Robert F. Putnam
May Institute
Robert H. Horner
University of Oregon
Robert Algozzine
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Recent research indicates that school-wide positive behavior is
associated with decreased exclusionary, reactive and punitive discipline
practices (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Luiselli,
Putnam, & Sunderland, 2002), increased student satisfaction
(Lewis-Palmer, Horner, Sugai, Eber, & Phillips, 2002), and improved
perceptions of school safety (Schneider, Walker, & Sprague, 2000). Our
focus in this review is on research examining the relationship between
school-wide behavior support and improved academic performance. First, we
review the relationship between academic achievement and problem behavior.
Second, we consider relationships between school-wide positive behavior
support and improved academic performance as measured by grades and
standardized test performance. Third, we explore why school-wide positive
behavior support should improve academic performance. We end with the
summary of relationships between achievement and behavior as well as
recommendations for further research.
Academic Achievement and Problem Behavior
Higher rates of office discipline referrals (ODRs) are associated with
problematic behavioral climates in schools (Irwin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai,
& Vincent, 2004). Several studies (Larsen, Steele & Sailor, in
press; McIntosh, 2005; Tobin & Sugai, 1999) have found relationships
between academic performance and problem behavior across grade levels. For
example, McIntosh (2005) investigated how early elementary screening
measures (particularly assessments in kindergarten) targeting behavior and
reading predicted if a student would have two or more discipline contacts
in the 3rd and 5th grade. He found, as expected, that office referrals in
1st and 2nd grade were strong predictors of ODRs in 3rd grade. His results
also indicated that reading competence in kindergarten (as measured by the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]) was
statistically predictive of ODRs in 3rd grade. The most powerful overall
predictors of 2 or more discipline contacts in 5th grade were 4th grade
ODRs and low DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency scores obtained in the winter of
5th grade. The most powerful kindergarten predictor of which students
would have 2 or more discipline contacts in 5th grade was the DIBELS
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency assessment given in the spring of the
student’s kindergarten year. Additionally, those students with high levels
of escape maintained behavior in fifth grade were those most likely to
have significantly lower literacy skills (low DIBELS scores) than their
peers, whereas, those students with high levels of peer-attention
maintained problem behavior were likely to have literacy skills that
matched their peers without problem behavior.
The overall picture provided by McIntosh’s results is one in which
children enter kindergarten with varying reading skills. If, however, they
do not respond to literacy instruction during kindergarten, and fall
behind, a negative spiral of achievement and behavior becomes more likely.
As the student’s literacy skills do not keep pace with those of peers,
academic tasks become more aversive, and problem behaviors that lead to
escape from these tasks become more likely.
This relationship between academic performance and problem behaviors
has also been studied at the middle school and high school levels
(Fleming, Harachi, Cortes, Abbott & Catalano, 2004; Larsen, Steele,
& Sailor (in press); Morrison, Anthony, Storino, & Dillon, 2001;
Roeser, Eccles & Sameroff, 2000; Tobin & Sugai, 1999). Tobin and
Sugai (1999) found that individual student academic failure in high school
was correlated with three or more suspensions in ninth grade. They also
found correlations between grade point average (GPAs) and specific types
of ODR behaviors (fighting, harassing and threats of violence, nonviolent
misbehavior) for boys in sixth grade. Morrison, Anthony, Storino, and
Dillon (2001) reviewed the records of students who were referred to an
in-school suspension program. Those students who had no previous ODRs had
higher GPAs than the students who had ODRs. Roeser, Eccles, and Sameroff
(2000) found the relationship strengthen over the course of middle school
between problematic behavior and academic performance. Murdock, Anderman,
and Hodge (2000) used a Likert discipline scale rating of 1 (never) to 5
(four or more times this year) to assess the frequency of 4 student
self-reported discipline events with 9th graders. These events were: (a)
being sent to the assistant principal, (b) receiving detention, (c)
receiving in-school suspension, and, (d) receiving out of school
suspension. The discipline scores demonstrated a negative correlation with
grades. Larsen, Steele, & Sailor (in press) examined ODRs and
suspensions with performance on standardized reading and math tests in an
urban middle school. The number of ODRs and suspensions a student received
predicted lower scores on standardized reading and math tests. The
findings of these studies demonstrate that academic performance and future
problematic behavior are related across grade levels and that higher rates
of ODRs and suspensions are correlated with lower scores on academic
assessments in the upper grades.
Other research (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004) has
demonstrated that students with severe problem behavior experienced large
academic deficits as compared to typical peers. In most areas these
deficits remained stable over time, however, in the case of mathematics
the deficits actually broaden over time. Finally, externalizing behaviors
were more strongly related to academic performance deficits as compared to
internalizing behaviors. McKinney (1989) found that outcomes are the
poorest for students with problems in both areas. Fleming, Harachi,
Cortes, Abbott, and Catalano (2004) found that students with higher
reading scores in the middle of elementary school and those whose scores
increased between third and sixth grade engaged in significantly less
problem behavior in seventh grade. One study (Lee, Sugai & Horner,
1999) demonstrated improvements in escape-maintained problem behavior when
students received academic support that made them effective with the
target math tasks.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Time in
Instruction
Research has consistently shown that the
amount of time that instruction is provided is highly correlated with
student achievement (Brophy, 1988; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave,
Cahen, Dishaw, 1980). Scott and Barrett (2004) implemented school-wide
positive behavior support in an urban elementary school and with
intervention, the annual rate of ODRs decreased by 562 and suspensions by
55 over a two-year time period. They estimated that when a student
receives an ODR he/she loses 20 minutes of instructional time and when a
student is given a suspension he/she loses 1 day of instructional time.
The average instructional days gained per year through the reduction in
ODRs were 29.5 days and through the reduction in suspensions were 50 days,
for a total of 79.5 days. Putnam, Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich (2003)
reported similar results with gains of 169 instructional days comparing
the implementation of school wide positive behavior support for one half
year versus a similar period in which school-wide behavior support was not
implemented in a low performing urban school. Larsen, Steele and Sailor
(in press) found similar results in another inner-city middle school.
In a related area of research Putnam, Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich
(2003) and Putnam, Handler, Rey and O’Leary-Zonarich (2002) found that
classwide behavior support increased the time students receive academic
instruction. The objective of intervention was to increase time teachers
instructed students. Feedback was given to teachers on the amount of time
that they provided instruction, producing a 57% increase over
pre-intervention levels.
Student academic engagement has been found to be correlated with
improved academic achievement. For example, high-achieving students in
high schools were academically engaged 75% of the time, compared to 51%
for low-achieving students (Frederick, 1977). Engagement in academic
responding also increases achievement as measured by academic tests and
covaries with gains in reading, language, and arithmetic (Greenwood,
Delquardi, & Hall, 1989). In a study of six classrooms that
implemented behavior support plans, on-task behavior increased by 24%
percent over the baseline levels (Putnam et al., 2003).
School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Academic
Achievement
A number of initial studies have illustrated
that school-wide behavior supports decrease problem behavior, increase
time spent in academic instruction, and are associated with improved
academic outcomes. These studies are encouraging, but remain descriptive
in nature and do not have the experimental control needed to confirm a
relationship between school-wide PBS and improved academic
performance.
Improving grades. Luiselli, Putnam, and
Sunderland (2002) found that after the implementation of school-wide
behavior support in a suburban middle school, detentions for
disruptive-antisocial behavior, as well as substance abuse decreased over
a four year period. School attendance also increased over the four years.
A lottery drawing was conducted each quarter for each student who met or
exceeded certain academic (maintaining a specific grade point average,
receiving passing grades for all subjects on the report card, and having
no more than two homework detentions) and behavioral (attendance,
detentions, expulsions) criteria. The percent of students who were
eligible for the lottery increased from 40% of the schools’ population to
55% of the schools’ population over the course of four years.
Improving standardized test performance.
There is increasing evidence that school-wide positive behavior support
interventions improve standardized test results. Larsen, Steele, and
Sailor (in press) completed a three year study in an inner city urban
school, finding that reductions in ODRs and suspensions, and corresponding
increases in mathematics test scores from baseline to year three. While
reading scores did not increase from baseline, positive changes were
documented from year one to year three. In a related study, Luiselli,
Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) implemented school-wide behavior
support at an urban school and found decreases from baseline to
intervention to follow-up in ODRs and suspensions. Reading comprehension
and mathematics percentile ranks on standardized tests improved from the
first (pre-intervention) to the second (intervention) test dates,
increasing 18 and 25 percentage points respectively. In another study,
Putnam, Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich (2003) found that reading and math
scores improved on standardized testing following behavior support
intervention at an urban elementary school. It should be noted that none
of these studies controlled for other academic interventions that may have
impacted on the student’s academic performance nor had random control
groups.
A recent analysis of academic performance of schools implementing
school wide positive behavior support compared to schools not implementing
such programs was conducted in Illinois (Horner, Sugai, Eber, &
Lewandowski, 2004). Schools implementing school wide behavior support were
schools that had scored 80% on the School Evaluation Tool (Sugai,
Lewis-Palmer, Todd & Horner, 2001) and had 80% of their students being
able to state their school wide expectations. The schools (n=52) in which
school-wide positive behavior support were implemented had 62% of their
3rd grade students meeting the Illinois State Achievement Test Reading
Standard. By contrast, only 47% of students met the Illinois State
Achievement Reading Test Standard in schools (n=69) that had not fully
implemented positive behavior support.
A comparative district-wide study (www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html) of
schools that had implemented school-wide positive behavior compared to
those who had not was conducted across their elementary and middle
schools. The four middle and thirteen elementary schools who implemented
school-wide positive behavior support demonstrated increased achievement
on the Oregon State Achievement tests as compared to four middle and six
elementary schools that did not implement school-wide behavior support.
These schools that implemented school wide behavior support tended to be
schools that began with lower scores meaning the magnitude of improvement
tended to be much higher.
Horner, Sugai, Todd, and Lewis-Palmer (2005) demonstrated similar
findings with another school district with nineteen elementary schools.
Between the 1997-98 and 2001-2002 academic years, thirteen of the schools
implemented school-wide positive behavior support and six schools did not.
They compared the percentage of 3rd graders who met state wide reading
standards in the academic year 1997-98 with the percentage in the academic
year 2001-2002. Ten out of the thirteen schools (77%) that adopted
school-wide positive behavior support practices had improved outcomes. The
change in percentage of students meeting standards ranged from 2% to over
15% in these schools. Only one of the six schools (16%) that not did
implement school-wide positive behavior support showed improvement.
Perspective and Recommendations for Future Research
While problem behavior does not solely lead to poor
literacy, poor literacy alone does not lead to problem behavior. Multiple
studies have documented that students with problem behavior are more
likely to have academic deficits (Anthony, Storino, & Dillon, 2001;
Larsen, Steele, & Sailor, in press; Murdock, Anderman & Hodge,
2000; Tobin & Sugai, 1999). Studies have also been completed
demonstrating that school-wide behavior support can improve variables that
have been suggested to improve academic performance such as student
attendance (Luiselli, Putnam & Sunderland, 2002), time in school due
to reduced exclusionary disciplinary practices (Putnam Handler, &
O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003; Scott & Barrett, 2004), classroom
instructional time (Putnam et al., 2002), and academic engagement (Putnam,
Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003). In addition, improved behavior
support is related to improved academic outcomes (Larsen, Steele, &
Sailor, in press; Luiselli et al., 2005; Putnam, Handler, &
O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003) and schools implementing school-wide behavior
support have been shown to have greater academic improvements compared to
schools where school-wide behavior support were not implemented (Horner et
al., 2005, Larsen, Steele, & Sailor, in press, (http://www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html).
If problem behavior and academics are linked, each affects the other,
and if acceptable instruction is in place, then improving the behavioral
climate of the school will allow that instruction to be more effective.
There are several different paths that need to be examined. First, schools
that deliver poor academic opportunities, create academic failure.
Academic failure is aversive, and students engage in behaviors to avoid
failure. These behaviors often result in ODRs, and loss of access to
academic instruction. Conceptualizing this, in essence, is a classic
coercion model (Reid, Patterson & Synder, 2002). When a student
engages in problem behavior he/she is excluded from his/her classroom and
this results in the teacher having a less problematic learning situation.
On the other hand, if a student experiences an aversive task demand and
engages in problematic behavior that student greatly enhances his/her
chances of escaping this task. Exclusion from learning activities reduces
the opportunities to gain skills that would make the task demands less
aversive. Alternatively, there are academically capable students who
engage in attention-maintained problem behavior. They also get excluded
from academic opportunities, and even though they have the basic skills,
they experience academic failure. Recall that McIntosh (2005) found that
poor literacy scores are statistical predictors of later problem behavior.
He found at 5th grade that those students with high levels of
escape-maintained problem behavior were likely to have significantly lower
literacy skills (low DIBELS scores) than their peers, and that those
students with high levels of peer-attention maintained problem behavior
were likely to have literacy skills that matched their peers without
problem behavior.
With full implementation of school-wide positive behavior support, a
behaviorally competent school would have the following conditions: a)
classroom management and curriculum variables would be adapted so academic
tasks become less aversive; b) reduction in ODRs would mean more minutes
spent in academic instruction; c) the minutes spent in academic
instruction would be more effective; d) there would be less peer support
for academic failure, and; e) there would be an increase in the structured
prompts, contingent feedback and support for academic behavior. We might
hypothesize that with these conditions in place a school could affect the
academic gains of students.
Horner et al., (2005) point out that academic and behavior supports
must be intertwined. The importance of effective direct instruction in
academic skills is critical to improving academic skills. Students will
not learn academic skills without effective instruction and a good
curriculum. They will not learn to read just being taught social skills.
Of course, these same students will not learn to read in a school or
classroom that is behaviorally chaotic. In order to have students receive
an effective education we need effective behavior support interventions,
an empirically validated curriculum as well as effective instruction.
It is clear that additional research on the impact of school-wide
behavior support on academic achievement is needed. There are a number of
research questions that arise from a review of this literature. First,
most of the studies feature pre-post comparison or are descriptive in
nature. Accordingly, research that employs more rigorous experimental
control is necessary. Positive behavior support appears to be potentially
an intervention that impacts academic achievement but many replication
studies must be completed to establish confirmatory evidence. Secondly, it
is important to identify the mechanisms that have the most impact on
improvements in academic performance and the potential contributions of
each of these factors. It is reported that school-wide positive behavior
support increases the amount of instruction provided to students who
attend a school that uses these interventions (Putnam, Handler &
O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003;Scott and Barrett, 2004). Increased prompting and
contingent feedback for academic skill performance is also a factor in
school-wide positive behavior support. In addition, the climate of these
schools provides less peer support for academic failure. Each of these
components should be investigated for its potential contributions to
increased academic achievement. In addition, in which schools would
school-wide positive behavior support have the greatest impact on academic
achievement? We would hypothesize that schools with greater discipline
issues but with an effective curriculum and instructional practices would
experience larger gains than those schools that had none of these
components. Finally, McIntosh (2005) found that students in fifth grade
with escape-maintained problem behavior had significantly lowered literacy
scores than their peers. He also found that some of these students could
be identified as early as kindergarten. These findings are important and
need to be replicated and linked to functional intervention strategies
thereby decreasing the number of students with challenging behavior and
academic failure in later years.
References
Brophy, J. E. (1988). Research linking teacher behavior to student
achievement: Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students.
Educational Psychologist, 23, 235-286.
Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L.
S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning
time, and student achievement: An overview.Journal of Classroom
Interaction, 17(1), 2-15.
Frederick, W. C. (1977). The use of classroom time in high schools
above or below the median reading score. Urban Education, 21(4),
459-465.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquardi, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989).
Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M.
(1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent
involvement with antisocial peers. Devopmental Psychology, 27,
172-180.
Fleming, C. B., Harachi, T. W., Cortes, R. C., Abbott, R. D. &
Catalano, R. F. (2004). Level and change in reading scores and attention
problems during elementary school as predictors of problem behavior in
middle school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
12(3),130-144.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005)
School-wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to
discipline in schools. In L. M. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.),
Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors. (pp.
359-390). New York: Guilford Press.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Eber, L., & Lewandowski, H. (2004).
Illinois Positive Behavior Interventions and Support Project:
2003-2004 Progress Report. University of Oregon: Center on Positive
Behavior Interventions and Support & Illinois State Board of
Education.
Irwin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G. & Vincent, C.
G. (2004) Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of
school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral
interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3),
131-147.
Larsen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (in press). The
relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic
achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology Review.
Lee, Y., Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (1999). Using an instructional
intervention to reduce problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 195-204.
Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Eber, L., & Phillips,
D. (2002). Illinois Positive Behavior Interventions and Support
Project: 2001-2002 Progress Report. University of Oregon: OSEP Center
on Positive Behavior Support.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002).
Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public
middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3),
182-188.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg A. B.
(2005). Whole-school Positive Behaviour Support: Effects on student
discipline problems and academic performance. Educational
Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198.
McIntosh, K. (2005, March). Use of DIBELS ORF trajectories to
predict office discipline referrals. Paper presented at DIBELS Summit
2005, Ratin, N. M.
McKinney, J. D. (1989). Longitudinal research on the behavioral
characteristics of children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22(3), 141-150, 165.
Morrison, G. M., Anthony, S., Storino, M., & Dillon, C. (2001). An
examination of the disciplinary histories and the individual and
educational characteristics of students who participate in an in-school
suspension program. Education and Treatment of Children, 24,
276-293.
Murdock, T. B., Anderman, L. H., & Hodge, S. A. (2000).
Middle-grade predictors of students’ motivation and behavior in high
school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(3), 327-351.
Nelson, J.R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. & Smith, B. W. (2004).
Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 59-73.
Putnam, R. F, Handler, M., & O’Leary-Zonarich, C. (2003).
Improving academic achievement using school-wide behavioral support
interventions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Association of Behavior Analysis. San Francisco, CA.
Putnam, R. F., Handler, M., Rey, J., & O’Leary-Zonarich, C. (2002).
Classwide behavior support interventions: Using functional assessment
practices to design effective interventions in general classroom
settings. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association
of Behavior Analysis. Toronto, Canada.
Reid, J.B., Patterson, G.R., Synder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior
in children and adults. American Psychological Association.
Washington, DC.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S. & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a
context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: a
summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal,
100(5), 443-471.
Schneider, T., Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (2000). Safe
school design: A handbook for educational leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. College of Education, University
of Oregon.
Scott, T. M. & Barrett, S. B., (2004). Using staff and student time
engaged in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide
PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 21-27.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. & Horner, R. (2001).
School-wide evaluation tool. University of Oregon.
Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Predicting violence at school,
chronic discipline problems, and high school outcomes from sixth graders’
school records. Journal of Emotional Disorders. 7, 40-53.
4J EBS District Data. (2004). Eugene School District 4J, 200 North
Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon 97402. http://www.4j.lane.edu/ess/ebs/data/districtdata.html