities to respond for all learners. Instead of focussing on ‘raising hands to speak’, a behavioural indicator might be ‘share answers to questions’. Teacher could then provide learners with opportunities to respond chorally (call out as a group), write their answer on a whiteboard/piece of paper and hold up for the teacher to see, hold up yes/no, true/false/agree/disagree cards, tell the person sitting next to them, phone a friend, and so on. High rates of opportunities to respond that focus on choral responses have been shown to increase student engagement in learning and decrease disruptive behaviour (MacSuga-Gage and Simonsen 2015).

Students with motor control difficulties or impulsivity challenges may struggle to meet the indicator ‘keep hands, feet, objects to self’ which appeared in 36 primary matrices, two special school matrices, and eight secondary matrices. Some indicators used phrases such as ‘respond appropriately’ or ‘react appropriately’. Within matrices, there were examples of strategies offered to students to assist them regulate behaviour, such as to ‘stop, walk, talk’, ‘use the stop strategy’, ‘use the pause and think strategy’, ‘use the zones of regulation’, and ‘use stop, think, do’. Offering these as behaviour indicators prompts teachers to remind students to use these approaches and is more helpful that indicators such as ‘make good choices’, ‘manage your emotions’, ‘exercise self-control’, or ‘be the boss of my body and brain’. Furthermore, they are likely to reflect programs or interventions that have been taught and applied across school settings, reflecting a greater level of systemic support for students to achieve social and behavioural success.

For students who have trouble with perspective taking, some behavioural indicators that would be challenging include ‘accept responsibility for your own actions’, ‘accept outcomes/consequences of your behaviour’, and ‘accept adult decisions without arguing’ (appearing in 34 primary, one special, and six secondary matrices).

Organisational skills

The creation of clear and predictable learning routines has been identified as a critical component of productive and effective classrooms (Simonsen et al. 2008). As a result, it is unsurprising that teachers and school leaders have consistently emphasised values such as ‘readiness to learn’ in behaviour matrices and included specific indicators that describe behaviours that reflect this readiness (such as ‘Be Prepared’; Lynass et al. 2012). Neurodiverse students (i.e. Autistic students, students diagnosed with intellectual disability or ADHD) are more like to experience challenges relating to organisation and planning (Bikic et al. 2021). As such, there is the potential for some behavioural indicators to be worded in such a way that disproportionally increases the response effort required for these same students to successfully demonstrate expected classroom behaviour.

In the sample of behaviour matrices included in this research, statements relating to students’ requirement for organisation were coded in all matrices from primary, secondary, and special schools in Queensland. In addition, indicators were coded in 100% of Victorian secondary and special schools, as well as 88% of primary schools. These behaviour indicators were most frequently identified in the values ‘Responsibility’ (n = 112), ‘Be a learner’ (n = 70), and ‘Respect’ (n = 46).

Our analysis identified 67 specific references across all primary and secondary schools indicating that students needed to be ‘on time’ or ‘punctual’ to school, class, or to hand in or complete work in a timely fashion. In some cases, indicators were succinct such as ‘Be on time’ or ‘I will arrive on time’, while others indicated that this expectation was ‘…for all lessons’. An additional 16 primary and two secondary school indicators required students to be ‘in the right place, at the right time’. Three special schools included statements relating to time (e.g. ‘Be on time’). Such wording may reflect increased response effort for students with organisational challenges.

Efficient movement between classes and timely attendance are important skills for students to develop and demonstrate fluently to maximise classroom engagement and reduced class disruption for them and their peers (Kraft and Monti-Nussbaum 2021). Modifying the wording of behavioural indicators is critical because it is the antecedent for the way teachers to teach, scaffold, and reinforce these specific skills. Positive examples within the matrices analysed were identified. For example, indicators such as ‘I follow the visual schedule/timetable’ identify both the desired behaviour and the supports provided to students to ensure that all have the best chance of successfully demonstrating the expected behaviours. Indicators that are worded in this way may be more likely to indicate the response effort required for students, allowing for reinforcement of both developing skills as well as successful attainment of target behaviours for each student.

Behaviour indicators describing the need for students to be ‘prepared for learning’, ‘ready to learn’, and or to ensure they had the ‘correct equipment’, or ‘materials’ were frequently identified across the included matrices. Indicators relating to being ‘…prepared for all classes’ were coded 17 times in primary school matrices, and 12 times across secondary school matrices from both states. Statements that explicitly described the need for students to be ‘organised’ were coded 30 times across Queensland and Victorian primary school matrices and identified five times in secondary matrices. Additionally, references to bringing the correct equipment were identified in 15 times in primary matrices and 11 in secondary school matrices. While no such indicators were coded for additional response effort in preparation or equipment in special schools, two references were made to the need to look after equipment and belongings.

Other indicators were also coded that may disproportionally increase response effort for students with disability. These indicators centred on to the need for students to wear all elements of their school uniform correctly, with 36 indicators coded in primary matrices and 10 in secondary school matrices across both states. Indicators for students included ‘We wear full school uniform with pride’ and ‘I respect myself - wearing school uniform with pride by following the dress code’. For students with sensory sensitivities, not wearing the uniform correctly may have little to do with a lack of pride in their school but rather the discomfort caused by overheating or the uncomfortableness of materials against their skin.

There was a clear focus on maintaining ‘neat’ and ‘tidy’ classroom spaces and work areas, with 34 indicators coded in primary school matrices in both states, and seven secondary schools. Examples of these indicators included ‘I keep my belongings tidy’, ‘I keep the school tidy at all times and place rubbish in the bins provided’, and simply ‘Tidy up’. No behaviour indicators related to uniform or classroom tidiness were coded in special school matrices from either state. Successfully demonstrating expected behaviours against behaviour indicators when worded in this way may be a significant challenge for students who experience challenges with organisation.

Goal-directed persistence

The ability to engage in goal-directed behaviour (creation, implementation, and persistent towards the completion of a plan) has been linked with improved academic outcomes (Best et al. 2011). Sibley et al. (2019) reported that goal directed persistence is enabled by effective working memory, sufficient cognitive flexibility, and functional response inhibition. Sufficient functioning in each of these processes is required to support effective planning, independent task initiation, and the management of potentially distracting impulses. Neurodiverse students, individuals diagnosed with an intellectual disability, and other students experiencing deficits in these abilities may face greater challenges engaging in goal directed persistence than typically developing peers (Sibley et al. 2019, Spaniol and Danielsson 2022). As a result, there is the potential for behaviour indicators to include statements that may be worded in such a way as to represent a higher response effort for neurodiverse students and students with disability.

In the matrices included in the current study, statements that reflected a higher response effort for neurodiverse students or those diagnosed with disability were coded in 19 primary school matrices from Queensland and 24 primary school matrices from Victoria – representing 58% of all primary school matrices. When considering secondary school matrices, behavioural indicators were coded in matrices from seven Queensland schools and three from Victorian schools – representing 56% of all secondary school matrices.

Behaviour indicators that were most frequently coded included specific references to a ‘growth mindset’, with 16 and three references in primary and secondary matrices respectively. The wording varied from simply stating ‘Growth Mindset’ to ‘I have a growth mindset’. When worded in this way, students who face goal-directed persistence challenges may not appear to demonstrate these values or require considerable response effort to do this. Positive examples were evident within the included matrices may address this. For example, ‘I work to demonstrate a growth mindset’. By framing the wording in this way teachers can prompt and reinforce both progress towards a growth mindset and when students demonstrate this mindset in action.

In addition, multiple indicators referred to the need for students to both set and achieve goals (24 across all primary matrices and three in secondary matrices). It was also noted that ‘persisting’ or ‘persevering’ when facing challenges (14 in primary and five in secondary) and delivering their ‘best efforts’ (eight in primary and three in secondary) was expected of students. While demonstrating each of these qualities or values is critical to ensuring students can achieve academic success, the wording of these indicators may represent a disproportionally increased response effort for some students with no indication of how students may be supported to ensure optimal response effort. For example, statements such as ‘Complete set work’, ‘We complete our learning goals’, and ‘we never give up’ as indicators, do not allow for approximations or progress towards the successful development of the skills required to achieve these goals. Positive examples of such goals were also evident. For example, ‘Set small achievable goals to strive towards through our day of learning’ allows for students of all abilities to work towards and successfully achieve the behaviours described in this indicator.

Conclusion/implications

As Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) noted, the attitudes and beliefs of students can have a powerful effect on their learning and achievement in school. Including values that reflect this, with specific indicators to outline and describe in functional terms what these behaviours look like is an important step. Critically, Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) identified that not all students develop beliefs or attitudes that improve learning as a result of their experiences in school. Ensuring that indicators are written in clear terms that allow for teaching, prompting, and the delivery of reinforcement for the development of the skills and demonstration of the behaviour in full, may support students of diverse backgrounds and skill levels to continue to develop the skills required to achieve success.

It is important to note that we are not advocating for expectations to be lowered for students for whom increased response effort is required (see our positionality statement). Increasing student skill and ability to successfully achieve behavioural expectations is a critical step and one that may more effectively support student inclusion. As noted earlier, the SWPBS framework is predicated on supporting and sustaining changes in teacher behaviour that lead to the creation of environments in which all learners can thrive and succeed. The focus of the current paper is on behavioural indicators within school-wide behaviour matrices. The purpose of a behaviour matrix within a school is provide clarity to students on the agreed expected school values and behaviours and, critically, to shape teacher implementation behaviour. Indicators are to guide teachers in the behaviours that they are to teach, model, prompt for, and reinforce in their classrooms.

Each of the indicators analysed in this study relates in some way to the creation of an organised learning environment that includes the development and maintenance of clear and efficient routines that maximise instructional time (Simonsen et al. 2008). As the indicators within matrices serve as an antecedent for teacher behaviour, ensuring that these are written in ways that promote equity as part of the pursuit of high expectations is essential in the first instance. This balance may be struck by describing behavioural indicators in functional terms (e.g. what outcome the behaviour is to achieve), whilst including specific description of the supports provided to enable students to successfully demonstrate expected behaviour (e.g. ‘I will follow my routine at pack up’). Providing both of these components when writing behavioural indicators may assist staff in maintaining high expectations, whilst ensuring that all students have the potential to achieve success in the first instance.

One possible way to support the changes suggested above could be to revise existing fidelity measures such as the Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; Algozzine et al. 2019) to review whether the behavioural indicators are written in ways that increase the response effort by students with disability. Further, the TFI could also audit whether student with disability were considered during the design of the matrix, or whether disproportionality data indicate whether certain behavioural indicators are the reason students with disability are subject to disciplinary responses.

The results of this study show that ableism can be found in behavioural indicators used in the SWPBS matrices of Australian schools. It is recommended that a further critical review examines matrices alongside the teaching materials used in schools to determine whether the response effort required to meet indicators is reduced through high-quality teaching practices. While the authors of this paper have focussed their careers on supporting students with disability, we recognise the findings within this small pilot study represent our views on indicators we consider may require greater response efforts from some students with disability. Before undertaking a larger-scale study, we plan for this research to be co-authored with additional students and people with disability who can further identify indicators that pose an increased response effort on students with disability. We emphasise the need to operationalise behavioural expectations within a matrix in the terms of the support (or skill teaching) that will be provided to ensure that all students can successfully engage in school in ways that reflect the high behavioural, social, and academic learning expectations we hold. A student’s ability to engage and comply with routines and classroom expectations will be a by-product of instruction; a matrix without instruction is pointless. If teachers start with compliance as the goal (e.g. eyes on me, then warning), students may not succeed, especially some students with disability. High-quality teacher preparation and professional learning is required to ensure teachers are well prepared to engage in delivering these supports effectively, in the values-driven way they are intended (Whitefield et al. 2022).

The creation of a matrix of expected behaviours with clear descriptors for all relevant settings in the school is a critical step in ensuring Tier-1 SWPBS is implemented with fidelity (Algozzine et al. 2019). We are at pains to stress that the focus of the current study is not to reduce behavioural expectations, but rather, to ensure that high expectations are clearly articulated in such a way that they are achievable by all students in the first instance. Doing so will be a necessary first step if implementers are to eliminate structural ableism from the construction of school expectations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.