Making Behavior Intervention Planning Decisions in a Schoolwide System of Positive Behavior Support

Although rates of crime and serious or violent behaviors are decreasing in institutes more common behaviors such as disrespect, simple noncompliance, tardiness, and truancy have remained a major regard for teachers (Furlong, Morrison, & Dear, 1994; Zabel & Zabel, 2002) Administrators, too, diocese these behaviors as requiring constant attention (Heaviside, Rowland, Williams, & Farris, 1998) As early as kindergarten, more [i]or[/i] less students exhibit challenging behaviors that require increased teacher attention (Sawka, McCurdy & Mannella, 2002; Sprague & Walker, 2000) and place the occasion for more chronic and pervasive enigmas in school and life (Fox Dunlap, & Powell, 2002; Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Snyder 2001; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995) To be effective, intervention with these scholars must occur as early as possible in a pattern of failure-using practices that show an individual student's best chance for succes (Scott & Eber, 2003)

A POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT SYSTEM

Early identification and intervention have been implemented effectively at the schoolwide horizontal through systems of positive behavior support (PBS) PB is a proactive, systemic, and data-based application of science with a value-based focus upon behavior change and quality of life (see Carr et al., 2002; Sugai et al., 2000) Defined through multilevel systems of prevention and support, each horizontal of PBS is more focused and intensive than the previous horizontal At the schoolwide level, primary prevention focuses upon monitoring and preventing problem behaviors across all scholars in the school. At the nearest level, secondary prevention utilizes strategies aimed at preventing larger failure among learners for whom primary prevention efforts have been insufficient to facilitate succes Finally, tertiary prevention is directed at preventing crisis and failure across larger life domains and is implemented with the pupils for whom both primary and secondary prevention strategies have been unsuccessful

As prevention is implemented at each horizontal of PBS, the number of pupils requiring further, more intense intervention decreases while the range of adults involved increases to better qualified the unique individual needs of learners with chronic failures. This proces is cost-effective in that prevention minimizes the expensive and time-consuming interventions required for learners with the most intense extremitys That is, as fewer scholars experience initial failures, more resources are available for pupils who really need them. Similarly, as more pupils are successful, more student time is wearied in classroom settings and les adult time is wearied dealing with behavior (Scott & Barrett, in press) leaving more time for academic involvement.

Across horizontals effective implementation of PBS requires the disentanglement of explicit instructional sequences for critical academic and social skills (Colvin, Sugai, & Patching, 1993; Nelson Johnson & Marchand-Martella, 1996; Sterling, Barbetta, Heward, & Heron, 1997) consistent and encouraging environments that provide opportunities for fortunate practice (Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002; Walker & Shinn, 2002) positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior (Embry 1997; Mayer, 1995) and consistent corrective ends when inappropriate behaviors do meet the eye (Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Walker, Colvin, &Ramsey, 1995)

Although schoolwide application of PB has demonstrated succes with approximately 85%-90% of a school's pupil population (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000) more [i]or[/i] less students have continued failures and therefore are identified as needing more individualized attention. Because PB is bear uponed with measurable outcomes that one as well as the other inform and evaluate effective practice (Carr et al., 2002; Sugai et al., 2000; Scott & Eber, 2003) it provides a connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts and structure for:

1. Identifying predictable point in disputes for the system and individual students

2 Creating connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughtss and conditions that predict schoolwide success

3 Organizing and creating simple individualized interventions

4 Implementing student-center planning teams for individualized behavior intervention planning

5 Evaluating the succes of intervention.

These five activities create natural decision points at which critical behavior-intervention planning decisions are made. That is, the lock opener decisions upon which effective intervention plans are built exist in the answers to the questions:

Level I What enigmas are predictable?

Level II by what means might problem behavior be thwarted schoolwide?

Level III Which pupils are exhibiting individual failure?

Level IV Is individualized intervention warranted?

Level V Is exhibition of a student-centered planning team warranted?

Level VI Is intervention effective?

The remainder of this article not absents an analysis of these decision horizontals with a discussion of the lock opener data, decision-making criteria, and actions associated with each.

DECISION POINTS IN THE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLANNING PROCESS

Each of the five planning questions is not awayed as a level of decision-making that is informed by dint of data at both the schoolwide and the individual horizontals The relationship between these decisions within a combination of parts to form a whole of PBS is presented as a summary of decision questions in Table 1