From Pre-K to the Workplace: How PBIS Impacts At-Risk Students Achieving Success Beyond Graduation
Summary
Sugai and Simonsen (2012) described PBIS as a Response to Intervention model (RtI) consisting of three-tiers of support and a process to solve problems that hinder schools from effectively educating all students. The first level intervention tier, Tier 1, includes supports for all students through teaching, modeling, and positively reinforcing expectations (Cressey, et al., 2014). Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, and Lathrop (2007) stated that more interventions are used at the secondary intervention level, Tier 2, to produce positive outcomes for a small group of students when those students do not respond to the Tier 1 interventions. Fairbanks, et al. (2007) explained that the tertiary intervention level, Tier 3, emphasizes individualized and specialized interventions for students who are nonresponsive to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions. Tier 3 intervention efforts include planning for function-based behavior interventions, implementing social skills lessons, monitoring intensive individualized behavior plans, constant data-driven decision-making, planning team, and school-community based mental health support services (Cressey, et al., 2014). Banks and Obiakor (2015) concluded that PBIS improves school safety and climate by enhancing positive behavior for students through the implementation of the three-tiered process.
To close the gaps in achievement and discipline of at-risk students and their peers, educational interventions are necessary (Davis, 2003). According to Cook, Duong, McIntosh, Fiat, Larson, Pullmann, and McGinnis (2018), longstanding discipline disparities for some groups of students are related to unfortunate outcomes and require practical and effective school-based solutions. Noguera (2012) suggested implementing educational interventions early when warning signs, such as failure to meet academic expectations and grade retention, are present. Bell (2010) agreed that intervening at younger ages is associated with more positive outcomes for students. Bradshaw (2013) reported that Positive Behavior Intervention Support programs have been shown to reduce behavior problems. Johnson and Hannon (2014) asserted that services provided by school counselors are instrumental in students overcoming behavior and academic challenges. Grant and Dieker (2011) recommended mentoring as an effective intervention. Dyce (2013) concluded that providing educational interventions would increase their chances of obtaining academic success.
From Pre-K to the Workplace: How PBIS Impacts At-Risk Students Achieving Success Beyond Graduation
Sugai and Simonsen (2012) described PBIS as a Response to Intervention model (RtI) consisting of three-tiers of support and a process to solve problems that hinder schools from effectively educating all students. The first level intervention tier, Tier 1, includes supports for all students through teaching, modeling, and positively reinforcing expectations (Cressey, et al., 2014). Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, and Lathrop (2007) stated that more interventions are used at the secondary intervention level, Tier 2, to produce positive outcomes for a small group of students when those students do not respond to the Tier 1 interventions. Fairbanks, et al. (2007) explained that the tertiary intervention level, Tier 3, emphasizes individualized and specialized interventions for students who are nonresponsive to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions. Tier 3 intervention efforts include planning for function-based behavior interventions, implementing social skills lessons, monitoring intensive individualized behavior plans, constant data-driven decision-making, planning team, and school-community based mental health support services (Cressey, et al., 2014). Banks and Obiakor (2015) concluded that PBIS improves school safety and climate by enhancing positive behavior for students through the implementation of the three-tiered process.
To close the gaps in achievement and discipline of at-risk students and their peers, educational interventions are necessary (Davis, 2003). According to Cook, Duong, McIntosh, Fiat, Larson, Pullmann, and McGinnis (2018), longstanding discipline disparities for some groups of students are related to unfortunate outcomes and require practical and effective school-based solutions. Noguera (2012) suggested implementing educational interventions early when warning signs, such as failure to meet academic expectations and grade retention, are present. Bell (2010) agreed that intervening at younger ages is associated with more positive outcomes for students. Bradshaw (2013) reported that Positive Behavior Intervention Support programs have been shown to reduce behavior problems. Johnson and Hannon (2014) asserted that services provided by school counselors are instrumental in students overcoming behavior and academic challenges. Grant and Dieker (2011) recommended mentoring as an effective intervention. Dyce (2013) concluded that providing educational interventions would increase their chances of obtaining academic success.
