An Integrated Approach to Creating Positive School Climate
“If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become
what they are capable of becoming.”
-Haim Ginott, 1972
Teaching children is the primary role of an educator. This simple maxim is not only relegated to rote academic
knowledge but also applies to children’s social functioning within their school community, as well as out into the larger
world. Teaching skills, modeling those skills, and reinforcing the application of skills creates a framework for a child to
learn and can be applied to a variety of skill sets, including social learning. Social learning is invaluable to creating an
engaging school experience for students, creating a positive classroom climate and, ultimately, creating a positive
school climate. Below is a review of Wayne Elementary School’s efforts at creating this framework.
School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) is still a developing model of prevention and intervention that
continues to be refined through research. Sugai and Horner (2009) stated that
“SWPBS is not a curriculum, intervention, or program. However, it is an approach designed to improve the
adoption, accurate implementation, and sustained use of evidence-based practices related to behavior and
classroom management and school discipline systems which makes use of existing school resources and
structures to infuse the culture and practices of the school system with the SWPBS approach.”
SWPBS is designed to improve learning environments by increasing the (a) amount of time students are in school (e.g.,
decreased out-of-school suspensions), (b) proportion of minutes students are engaged in instruction, and (c) level of
academic engagement of students during instruction (Sugai & Horner, 2009). The underlying assumption is that by
improving social behavior, schools have more time and ability to deliver effective curriculum and instruction (Putnam,
Horner, & Algozzine, 2006).
It may be tempting for school districts to adopt a different program to combat each new behavioral or academic
problem that emerges. In fact, many principal and parent groups indicate that a greater number of programs are
better for students (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001). On average, elementary schools engage in approximately 14
different programs within a given school year to promote appropriate school behavior and a safe learning environment
(Gottfredson & Gottfredson 2001). However, this can be overwhelming for school staff to execute well, thereby leading
to poor implementation fidelity. Schools should develop a consistent and long-term prevention plan that addresses
multiple student concerns through a set of integrated programs and services. Such efforts would address multiple
behavioral competencies, as well as skills to prevent bullying or help students respond appropriately when bullying
does occur (Gottfredson & Gottfredson 2001). Given that bullying typically co-occurs with other forms of aggressive
and disruptive behavior (Bradshaw & Koth, 2009), programs that have a broader focus on preventing aggressive and
disruptive behavior by addressing social–emotional skills, interpersonal conflict, and behavioral inhibition is also likely
to curb bullying.
Schools should actively address their social learning environment, which plays a critical role in the underlying culture
of bullying. Improving the various facets of school climate (e.g., safety, engagement, environment) will likely translate
into reductions in bullying, and may increase high quality implementation of research-based academic programs
(Bradshaw & Koth, 2009). School wide prevention efforts have consistently demonstrated that establishing a common
set of expectations for positive behavior across all school contexts, as well as creating frameworks to teach and
support the usage of those positive behaviors which involve all school staff in prevention activities are critical at
creating a positive school climate. Although efforts aimed at improving school climate require sustained and intensive
commitment from staff, teachers at schools which implement school wide positive behavioral supports with fidelity
report feeling more capable to engage students in the classroom and report using positive strategies to adapt to
student needs; (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012; Ross & Horner, 2006).
Data collection systems can be used by school personnel to make informed, targeted decisions about the utility of their
SWPBS model. Wayne Elementary School currently uses the SWSS program to collect and analyze its building wide,
grade level, classroom level, and individual student behavioral data. This on-going data collection helps guide the
creation of lessons, the utilization of resources, and implementation of interventions. Additionally, as WES moves
forward with the SWPBS model over the next few years, this data will help determine its overall effectiveness in
increasing student’s engagement in effective instruction.
Muscott and colleagues (2008) reported increased student instructional hours and improved academic achievement at
schools implementing SWPBS with fidelity. Further positive results have been demonstrated by Algozzine and Algozzine
(2007), who examined the effect of SWPBS on students' on-task behavior in the classroom in comparison to a school
that was not implementing SWPBS. The results indicated that students in the school implementing SWPBS displayed
overall higher levels of on-task behavior and lower levels of off-task behavior than did those in the comparison school.
Additionally, Luiselli and colleagues (2002) found that school-wide behavioral intervention was successful in reducing
the frequency of detentions over the course of 4 years. Schools implementing SWPBS procedures with fidelity have
consistently reported reductions in office discipline referrals and suspensions (Bradshaw, 2006; Horner, Sugai, Todd, &
Lewis-Palmer, 2005, Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006).
Although SWPBS increases students’ access to academic instruction, SWPBS does not directly affect instruction (Gage,
Sugai, Lewis, & Brzozowy, 2015). If an instructional practice or a core academic program has not been validated as
effective or if an effective practice is implemented with poor fidelity, academic engagement and subsequent academic
achievement are likely to be limited, even in schools implementing a SWPBS model. However, when SWPBS was paired
with sound academic interventions, increases were found (Gage, Sugai, Lewis, & Brzozowy, 2015). By pairing effective
interventions with effective behavior support, the likelihood of increases across both outcomes is increased.
The prevention of problem behaviors is an emphasis in most states, and 31 states have a requirement or a
recommendation that school districts implement SWPBS as a framework to prevent problem behaviors. This trend
aligns with the proposed federal support for expanding the implementation of SWPBS and approximately 20,000 schools
have adopted a data-driven framework for organizing (a) positive, preventive, and evidence-based practices that result
in desired youth outcomes and (b) systems features (e.g., teaming structures, professional development supports, staff
recognition) that promote sustained implementation with fidelity (Simonsen & Sugai 2013).
Within its first year of SWPBS implementation, Wayne Elementary School has established consistent behavioral
expectations across students, provided a framework for all students to be taught those expectations, as well as
established a framework for the positive reinforcement of those expected behaviors. Wayne has also begun using a
data tracking system to better understand behavioral trends at all levels within the building, which will assess the
effectiveness of the framework and allow for flexible problem solving among the SWPBS team members, who receive
on-going training and consultation through various state agencies. Wayne is dedicated to creating a positive school
climate which promotes positive social behaviors among its students and staff, which leads to positive learning
behaviors within the classroom.
-Submitted by: Andrew Scherff, PhD, Certified School Psychologist
References
Algozzine, K., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Classroom instructional ecology and school-wide positive behavior support.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 29–47.
Bradshaw, C. (2006, July). Project Target: An evaluation of PBlS in Maryland. Presentation at meeting of OSEP Project
Directors, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science; 10(2), 100-115.
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. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem
behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359-390). New York: Guilford
Gage, N., Sugai, G., Lewis, J., & Brzozowy S. (2015). Academic Achievement and School Wide Positive Behavior
Support. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 199-209
Ginott, Haim (1972). Teacher and Child: A Book for Parents and Teachers. Scribner Paper Fiction
Gottfredson, G. D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What Schools do to Prevent Delinquency and Promote Safe
Environments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 4, 313-344.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized,
wait list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–144.
Kelm, J., & McIntosh, K. (2012) Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy. Psychology in
the School, 49, 137–147.
Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M. & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic
achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43 ( 6 ) 701 – 12
Luiselli, J.K., Putnam, R.F. & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior intervention in a public
middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 182 – 8.
Muscott, H.S., Mann, E. L. & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in New Hampshire:
effects of large-scale implementation of school-wide positive behavior support on students discipline and academic
achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 190 – 205.
Putnam, R., Horner, R.H., & Algozzine, R. (2006). Academic achievement and the implementation of school-wide
behavior support. Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Newsletter, 3(1).
Ross, S., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Teacher outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. Teaching Exceptional
Children Plus, 3.
Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2013). PBIS as Prevention for High-Risk Youth in Alternative Education, Residential, and
Juvenile Justice Settings. Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 36
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. Handbook of positive
behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York: Springer Publishing