TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER’S PERCEPTION OF A TIER 1 POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION AND SUPPORTS (PBIS) FRAMEWORK A Doctoral Capstone Project Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) John Patrick Shaffer Jr. California University of Pennsylvania June 2022 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS ii © Copyright by John P Shaffer All Rights Reserved June 2022 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS iii California University of Pennsylvania School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership We hereby approve the capstone of John Patrick Shaffer Jr. Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education Dr. Todd Keruskin Associate Professor Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair Dr. Michael Robinson CLSD Director of Secondary Education Doctoral Capstone Faculty External Chair TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS iv Dedication I am dedicating this Doctoral Capstone Project to the people who have been in my life, who have supported me through the good times and the rough times, not only during this journey but also during my career and personal life. To my colleagues who have listened to me preach about my topic, complain about my topic, and be excited or frustrated about a portion of this process, I truly appreciate you. To my Mom, thank you for always believing in me, pushing me to do my best, and telling me to accomplish what I started. To my Dad, who is not here, but I feel his presence all the time, thank you for instilling in me my work ethic, my drive to finish what I started, and to never give up even if it is hard. Lastly, to my wife, Jennifer, and children, Colin, Emersyn, and Nolan, thank you for taking this journey with me; thank you for allowing me to complete this process that I thought I would never complete. Furthermore, thank you for being so patient with me when I was frustrated or tired, and thank you for just being there to brighten my day when I needed it the most. I love you all, and you cannot imagine how important all of you are in my life, and during this journey. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS v Acknowledgements To begin with, I would like to acknowledge my family, friends, and colleagues who have been by my side during this journey. Thank you for being a sounding board and a positive influence in my life during this process. I would like to thank California University of Pennsylvania and all of the Education Department for providing the opportunity to complete this Doctoral Capstone Project and Program. Dr. Todd Keruskin, my internal chair, it has been a pleasure to work with you during this last year. You have made this journey very smooth and I appreciate your patience through all the emails, zoom calls, and just overall communication we have had; you have eased my fears and worries more times than you can imagine. Dr. Michael Robinson, my external chair, thank you for being someone I can trust; your support and honest feedback during this journey has been greatly appreciated. Dr. Jennifer Stumphy for answering my questions and being a sounding board, additionally, helping me with this process. Your calmness and constant positive encouragement was greatly appreciated. Mrs. Emma Lebo for taking the time to edit my Doctoral Capstone Project. I will never have the ability to thank everyone or acknowledge everyone, but understand I am very appreciative of the continued support that I received throughout the process as I completed this Doctoral Capstone Project. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS vi Table of Contents Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii Abstract ............................................................................................................................ xiv CHAPTER I Introduction ....................................................................................................1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Cornwall-Lebanon School District Overview ................................................................. 1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 7 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9 Research Question 1 .................................................................................................... 9 Research Question 2 .................................................................................................... 9 Research Question 3 .................................................................................................... 9 Desired Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 9 Reflection of the Financial Implications ......................................................................... 9 Building Assistant...................................................................................................... 10 Detention Monitor ..................................................................................................... 11 Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Principal .............................................................................. 11 Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Teacher ............................................................................... 12 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS vii Professional Development for PBIS Training ........................................................... 12 Incentives for Students .............................................................................................. 12 Alternative Placements .............................................................................................. 13 Alternative Program Used Within The School .......................................................... 13 Description of Indirect Cost .......................................................................................... 14 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER II Review of Literature ...................................................................................16 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16 History of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) ................................. 16 Zero Tolerance ........................................................................................................... 18 Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) .................................................. 20 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) ................................................ 21 The Purpose of PBIS ..................................................................................................... 22 Applied Science ......................................................................................................... 23 Human Behavior ........................................................................................................ 28 Schools Utilizing PBIS ................................................................................................. 43 Characteristics of PBIS ......................................................................................................44 PBIS Tiers ..................................................................................................................... 47 PBIS Tier 1 ................................................................................................................ 49 PBIS Tier 2 and 3 ...................................................................................................... 53 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS viii Potential Obstacles of PBIS ...............................................................................................57 Validity of PBIS ............................................................................................................ 57 Barriers of PBIS ............................................................................................................ 60 Administrative Support.............................................................................................. 60 Staff Buy-In ............................................................................................................... 61 PBIS Misunderstandings ........................................................................................... 63 PBIS Sustainability .................................................................................................... 64 High School Setting ................................................................................................... 69 Student Management ..................................................................................................... 70 Inclusive Discipline or Proactive Discipline ............................................................. 71 Exclusive Discipline or Reactive Discipline ............................................................. 74 Summary ............................................................................................................................76 CHAPTER III Methodology ..............................................................................................79 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 80 Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) ............................................................................. 81 Setting and Participants ............................................................................................. 81 CCHS PBIS Framework ............................................................................................ 85 Research Need ............................................................................................................... 86 Action Research ............................................................................................................ 88 SPBD Survey Validity .................................................................................................. 97 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS ix Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 109 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 109 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 109 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 109 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 110 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 112 Data Utilization ........................................................................................................... 113 Validity ........................................................................................................................ 114 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER IV Data Analysis and Results .......................................................................121 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 121 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 122 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 122 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 122 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 122 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 122 Results ......................................................................................................................... 124 SPBD Survey Results .............................................................................................. 124 Research Question One: What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? ............... 131 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS x Research Question Two: What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? ....................... 140 Research Question Three: What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? .................................................... 150 Discipline and Wings of Praise Data ....................................................................... 163 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 167 CHAPTER V Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................169 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 169 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 169 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 169 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 169 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 170 Facilitators ............................................................................................................... 172 Barriers .................................................................................................................... 176 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 187 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 188 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 190 References ........................................................................................................................192 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................204 Appendix A Institutional Review Board Letter ...............................................................205 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS xi Appendix B Cornwall-Lebanon School District Research Permission Letter ................206 Appendix C SPBD Survey Consent Form .......................................................................207 Appendix D Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline Survey....................................209 Appendix E PBIS Semi-formal Interview Consent Form................................................218 Appendix F PBIS Semi-formal Interview Questions.......................................................220 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS xii List of Figures Figure 1 Negative School Climate Cycle......................................................................... 34 Figure 2 Positive School Climate Cycle ......................................................................... 35 Figure 3 Definitions of key Terms in Perceptual Control Theory ................................... 39 Figure 4 The Closed Loop: The Basic Unit of Control within PCT ............................... 41 Figure 5 Tiered Continuum of Behavior Support ............................................................ 48 Figure 6 Factors impacting sustainability identified in previous research ...................... 68 Figure 7 Outcomes of PBIS ............................................................................................. 75 Figure 8 Breakdown of Cedar Crest High School’s Professional Staff ........................... 83 Figure 9 Breakdown of Teachers within their Department ............................................. 84 Figure 10 Example List of Professional Staff, Email, and Number ................................ 94 Figure 11 Example of Randomized Selected Professional Staff Members and SemiFormal Interview Procedures ............................................................................................ 95 Figure 12 Data Collected During Phase 2 of SPBD Exploratory Factor Analysis ........ 103 Figure 13 The Five Factors of the SPBD Survey .......................................................... 105 Figure 14 HLM Analyses Data Collected in Phase 3 Relationship to Key Variables ... 106 Figure 15 Threats to External Validity .......................................................................... 116 Figure 16 SPBD Total Participants ................................................................................ 126 Figure 17 Question 23 – Level of Understanding .......................................................... 127 Figure 18 Question 24 – Hours of Professional Development ...................................... 128 Figure 19 Question 25 – PD Helpfulness ...................................................................... 129 Figure 20 Question 26 – Level of Support or Commitment .......................................... 130 Figure 21 Question 27 – Communication ...................................................................... 131 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS xiii Figure 22 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 1 ....................... 135 Figure 23 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 2 ....................... 143 Figure 24 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 3 ....................... 153 Figure 25 Cedar Crest High School Discipline Data 2018-2022 School Years ............ 164 Figure 26 Cedar Crest High School Discipline for 2018-2022 School Years per Discipline Consequence .................................................................................................. 166 Figure 27 SPBD Core Item Summary ........................................................................... 171 Figure 28 PAYS Question 15, Positive Feedback from Teachers ................................. 177 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS xiv Abstract This action research doctoral capstone project investigates the perceptions of a high school staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework that was previously implemented into the school. The importance of this action research was to determine the next steps needed within the implementation and progression of the PBIS framework. The research questions posed tried to identify the perceptions of high school staff members, how does the perception of the staff member’s impact recognizing students on a Tier 1 level, and the level of buy-in by the staff. These questions were analyzed by utilizing qualitative and quantitative convergence style of research, which allowed the researcher to triangulate the results for each research question. The methods used to obtain this data were through the Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) Survey, created by Dr. Laura Feuerborn of the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT) and Dr. Ashli Tyre of Seattle University, an interview of staff members, discipline data compiled from the researched high school’s student management system, and PBIS data from the same high school. Results showed three major threads, the first was buy-in by staff members, the second was continued administrative support and communication, and the last was the level, high school, in which the PBIS framework was implemented. This action research created opportunities for the researcher to continue evaluating the PBIS framework implemented, and other avenues to research, such as the student’s perception. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 1 CHAPTER I Introduction Background Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) implemented a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) framework named Wings of Praise (WofP) during the 2018-2019 school year. Wings of Praise was implemented with no formal professional development for the staff. This framework has now been implemented into two additional schools within the district, the Cedar Crest Middle School and South Lebanon Elementary School with subtle age appropriate adjustments. All of these schools are within the CornwallLebanon School District (CLSD). The area the Researcher would like to investigate are the perceptions of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework, how this perception impacts students either in a positive or negative way, and how to increase the support of the teachers towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework at a high school level. Teacher support within the PBIS framework is constituted as completing a recognition slip with which a teacher praises a student for meeting a level of expectation within the high school setting. Tier 1 systems, data, and practices impact everyone across all settings. They establish the foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and preventing unwanted behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021). Cornwall-Lebanon School District Overview Cornwall-Lebanon School District is described in the CLSD Comprehensive Plan (Cornwall-Lebanon School District, 2019) as the following: Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the south-central part of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and encircles the city of Lebanon. It is part of the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 2 beautiful Lebanon Valley, bound on the north by the Blue Mountains and on the south by the South Mountains. The center of the district is located about 25 miles equidistant from Harrisburg to the west, Reading to the east, and Lancaster to the south. With a student population of approximately 4798, Cornwall-Lebanon School District is the largest of six school districts in Lebanon County. Along with the other Lebanon County districts, it is a member of the Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13. The Lebanon County Career and Technology Center is located within District boundaries. The school district comprises a growing and diverse population. The racial diversity of students enrolled in the district is 82.28% White; 9.23% Hispanic or Latino of any race; 4.0% Black or African American; 2.04% Asian; .33% Pacific Islander; 2% Multi Racial; .01% Native American. Gender breakdown is 49.02% female, 50.98% male. Currently, 746 students receive special education services, or 15.55% of the student population. In the CLSD, 96.7% of the students speak English as their primary language; the remaining 3.3% represent English Language Learners. Free/Reduced lunch represents 35.4% of the student population as determined by free (31.3%) and reduced (4.1%) lunch participants. Cornwall-Lebanon School District is composed of the townships of South Lebanon, North Cornwall, West Cornwall, and North Lebanon, in addition to the boroughs of Cornwall and Mount Gretna, and a portion of the city of Lebanon known as Fairview Heights Annex. Mt. Gretna is a beautiful summer resort area popular for its well-known summer theater, summer art show, and active TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 3 Chautauqua cultural programs. The Whitaker Center, Giant Center, Lebanon Community Theater and the Hershey Theater offer cultural arts and entertainment. Lebanon Valley College and Harrisburg Community College (Lebanon campus) also offer educational opportunities, within a short driving distance of our district. Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch Country, local heritage includes people from many national origins. The district consists of 70 square miles inhabited by more than 31,000 residents, including those living in several planned retirement communities. In addition, there are many nursing homes and personal care communities throughout the area. The school district is unique in Pennsylvania in that both the school district population and the number of residents has increased in size. The school district encircles an urban center which will continue to affect our demographics. Lebanon County has a vibrant industrial community. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Workforce Information & Analysis data (2017), the Cornwall-Lebanon School District is the fourth largest employer in Lebanon County. Other top ten industries in the area include the Federal Government; Farmer's Pride, Inc.; Wellspan Good Samaritan Hospital; Lebanon School District; Wellspan Philhaven; Walmart; Swift Transportation Company AZ; and State and County Government. Other notable industries include Bayer US, LLC; Lebanon Seaboard Corporation; New Penn Motor Express, Inc.; GPU Energy; AES Ironwood (natural gas power plant); the Daniel TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 4 Weaver Company (Lebanon Bologna); smaller companies; business parks; and many excellent family farming operations. A community-based educational foundation, the Falcon Foundation, supports and enhances educational and enrichment opportunities (social, cultural, and athletic) for all people in the Cornwall-Lebanon community. Since its incorporation in 2000, the Foundation has supported many students and staff members with grants and awards. Many capital projects throughout the District were made possible by their contributions, including: Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) for each district building; TV studio development and new equipment; auditorium sound equipment; continuous technology equipment and upgrades throughout the District; Earl Boltz Field scoreboard; grants to community groups to build lavatory/storage/refreshment stand facilities at the playing fields on school property near each of the four elementary schools; upgrades to CCHS planetarium; tennis court lights; and underwriting The Falcon Perch – Coffee shop for work based learning program. Cornwall-Lebanon School District can boast of a proud heritage with its educational roots reaching deep into the early history of America. As early as 1740, the settlers of this area established a school near Fontana. The little oneroom, red brick schoolhouse (and some stone ones, too) had become permanent parts of the landscape by 1865. By 1890, a graded course of study had been introduced. Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, three high schools were in operation: (1) Bismarck (Quentin), (2) Hebron, and (3) Cornwall. At first, these TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 5 schools offered only two years of secondary instruction; but by 1927, three years was standard for the three buildings. Construction of two, new modern consolidated schools at Iona and Cornwall was completed by 1927, and the curriculum was increased to four years. In 1952, the school districts of West Cornwall, North Cornwall and Cornwall Borough signed Articles of Agreement to form a jointure of the three districts. North Lebanon Township entered the jointure in 1958, and South Lebanon Township became a member in 1961, at which time a formal application was made by the Cornwall-Lebanon Suburban Joint School System to the Department of Public Instruction to build Cedar Crest High School. Because the concept of the new high school varied from state standards, special permission was sought and received from the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to construct a compact climatecontrolled building, the first of its kind in Pennsylvania. The groundbreaking ceremony for Cedar Crest High School was held in March of 1964. Although Cedar Crest High School came into existence in September of 1965, the students coming to the high school that Fall did not enter the new building on East Evergreen Road, as it had not yet been completed. During the 1965-66 school term, all students in grades 10, 11, and 12 attended classes in the Cornwall High School building. By the spring of 1966, the building was completed and commencement exercises for the Class of 1966 were conducted in the gymnasium of the new Cedar Crest High School building. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 6 In July 1966, a merger of all the districts in the jointure and Mt. Gretna was effected, and the name was changed to Cornwall-Lebanon School District, now operating under a nine-member school board and a district superintendent. The District buildings currently include: Cedar Crest High School; Cedar Crest Middle School; and Cornwall, Ebenezer, South Lebanon, and Union Canal elementary schools. The school district is home to a number of historically famous or nationally known sites:  Cornwall Iron Furnace, the only preserved charcoal, cold-blast iron furnace in the Western Hemisphere, is located in Cornwall. Cannon and shot were manufactured there to support George Washington during the Revolutionary War. The sturdy stone homes in nearby Miners Village are typical of 19th century industrial villages in this National Historic District.  Union Canal Tunnel, the oldest transportation tunnel in the United States, was cut through solid rock with pick, shovel, and crowbar, and completed in 1827 at a length of 729 feet. It is the centerpiece of Union Canal Tunnel Park, a popular 110-acre recreational area.  Farmers Market in Historical Lebanon occupies the original 1892 farm market building which has been preserved to the beauty of its 19th century birth, while creating a twenty-first century shopping experience. A variety of quality farm produced and handmade items are available for purchase. In addition to WellSpan Good Samaritan Hospital and Lancaster General Health, the District also is home to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 7 WellSpan Philhaven. A professional medical/dental park is centrally located in the District. Access to other fine medical facilities and hospitals, such as the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, are within a short driving distance. Shopping opportunities include several multi-store shopping areas and many large stores, such as Walmart Supercenter, Home Depot, and Lowe’s. A variety of eateries are available, as well as, fine dining establishments, such as Tony’s Mining Company, Inn 422, Trattoria Fratelli, and Timbers Dinner Theatre. (pp. 4-7) Purpose of Study The need to research this topic relies on the implications it could have within Cedar Crest High School (CCHS). An assistant principal spends a great deal of time managing student behaviors using negative reinforcement. In the last four years, the Researcher has utilized a system of positive reinforcement, which was a different approach to student discipline. All staff members within a high school setting can make assumptions regarding discipline being proactive and not reactive. As part of this study, the Researcher wants to consider if student misconduct is affected because of teacher perception regarding a PBIS framework. Thus, ideally, as discipline is affected, the school can then focus more on curriculum, teacher development, and increasing opportunities for students all around. PBIS has demonstrated to effectively enhance social behavior outcomes in order to promote positive school climates, while contributing to academic success (Hall et al., 2016). This topic has been locally developed and implemented by the Researcher for the past three years. The idea behind PBIS is to increase and recognize the positive behavior TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 8 of students within the school. Since the framework has been instituted within the High School, there has been minimal change, even a decrease of PBIS utilization. During the 2018-2019 school year, the high school staff of interest submitted 3073 recognition cards, in the 2019-2020 school year, the same high school staff submitted 1442 recognition cards up to the date of March 20, 2020, at which time schools were shut down due to COVID 19. During the 2020-2021 school year, the same high school submitted 1410 recognition cards, the lowest number submitted over the 3 year period. The Researcher would like to investigate why the decline of teacher participation occurred. What obstacles or barriers exist that result in non-buy-in or disengagement? The program implemented in the 2018-2019 school year was called Wings of Praise (WofP). Wings of Praise is a Tier 1 PBIS framework used locally in the CornwallLebanon School District (CLSD) and at CCHS. The foundation of WofP is to engage students who are meeting the expectations of the building based off CCHS’s PRIDE matrix, and provide recognition for their efforts. PRIDE is an acronym, which stands for P – Personal Responsibility, R – Respect, I – Integrity, D – Dedication, and E – Excellence. Having local knowledge there is a need in researching the following aspects of PBIS within a high school setting. These aspects include, the perception of the teacher utilizing the PBIS framework, how recognition cards are used, and the understanding of the staff’s perspective and evaluation of this PBIS framework. By cross-referencing and utilizing the data, the Researcher will then have an action plan to help improve the framework and examine possible professional development opportunities of a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a high school setting. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 9 Research Questions Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? Research Question 3 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? Desired Outcomes The desired outcome of the research is to determine the perception of the teachers within Cedar Crest High School. Utilizing this information will provide direction for the Tier 1 PBIS framework WofP which has been implemented into different schools within CLSD. Positive or negative, the data collected from this research will provide a roadmap of what can be accomplished next. The desired outcome of the research will help answer the questions, “How can the WofP framework be improved and generate staff buy-in within the high school setting to increase school climate and culture? Reflection of the Financial Implications The majority of the WofP framework is supplemented by donations made by local businesses who want to be involved with the school district. The administration for the three (3) schools in which WofP is implemented fundraised $19,100.00 during the 20192020 school year; as of now the WofP account has just over $11,000.00 remaining for the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 10 2021-2022 school year. This amount could change depending on fundraising during the 2021-2022 school year. These fundraising efforts took the majority of the burden off the school district to create and run the PBIS framework, in regard to the incentives, different programs put on for the students, and maintaining positive opportunities for the students. There are aspects of the PBIS framework that will not take the complete financial burden off CLSD. These would be based off student behavior and how each school, particularly in this investigation the high school, deals with those behaviors. Within the high school, there are five different positions that work on student discipline. Four of those positions exist due to negative student behavior within the high school; those positions include the In School Suspension Coordinator, the high school detention monitor, Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Principal, and the C3 Teachers. The goal of this doctoral capstone project is to understand the perception of the high school professional staff regarding a Tier 1 PBIS framework, such as WofP and increase their use of it. By enhancing staff usage of WofP, negative behavior could be reduced within the high school, which could ultimately lessen the need for some of the following positions. Building Assistant In School Suspension (ISS) within CCHS is proctored by a Building Assistant. At CCHS there is always a need for an ISS Coordinator; but this position could be used within other areas of our school. Therefore, this position would be a dual role within the high school, and ISS would only be used on certain days. The salary, benefits, retirement benefits, and FICA are set costs that exist with the position as long as the school district employs that position. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 11 Detention Monitor This position is utilized 165 days of the school year, or four days a week during the school year, and for one hour and 15 minutes each day at the professional rate of one of the CLSD teachers. If the perception of WofP has an impact, this will drop the amount of time needed for detentions within the building. The majority of the detentions within the high school are for the following reasons: Classroom disruptions, minor code of conduct infractions, tardiness to school or class, etc. If WofP usage increased, each of these infractions could decrease, which could reduce the role of the detention monitor to a lesser number of days during the week. The positive impact would be better behavior and the district would save money by reducing the professional rate of hours needed to pay for the teacher who proctors detention. Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Principal The C3 Principal position was a new position starting in the 2021-2022 school year. C3 is utilized in a multitude approach, meaning it instructs our students who choose to learn online on a virtual platform; but it will also be a platform that is used as an alternate placement for our students who continually have behavioral problems within the high school. A portion of the C3 Principal’s duties is to create the students’ schedule and assist the students in any capacity to ensure that students are successful on the virtual platform. This includes the students come to school periodically for check-ins and for other instructional purposes. Additionally, the students who are placed on C3 due to behavior, mandatorily come to school on certain days of the week to allow C3 staff to connect with these students. The salary, benefits, retirement benefits, and FICA are set costs that exist with the position as long as the school district employs that position. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 12 Cedar Crest Cyber (C3) Teacher The C3 teacher, again a new position in the 2021-2022 school year, is utilized to educate students within alternative settings as well as students on CLSD’s C3 virtual platform. The C3 teachers’ duties are to educate the students who are willingly participating in our C3 program and alternative placed students. C3 teachers have an opportunity to work with students who are in an alternative setting both in person, when they come to school, and online. The salary, benefits, retirement benefits, and FICA are set costs that exist with the position as long as the school district employs that position. Professional Development for PBIS Training Creating a professional development program to ensure professional staff can implement and sustain a PBIS framework was analyzed and developed congruent with the data collected within the research. An administrator or a PBIS team member supplied the professional development. The hours spent on planning and presenting went toward the teachers professional hours needed for Act 48, additionally, the administrator had a duty to provide professional development to their staff; thus, this was a net zero financial cost to the district. The only cost associated with professional development was the supplies needed. Incentives for Students The incentives needed for students were a low cost to the budget, due to the amount of donations raised for WofP. There was a nominal amount accrued due to donation money being completely used throughout the year. Normal years this will be a net zero budget item. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 13 Alternative Placements Unfortunately, there are times when the school support staff has done everything they can to try and help a student be successful within the confines of that school. When all of those measures have been met and the behavior has still not changed, a student is placed in an alternative placement outside the district. An example placement would be Yellow Breeches Educational Center or YBEC. YBEC is predominately reserved for students with Emotional Support needs, but it is a program utilized when needed. The cost of this program is $30,268.61 per student. In addition, the school district pays $6,786.67 in transportation costs. The goal of this research is to understand the perception of the professional staff regarding WofP, and how students are praised for positive behavior. WofP essentially is for all students. In this situation with our Emotional Support students however, if positive behaviors are built within the school and classrooms, the need for YBEC decreases and CLSD will not need any spots within the educational center. Alternative Program Used Within The School As with alternative placements for students, CCHS has brought alternative programs into the high school to help with students’ responses, and actions during the school year. For example, CCHS has used Compass Mark a Science-Based Addiction Prevention company to come and speak with students regarding smoking, attendance, and just overall behavior. With increased desires to start moving away from punitive discipline, creating a relationship with an organization such as Compass Mark gives CCHS the opportunity to work with students in a positive manner and not in a negative way. The amount budgeted for this type of programming can change depending on the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 14 need. In the past, CCHS has used their services and has approximately budgeted $2,000. Ultimately, this could change. Description of Indirect Cost The indirect costs for understanding the perception of the professional staff regarding a PBIS framework were very minimal. The only cost associated with the research were to have an independent researcher conduct the interviews. This was negotiated between the Researcher and the interviewer. The researcher, covered that cost. The only other indirect cost was the time taken to completely analyze the data from a survey and an interview that took place. Understanding the perception of the professional staff also took time to delineate and create recommendations. The equipment and supplies used in this research were a computer and the internet to complete the survey and a computer to transcribe the interviews. The research based online survey was free through a research developer (SPBD Support); the developer was looking at analyzing staff perceptions of behavior and discipline (SPBD) regarding PBIS. The survey was used to gather information from school staff to help school teams implement school wide PBIS and make determinations as to what is needed if they have a PBIS framework already implemented. The idea of this research was to create a positive impact to the school and school district while at the same time keep the financial burden on the school as low as possible. Summary Chapter I set the stage for how CCHS utilizes PBIS in a functional aspect and how it can increase positive student behavior. This chapter also explained part of the financial implications student behavior has within a high school setting. Chapter II TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 15 begins to showcase: the reviewing of peer reviewed journal articles and research regarding PBIS and the implications it can have with in school setting, specifically a high school setting. It explains how PBIS is not a curriculum but a framework to be molded and utilized as needed. The remaining chapters work through the methodology, data analysis and findings, and other recommendations of the doctoral capstone research project. Specifically the research focuses on the perception of teachers towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a high school. Utilizing this information will direct the next steps that could be taken within high school settings. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 16 CHAPTER II Review of Literature Introduction There are many aspects of a high school that is outside the realm of just facts and learning. As students progress through their teenage years and into young adulthood, there are many factors that impact their days and situations within a school setting. The school setting allows students to learn positive behaviors, how to navigate peer conflict, and provides a safe environment for them to make mistakes that will not jeopardize the rest of their lives. “Many high school struggle to address issues related to school climate and bullying and thus are turning to school-wide applications of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) as a framework for addressing these concerns” (Bradshaw et al., 2015, p. 480). Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is one of those MTSS frameworks that have been implemented into many schools across the country (Bradshaw et al., 2015). As schools work toward moving away from exclusionary discipline, such as Out of School Suspension, In School Suspensions, and expulsions, to more inclusionary acknowledgement of expectations and behavioral management, PBIS will provide the framework of success (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). History of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) The early stages of behavioral supports or interventions started in the 1900’s in schools specifically for court ordered youths. These “training schools” were locations for youths with behavioral and emotional disorders: Similar to today’s standards in which students might be placed within residential facilities (Austin et al., 2016). Unfortunately, there is not much research done within the early 1900’s regarding TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 17 behavioral supports and interventions to treat youths with behavioral issues. By the late 1900’s there was more information regarding the alternative treatments for youths within group homes or residential facilities (Austin et al., 2016). In the 1970’s and 80’s more exclusionary discipline styles were used within schools and other facilities. Zero tolerance is an example of those more exclusionary discipline styles. The concerns grew about exclusionary practices and limited participation by recipients, which resulted in the studying of behavioral applied science and positive behavior supports (Carr et al., 2002; Cooper et al., 2019; Sugai, 2015; Sugai & Horner, 2020). As behavioral science became more prevalent, the development and research of effective procedures for creating schools and classrooms that were more proactive behaviorally started to reduce and replace reactive corporal punishment standards (Sugai & Horner, 2020). During the 21st century, PBIS has become a prominent framework within schools across the United States. PBIS emphasizes a whole school behavioral approach to instill a positive learning community (Horner & Macaya, 2018). Horner and Macaya (2018) found, “Schools are encouraged to define their local social standards (i.e., expectations), actively teach those standards, consistently acknowledge appropriate behavior, and provide clear, consistent and quick instructional correction for behavior errors.” (p. 664). As PBIS utilizes this framework approach, it has been and is currently being implemented into over 26,000 schools in the United States, and being adapted and applied in 21 other countries (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Kelm et al., 2014). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 18 Zero Tolerance In the 1980’s the term “zero tolerance” was used within drug enforcement that punished all offenders and offenses severely, no matter how minor the infraction was in the situation (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). By the early 1990’s schools and school boards throughout the country started to adopt zero tolerance as policies, even to include not only drugs and weapons but obedience offenses, such as disrespect and disruptions, as well (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). As zero tolerance was used dropouts increased and a level of increased fear and compliance issues arose from these policies. Virtually no data suggest that zero tolerance policies reduce school violence, and some data suggest that certain strategies, such as strip searches or undercover agents in school, may create emotional harm or encourage students to drop out (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). As zero tolerance was used, punitive punishments were not changing the behavior within the schools, it was not teaching students about negative behaviors, it was just exuberating the idea of negative behavior creates negative consequences. Skiba and Peterson (1999) wrote: Children whose families set no limits for them soon become uncontrolled and uncontrollable. In the same way, schools and classrooms in which aggressive, dangerous, or seriously disruptive behaviors are tolerated will almost inevitably descend into chaos. Yet the indiscriminate use of force without regard for its effects is the hallmark of authoritarianism, incompatible with the functioning of a democracy, and certainly incompatible with the transmission of democratic values to children. If we rely solely, or even primarily, on zero tolerance strategies to preserve the safety of our schools, we are accepting a model of schooling that TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 19 implicitly teaches students that the preservation of order demands the suspension of individual rights and liberties. As we exclude ever-higher proportions of children whose behavior does not meet increasingly tough standards, we will inevitably meet many of those disruptive youths on the streets. In choosing control and exclusion as our preferred methods of dealing with school disruption, even as we refrain from positive interventions, we increase the likelihood that the correctional system will become the primary agency responsible for troubled youths. Ultimately, as we commit ourselves to increasingly draconian policies of school discipline, we may also need to resign ourselves to increasingly joyless schools, increasingly unsafe streets, and dramatically increasing expenditures for detention centers and prisons. (p. 381) As zero tolerance was being utilized within the schools around the country, new ideas needed to be generated to increase positive interactions due to behaviors. Conflict resolution and the idea of school-wide behavioral management programs began to take form. By researching behavioral management programs, schools reverted away from zero tolerance to increase the opportunities to work with students on behavior and not just consequences. Discipline is inevitable, but with behavioral plans such as Positive Behavior Supports (PBS), PBIS or School Wide PBIS (SWPBIS) those disruptive students were neutralized easier and quicker. School safety teams or behavior support teams, composed of regular and special education teachers, personnel from related services, administrators, and parents, ensure a consistent and individualized response to disruptive students (Wager, 1993; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Individual behavior plans and a functional assessment process for developing those plans provide consistent TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 20 consequences for offenders and teaches disruptive youngsters alternatives to aggression (Skiba et al., 1998; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). In short, effective interventions emphasize building positive prosocial behaviors rather than merely punishing inappropriate behaviors (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Zero tolerance ultimately had an adverse effect toward schools in the 80’s through 90’s. As ideals changed so did the thinking regarding what was best for schools. Zero tolerance did nothing more than create hostility and had no or a very small amount of positive impact on education. In contrast, long-term, comprehensive planning and prevention can build safe and responsive schools overtime by emphasizing what American education has always done best: teaching (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) PBIS has been defined, described, and even studied ever since its introduction in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997) (Sugai & Horner, 2020; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). During the 1980s, a need was identified for improved selection, implementation, and documentation of effective behavioral interventions for students with behavior disorders (BD) (Gresham, 1991; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012; Walker et al., 1996). IDEA connected PBIS and Response to Intervention (RTI) as inclusion measured used within classrooms. The idea for PBIS was to make changes within classrooms and the school setting when students were being disciplined in exclusionary ways. Instead of suspensions and expulsions, students who were having behavioral and emotional issues within schools, IDEA was looking at more therapeutic supports within the confines of the school and classroom. RTI intended to do likewise with respect to disabilities that impacted academics (Bornstein, 2017; Jimerson et al., 2015). Both RTI TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 21 and PBIS prioritized giving all students access to high-quality instruction for academics and clear expectations for behavior as precursors to any further examination of learning or behavior that may go awry (Bornstein, 2017). IDEA specifically speaks to students with disabilities within the classrooms of schools across the United States. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that makes available free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2021). Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) PBIS has had many different forms since the 1980s. It started as interventions for students with behavior disorders (BD), moved into positive behavior supports (PBS), and then into more the recent nomenclatures of PBIS or school wide positive behaviors and supports (SWPBS). Within the 1980s, as previously stated there was a need for BD improvements and increased behavioral interventions (Gresham, 1991; Sugai & Simonsen, 2012; Walker et al., 1996). Moving into the 1990s, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997, a grant to establish a national Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, which provided opportunities to increase evidenced based practices that could help students with BD (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). Now within the 2000s, there are over 25,000 schools utilizing PBIS as of 2018 (Center on PBIS, 2021). Again, initially established to disseminate evidence-based behavioral interventions for students with BD, the National Technical Assistance (TA) Center on PBIS shifted focus to the school-wide behavior support of all students, and an emphasis TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 22 on implementation practices and systems (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). As a result, PBIS is defined as a framework not a curriculum, intervention, or manualized approach that can be purchased within educational standards (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai et al., 2000). The idea of PBIS being defined as a framework is to allow all schools to adopt the key assumptions of the framework and for enhancing the implementation of an evidencebased interventions allowing students to understand and achieve how to behave to minimize the negative learning behaviors of all students (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai et al., 2000). The important aspect to come out of this idea is that PBIS is a framework, not a curriculum, or intervention practice. The Purpose of PBIS As schools phase out zero tolerance concepts, effective discipline plans had to be still implemented into schools. Skiba and Peterson (1999) wrote, “we must begin with long-term planning aimed at fostering nonviolent school communities.” (p. 382). First, programmatic prevention efforts, such as, conflict resolution and school wide behavior management can help establish a climate free of violence. Thus setting the tone for schools to look at behavior in a different light, and not in such a punitive setting. PBS is a term generally used within the ideals of PBIS to help achieve the behavioral changes wanted to be seen within a social setting (Sugai et al., 2000). Additionally, PBS is defined as an applied science using educational methods to increase a student’s or individual’s behavioral management abilities and allow that person to create changes within their behavioral methods. Thus, first enhancing the individuals quality of life and, second, to minimize his or her problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002; Koegel et al., 1996). Positive behavior includes all those skills that increase the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 23 likelihood of success and personal satisfaction in a normal academic, work, social, recreational, community, and family setting. The idea of support encompasses all those educational methods that can be used to teach, strengthen, and expand positive behavior and all those systems change methods that can be used to increase opportunities for the display of positive behavior (Carr et al., 2002). The idea of PBIS is to help change behaviors of individuals prior to creating a negative behavior. Carr et al. (2002, p. 5) wrote: The primary goal of PBS is to help an individual change his or her lifestyle in a direction that gives all relevant stakeholders (e.g., teachers, employers, parents, friends, and the target person him- or herself) the opportunity to perceive and to enjoy an improved quality of life. An important but secondary goal of PBS, Carr (2002, p. 5) continued, is to render problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective by helping an individual achieve his or her goals in a socially acceptable manner, thus reducing, or eliminating altogether, episodes of problem behavior. Applied Science The ideals of PBIS having a link to applied science or applied behavior analysis dates back to B. F. Skinner. Skinner’s research suggested managing problem behaviors is more effective when utilizing reinforcements (Skinner, 1938; Wanzek, 2011). Skinner’s research was based on the idea of the law of effect, meaning an individual’s behavior with positive consequences tends to be repeated, but an individual’s behavior with negative consequences tends to be not repeated (Wanzek, 2011). Skinner proposed that as behaviors evaluated in the laboratory were regulated by operant and respondent TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 24 doctrine, the behavior of humans in the real world likely would be affected as well (Dixon et al., 2012; Kearney, 2015; Lattal & Perone, 1998; Skinner, 1953 as cited in Dean, 2018). The core idea of PBIS has been to increase the positive behavior of students and continually remove or negate the negative behaviors. PBIS also has interrelations to respondent conditioning. Ivan Pavlov, conducted animal research within laboratories within the 1800s and 1900s. As an innovator of respondent conditioning, he found that dogs could be stimulated just by the sight of or the preparation of food without direct physical contact with the food (Kazdin, 2013; Pierce & Cheney, 2013; Skinner, 1984 as cited in Dean, 2018). Respondent conditioning relates to PBIS by having an instinctive reaction to positive behaviors, thus decreasing the negative behaviors due to no response. As PBIS has evolved throughout time within applied behavioral analysis, it has begun to draw on different interrelated fields, such as, ecological psychology, environmental psychology, and community psychology (Carr et al., 2002). Due to this interrelatedness, three theoretical principles within community psychology have been created. Carr et al. (2002), wrote: The first principle embodies the idea that since people in community settings are interdependent, clinically significant change occurs in social systems and not just in individuals. This notion, a major theme in ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1989 as cited in Carr et al., 2002), manifests itself in PBS with the idea that the focus of intervention must be on changing problem context, not problem behavior. We must move beyond blaming the victim to holding societal contexts accountable. The second principle embodies the idea that producing TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 25 change is not simply a matter of implementing specific techniques; rather, change involves the reallocation of resources such as time, money, and political power. Thus, administrative support, interagency collaboration, funding mechanisms, and commonality of mission philosophy are critical variables in the change equation (Dunlap et al., 2000; Knoster et al., 2000; Sailor, 1996 as cited in Carr et al., 2002). The third principle embodies the idea that an individual’s behavior, appropriate or inappropriate, is the result of a continuous process of adaptation reflecting the interface between competence (a property of individuals) and context (a property of environments). (p. 11) Applied science or behavior analysis has made two major contributions to PBS (Carr et al., 2002). First, it has provided one element of a conceptual framework relevant to behavior change, and second, and equally important, it has provided a number of assessment and intervention strategies (Carr et al., 2002). While researching applied behavioral science, there are three concepts that evolve around PBS. PBS was developed on the notion of the three-term contingency (stimulus-response-reinforcing consequence), the concepts of setting event and establishing operations, and the notions of stimulus control, generalization, and maintenance (Carr et al., 2002; Chance, 1998; Miltenberger, 1997). Additionally, applied behavior analysis helped develop educational methods such as shaping, fading, chaining, prompting, and reinforcement contingencies as well as a wide array of procedures for reducing problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002; SulzerAzaroff & Mayer, 1991). When referring to contingencies, the idea is multifaceted. Many different concepts can be termed a reinforcement contingency, but PBIS affectively looks at TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 26 different contingencies to obtain optimum behavior from all of the students. Simonsen et al. (2008, p. 362) stated: A continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior refers to a range of evidence-based strategies that focus on identifying and recognizing appropriate classroom behavior. The continuum should include the use of simple (i.e., contingent specific praise) as well as more complex (i.e., class-wide group contingencies) strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior. Examples of different strategies used in this manner would be the following (Simonsen et al., 2008, p. 362): 1. Specific contingent praise is a positive statement, typically provided by the teacher, when a desired behavior occurs (contingent) to inform students specifically what they did well. 2. Group reinforcement contingencies are employed when a common expectation is set for a group of learners and a common positive outcome is earned by engaging in the expected behavior. Three main types of group contingencies are: (a) dependent (the outcome for the whole group depends on the behavior of a smaller subset of that group), (b) interdependent (the outcome for the whole group depends on the behavior of all students), and (c) independent (the outcome of each student depends on his or her behavior). 3. Behavior contracts are written documents that specify a contingency (relationship between behavior and consequence). That is, a behavior contract defines the expected behavior and outcomes for engaging or not engaging in expected behavior. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 27 4. Token economies are used when students earn tokens (e.g., points, poker chips, etc.), contingent upon desired behavior, that can be cashed in for a back-up reinforce (e.g., desired items, activities, attention from preferred people, etc.). Token economies will be researched at more depth later in this literature review, but group reinforcement contingencies and token economies are discussed together because the research shows these two practices are used synonymously with one another or with a combination of both practices (Simonsen et al., 2008). Simonsen et al. (2008, p. 363) explains, group contingencies and token economies have broad evidential support when used in classroom settings; their use includes: a. Increased positive and decreased negative verbal interactions (Hansen & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). b. Decreased transition time (Yarbrough et al., 2004 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). c. Increased achievement, appropriate classroom behavior, and peer social acceptance (Nevin et al., 1982 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). d. Increased student attention (Jones & Kazdin, 1975 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). e. Decreased inappropriate behavior (Main & Munro, 1977 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). f. Decreased talk-outs and out-of-seat behavior (Barrish et al., 1969 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 28 g. Increased student preparedness for class and assignment completion (McCullagh & Vaal, 1975 as cited in Simonsen et al., 2008). Lastly, there is a multicultural aspect to systems change. Carr et al. (2002, p. 11), wrote, “in sum, the systemic, community-based, multicultural aspects of PBS lead naturally to a consideration of multiple theoretical perspectives that, in turn, guide the continued evolution of this approach.” The concept of multicultural systems changes indicates that PBS or PBIS can be manipulated within the framework so it is effectively implemented within the current system. Human Behavior Behavioral science researched by individuals such as Skinner, Pavlov, and Thorndike, who studied and researched operant conditioning, all resulting in the ideals that behavior is dependent on inherent influences and environmental involvement (O'Reilly et al., 2014; Pierce & Cheney, 2013; Skinner, 1938; Zilio, 2016 as cited in Dean, 2018). Within their research four main ideas or contingencies of reinforcement were discovered. These four contingencies were positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment (Dean, 2018; Dixon et al., 2012; Foxall, 2016; Loovis, 2016; Pfiffner & Haak, 2015; Pierce & Cheney, 2013 as cited in Dean, 2018). The concept is as the environment changes, behavior will change as well. Sugai (2015) stated, In 2013, the PBIS Center enhanced the application of the framework logic in the following manner: …to define, develop, implement, and evaluate a multi-tiered approach to Technical Assistance that improves the capacity of states, district and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 29 schools to establish, scale-up and sustain the PBIS framework. Over the past 16 years, evidence of the value of the PBIS framework has been documented in two important ways. First, researchers internal and external to the PBIS Center have reported the impact of the PBIS tiered intervention framework and its empirically based practices. Results suggest that when the framework is implemented with fidelity, schools can experience (a) reductions in rates of major disciplinary infractions and aggressive behavior; (b) improvements in concentration, prosocial behavior, and emotional regulation; (c) improvements in academic achievement; (d) enhancements in perceptions of organizational health and safety; (e) reductions in teacher-reported bullying behavior and peer rejection; and (f) improvements in perceptions of school climate. The second, in the past 16 years more than 21,000 (as of 2015) schools in the United States received training on PBIS practices and systems by first-, second-, or third-generation trainers associated with the PBIS Center. (pp. 3-4) During this time period the PBIS Center adopted what was called an applied behavior analytic (ABA) perspective (Sugai, 2015). ABA had five core principles regarding PBIS. Sugai (2015), explained the principles by the following: First, biology and learning history are acknowledged as what an individual brings to a given setting, situation, or interaction. Second, while some behavior is involuntary (i.e., antecedent elicited and no prior learning history), most behavior displayed by an individual is learned (i.e., prior learning history, antecedent emitted, and consequence maintained). Third, the probability of a given behavior occurrence is influenced by an individual’s behavior fluency (i.e., learning TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 30 history) and features of the immediate setting or environment (i.e., antecedent and consequence stimuli). Fourth, behavior is lawful and predictable (i.e., individual is likely to emit behavior under specific conditions and not under others). Fifth, the probability of a given behavior occurrence is affected by manipulating environmental factors (i.e., manipulating conditions affects probability of behavior occurrences). The basic process is related to the behavior of an individual or the behaviors of individuals who are part of a group or organization (e.g., classroom, school, district, or state). For example, behavior increase or acceleration is related to positive or negative reinforcement. Teaching social skills is grounded in the establishment of stimulus control. Maintenance and generalized use of a social skill is associated with transfer of stimulus control. Replacing one behavior for another is approached as a situation requiring understanding and manipulation of competing stimulus control. (p. 6) Basically, changing the environment either positively or negatively will create a behavior. Ideally, using PBIS, the goal is to emphasize and establish appropriate behavior expectations and effective behavior management practices for students and educators (Sugai, 2015). Positive and Negative Reinforcements. The idea of a positive and negative reinforcement can be determined in many different ways. The standards of a positive reinforcement is to engage students to continue making necessary changes within the behavior to meet the appropriate expectations of either the school, society, or within their family. The standard of a negative reinforcement is to disengage students from continuing to make negative behavior to meet the appropriate expectations of either the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 31 school, society, or within their family. According to Thorndike's (1911) law of effect, responses that lead to favorable consequences increase in frequency or reinforcements, and those that have neutral consequences or lead to unfavorable ones become less frequent (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Positive and negative reinforcements were being studied between the times of 1911 with Thorndike, and 1960’s with Mowrer. Within the research, it was stated that treatments became distinguished when motivational variables were introduced (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Baron and Galizio (2005), explained in reward training (an earlier label for positive reinforcement), the response not only produces a stimulus but also produces a stimulus that evokes pleasure or satisfaction. They continued by stating, by comparison, escape-avoidance training (negative reinforcement) involves arrangements in which the response reduces pain, anxiety, or some other forms of discomfort or distress (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Along with Thorndike, Skinner, as previously discussed, introduced the theory of operant conditioning. This is a system of learning which occurs by associating rewards and punishments with positive and negative reinforcements (Kelly & Pohl, 2018). Positive and negative reinforcements can be associated with both good and bad behavior. Kelly & Pohl (2018) explains this concept by the following representation, If Kate does all her homework and behaves well during a particular week, the teacher may reward Kate with extra playing time and the removal of a low grade. In this instance, the addition of extra playing time is a positive reinforcement, while the removal of a low grade is an example of a negative reinforcement. However, if Kate misbehaves and does not do her homework, the teacher might punish her by taking away her cell phone and making Kate stay an extra hour TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 32 after school. The removal of the cell phone is an example of negative punishment, while staying an extra hour after school is an example of positive punishment. (p. 23) Baron and Galizio caution the way the terms positive and negative reinforcements used within their contexts. When connecting positive and negative reinforcements with PBIS, the aspect of these terms are meant to be present within an environmental event or action, such as, a teacher positively reacting to a student’s behavior within a classroom. An environmental event or action is a different reinforcement than a cognitive or physiological happening (Baron & Galizio, 2005). Kelly and Pohl (2018) point out that research indicates that positive behavior modification techniques are more effective than punishment. Structured positive and negative reinforcement foster learning by reducing classroom disruptions, increasing student attention, and creating a positive school climate. SWPBS emphasizes familiar procedures, such as operational definition of behavioral expectations, active instruction, consistent positive reinforcement, and a continuum of consequences that minimize reinforcement of problem behavior (Anderson & Scott, in press; Sugai & Lewis, 1999; Sugai et al., 2009 as cited in Horner et al., 2010). Due to these SWPBS procedures, a school’s climate is either positively or negatively affected. There are four general components of School climate: teaching and learning, relationships, safety, and institutional environment and structure (La Salle & Freeman, 2014 as cited in Sugai, 2015). As these four components interact with each other, research states the components affect what students, school personnel, and family TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 33 member report as representing positive and negative school climate (Sugai, G., La Salle & Freeman, 2014 as cited in Sugai, 2015). Sugai (2015), states: From a behavior analytic perspective, school climate is described as an environment in which the behaviors of students and educators are maintained by positive and negative reinforcement contingencies. (p. 12) The perception of positive and negative reinforcements when used in the context of a descriptor refers to the actions, such as give and take. But when positive and negative reinforcements are used as descriptors for school climate or behavior they refer to appropriate and inappropriate behaviors (Sugai, 2015). When specifically looking at positive and negative school climate, there are basic student behaviors that describe each environment, which ultimately interweave with positive and negative reinforcements. Sugai (2015) explains negative school climate as the following: A negative school climate, inappropriate student behavior (e.g., disruptive, verbal abuse, teasing harassment, crying, running away, noncompliance, aggression) is associated with reactive adult behavior (e.g., removal from instruction, school detention, suspension, restitution, verbal reprimands, threats of punishment). Student behavior is maintained by escape from or avoidance of aversive (negative reinforcements) and/or access to reinforces (positive reinforcements). (p.13) Figure 1 depicts a negative school climate (Sugai, 2015, p. 13): TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 34 Figure 1 Negative School Climate Cycle Sugai (2015) explains positive school climate as the following: A positive school climates, appropriate student behavior (e.g., compliance, asking for assistance, problem solving, following directions, task engagement) is associated with positive adult behavior (e.g., praise, encouragement, feedback, smiles). Student behavior is maintained by escape from or avoidance of aversive events and/or access to reinforces. (p. 13) Figure 2 depicts a positive school climate (Sugai, 2015, p. 14): TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 35 Figure 2 Positive School Climate Cycle By examining positive and negative reinforcements, the behavior of students and the climate of the school can be determined. Having a positive school climate will increase the opportunities for academic growth and positive behavioral management. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Positive and negative reinforcements can help with changing the behavior of students, as showcased above, but intrinsic and extrinsic motivations play a role with the behavior of students and the success of PBIS within a school setting. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are defined as those for which there exists no recognizable reward except the activity itself (Akin-Little & Little, 2009; Deci & Ryan, 1985). An intrinsically motivated person does not need external controls to motivate him or her to complete a task or behave a certain way. Behavioral researchers have assumed that between the two types of motivations, either intrinsic or extrinsic, having intrinsic motivation is of greater value (Fair & Silvestri, 1992 as cited in Akin- TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 36 Little & Little, 2009). Extrinsic reinforcement and motivation has a connotation of being controlling, creating pressure and tension, and is believed to result in low self-esteem and anxiety. But intrinsic motivation is said to enable people to feel competent, selfdetermining, and results in creativity, flexibility, and spontaneity (Akin-Little & Little, 2009). When looking at PBIS or positive and negative reinforcements within a classroom or school there are different aspects when intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are involved. Extrinsic reinforces can be linked to positive reinforcements within classrooms such as verbal praise, token economies, group contingencies, and contracts (Akin-Little & Little, 2009). Akin-Little and Little (2009, p. 86), state “there is a resistance to utilize extrinsic motivators within classrooms due to an impression of motivation of students will not work with “bribing” students.” Akin-Little and Little (2009) continue with: When education personnel extol the use of extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom, the motive is clearly not to “bribe” children and youth, but to increase appropriate academic and social behavior. The goal is obviously not to decrease intrinsic motivation within students, but to reinforce the positive behaviors of students. (p. 86) The goal of PBIS is exactly this idea, provide opportunities for students to know what they are doing correct with a “token” and provide both positive extrinsic reinforcements and cultivate intrinsic motivation within the students. Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). To counter the ideals of behavioral science and look at behavioral or perceptual control from a different vantage point, Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), which has been known since Aristotle was researched. It is a TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 37 theory that people act so as to get what they want, in the face of unpredictable events in the world in which they live (Taylor, 1999). The idea of PCT has been not been studied or researched as much as the theories of “stimulus-response”, which is the notion that people will tend to behave the same way when confronted with the same pattern of stimulation from the outer world, or on the “cognitive’ notion that people preplan their actions to achieve their goals (Taylor, 1999). W.T. Powers, as cited in Taylor (1999), stated in the early 1950s, “Acting to get what is wanted is the defining characteristic not only of humans and other animals, but also of engineered control systems.” PCT’s overarching theory is all organisms look to survive, and they need to stabilize their inner chemistry or self as their surroundings are changing. This mode of survival is very similar in schools, particularly high schools. There are different ways organisms can survive. One is a semi-permeable barrier around themselves; but they cannot be shut off from the outer world or they would die. The second, Taylor (1999) explains in the following way: The organism must be able to sense important states of the environment; it must be able to compare the sensed states with desirable conditions for those states; and it must be able to act to influence them so that it can bring about and maintain the desirable conditions. “To sense” means to alter some internal state, such as a chemical concentration or a neural firing rate, in correspondence with changes of something in the environment. In PCT, such an internal state is called a “perceptual sign”, and the value of a perceptual signal is a “perception”. To stabilize a state near some reference condition is the technical definition of “control”. When an organism is countering the disturbances from the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 38 environment around them, it is controlling its perceptions. “Perception”, in PCT carries no connotation of consciousness. PCT has a core tenet: “All behavior is the control of perception”. The actions that stabilize the perception may vary dramatically as the environment influences change, but a well-controlled perception varies only when its reference value changes. (p. 434) Controlling the perceived environment around someone is the central concept of PCT (Alsawy et al., 2014). People try and control their perceived environments so they can make their experience match their internal goal state or reference value (Alsawy et al., 2014). Alsawy et al. (2014), explains PCT in the following example: Keeping a comfortable distance from someone we are talking to, we would need to move further away if the other person comes closer than our preferred distance, but we would need to move closer if they exceed our preferred distance. In this way an equilibrium distance is maintained. This is called a negative feedback loop because the discrepancies are fed back to the environment through action to act against the elements of the environment that lead experience to deviate from the desired value. The loop is analogous to the homeostatic control systems in the body that maintain physiological variables (e.g., body temperature, blood glucose) within an ideal range. The PCT model contrasts starkly with the traditional approach put forward in traditional cognitive and behavior models whereby a stimulus is processed to trigger an observable behavior, and no feedback system to regulate internal goals states is explicitly implicated. (p. 336) Figure 3 below is an explanation of terms within the theory of PCT (Alsawy et al., 2014, p. 337): TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS Figure 3 Definitions of key Terms in Perceptual Control Theory 39 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 40 The study of PCT has been mainly in the field of human performance. This is the nexus with PBIS; within these studies, the main facet was for the participants to keep some aspect of their environment ‘on target’ and use their actions to dynamically eliminate aspects of their environment that would lead them away from their goal (Alsawy et al., 2014). An example study was for an individual to keep a cursor using either a mouse or joystick on a vertical line, as the line was moving, Alsawy et al. (2014) states regarding the task, and other tasks alike, Consistently, and across a wide variety of tasks, participants manage to do this to the extent that the perception (a stimulus in traditional terms) they are controlling (e.g., to keep a cursor aligned) has no direct effect on their behavior, indicated by low correlations between the stimulus and the behavior. Thus, a PCT model is favored in contrast to the standard model proposed by existing theories that would predict a close correlation between stimulus and behavior. (p. 338) PCT is stating, in terms of education, that students can control or be taught to control their behavior even if there is a wide variety of stimulus entering into their environment during the day. This theory explains the ideals of teaching students the correct behavior to ensure they can maintain a positive environment within the school. PBIS’s framework fits within the perspective of PCT, as PBIS’s premise is to increase positive behavior and have the students control their own behaviors. PCT states that there are multiple control systems that are hierarchically organized and these explain how complex skills are managed and personal goals are achieved (Alsawy et al., 2014). W. T. Powers specifies there are 11 levels such as needs, desires, wants, values, rules, standards, beliefs, principles, and ideal selves (Alsawy et al., 2014). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 41 Figure 4 below explains that a closed loop is the basic unit of control within PCT (Alsawy et al., 2014, p. 338). Additionally, Figure 4 explains that the process an organism goes through within their inside system also has an environmental influence. The depiction shows how the body regulates the environmental change to balance itself back to being just right through the use of neurological signals, to create a muscle action, thus keeping the organism under control of his or her perception. Figure 4 The Closed Loop: The Basic Unit of Control within PCT Again, this is a different theory of how students can learn to control their behaviors even when their environments are constantly changing. This theory can be TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 42 taught through the use of PBIS. Powers (1998, 2005 as cite in Lanoue, 2009) states the connection that basic learning was reorganization and that only through reorganization can basic operations be modified. School discipline systems were developed based on reflecting a belief that behavior was a result of a cause that was controlled by forces beyond one’s control (Bourbon, 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). With this belief system, teachers use rewards and negative reinforcement, such as detentions or suspensions to control student behavior (Lanoue, 2009). Lanoue (2009), explained how PCT is utilized within the scenario: PCT theorists indicated that doing something to children did not teach them how to figure out a different way to do things or act (Ford, 1994 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). Using PCT, a student disruption was the act of a student who was controlling perceptions and disrupting the perceptions of other students or the teacher (Bourbon, 1998; Ford, 1994 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). In PCT, a student may not have understood that the behavior exhibited influenced another student or teacher and that the real cause of the disturbance was due to the impact on others resulting in the conflict (Bourbon 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). Therefore, the act of trying to control another person did not teach responsible thinking; rather, it taught students how to manipulate others (Ford, 1998 as cited in Lanoue, 2009). (p. 46) School personnel who understand the concept of PCT create conversations with students at the systems level of values (beliefs) level, and connect their references and ideals of the situation around those beliefs. Thus, PCT allows the teacher to teach the students to TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 43 think about what they want and how they were getting what they wanted as it relates to the expectations of the class (Lanoue, 2009). Schools Utilizing PBIS When thinking about a PBIS framework, the initial thought process applied to elementary and middle schools. Over the last two decades, PBIS has been introduced and implemented with fidelity within high schools across the United States (U.S.) and within Pennsylvania (PA). As of 2018 the Center on PBIS states there are roughly 28,000 schools utilizing PBIS (Center on PBIS, 2021). In researching high schools, an article written in January of 2017 stated there were 3,138 high schools implementing PBIS, which represents approximately 8% of all schools across the U.S. implementing PBIS (Freeman et al., 2017). Introducing the PBIS framework within high schools enhances school climate by addressing behavior problems, and improving attendance (Bradshaw et al., 2014; Bohanon et al., 2012; Bohanon et al., 2006; Bohanon-Edmonson, Flannery, Eber, & Sugai, 2004; Flannery, Fenning, Kato, &McIntosh, 2011; Freeman et al., 2015 as cited in Freeman et al., 2017). As the framework is introduced with fidelity within the high school it can also assist in social skill instruction, violence prevention, and bullying programs (Bradshaw, 2013 as cited in Freeman et al., 2017). There are variables within a high school that can slow the process of implementing PBIS. Examples include the size of high schools, the number of students within the high schools, and the departmentalization of a high school (Flannery et al., 2014; Freeman et al., 2017). Pennsylvania has approximately 10 schools recognized for implementing PBIS with fidelity based off the statistics from Pennsylvania Positive Behavior Support (PAPBS) (PAPBS, 2021). PAPBS is the overarching leadership of PBIS within PA. As TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 44 schools introduce PBIS into their schools, PAPBS can be utilized as a network to help with training and technical assistance of implementation. PAPBS’s mission states they support schools and their family and community partners to create and sustain comprehensive, school-based behavioral health supports systems in order to promote the academic, social and emotional well-being of all Pennsylvania’s students (PAPBS, 2021). Creating opportunities on a national level such as the Center on PBIS and at a state level such as PAPBS, provide for opportunities for schools to implement the PBIS framework effectively and with fidelity. Characteristics of PBIS The implementation and characteristics of PBIS are ideally introduced within a school over a period of time. PBIS is not a bought boxed curriculum or intervention, PBIS is an evidenced based framework which uses a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) approach (Horner & Macaya, 2018; Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai and Horner (2020), recognize that PBIS over the years has been influenced by four important ideas. The first idea, during the 70s and 80s, included the introduction and integration of applied behavior analysis. The idea of applied behavior analysis and positive behavior supports was being integrated into more schools because the continuation of exclusionary behavior practices with a result of limited participation by the students (Sugai & Horner, 2020). The second idea, during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, included teachers learning there was more success with student behavior by explaining and teaching the classroom expectations, and reducing the use of corporal punishments. Along with the classroom expectations, such as positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors and increased attention to selfmanagement, the change within classroom instruction helped student behaviors within TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 45 the classroom (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Scott, 2017; Scott, Hirn, & Cooper, 2017; Simonsen & Myers, 2015; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1996 as cited in Sugai & Horner, 2020). The third idea, during the 90s, used a tiered system of behavioral prevention as a positive framework. This three tiered framework became the PBIS “multi-tiered behavioral framework” as it is today (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai & Horner (2020), explained that in 2014, “the PBIS effort was extended more formally to issues related to school safety, bullying and antisocial behavior, trauma-based school recovery, and integration of school mental health and PBIS.” (p. 121). The final idea is based on the idea of implementing PBIS with high fidelity across all schools, districts, and states, using a system of logic implementation researched by Fixsen and colleagues (2005) (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Within the logic of implementation, Fixsen and colleagues stated and emphasized a need for a leadership team to establish the different functions needed with the PBIS framework or any program of interventions (Fixsen et al., 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2020). The idea of logical implementation of PBIS regarding the leadership team is discussed later in the literature review. The point of the fourth idea is in order to create a high-level fidelity within a PBIS framework, the leadership team has to be invested in the process for the framework to be effective. These four important ideas have helped evolve PBIS into the framework which is utilized in schools, districts, and states today (Sugai & Horner, 2020). The process of implementing PBIS as a MTSS can be broken down into five stages. Sugai and Horner (2020) states, “reviewing the stages of implementation is helpful for teams as they (a) assess where they stand, (b) define specific next steps, and (c) establish a long-range plan.” (p. 124). PBIS utilizes Fixsen et al. (2005) five dynamic TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 46 stages which include: exploration, installation, initiation, full implementation, and sustained and scaled implementation (Sugai & Horner, 2020). As a leadership team looks to implement the PBIS framework or any initiative, the first three steps are standard with any integration. Within the literature review, stages four and five are the focus. Stage four is PBIS full implementation, and factors in a comprehensive implementation of a continuum of practices and systems across classrooms and school. It also involves the use of data related to student outcomes and team based continuation of implementation and monitoring of the framework (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Sugai & Horner (2020) states: In the case of a school, all students and all educators across all school settings experience a positive, preventive, and constructive social and educational climate in which common vision, language, and routine have been formally established (universal or Tier 1). Acknowledging that some students may present risk factors for academic or social difficulties (often both), additional supports (e.g., more time, practice, and adaptions or combinations of them) are layered on top of Tier 1 efforts and delivered to groups of students (targeted or Tier 2) and individual students (indicated or Tier 3). (p. 124) Stage five represents sustaining and scaling PBIS implementation requirements to a school and ensures the use of data to continually make the necessary changes to the framework. There are different conditions that affect the implementation of PBIS; these include the size of the school, experience of the leadership team, and resources (Sugai & Horner, 2020). PBIS implementation is fluid; implementation can move between the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 47 different stages as staff and students change and the school or district wants to differentiate its implementation process of the framework. Each stage is important. However, within this literature review stage, four will be looked at in more depth, particularly implementation of the three Tiers. Tier 1 is the focus of this Capstone Research Project, the implementation and whom it affects is a defining aspect. Tier 2 and 3 will be discussed within this literature review, but not as indepth, due to the nature of the Capstone Research Project. PBIS Tiers PBIS is broken down into three tiers; each tier is represented differently within research. Tier 1 can be represented as Primary Tier or Primary Intervention, Tier 2 can be represented as Secondary Tier or Secondary Intervention, and Tier 3 can be represented as Tertiary Tier or Tertiary Intervention. During this literature review, each tier will be represented as Tiers either 1, 2, or 3. Figure 5 by Sugai (2015, p. 7) simply explains each Tier within PBIS: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 48 Figure 5 Tiered Continuum of Behavior Support Horner and Macaya (2018, p. 665) and Horner et al. (2010, p. 4) respectfully state there are key assumptions for guiding a school’s capacity of adoption and those assumptions are listed as: a) Students learn how to behave, both well and poorly, and this means positive behaviors need to be taught to minimize problem behaviors, b) Effective schools not only teach positive behaviors, but monitor and acknowledge those behaviors, c) Investing in prevention of problems is more effective and efficient than being reactive to negative behaviors, d) Effective behavior supports need to take place at appropriate tier level, e) Organized behavior supports needs to occur throughout the school, and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 49 f) Behavioral support “practices” will be used with fidelity and sustainability when linked to the supportive organization system (PBIS Framework). Each tier within the PBIS framework meets the needs of specific students. Once those initial tiers do not meet the needs of the students any longer, the idea of MTSS becomes evident. As those students need help and transition from one tier to the next, the supports within the different tiers change to help with the level of support needed (Horner & Macaya, 2018). PBIS Tier 1 Tier 1 or Primary Intervention is implemented across the entire school and is meant to have an impact on all students, in all settings (Horner et al., 2010). Horner and Macaya (2018) defines the goal of Tier 1 as, “to establish the preventative foundation for a positive, school-wide climate.” (p. 665). The Center on PBIS explains Tier 1 systems, data, and practices impact all students across all settings, and these systems establish the foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and preventing unwanted behaviors (Center on PBIS, 2021). There are five core principles guiding Tier 1 PBIS: effectively teaching the students the appropriate behaviors, proactive behavioral interventions, use of research based and validated interventions, monitor student behavior, and collect and utilize data to make all decisions on behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner et al., 2010; Horner & Macaya, 2018). In order to sustain the five core principles, a school or district needs to first secure a PBIS Framework Leadership team. This leadership team consists of a school administrator, classroom teachers, and student representation (especially within a high school). Center on PBIS (2021) states representatives on the team need to have the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 50 following skillsets: behavioral expertise, coaching expertise, knowledge of student academic and behavior patterns, and knowledge of how the school operates across all the grade levels. Ideally, the team should meet regularly throughout the year to discuss continual action planning and data review. Horner and Macay (2018) discuss there are eight core features of Tier 1. The first core feature is the leadership team, which has been discussed. The second, is creating three to five positively stated school-wide behavioral expectations (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). These expectations should drive what are positive behaviors within a school. In the past couple of years, acronyms have guided who the school is and what the expectations are within the building. For example, a school could use PRIDE as their three to five expectations; PRIDE is an acronym for P-Personal Responsibility, R-Respect, I-Integrity, D-Dedication, E-Excellence. These expectations are actively taught, are the core values within a school, and apply to all people within the building (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). “The key is that teaching behavioral expectations is proactive, and occurs for all students. The process for teaching behavioral expectations is adjusted to fit the developmental level of the student, such as more collaborative and peer-based in high school” (Horner & Macaya, 2018, p. 666). The third core feature is regularly acknowledging students positive and appropriate behavior. Center on PBIS (2021) states, A school’s Tier 1 team determines how to acknowledge students positively for doing appropriate behaviors. Schools adopt a token system in addition to offering specific praise when students do what is expected. No matter the system, it should be linked to school-wide expectations, used across settings and within TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 51 classrooms, used by 90% or more of all school personnel, and available to all students within the school. (p. 14) Negative behavior will still occur within schools. However, by utilizing the PBIS framework, successful schools can create opportunities for students to be acknowledged for appropriate behaviors at least four or five time as often as the negative behaviors (Horner & Macaya, 2018). Proactively acknowledging positive behavior increases school climate and culture. The fourth and fifth core features focus on how to define and respond to negative classroom or school behavior. Policies and procedures are put into place explaining how to respond to a negative behavior, such as addressing office-managed offenses versus classroom management offenses. Such policies maintain consistency for both the student and the school personnel in the application of Tier 1 (Center on PBIS, 2021). School disciplinary codes and classroom management often over-emphasize consequences to manage negative student behavior; however, within the PBIS framework it should be the opposite. PBIS under estimates the negative behavior and over-estimates the proactive, positive, preventative efforts (Horner & Macaya, 2018). The sixth core feature is the collection and use of data to drive the decisionmaking process regarding behavioral support. The utilization of data can answer central components of PBIS, such as, “Are the practices put in place working,” and “Are students benefiting from PBIS?” (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). Schools using PBIS have procedures that are highly effective and efficient for collecting, summarizing, and using data (Horner et al., 2018 as cited in Horner & Macaya, 2018). The seventh core feature is bullying prevention. Horner and Macay (2018) state: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 52 Recent bully prevention efforts indicate high success when students are taught a response to bullying behavior that eliminates social attention, and an alternative social routine if someone indicates to you that you are engaging in bullying (Ross & Horner, 2009 as cited in Horner & Macaya, 2018). This has led to adding to PBIS Tier 1 core features the teaching of how students should respond when they are faced with (or witness) problem behavior performed by others. Students need a routine for responding to problem behavior that limits the attention and social recognition that too often maintains bullying behaviors. Teaching this routine proactively to all students makes a difference in the level of inadvertent reward for peer-maintained bullying behavior. (p. 668) The last core feature is family engagement. Within the PBIS Leadership team, there should be representation of parents and families. Center of PBIS suggests opportunities to provide ongoing collaboration with these stakeholders should happen at least once a year, if not more. These interactions help with input on culturally responsiveness and reflection of the community (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner & Macaya, 2018). As Tier 1 indicates, there is an intricacy of implementing the PBIS framework. The Center on PBIS recommends establishing Tier 1 within your school or district prior to moving onto more supportive interventions. Establishing a positive foundational system, which all other tiers are built upon, has to be the PBIS Leadership’s teams main priority (Center on PBIS, 2021). Horner et al. (2010) suggests: The conceptual logic of PBIS does not support the expectation that building social support would lead to improved reading, math, or writing skills. Rather, the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 53 expectation is that establishing a predictable, consistent, positive, and safe social culture will improve the behavioral engagement of students in learning, and that if this engagement is coupled with a functional curriculum and effective teaching, academic outcomes will be more likely. (p. 8) PBIS Tier 2 and 3 As stated, the review of literature for Tier 2 and 3 will not be as in-depth but just a generalization of each tier. This is due to the nature of the Capstone Research Project; the focus is on Tier 1, so to not deflect the attention from Tier 1 onto Tier 2 and 3. This does not change the significance of Tier 2 and 3 in the PBIS Framework and the implementation process for each tier. Unlike Tier 1 where all students are impacted, Tier 2 or Secondary Prevention will serve, depending on the research, approximately 15% of the student population within the school (Bruhn et al., 2014). Tier 2 supports are meant to help students in which Tier 1 has been ineffective and more targeted interventions are needed (Bruhn et al., 2014; Center on PBIS, 2021). Tier 2 PBIS focuses more attention on targeted interventions or Behavior Education Programs (BEP), such as social skills groups, selfmanagement, and academic supports (Center on PBIS, 2021; Crone et al., 2010). The Center on PBIS (2021) identifies targeted interventions have the following characteristics: a. Continuously available b. Accessible within 72 hours of referral c. Very low effort by teachers d. Aligned with school-wide expectations TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 54 e. Implemented by all staff/faculty in a school f. Flexible and based on assessment g. Function-based h. Allocated adequate resources i. Student chooses to participate j. Continuously monitored Examples of different Tier 2 supports or BEP’s are Check and Connect, Checkin/Check-out, First Step to Success, Think Time and many others (Center on PBIS, 2021; Crone et al., 2010; Horner et al., 2010). In order for Tier 2 supports to work, a school needs to have a solid Tier 1 foundation. The foundational systems of Tier 2 are very similar to Tier 1, as mapped out by the Center on PBIS. The leadership team establishes systems and practices needed for students requiring additional supports. Once those are established, a team member with behavioral management experience will determine the best support or BEP for the defined student(s). Students are identified using a screening process, different strategies to identify students could be office discipline referrals (ODF), screening instrument scores, teacher nominations, parent and support service recommendations, and formative assessments (Center on PBIS, 2021; Crone et al., 2010). To create fidelity using a Tier 2 support, the team needs to continually collect and monitor the data, which allows the team to determine if the student should continue within the support, should the support be modified, or should the student move on or fade out of the selected intervention (Center on PBIS, 2021). Overall, Tier 2 interventions are to increase student and adult connections, thus allowing the opportunity to proactively support the student using positive reinforcement TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 55 multiple times of the day. This goes for both behavior and academic supports. As students learn to regulate on their own, when, where, under what condition, and the data supports a positive response to the intervention, students can move or fade out of Tier 2 (Center on PBIS, 2021). Lastly, Tier 3 or Tertiary Preventions are for the 1-5% of students in which both a tier 1 or tier 2 intervention or supports do not create a connection for the student (Center on PBIS, 2021). Tier 3 students receive more intensive, individualized supports to help them improve their behavioral and academic outcomes (Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner et al., 2010). The Center on PBIS (2021) identifies students who benefit from Tier 3 supports as students with developmental disabilities, autism, emotional and behavioral disorders, and students with no diagnostic label at all. Again, Tier 3 practices are built from a strong Tier 1 and Tier 2 foundation of supports. The foundational systems of Tier 3 supports include a multi-disciplinary team(s); this team has members from the administration, behavioral coach or representative, and others with behavioral knowledge (Special Education Department) (Center on PBIS, 2021). The team documents the student(s) behavior by implementing a functional behavior assessment (FBA) plan. The FBA usually includes strategies, based on the Center on PBIS (2021), which prevent unwanted behavior, teach appropriate behavior, positively reinforce appropriate behavior, reduce rewards for unwanted behavior, and ensure the student is safe (Bruhn et al., 2014; Center on PBIS, 2021; Horner et al., 2010; Horner & Macaya, 2018). Horner et al. (2010) states the following regarding an FBA: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 56 The primary purpose of an FBA is to guide the design of a comprehensive intervention. The literature base on effects of function-based support consists almost entirely of single-subject studies documenting rigorous functional control, which is not surprising given that interventions are individualized for each student. Function-based support is among the areas with strongest empirical support (Carr et al., 1999; Didden et al., 1997; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994; Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1968-2009 as cited in Horner et al., 2010). This research shows that interventions guided by FBAs can be implemented with fidelity and result directly in a reduction in problem behavior and improvement in desired behaviors (Brooks, Todd, Tofflemoyer, & Horner, 2003; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003; Crone, Hawken, & Bergstrom, 2007; Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998; Ervin, Kern, Clarke, DuPaul, Dunlap, & Friman, 2000; Fairbanks et al., 2007; Grow, Carr, & LeBlanc, 2009; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Lucyshyn et al., 2007; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009; Smith & Sugai, 2000 as cited in Horner et al., 2010). (p. 10) Tier 3 students, as per Center on PBIS, receive more intensive, individualized supports, which is to help improve their behavioral and academic outcomes within schools (Center on PBIS, 2021). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 57 Potential Obstacles of PBIS Validity of PBIS As educational programs, initiatives, and ideas come and go, a potential obstacle for PBIS is the validity of the program. Research question 3 for this Capstone Research Project states, “What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level”? At the high school level, implementing a program or initiative with validity creates sustainability within the program. Bruhn et al. (2014) states: Schools implementing PBIS are often confronted with concerns from a variety of educational stakeholders about school climate, teaching behavioral expectations, the role of reinforcement, and labeling students. Administrators should be prepared to respond to these concerns with theoretical and empirical evidence. And, they need tools for faculty to reflect upon and improve PBIS implementation. Effective PBIS implementation involves (a) positive social interactions between students, teachers, and administrators; (b) behavioral expectations taught in a socially- and age-appropriate way; (c) a variety of methods for reinforcing students for demonstrating positive behavior, and (d) teams using fidelity and student-level data to drive instructional decisions. (p. 13) Another characteristic of validity is Social Validity. The definition of social validity “is a measurement of how well a social program is embraced by those who are targeted to benefit from it” (Marchant et al., 2013). In the late 70s, Montrose Wolf began using social validity as an objective measure into behavioral science; along with this concept, three areas of validation in which society would need to ensure the work is true TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 58 were identified. Those three areas were the social significance of identified treatment goals, the social appropriateness of procedures utilized within those treatment goals, and the social importance of the research effects and results of those goals (Marchant et al., 2013; Wolf, 1978). Social validity is incorporating all stakeholders in the process of researching an initiative, planning the implementation, and ensuring the fidelity of the initiative (Marchant et al., 2013). Marchant et al. (2013) states: Stakeholders participation is fundamental to the success of PBIS. Moving from the traditional expert-driven methodology to a stakeholder-driven methodology, PBIS encourages a collaborative system (Marchant et al., 2013; Sugai et al., 2000) which functions as a support network, undoubtedly contributing to its success with systems level change (Carr et al., 2002; Marchant et al., 2013; Sugai et al., 2000). In PBIS, for example, decisions are developed, implemented, and evaluated by the school system as a whole, fostering ownership and social validity among its key stakeholders (Scott, 2007 as cited in Marchant et al., 2013). This direct involvement encourages stakeholders to make informed choices which contributes to the program’s validity. Social validity assessments are vital components in overall evaluations of PBIS programs because this assessment piece informs researchers on a fundamental attribute of PBIS implementation and development – stakeholder participation. (p. 7) Having social validation of an initiative is very important within an educational setting, especially where the stakeholders, such as teachers, staff, administrators, and the students are influenced by the initiative. If there is not buy-in with the initiative, or if the initiative TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 59 is not communicated properly, it will not have the social validation needed to be effective within an educational setting (Filter & Brown, 2019; Marchant et al., 2013). Through their research, Filter and Brown (2019) discuss personal support and active support. This concept of support for PBIS is important to validate the implementation and continued success of a PBIS framework implemented into schools. Filter and Brown (2019) state: Personal support is present when a person verbally expresses beliefs and attitudes that support a program or intervention, such as SWPBIS. Active support is present when a person verbally expresses a willingness to do the work that is involved in implementing the program or intervention.” (p. 41) Within Filter and Brown’s research, they were interested in quantitative data that supported “buy-in” or “commitment” by school staff. They completed this task by utilizing the PBIS Action and Commitment Tool (PBIS-ACT) (Filter & Brown, 2019). Their research included 912 responses and in a very crude form. They stated that 80% of the staff with different factors to include, stated it was important to have “buy-in” and “commitment” to functionally have PBIS implemented into a school (Filter & Brown, 2019). In summary, implementing PBIS depends on both the validity of the framework, and the social validity of the stakeholders. Filter and Brown (2019) states, Implementation depends on the efforts of frontline service providers, such as teachers and staff, who make the choice to implement the specific strategies. Each of these frontline implementers will naturally vary in the extent to which they buy-in to PBIS in general and the degree to which they are committed to TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 60 actual work involved in implementing the strategies (Feuerborn, Tyre, & King, 2015; Filter, Sytsma, & McIntosh, 2016 as cited in Filter & Brown, 2019). (p. 40) As validity is researched and determined, this may pose as just one barrier to implementing PBIS within schools. Barriers of PBIS The three research questions of this Doctoral Capstone Research Project all relate in part to barriers that could impede the implementation of a PBIS framework. In reviewing the literature, five main topics continue to be prominent, especially within a high school setting. Those barriers are administrative support, buy-in from staff, a misunderstanding of PBIS, sustainability, and PBIS in a high school setting. Administrative Support As initiatives are brought to districts, they are typically rolled out from the top down. Unfortunately the administration is involved from the beginning, which often hinders staff buy-in (McIntosh et al., 2016). The administration does, however, play an important role in the success of a PBIS framework initiative. This role includes allocating resources, prioritizing staff development, funding, and even providing time for teachers to collaborate with each other (Coffey & Horner, 2012; Kam et al., 2003; Richter, Lewis, & Hagar, 2012 as cited in McIntosh et al., 2016). Additionally, the lack of administrative support has been linked to low conceptual understanding of PBIS, balancing initiatives, and creating a dependency of assistance which all create barriers within the PBIS framework (Debnam et al., 2013; McIntosh et al., 2016). Coffey and Horner (2012) define administrator support as strong leadership helping the implementation of PBIS by providing direction, motivation, facilitating collaboration, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 61 supporting communication between staff members, and affirming that PBIS is a school priority (Rao, 2020). If this support is lacking or nonexistent for the implementation and sustainability, then principal support has been indicated to be a barrier (Andreou et al., in press; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009; Kincaid, Childs, Blasé, & Wallace, 2007; Lohrmann et al., 2008; McIntosh et al., 2014 as cited in McIntosh et al., 2016). Staff Buy-In Staff buy-in can be hindered by many different aspects that relate to PBIS. However, for a PBIS framework to functionally work with a school setting, staff need to be on board (Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Through research by Tyre and Feuerborn (2021), McIntosh et al. (2014), it is indicated that staff support or “buy-in” is a main variable for full, sustainable implementation of PBIS. Resistance by staff can come in many different facets and can be complex which relate to individual, systemic, and/or PBIS related issues (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017). For example Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) state: Resistance may be a result of staff perceptions that schoolwide PBIS is not necessary or effective for the students in their school, in sufficient resources, or disagreements with the use of rewards (e.g., Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrmann et al., 2008; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017 as cited in Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Staff resistance can lead to poor moral and a lack of cohesion among staff, low rates of fidelity, and ultimately lackluster student outcomes. Tyre and Feuerborn (2017) have found that 94% to 97% of staff voice their support for implementing PBIS when asked directly via a survey, in this case the Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) survey, but supportive staff also have implementation TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 62 concerns. Staff are also concerned about diverse systemic implementation issues, such as inadequate time and resources, poor school climate, and lack of staff cohesiveness and leadership of the change effort (Feuerborn et al., 2018; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017, p. 42). Merchant and Miramontes (2013) cited Kincaid et al. (2007) completed research describing perceived barriers, and found of the 21 different themes, half of those issues were associated with staff buy-in. “More specifically, lack of staff buy-in was characterized by poor communication, resulting in miscommunications and confusions surround simple procedures and desired goals.” (p. 8). In researching the literature, there are three main points of staff buy-in “misses” that continually become prevalent. The three concepts are misconceptions, misapplications, and misalignments of philosophy within the PBIS framework (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Misconceptions of PBIS are categorized by having a lack of knowledge or outright misunderstanding of the framework. This can be misrepresented by staff thinking that by providing some type of token or posting classroom behavioral expectations within their classrooms are effective uses of the PBIS framework (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). The lack of understanding and knowledge leads to the misconceptions. “Misapplication of PBIS occurs when staff concerns arise from PBIS practices applied incorrectly, incompletely, or with low fidelity” (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Misalignments of philosophy are explained by Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) in the following fashion: Occur when concerns arise from conflicts between a staff member’s belief system and the principles that underpin the PBIS framework. An example of TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 63 misalignment would be: “If students cannot behave in my classroom, there should be another place for them.” The quote here suggests a reliance on exclusionary discipline to correct student behavior issues, which conflicts with the inclusive orientation of PBIS. Misalignments of philosophy are important to detect because they can interfere with implementation of the PBIS framework. Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) cite e.g., Durlak & DuPre (2008) by stating educators are more likely to implement an approach when it is compatible with their own philosophy. (p. 44) Misalignments explains negative staff buy-in, especially when the philosophies of the staff member does not meet the PBIS framework’s philosophy. PBIS Misunderstandings Barriers due to misunderstandings of PBIS are held at the administrative level. When staff is not appropriately trained, not given enough time, or does not receive enough assistance, a barrier of not understanding how to implement a PBIS framework with fidelity is created. This lack of knowledge and understanding creates a level of apathy to the framework and staff start to look at PBIS as just another initiative (Bambara et al., 2009; Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Yeung et al., 2016). Tyre and Feuerborn (2021) explain the following: PBIS misses can be anticipated and prevented with appropriate staff engagement and support in the change process. Teams can start this process by asking staff to directly share their understandings and beliefs regarding PBIS. Misses thrive in environments with poor communication, isolation, and distrust. Hence, schoolwide PBIS leadership teams must advocate for, and secure, high-quality TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 64 professional development and coaching opportunities that are carefully calibrated to the needs of staff in their buildings, build knowledge and skills, and provide time and space for staff to collaborate, build trust, and support one another. This professional development should include both classified and certified staff and adhere to the principles of adult learning. (p. 49) Breaking down the misunderstanding of PBIS depends on the administrative support provided through the process. Professional development continually provides opportunities for staff members to understand how to implement and sustain PBIS within their classrooms and school with fidelity. The professional development provided must be diversified for the different styles of students within each classroom as well (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). Additional to professional development, giving staff a voice, and having them be included during the implementation of a PBIS framework provides more opportunities of investment to ensure fidelity of the framework at the staff level (Bambara et al., 2009; Macy & Wheeler, 2021; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2021). PBIS Sustainability Sustainability for any new initiative takes time and effort to ensure the lasting aspects of any program or framework put into place. This is no different with PBIS. Yeung et al. (2016) cited McIntosh et al. (2009) by stating sustainability may be defined as “durable, long-term implementation of a practice at a level of fidelity that continues to produce valued outcomes.” (p. 328). There is limited research on the sustainability of PBIS, but what has been researched is sustainability of PBIS is not just about the length of implementation, but also involves quality, integrity, and contextual factors of that implementation (Yeung et al., 2016). Bambara et al. (2009) stated: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 65 More specifically, what are the factors that impede or facilitate sustained adoption such that PBIS becomes an integral part of daily school routines and results in successful outcomes? Drawing from the sustainability research conducted on other research-based educational practices, these factors could be categorized into three areas (Vaugh, Klingner, & Hughes, 2000 as cited in Bambara et al., 2009): (a) practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes about intervention effectiveness, including their beliefs about how practices can benefit them directly and their own ability to implement practices; (b) opportunities for practitioners to integrate their experiential knowledge with research-based practices, as well as opportunities to acquire a deep understanding of research-based practices; and (c) contextual or systems variables that place demands on practitioners’ daily functioning in school such as school policies, schedules, organization, and resources (e.g., Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000; Klinger, Ahwee, & Pilonieta, 2003; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006 as cited in Bambara et al., 2009). (p. 162) These three main factors are very similar to staff buy-in barriers, which were previously explained. Practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes about interventions can be a very decisive barrier within a high school. As programs are rotated, attitudes towards new initiatives or frameworks (PBIS) can create resistance from staff. Research has identified staff resistance based on different social contextual variables, such as, too many school initiatives, and personal belief barriers, such as, lack of perceived need for PBIS, personal autonomy infringement, or differences in philosophy regarding classroom management TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 66 (Bambara et al., 2009). Bambara et al. (2009) completed a research study on this idea of staff perceived barriers; they found 92% of the participants thought establishing a school culture in which all members shared a common understanding and appreciation for PBIS was the most pervasive theme within their study. (p. 167). Bambara et al. (2009) stated: The general view was that the absence of a supportive school culture, characterized by a general lack of knowledge or awareness of PBIS activities, as well as long-held conflicting beliefs, values, and practices of school personnel, made it extremely difficult for team members to carry out PBIS for individual students with any impact or sustainability. (p. 167) Bambara et al. (2009) continued by explaining the importance of a supportive school culture and how to create sustainability: First, most participants (80%) in their study, stressed the importance of educating the entire school community about the basic tenets and processes of PBIS. Participants stressed that schoolwide trainings should include sufficient information to explain what PBIS is, how it is carried out, and how it can benefit all students. Second, sharing the work of PBIS teams and their success with the greater school community was viewed as an important enabler, not only for reduce feelings of team isolation but also to provide evidence that individualized PBIS does work. Experiencing, sharing, and seeing success creates a snowball effect in which school personnel are more willing to be involved and try new strategies and in turn experience ‘transformative’ success themselves. (p. 169) Sustaining programs is key to ensure that the benefits created during the implementation process are not lost. Additionally, there are financial, time, and resource variables which TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 67 exist with any new framework or initiative put into place (McIntosh et al., 2011 as cited in Yeung et al., 2016). Yeung et al. (2016) completed a systematic review highlighting key issues impacting the sustainability of PBIS. Figure 6 illustrates the factors impacting sustainability (Yeung et al., 2016, p. 151): TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS Figure 6 Factors impacting sustainability identified in previous research Study Factors impacting sustainability Taylor-Greene and Kartoub (2000)      Defined improvement goals Administrator support Teamwork Positive reinforcement (e.g., rewarding students for desirable behavior) Formative evaluation Sugai and Horner (2006)    School leadership Administrator support Student reward systems Lohrmann et al. (2008)      Administrator support Skepticism Hopeless about change Philosophical differences Disenfranchisement Bambara et al. (2012)       School culture Administrator support Structure and use of time Professional development Support for professional practice Family and student involvement Forman et al. (2009)        Administrator support Teacher support Financial resources High-quality training and consultation The alignment of interventions with school philosophy, goals, polices, and programs Visibility of outcomes and impact Turnover in school staff and administrators Bambara et al. (2012)  Time for planning, implementing and meeting as a team Coffey and Horner (2012)         Administrator support Communication Data-based decision making Coaching and training Staff buy-in Teaming Resources Turnover Hume and McIntosh (2013)     Frequent school team meetings Presentation of data to school staff Access to an external coach or consultant Duration of implementation Mathews et al. (2014)    Regular acknowledgement of expected behaviors Matching instruction to student ability Access to additional support McIntosh et al. (2013)     School priority (manifested as strong administrator support and better team functioning) Team use of data District priority Capacity building    Administrator support Regular team meetings High priority of PBIS McIntosh et al. (2014) 68 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 69 As Yeung et al. points out, there are many factors that will impact the sustainability of implementing PBIS into a school. Four essential interconnected dimensions rose to create sustainability of PBIS. These four dimensions are: (1) ongoing professional development and technical assistance, (2) administrator support for school team, (3) emphasis on classroom-level implementation fidelity, and (4) effective evaluation of implementation fidelity and sustainability (Yeung et al., 2016). Maintaining these dimensions within a PBIS framework increases the opportunity to sustain the framework within a school setting. High School Setting It can be more difficult implementing a PBIS framework in a high school setting due to different factors, like, how teenagers develop, the setup of high schools, and higher expectations of behavior management compared to other levels of schooling (Flannery et al., 2020; Macy & Wheeler, 2021). Flannery et al. (2020) wrote an article associated with the Center on PBIS that explained, “it’s easier for faculty and staff to teach and acknowledge the positive behavior of elementary and middle school students than to establish an age-appropriate, effective system for acknowledging high school students.” (p. 2). Positive behaviors need to be recognized at all levels to create a positive school culture. Flannery et al. (2020) states: High school faculty and staff often feel hindered in their options for acknowledging student positive behavior. The result is not only do students report that their positive behavior is under appreciated, but adults in high school indicate they are aware that they are not acknowledging student behavior. (p. 4) TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 70 Acknowledgement of all students is critical within a PBIS framework, particularly within a Tier 1 PBIS framework. There are student populations that go unnoticed due to not being a dominant population within the school. Particularly at the high school level; when expectations are high for behavior, in some situations students are not acknowledged due to meeting an arbitrary level of expectation. This creates a barrier within a high school setting for PBIS to be greeted with high fidelity. Flannery et al. (2020) discusses five elements of a high school acknowledgement system. These five core elements are (1) schoolwide commitment and logic, (2) data system to guide decisions, (3) a recognition rhythm, (4) faculty and staff acknowledgement of student behavior, and (5) student acknowledgement of student behavior. Along with the five core elements, there has to be an effort in which all school staff members recognize and acknowledge the positive behaviors being displayed. Student Management Student management is one of the most difficult aspects for a teacher within a classroom. Setting expectations within a classroom and maintaining those expectations can depend on the students within the class and how the teacher manages their behaviors. Managing student behavior can be a difficult process for both seasoned teachers and new teachers alike. PBIS is framework of evidenced-based intervention strategies, which tries to help give consistency not just within the classroom but also throughout the school to help manage student behavior in a positive aspect. Implementing PBIS allows teachers to teach the expected behaviors wanted within their classrooms, but also what is expected throughout the school. Thus, PBIS creates consistency and high expectations for students in all situations within the school (Feuerborn et al., 2019; Gage et al., 2020). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 71 Inclusive Discipline or Proactive Discipline Inclusive discipline or proactive discipline is the basis of a PBIS framework. Teaching students the proper behavior wanted within a school and implementing evidence-based interventions allows for positive reinforcement towards students (Gage et al., 2020; Horner & Macaya, 2018). The research questions of this Doctoral Capstone Project specifically focus on the Tier 1 level of PBIS, Gage et al. (2020) state, “at the universal, or Tier 1 level, PBIS focuses on the use of proactive and preventive discipline practices, which focuses on positive reinforcement instead of punishments.” (p. 42). Netzel and Eber (2003) explained: Being proactive does take time out of one’s schedule; however, when comparing the amount of time invested in proactive strategies to the amount of time and emotional energy expended to reactively respond to misbehavior, it is clear that the proactive approach can be more time and energy efficient. (p. 74) Ideally, inclusive discipline creates dialog and conversations between school staff and students prior to moving toward more exclusionary options of discipline (Netzel & Eber, 2003). Those exclusionary options are detentions, suspensions, or other office discipline referrals (ODR’s). PBIS tries to introduce options that are different than ODR’s and more towards positive interactive options, such as a token economy or other initiatives like Restorative Practice (RP). Restorative practices mirror or parallel PBIS by creating core values based on the needs of the school, decreases inappropriate behaviors, holds individuals or groups responsible for their behaviors, and restores positive staff and student relationships TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 72 (Evanovich et al., 2020). Evanovich et al. (2020) explains how RP and PBIS intersect with one another: Similar to PBIS, RP provides a set of strategies that can be used for building community and responding to challenging behavior. Both approaches rely on whole-school models that emphasize prevention and positive responses to challenging behavior. When RP strategies are integrated into existing PBIS frameworks, the support for teacher implementation of proactive practices is increased, and strategies to support student behavior change are explicit and increased. (p. 29) Creating opportunities for proactive practices and teaching the elements of socialemotional behavior skills remains the key to PBIS (Evanovich et al., 2020). RP is just one option that can be used within PBIS. Another example of how to create positive interactions with students and to maintain positive behavior would be utilizing a token economy. Token economy is a strategy within a PBIS framework to acknowledge and reinforce positive behaviors for students. As students are exhibiting positive behaviors, school staff can acknowledge these behaviors by recognizing the students for meeting the expectations or core values within the PBIS framework. These recognitions can be as simple as a slip of paper with the student’s name on it, in which that student can obtain a prize if their name is pulled in a drawing (Menousek, 2011; Netzel & Eber, 2003). Research by Scott and Barrett (2004) and Bohanon et al. (2006), as cited in Menousek (2011), states as token economies are implemented within high schools, there is a decrease of ODR’s with a lower amount of both minor and major infractions. The use of TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 73 a token can be extremely powerful and useful when engaging students for both appropriate academic and social behavior (George et al., 2007; McLaughlin & Malaby, 1972; Miller, George, & Fogt, 2005 as cited in Menousek, 2011). However, questions arise for the successful implementation of a token economy system used to reinforce students within a PBIS framework. Thus future needs for research in this area arise, particularly the use of tickets for acknowledging appropriate behavior. Overall, PBIS is very effective at moving discipline away from exclusionary to inclusionary. It does not mean that exclusionary discipline should not be utilized within a school setting. One of PBIS’s essential elements is for school leadership teams to implement a consistent use of consequences when behavioral expectations are not met (Leach & Helf, 2016). The Center on PBIS (2021) states the following five school-wide practices: 1. Document a shared vision and approach to supporting and responding to student behavior in a mission or vision statement. 2. Establish 3-5 positively-stated school-wide expectations and define them for each school routine or setting. 3. Explicitly teach school-wide expectations and other key social, emotional, and behavioral skills to set all students up for success. 4. Establish a continuum of recognition strategies to provide specific feedback and encourage contextually appropriate behavior. 5. Establish a continuum of response strategies to provide specific feedback, reteach contextually appropriate behavior, and discourage contextually inappropriate behavior. (p. 5) TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 74 These five practices and particularly the fifth one explains there has to be a set of expectations for the students to meet. If not met, the discouragement of that behavior should be met as well, referring to a consequence. Exclusive Discipline or Reactive Discipline Exclusionary discipline has been researched extensively by researchers such as Horner et al. (2009), Bradshaw et al. (2010), Noltemeyer et al.(2015), Losen and Martin (2018), Gage et al. (2020), Center on PBIS (2021), and many more, and all of the research, state the same idea: exclusionary discipline fails the student (Gage et al., 2020). Exclusionary discipline, refers to discipline such as suspensions, whether in-school suspension (ISS), out-of-school suspension (OSS), expulsions, and even detentions. “Research demonstrates the deleterious outcomes associated with disciplinary exclusions, including more incidents of exclusion, poor academic performance, and increased risk for contact with juvenile justice” (Noltemeyer et al., 2015 as cited in Gage et al., 2020, p. 42). The continuing reduction of exclusionary discipline can be curbed by the use of PBIS and its evidenced based multi-tiered framework. Bradshaw et al. (2012) as cited in Gage (2020) found that schools that implement PBIS has had a statistical decrease in disruptive and negative behavior, and showed an increase in prosocial behaviors (p. 43). Gage et al. (2020) backed that finding by stating evidence from research they conduced which read: We found that schools implementing universal (Tier1) SWPBIS with fidelity and either Tier 2 or Tier 3 with fidelity (Gold) or all three tiers with fidelity (Platinum) reported significantly fewer OSS than propensity score matching (PSM) schools not implementing SWPBIS. (p. 48) TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 75 The Center on PBIS website explains what PBIS is and how it can positively affect schools at all levels. The Center on PBIS (2020) states the following about PBIS: PBIS is not a curriculum you purchase or something you learn during a one-day professional development training. It is a commitment to addressing student behavior through systems change. When it is implemented well, students achieve improved social and academic outcomes, schools experience reduced exclusionary discipline practices, and school personnel feel more effective. (p. 2) Figure 7 by the Center on PBIS (2020, p. 6) is an explanation of how PBIS can help with the outcomes schools want to achieve through the use of the framework. Figure 7 Outcomes of PBIS Creating an environment of decreased exclusionary discipline is the ultimate goal behind the PBIS framework and the goal of every school that implements PBIS. Increasing opportunities to decrease exclusionary discipline is a concern for schools; PBIS is one of those opportunities to help decrease ISS’s, OSS’s, and expulsions, particularly in high TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 76 school (Gage et al., 2020). By creating an environment of decreased exclusionary discipline the chance for students to be successful both academically and behaviorally will ultimately increase (Gage et al., 2020). Summary The literature review shows PBIS has become an integral aspect of education to help reduce behavior concerns but also assists with social emotional situations within schools. Increasing opportunities for staff members to create a positive school environment is key when implementing the framework. Filter and Brown (2019) wrote: The core school-wide strategies of implementing PBIS include (a) establishing three to five positively stated behavioral expectations, (b) teaching the behavioral expectations, (c) providing written and verbal reminders to engage in expected behaviors, (d) creating a system to acknowledge students when they engage in expected behavior expected behavior, and (e) using a predictable and responsive system for addressing behavior violations (Sugai & Horner, 2002 as cited in Filter & Brown, 2019). (p. 40) With over 25,000 schools in the United States implementing the PBIS framework, this literature review expounds on the validity of this frameworks utilization both in social validity and instrumental validity. In examining the research questions of this Doctoral Capstone Project, the literature review has demonstrated justification for each question and presented both supportive and alternative research for each question. The research questions for this doctoral capstone research project are: Research Question 1: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 77 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? The research within the literature review explains the barriers that can be created within a school setting. Whether those barriers are philosophical based or due to the nature of a high school setting, the perceptions of teachers can range. Researchers of a Tier 1 PBIS framework highlight that not only do these barriers need to be broken and understood to enhance the quality of the PBIS framework, but also to increase positive perceptions of the framework as well. Thus, an opportunity for positive social validity toward the implemented PBIS framework has been created. Research Question 2: What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? Token economies, when used properly, creates positive school culture, as stated within the literature review. Not only does increasing recognition of students benefit the perception of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, but it also creates positive reinforcement opportunities for all students within a school setting. Creating a positive school culture increases opportunities for learning, and decreases student management within classrooms. The impact of teachers on student recognitions is crucial within a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level. The literature review ties these implications together with research. Research Question 3: What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 78 Again, the literature review explains the different barriers within PBIS that break down the reasons why teachers do not participate within a PBIS framework. However, the literature review also explains the research behind the behavioral science that supports PBIS. From Skinner to the more recent researchers such as Sugai, Horner, Bradshaw, and many others, the literature review showcases how their research is supported by behavioral science and why PBIS is successful at utilizing the research being completed in this field. Moving away from zero tolerance to a more inclusive and intrinsic motivational style perpetuates the ideas of PBIS and why it is so powerful within school settings. Creating opportunities for staff members to understand the science behind PBIS is explained in the literature review. As this doctoral capstone project moves into Chapter III Methodology, utilizing both a survey (SPBD Survey) and an informal interview process, it expands on how a PBIS framework can make positive changes within a high school setting. Particularly, it moves away from exclusionary discipline to more inclusive engagement of students and understanding the perception of teachers utilizing a PBIS framework. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 79 CHAPTER III Methodology This chapter connects chapter two to the methods used to answer the research questions of this doctoral capstone project. As written in chapter two the evidence shows there is a need for behavioral management within school settings. Using the historical value of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) explained in the literature review, the perception of the high school staff toward a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a high school setting was studied. High schools are studied very little within PBIS research; this is largely due to the setup of a high school, the age of the students, and the ideology/philosophy of the staff (Flannery et al., 2020; Macy & Wheeler, 2021). Chapter III explains that the utilization of a mix-methods approach and a convergent parallel design (QUAL + QUAN) of data collection is the anticipated way of completing this research. This chapter explains the tools utilized to obtain the data needed to answer the Doctoral Capstone Research questions. Those tools are the Staff Perceptions Behavior and Discipline or SPBD survey, which was developed by Dr. Laura Feuerborn at the University of Washington, Tacoma, and Dr. Ashli Tyre at Seattle University, and a semiformal interview, developed by the Researcher. An independent person, with doctoral research experience, delivered the semi-formal interview. Lastly, the setting was explained the participants of the research to give a well-rounded understanding of the research being conducted. Chapter II provided the research needed to connect the importance and the need to study the perceptions of teachers within a high school setting. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 80 Purpose Cornwall-Lebanon School District (CLSD) is located in the south-central part of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and encircles the city of Lebanon. The center of the district is located about 25 miles equidistant from Harrisburg to the west, Reading to the east, and Lancaster to the south. With a student population of approximately 4798, CLSD is the largest of six school districts in Lebanon County. The school district comprises a growing and diverse population. The racial diversity of students enrolled in the district is 82.28% White; 9.23% Hispanic or Latino of any race; 4.0% Black or African American; 2.04% Asian; .33% Pacific Islander; 2% Multi Racial; .01% Native American. Gender breakdown is 49.02% female, 50.98% male. Currently, 746 students receive special education services, or 15.55% of the student population. In the CLSD, 96.7% of the students speak English as their primary language; the remaining 3.3% represent English Language Learners. Free/Reduced lunch represents 35.4% of the student population as determined by free (31.3%) and reduced (4.1%) lunch participants. Cornwall-Lebanon School District is located in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch Country; local heritage includes people from many national origins. The district consists of 70 square miles inhabited by more than 31,000 residents. The school district is unique in Pennsylvania in that both the school district population and the number of residents is increasing in size because of the desirable living arrangements within the district. The school district encircles an urban (Lebanon City) center, which continues to affect demographics. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 81 Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) Cedar Crest High School (CCHS), along with the Educational Service Center (Administration Building), and Cedar Crest Middle School, are located almost right in the middle of the school district. CCHS consists of 9th through 12th grades, has approximately 1,548 students, that is made up of 52.4% male students and 47.6% female students. CCHS’s demographics regarding Race/Ethnicity are 75.1% White, 16.2% Hispanic, 3.6% Black, 3.1% two(2) or More Races, 2.0% Asian, and 0.1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The school has 36.0% of the students identified as economically disadvantaged, 13.0% of the students are identified as special education, 3.3% of the students are connected to the military, 2.1% of the students are English language learners, 0.8% of students are identified as homeless, and 0.3% of students are listed within a foster care. Setting and Participants Cedar Crest High School’s professional staff was the subject of this doctoral capstone project. The Researcher submitted a plan to utilize the staff of CCHS to the Internal Review Board (IRB) of California University of Pennsylvania; this plan was accepted and approved for research on June 31, 2021 (Appendix A). Additionally, the Researcher submitted a plan and petitioned CLSD’s Superintendent to ensure the research could be completed within CCHS. Cornwall-Lebanon School District’s Superintendent, Dr. Philip L. Domencic on July 22, 2021 (Appendix B), approved the submitted plan, which indicated the Research would survey the Professional Staff and conduct semi-formal interviews with members of CCHS’s professional staff. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 82 Cedar Crest High School has a wide range of experience within the professional staff. The range of years are one (1) to over 20 years of experience. There are two (2) staff members retiring at the end of the 2021-2022 school year; this is significant because this is the school year in which this doctoral capstone project was completed. Having the ability to obtain their input, even on a confidential basis per the Staff Consent Form, still allowed institutional knowledge to be added into this study. Figure 8 gives a breakdown of the professional staff: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 83 Figure 8 Breakdown of Cedar Crest High School’s Professional Staff Professional Staff Gender Male Female Total Gender of Professional Staff Members Positions Superintendent Director of Secondary Education Director of Pupil Services Director of Technology High School Principal High School Assistant Principals High School Athletic Director Teachers High School Counselors School Psychologist Social Worker High School Nurses Special Education Liaison Teacher Assistants Administrative Assistances (HS) Community Relations Coordinator Athletic Trainer Administrative Assistant (Superintendent) Administrative Assistant (Director of Secondary Education) Permanent Substitutes School Resource Officers Technology Assistants Maintenance Total Professional Staff Positions in CCHS Number of Staff n Percentage 72 88 160 45 55 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 108 5 1 1 2 1 8 9 1 1 1 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625 1.875 0.625 67.5 3.125 0.625 0.625 1.25 0.625 5 5.625 0.625 0.625 0.625 1 0.625 2 2 7 1 160 1.25 1.25 4.375 0.625 % Total Number of Participants N N = 160 Note: N=160. This figure represents the number of participants per their gender and the position held within the Professional Staff of CCHS. It also breaks down the staff percentages per each position, this showing the largest group of staff members by percentage. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 84 Per Figure 8, the largest group within the professional staff group are the teachers. Figure 9 explains the total number of teachers (N=108) and how they are broken down within each department of CCHS. This information is not broken down into class taught as that information did not pertain to this doctoral capstone project. Also, Figure 9 creates an understanding of how CCHS’s teachers are broken down by department. Figure 9 Breakdown of Teachers within their Department Department Art Business Cyber (C3) English Family Consumer Science History Librarian Mathematics Music Physical Education Science Special Education Technology Education World Languages Total Teachers within each department Number of Teachers n 3 5 1 12 4 12 1 12 3 6 13 21 9 6 108 Percentage Total Number of Teachers of Teachers within each department % N 2.77 4.63 0.93 11.11 3.70 11.11 0.93 11.11 2.77 5.56 12.04 19.44 8.33 5.56 N = 108 Note: N=108. This figure represents the number of teachers within each of the departments at Cedar Crest High School. Additionally, this gives a good representation as to how many teachers are within each department. The literature review explained the importance of staff buy-in towards a PBIS framework. Breaking down the largest portion of the staff gives an indication of which TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 85 department places the greatest importance on a PBIS framework. Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 1) states the following: Shifting from a traditional model of discipline to SWPBS requires a substantial change in the practices of staff, and obtaining full staff support and commitment to SWPBS can be a challenging endeavor. In the past decade, several studies have underscored the importance of staff support in all stages of implementation. In their interviews of team representatives from high and low implementing schools, Kincaid, Childes, Blasé, and Wallace (2007), as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015, found that lack of staff support was the most frequently identified barrier to achieving full implementation. Team leaders reported that misunderstanding, philosophical beliefs incongruent to SWPBS, and limited knowledge of behavior principles were all factors influencing the implementation of SWPBS in their schools. In a follow-up study, SWPBS facilitators identified major barriers of implementation at the universal level including teacher skepticism that SWPBS was needed, a belief that SWPBS was ineffective, and philosophical difference with the core elements of SWPBS, such as equating external positive reinforcement with bribery and overreliance on punishment (Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri, 2008 as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015). The importance of understanding the largest portion of the professional staff deeply roots the understanding of the research questions for this particular capstone project. CCHS PBIS Framework Cedar Crest High School (CCHS) implemented a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) framework named Wings of Praise (WofP) during the 2018-2019 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 86 school year. Wings of Praise was implemented with no formal professional development for the staff. This framework has now been implemented into two additional schools within the district, the Cedar Crest Middle School and South Lebanon Elementary School with subtle age appropriate adjustments. All of these schools are within the CLSD. The problem the Researcher would like to investigated was to evaluate the perceptions of high school teacher towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework, how this perception impacts WofP either in a positive or negative way, and how to increase the support of the teachers towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework at a high school level. Teacher support within the PBIS framework is constituted as completing a recognition slip, either in paper form or via an online form, and praising the student for meeting a level of expectation within the high school setting. Tier 1 systems, data, and practices impact everyone across all settings. They establish the foundation for delivering regular, proactive support and preventing unwanted behavior (Center on PBIS, 2021). Research Need The need to research this topic relies on the implications it could have within Cedar Crest High School (CCHS). An Assistant Principal spends a great deal of time managing student behaviors using negative reinforcement. In the last four years, the Researcher has managed the discipline with the inclusion of a PBIS framework theory. Assumptions can be made regarding discipline being proactive, and not reactive by all staff members within a high school setting. As part of this study, the Researcher wanted to consider if student misconduct is affected because of teacher perception regarding a PBIS Tier 1 framework. Thus, ideally, as discipline is affected, the school can then focus more on curriculum, teacher development, and increasing opportunities for students all TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 87 around. PBIS has been demonstrated to effectively promote positive school climates to enhance social behavior outcomes while contributing to academic success (Hall et al., 2016). Wings of Praise was implemented in the 2018-2019 school year. Wings of Praise is a Tier 1 PBIS framework used locally in CLSD and at CCHS. The foundation of WofP is to engage all students who are meeting the expectations of the building; this is congruent with CCHS’s PRIDE matrix, and provide recognition for their efforts. PRIDE is an acronym, which stands for P – Personal Responsibility, R – Respect, I – Integrity, D – Dedication, and E – Excellence. Having local knowledge, there is a need in researching the following aspects of PBIS within a high school setting: the perception of the teacher utilizing the PBIS framework, how WofP slips are used, and the understanding of the staff’s perception and evaluation of this PBIS framework. By converging two data points and triangulating the data, the Researcher created an action plan to help improve the overall framework of the Tier 1 PBIS framework within CCHS. This topic was locally developed and implemented by the Researcher for the past four years. The idea behind a Tier 1 PBIS framework was to increase and recognize the positive behavior of all students within CCHS. Since WofP was instituted within CCHS, there was minimal change, even a decrease of PBIS Tier 1 utilization. During the 20182019 school year, CCHS submitted 3073 WofP slips, in the 2019-2020 school year CCHS submitted 1442 WofP slips, up to the date of March 20, 2020. This date is significant because at that time schools moved to a virtual setting due to COVID 19. CCHS then went to an online Microsoft Forms to submit WofP slips; from April 2nd through June 6th an additional 408 slips were submitted, thus bringing the total for the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 88 2019-2020 school to 1850 slips. The 2020-2021 school year overall saw an even greater decrease of WofP submitted of 1412 slips. The 2021-2022 school year, which was not completed during the writing of this doctoral capstone project, has submitted 177 WofP slips at the beginning of the second semester, January 25, 2022. The 2021-2022 school year was on track to be the lowest amount of WofP slips given in the four (4) years of the Tier 1 PBIS framework being implemented at CCHS. The Researcher wanted to investigate why the decline of teacher participation occurred, and what obstacles or barriers existed that resulted in non-buy-in or disengagement? Action Research The Researcher utilized an action research with a mixed methods approach and a convergent parallel design (QUAL + QUAN) of data collection to complete this doctoral capstone research. The mixed methods approach was utilized to gain enough data both qualitatively and quantitatively for this research. Almalki (2016, pp. 289-290) states, Educational research can be described as “…critical enquiry aimed at informing educational judgements and decisions in order to improve action” (Bassey, 1999; cited in Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2010, p. 8 as cited in Almalki, 2016) which is conducted carefully and systematically (Picciano, 2004 as cited in Almalki, 2016). Educational research covers a wide spectrum of things from the administratin and structure of education, to issues of equality and social justice, the curriculum, assessment, special educational needs, creativity and the impact of education on the economy (Gardner, 2011 as cited in Almalki, 2016). The British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2013 as cited in Almalki, 2016), believes that educational research should support the development of education in TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 89 the future, as well as highlighting what works a the present time (endorsed by Whitty, 2006; Wallen & Fraenkel, 2011; James, 2012 as cited in Almalki, 2016), which concurs with the ideas of Newby (2013 as cited in Almalki, 2016) who believes that there are three reasons for engaging in educational research – to explore current and potential issues, to influence policy decisions, and to evaluate and progress classroom practices. The idea of completing mixed methods research within an educational setting to obtain data in the exploration of potential issues and how to build on classroom practices was the main reason for the Researcher. The Researcher utilized a qualitative plus quantitative mixed methods of research to have a broad perspective of high school staff members. Almalki (2016, p. 291) cited Burke Johnson et al. (2007, p. 123) explaining mixed method research in the following manner: …the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. Furthermore, utilizing this style of data collection and additionally adding in a convergence approach of analyzing the data, created opportunities for weaknesses, strengths, and the ability to offset biases within the research (Almalki, 2016). Triangulation mixed methods design explained by Creswell & Clark (2007 as cited in Almalki, 2016, p. 292) states: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 90 The triangulation design is one which seeks to gather complimentary yet distinctly different data on the same topic which can then be integrated for analysis and interpretation. The benefits are it makes intuitive sense to gather information from different sources, utilizing different methods, which work together as an efficient design. The challenges are it lies in the considerable effort and expertise that is required to draw everything together and the potential for further research and/or investigation being required as a result of discrepancies within the data sets. Trying to interpret the perception of high school staff members was another reason as to why a mixed methods convergent research style was used to quantify data points. Almalki (2016, p. 294) cited Creswell and Clark (2014, p. 12) stating: “We are social, behavioral, and human sciences researchers first, and divisions between quantitative and qualitative research only served to narrow the approaches and the opportunities for collaboration.” Almalki (2016) continues, it would seem churlish to deny the opportunities for researchers and society in general to have a greater understanding of the issues which face education today, irrespective of whether discoveries are made as a result of qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research. Qualitative and quantitative data was provided by utilizing the Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline (SPBD) survey to determine if there were any common threads through CCHS regarding a Tier 1 PBIS framework. The SPBD survey was sent to each of the CCHS’s Professional Staff which totaled 160. The breakdown of professional staff members is listed in Figure 8. The SPBD survey consent form (Appendix C) and the TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 91 SPBD survey (Appendix D) was first distributed to CCHS’s Professional Staff via email on December 10, 2021. Cedar Crest High School has an email list created for the school called ProStaffH;, this is the email list utilized to distribute the SPBD consent form and survey. Additionally, the survey was distributed to the CCHS’s Professional Staff via email, again on December 22, 2021, and January 26, 2022. The purpose of sending this document out multiple times was to try to increase the amount of responses for the optional survey. Within the additional emails sent, the Researcher stated if “you”, meaning the professional staff members, have taken this survey please disregard this email. In making this request, the Researcher was ensuring the same professional staff member was not completing the survey for a second time. This maintained the validity of the survey to just the number of Professional Staff Members who completed the survey only once. Ilieva et al. (2010), stated there is “a significant advantage of email survey because of the speed of data collection. Additionally, it is very low cost to the researcher and instant access to a wide audience, irrespective of their geographical location.” Ilieva et al. (2010, p. 372) states: A major concern in online surveys regarding the validity of the data collected on the web stems from the sampling frame (Ray et al., 2001 as cited in Ilieva et al., 2010), which is represented predominantly by a computer-literate population rather than ‘appropriate’ for the survey sample. A significant positive impact on the data quality was the easy contract and instant feedback from the email respondents. Having just received a message from a researcher requesting further information or clarification on some points, an instant replay from the respondent saves the effort of explaining the issue again and introducing the problem. The TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 92 same is valid vice versa when clarification and additional information is requested for the respondents. The Researcher additionally collected qualitative data obtained by administering a semi-formal interview to members of the professional staff. The Researcher’s purpose behind the semi-formal interview was to collect raw perception data from individual staff members regarding WofP. McIntosh and Morse (2015, p. 7) states there are advantages and disadvantages in using a semi-structured interview: Among the advantages are the following: (a) The presence of the interviewer gives structure to the interview situation. Communication is optimized because both verbal and non-verbal communication is possible. (b) The physical presence of the interviewer may allow him or her to discern any discomfort or unease on the part of the respondent and offer a break or emotional support, hence face-toface may be more ethical way to conduct the research. Disadvantages may include the following: (a) Participants feel inhibited when asked to respond to sensitive questions face-to-face – more socially desirable answers and conventional answers may be given than when a self-administered questionnaire is utilized. (b) Unwanted interviewer affect is maximized in this type of interview. (c) Conducting this type of interview is costly in terms of time and money. These advantages and particularly the disadvantages were reduced by having a thirdparty individual conduct the interviews. McIntosh and Morse (2015, pp. 9-10) state the following to corroborate the use of a semi-structured interview: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 93 Semi-structured interviews are the most common qualitative research method to be used in mixed-method designs – those that integrate qualitative and quantitative research (Bryman, 2006; Morse, 2012; Povee & Roberts, 2015 as cited in McIntosh and Morse, 2015). As well as, results of SSI research constitute descriptive summaries that are valuable primarily as end-products and, secondarily, as entry points for future study. The end-product is knowledge – either confirmation or correction of that which already exists or discovery of new knowledge. Results of SSI research may seem simple, that is, “mere” concrete description rather than abstract and theoretical. The semi-structured interview, provided additional qualitative data to converge with the SPBD survey. By converging these two sets of data, the Researcher triangulated the information to obtain similar and supporting conclusions. A third-party person conducted the semi-structured interviews, this was done to increase the validity of the interview. The third-party person, who conducted the interviews, has her doctorate, so she understands the confidentiality and procedures used within educational research. The initial set-up to select the professional staff members was created by the Researcher. The Researcher created a list of all 160 professional staff members at CCHS in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet from the ProStaffHS email list. Once the list of professional staff names and emails were listed, the Researcher gave each of the professional staff members a number. Figure 10 shows an example of the professional staff member list. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 94 Figure 10 Example List of Professional Staff, Email, and Number Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Professional Staff Name Staff Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Note: Figure 10 depicts an example of how the professional staff members name, email, and number were listed; in this figure, the Researcher removed the name for confidentiality purposes. To decrease biasness and increase validity in this process, the Researcher then sent via email the created Excel spreadsheet list (Figure 10) to a CLSD Technology Specialist to create a randomized list of numbers that correspond to each staff member. The technology specialist completed this task by utilizing a Microsoft Excel function, which allows someone to randomize information contained within a certain column of the Excel spreadsheet. That Microsoft Excel function is the following: =INDEX($Column Letter:$Column Letter, RANDBETWEEN(1,COUNTA($Column Letter:$Column Letter)),1). The CLSD technology specialist sent this updated list to the interviewer, thus allowing her to proceed with interviews. The list has never been shared with the Researcher, thus decreasing the biasness of the interviews. Figure 11 is an example of the created list the technology specialist sent to the interviewer. Additionally listed in Figure 11 are the procedures the Researcher created TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 95 for the Interviewer. As stated in Figure 11, the Researcher and the Interviewer created a set of procedures for the semi-structured interviews. Figure 11 Example of Randomized Selected Professional Staff Members and Semi-Formal Interview Procedures Note: Figure 11 depicts an example of the list given to the Interviewer from the CLSD Technology Specialist. This figure shows how the number assigned to the Professional Staff Member were randomly selected, these numbers correlate to a name and email on the original master list depicted in Figure 10. Additionally, the procedures for the semistructured interviews are listed on this figure. Utilizing the created Excel list (Figure 11) the interviewer connected with the professional staff member number 1, which in this example was professional staff member #86. Again, each staff member had a number, which correlated to the master list of professional staff (Figure 10). As the interviewer connected with professional staff member #86, the interviewer asked #86 if he or she wanted to volunteer for semi-formal TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 96 interview. If #86 volunteered for the semi-formal interview, the interviewer provided #86 with the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview Consent Form (Appendix E). The consent form explained the purpose and procedures of the interview; it also explained confidentiality was very important in this process. To continue with the confidentiality, #86 was asked to sign the consent form, which was then be put into an envelope by the interviewer with only the number on the outside of the envelope; again this created a layer of reduced biasness and confidentiality for the process. After the consent form was completed, the interviewer conducted the interview utilizing the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-Formal Interview Questions (Appendix F). If #86 did not consent to the interview, then there was no pressure put onto the professional staff member to be interviewed. The interviewer then moved onto the next staff member listed on the randomized list (Figure 11). The randomly selected staff member list had 25 listed staff members; the purpose of this was to ensure the interviewer had enough staff members to choose from if there were individuals who did not consent to the interview. If additional staff members needed to be added to the list, the CLSD Technology Specialist did so. The interviewer continued with this process until they had interviewed approximately 8-12 professional staff members. The number of interviews selected was 8 because that represented 5% of the 160 professional staff members, and 12 represents 7.5% of the 160 professional staff members. If the total number of semi-formal interviews was within the 5% to 7.5% this would give a substantiated amount of data, which represented the professional staff accordingly or contained enough saturation of staff members to ensure discovery of all unique opinions of the group (Cober & Adams, 2020). The consenting professional staff TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 97 members understood that each of the interviews was audio recorded for control and accuracy purposes. The audio recording allowed the Researcher to transcribe the interview, utilizing an online transcription program called Veed. Transcribing the interviews provided the Researcher the ability to find threads within the interview to triangulate the data back to the SPBD survey. SPBD Survey Validity After researching the survey tools available to obtain data regarding perception of high school staff members, the Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) Survey was exactly the tool needed for this research. “At the high school level, more than any other grade level, there is an expectation of positive student behavior” (Bohanon et al., 2009; Feuerborn and Chinn, 2012; Walker et al., 1996 as cited in Macy & Wheeler, 2021). Because of this expectation of positive student behavior, there has to be complete buy-in by the staff to ensure a PBIS framework is effective (Macy & Wheeler, 2021). The Researcher asked three research questions that all revolved around this concept of perception. Those research questions were as follows: Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 98 Research Question 3 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? As the Researcher evaluated the perception of the staff within CCHS, there was a need to quantify those perceptions. The SPBD survey did just this. The SPBD survey was co-developed by Dr. Laura Feuerborn and Dr. Ashli Tyre. As per the SPBD website (Feuerborn & Tyre, 2022), Dr. Laura Feuerborn is a Professor at the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT), and a Faculty Fellow in Social Emotional Learning, and a Nationally Certified School Psychologist, and Dr. Ashlie Tyre is a Professor and Director of the School Psychology at Seattle University. Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 1) state: Shifting from a traditional model of discipline to SWPBS requires a substantial change in the practices of staff, and obtaining full staff support and commitment to SWPBS can be challenging endeavor. In the past decade, several studies have underscored the importance of staff support in all stages of implementation. In their interviews of team representatives from high and low implementing schools, Kincaid, Childs, Blase, and Wallace (2007 as cited in Feuerborn et al. 2015) found that lack of staff support was the most frequently identified barrier to achieving full implementation. Team leaders reported that misunderstandings, philosophical beliefs incongruent to SWPS, and limited knowledge of behavioral principles were all factors influencing the implementation of SWPBS in their schools. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 99 Again, the main focus of this study was to understand the perception of the staff within CCHS. Additional studies completed show, the most pervasive barrier of proper implementation of SWPBS were teachers perceptions of the framework (Bambara, Nonnemacher, & Kern, 2009 as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015) There are multiple types of survey tools that focus solely on PBIS, such as the School-wide Evaluation Tool or SET. This tool assesses and evaluates how PBIS is utilized across an academic year. Additionally, Todd et al. (2012, p. 8) states in the SET manual: The SET was designed:  To determine the extent to which schools are already using Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions Support (SW-PBIS),  To determine if training and technical assistance efforts result in fidelity of implementation when using SW-PBIS, and  To determine if use of SW-PBIS procedures is related to valued change in the safety, social culture, and violent behavior in schools. The SET does not look at the perception of PBIS among the staff, it is a determination tool utilized when looking at how PBIS was and is being used within a school setting. Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 2) explanation of the SPBD survey justify why it was used for this capstone research: Researchers, teacher educators, administrators, behavior support coaches, and leadership team members may be better equipped to help staff shift to SWPBS if they were able to reach a deeper understanding of staff needs and their perceptions of behavior and discipline. The Staff Perceptions of Behavior and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 100 Discipline (SPBD) survey was developed to help teams assess staff beliefs about behavior and discipline and their perceptions of schoolwide expectations, school climate, systemic supports, and resources. The SPBD survey has been analyzed to ensure the development of the tool has been evaluated, the internal validity of the core items it represents is valid, and the analysis of relationships between the core items and key school and staff variables, including level of SWPBS implementation, school level, staff knowledge, support, and training are valid (Feuerborn et al., 2015). In 2015 Dr. Feuerborn, Dr. Tyre, and Dr. Joe King developed and evaluated the SPBD tool. This was completed in three phases: Phase 1, or SPBD Survey Development, was completed utilizing a literature review of SWPBS and the systems change literature bases. The search strategies were to identify relevant literature through PsycInfo and ERIC databases using the following terms: positive behavior supports, discipline reform, staff perceptions, school improvement, organizational change, system change, staff resistance, and implementation science (Feuerborn et al., 2015). Phase 2 used the reference lists of the articles within the search to obtain additional articles. Phase 3 examined books regarding SWPBS and systemic change. The last literature review they completed was, “to explore the “research,” “publications,” and “resources” links within SWPBS and systemic change websites” (Feuerborn et al., 2015). Utilizing their findings, Feuerborn et al., were able to create content validity regarding the SPBD survey by piloting it within an 11 school study group and 188 staff surveys (n = 188) completed. In addition, Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 4) state: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 101 Three administrators, six support personnel including SWPBS coaches and school psychologists, two university faculty with systemic change and SWPBS expertise, and six graduate students provided feedback on content of the survey by answering the following questions:  Do you feel this survey assesses the staff-related factors that can affect buy-in and implementation of SWPBS?  Are there items you would add or delete?  Do you feel this survey would help you plan and implement SWPBS in your school? Also, they were asked to provide feedback on the working:  Did you find any of the items confusing or difficult to understand?  If so, how might we improve the clarity or readability of the items? Items were revised in accordance to the feedback received. Also, three Likerttype scale items were added to address salient themes that emerged in responses to the open-ended items in the piloting phase. Specifically, because staff frequently commented on the need for students to be more responsible for their own behavior, for fellow staff members to implement SWPBS more consistently, and for administrators to get “tougher” on behavioral violations, items were added to the survey to assess these perceptions directly. Phase I of the developmental process showcased that the content of the SPBD is valid due to the literature review performed by the researchers and the piloting process they completed to ensure the SPBD content was viable for its purpose. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 102 Phase 2 addressed at the internal validity of the survey. “Exploratory factor analysis of the survey items was conducted after the survey was revised to determine how the survey items might best be grouped into subscales” (Feuerborn et al., 2015, p. 4). Figure 12 is a depiction of Feuerborn et al. (2015) Table 1 describes the participating schools, which were 36 schools from nine districts in Western Washington. All of these schools were implementing or preparing to implement SWPBS, after the majority of them (30 out of 36) had completed the SET. As the schools were completed the SET, the researchers asked if the schools would complete a survey on the understanding of staff perceptions related to behavior, discipline, and SWPBS. As stated in the note section of Figure 12, 1,210 SPBD survey responses were completed. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 103 Figure 12 Data Collected During Phase 2 of SPBD Exploratory Factor Analysis Feuerborn et al. (2015) states the following about the results they obtained from SPBD survey responses received: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 104 The core 24 items on the SPBD were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS Version 21. Prior to performing the PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Data with missing cases were excluded pairwise and 94% of cases had no missing data. Overall, the analysis revealed strong internal consistency for the SPBD, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .80. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) value was .83, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s (1954) Test of Sphericity exceeded statistical significance, which supported the factorability of the correlation matrix. PCA was performed utilizing an orthogonal varimax rotation and revealed the presence of five components with eigenvalues exceeding 1. Review of the five factors revealed a theoretical fit with the literature on SWPBS and systemic change. Therefore, it was decided to retain all five components for the final survey. (pp. 6-7) The UCLA Advanced Research Computing: Statistical Methods and Data Analytics (2021) states the following about the Cronbach’s alpha: The Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. It is considered to be a measure of scale reliability. A “high” value for alpha does not imply that the measure is unidimensional. If, in addition to measuring internal consistency, you wish to provide evidence that the scale in question is unidimensional, additional analyses can be performed. Exploratory factor analysis is one method of checking TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 105 dimensionality. Technically speaking, Cronbach’s alpha is not a statistical test – it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). (p. 1) Glen (2016) on Statistics How To, explains Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin in the following manner: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test is a measure of how suited your data is for Factor Analysis. The test measures sampling adequacy for each variable in the model and for the complete model. The statistic is a measure of the proportion of variance among variables that might be common variance. The lower the proportion, the more suited your data is to Factor Analysis. (p. 2) The five factors utilized as part of the SPBD survey are represented in Figure 13 along with their coefficient alphas. Figure 13 The Five Factors of the SPBD Survey Note: Factor I. Teaching and acknowledging expectations (.72), Factor II. Systems: Resources, supports and climate (.73), Factor III. Implementation integrity (.73), Factor IV. Philosophical views of behavior and discipline (.68), and Factor V. Systems: Cohesiveness and openness to change (.66). The coefficient alphas are slightly different for the research completed in 2015 because in 2019 Feuerborn et al. conducted additional research and modified the five factors. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 106 Phase 3 undertook the analyzation of relationships to key variables. “Multilevel modeling was used to explore the relationship of the SPBD to school and staff-level variables” (Feuerborn et al., 2015, p. 7). In Phase 3 Feuerborn et al. utilized only the schools that completed the SET. Out of the 36 schools that were targeted, 30 schools utilized the SET, which yielded 993 survey responses to analyze. The data analyzed considered the following variables: SWPBS implementation level (total SET score), school level, level of understanding of SWPBS, level of support for SWPBS, and hours of training, Feuerborn et al. models were fitted using STATA software (StataCorp, 2013 as cited in Feuerborn et al., 2015) (Feuerborn et al., 2015). The researchers used the Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Analysis, Figure 14 shows a depiction of Feuerborn et al. (2015) Table 4 which represents the HLM analysis of SPBD. Figure 14 HLM Analyses Data Collected in Phase 3 Relationship to Key Variables Feuerborn et al. (2015), interpretation of this data was explained as follows: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 107 Table 4 (Figure 14) summarizes the results of the three-level model and depicts estimate changes as the variables were added. Each added variable significantly improved the model fit. In Model 1, the SPBD was significantly related to the SET. Model 2 revealed a significant relationship between the SPBD and SET scores and school level. Participant variables related to SWPBS were added in Model 3, including level of understanding of SWPBS, level of support for SWPBS, and hours of SWPBS professional development. When these variables were added to the model, a significant relationship between the SPBD and the SET was no longer found. Instead, we found significant relationships among school level, knowledge or understanding of SWPBS, commitment or support of SWPBS, and hours of training. Whereas a direct relationship was found between the scores on the SPBD and staff support, hours of training, and level of understanding, an inverse relationship was found between SPBD and school level. As staff support for SWPBS, number of hours of training, and level of understanding increased, SPBD scores also increased. However, as level of school increased, SPBD scores decreased. This information explained there was concurrent validity of the SPBD and provided insight between staff perceptions of SWPBS and level of SWPBS implementation in the school, amount of training received, and understanding of SWPBS (Feuerborn et al., 2015). Feuerborn et al. (2015, p. 9) states: Results also revealed an inverse relationship between staff perceptions of SWPBS and the level of school; as school level increased staff scores on the SPBD TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 108 decreased, this indicates that staff in elementary schools may have more positive perceptions of SWPBS than staff in secondary schools. In highlighting the three phases used to develop and test the SPBD Survey, the Researcher was confident in both the internal validity and the concurrent validity of the SPBD survey. Having the validity regarding the survey increased the validity of the research within this capstone project. To add additional strength to the SPBD Survey, Dr. Feuerborn, Dr. Tyre, and Mladen Zecevic completed a factor validation on the survey in 2019. The two research questions that were posed in 2019 by Feuerborn et al. (2019) were: RQ1 – Is the existing SPBD factor structure confirmed with a broader sample, or is an alternative factor structure more psychometrically sound? RQ2 – What is the internal consistency of each factor of the SPBD? Feuerborn et al. (2019) state within their discussion: The current results statistically confirmed the internal consistency and overall factor structure in a manner consistent with the SPBD’s development. As compared with the sample used in previous research (i.e., Feuerborn et al., 2015), the current sample included data from more diverse geographical regions, more secondary schools (37 cf. 11), schools with higher proportion of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch, and contained more schools overall (147 cf. 36). Despite the differences in the two samples, the current findings are consistent with the findings of previous research. In light of the present findings, we refined the factor structure of the SPBD by moving one item from Factor V to Factor I, resulting in an improvement in both fit and factor loadings (as shown TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 109 and referenced in Figure 13). Besides a better statistical fit, the new structure provided a better theoretical fit because the degree to which staff believe behavior plans work well in their school is more conceptually relevant to Factor I (i.e., perceptions of the effectiveness of, and need for teaching and acknowledging expectations) than Factor V (i.e., perceptions of staff cohesion and openness to change). As compared with the previous findings (Feuerborn et al., 2015), the current findings not only supported the hypothesized structure of the instrument but also revealed similar to more robust internal consistency and convergent validity. Respectively, structure and internal consistency were supported by the acceptable fit index along with equivalent or higher Cronbach’s alphas. Convergent validity was indicated by significant factor loadings. (p. 36) Ultimately, the SPBD Survey helped establish contextual fit between CCHS’s PBIS framework WofP and recommendations which are discussed in Chapter 5 of the capstone project. Research Questions Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? Research Question 3 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 110 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? Data Collection Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? The Researcher collected both qualitative and quantitative data to analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher utilized surrounding this question were the SPBD survey and the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) semi-formal interview. The SPBD survey gave both quantitative data and qualitative data and the semi-formal interview provided additional qualitative data. These two data collection tools were conducted congruently over the course of three months (January, February, and March). Because the capstone project was a qualitative and quantitative convergent study, the Researcher converged the data points together to analyze the trends within each subset of data. In addition, the Researcher triangulated the information collaboratively to show how it related to the literature review. This process allowed the Researcher to analyze perceptions of teachers towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework. Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? The Researcher collected qualitative data to analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher utilized were the SPBD survey and the PBIS semi-formal interview. The SPBD survey included multiple choice questions, Likert scale questions (Totally agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, Somewhat TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 111 disagree, Disagree, Totally disagree), and open-ended questions regarding the perceptions of the staff towards the Tier 1 PBIS framework. The SPBD survey had 35 questions (8 multiple choice, 24 Likert scale, and 3 open-ended), which took the staff an average of 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. The Researcher coded the answers to try to find threads of commonality regarding staff perceptions either positive or negative. The semi-formal interview was completed by 5 professional staff member, who were randomly selected. The interview questions were transcribed and then coded to analyze any commonalities to the answers. The interview was composed of 7 questions with subset questions under question 3 (one subset), 4 (two subset), 5 (two subset), 6 (two subset), and 7 (one subset), and took approximately 6-12 minutes. Research Question 3 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? The Researcher collected qualitative and quantitative data to analyze this research question. The data points the Researcher utilized were the PBIS semi-formal interview questions, the SPBD survey, and the data obtained from the PBIS recognition slips. The Researcher applied the number of WofP given based on each professional staff member, which gave quantitative data pertaining to staff buy-in. The Researcher also evaluated at which PRIDE expectations the students met during the 2020-2021 school year. This data point provided quantitative data linked to the staff’s perception and student impact. The Researcher analyzed the data by converging the appearing threads within each tool, thus showcasing the staff perceptions of the PBIS framework. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 112 Data Analysis The data collected in the capstone project included both qualitative and quantitative data which was organized in a convergent parallel design. The Researcher analyzed both types of data separately. Utilizing both sets of data analysis at the same time, the Researcher was provided with additional opportunities evaluate the research questions further. The research questions focused on the perception of the staffs’ personal evaluation towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports framework within a high school setting. The Researcher coded the qualitative data from both the SPBD survey open-ended answers and the PBIS semi-formal interview responses to determine common themes in order to establish categories of interest to support both the correlation and summary to the research questions. The Researcher will then analyzed the quantitative data by comparing the number of PBIS recognition slips given out by teachers and the number of teachers that did not give out PBIS recognition cards. The Researcher broke down the statistics into the Mean, Median, and Mode to measure how those PBIS recognition slips were given out pertaining to the PRIDE expectations. The quantitative data provided the Mean, Medium, and Mode of each domain along with the respective specific questions within the survey. The domains and additional information of the SPBD survey were broken down as follows:  Domain 1 – Teaching and Acknowledging Expectations – 5 questions  Domain 2 – Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate – 5 questions  Domain 3 – Implementation Integrity – 3 questions TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 113  Domain 4 – Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline – 5 questions  Domain 5 – Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change – 4 questions Additionally, the SPBD survey measured strengths and needs, these were broken down as follows:  Knowledge and Training – 3 questions  Level of Support for SWPBS (PBIS) – 1 question  Communication – 1 question Lastly, there were three quantitative questions that were correlated. The data collected helped determine if the teachers’ perception of a Tier 1 PBIS framework in a high school setting, measured from the three research questions, had any correlation to the PBIS effectiveness. Data Utilization Quantitative data was utilized to determine if there was an increased or decreased amount of discipline and to identify the purpose for each individual WofP. The quantitative data distinguished between the positive or negative impact toward the students based off teacher perception of the Tier 1 PBIS framework. In addition, the quantitative data provided general data on whether teachers were participating in the PBIS framework. In the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years, CCHS only recorded which student received a WofP recognition slip, in the 2020-2021 school year, CCHS recorded both who received a WofP recognition slip and the reason as to why the student received the slip. Specifically, the 2020-2021 school year, data allowed the Researcher to do a comparative data analysis between the two data points: discipline and recognition TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 114 slips. Additionally, the 2020-2021 school year provided intel on the level of participation of teachers by analyzing who completed a PBIS recognition slip and who did not throughout the year. From this data, the Researcher developed an action plan that included, professional development, ways to increase recognitions, change to the existing PBIS framework, and the creation of a leadership team at all levels of instruction in the school district. The Researcher utilized the data to develop quality programing for Cedar Crest High School and the Cornwall-Lebanon School District. Validity There were two types of validity utilized in this capstone research project. The first was external validity. With the use of the SPBD survey, which showed internal and concurrent validity, the capstone research project had the ability to generalize the findings of the study to other professional staff members. The external validity corresponded to the use of the SPBD survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview, and the relationship to the literature review explaining how teacher buy-in creates a positive PBIS framework. Bhandari (2020, pp. 1-3), states: External validity is the extent to which you can generalize the findings of a study to other situations, people, settings and measures. In other words, can you apply the findings of your study to a broader context? The aim of scientific research is to produce generalizable knowledge about the real world. In qualitative studies, external validity is referred to as transferability. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 115 Bhandari explains different threats towards external validity within research. Figure 15 explains the different types of threats towards external validity within research (Bhandari, 2020). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 116 Figure 15 Threats to External Validity Relation to Doctoral Capstone Project Does the Doctoral Capstone Research meet the threat? The sample is a representation of the professional staff within CCHS. No No unrelated event happened to influence the outcomes. No Experimenter effect The characteristics or behaviors of the experimenter(s) unintentionally influence the outcomes. The Researcher distributed the SPBD survey via email, additionally; no personal information was collected to tie back to a professional staff member. The Researcher also, had a third party person create the randomized staff numbers and had a third party person complete the PBIS semi-formal interviews. No Hawthorne effect The tendency for participants to change their behavior simply because they know they are being studied. The Researcher has reduced the amount of biasness for this capstone project by the methods used to collect the data. No Testing effect The administration of a pre- or post-test affects the outcomes No pre- or post-tests were used within this capstone project. No Aptitudetreatment Interactions between characteristics of the group and individual variables together influence the dependent variable. There is no potential risk, but there might be a feeling of uncomfortableness, as some individuals do not like to give negative feedback or information toward the capstone project topic. No Situation effect Factors like the setting, time of day, location, researchers' characteristics, etc. limit generalizability of the findings. The SPBD survey was distributed via email, which allowed the professional staff member to take it on their time. The PBIS semiformal interview was an agreed upon time between the interviewer and the interviewee. No Threat Sampling bias History Meaning The sample is not representative of the population. An unrelated event influences the outcomes. Note: Threat and Meaning were obtained from Bhandari (2020), Relation to Doctoral Capstone Project and “Does the Doctoral Capstone research meet the threat?” are an analysis of each aspect of Threat and Meaning. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 117 Bhandari (2020, p. 29) states there are several ways to counter threats to external validity:  Replications counter almost all threats by enhancing generalizability to other settings, populations and conditions.  Field experiments counter testing and situation effects by using natural contexts.  Probability sampling counters selection bias by making sure everyone in a population has an equal chance of being selected for a study sample.  Recalibration or reprocessing also counters selection bias using algorithms to correct weighting of factors within study samples. Figure 15, explains how each threat can be countered and how the external validity is high within the research. The second type of validity is Population validity. Bhandar (2020, pp. 5-6) explains population validity in the following manner: Population validity refers to whether you can reasonably generalize the findings from your sample to a larger group of people (the population). Population validity depends on the choice of population and on the extent to which the study sample mirrors that population. Population validity existed within this capstone research, because it can be replicated within other high schools with similar sample populations. Additionally, CCHS’s professional staff members supported a high population validity because of the vast differentiation of characteristics within the sample population (Bhandari, 2020). These characteristics included: different sexes, different ages, different years of experience, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 118 ethnicity, and how many years they taught either at CCHS or within education. Along with high population validity, the sampling method used to select professional staff members for the PBIS semi-formal interview created opportunities for strong inferences regarding the data. McCombes (2019, para. 14-26) explains probability sampling methods in the following manner: Probability sampling means that every member of the population has a chance of being selected. It is mainly used in quantitative research. If you want to produce results that are representative of the whole population, probability sampling techniques are the most valid choice. There are four main types of probability sample. 1. Simple random sampling – every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The sampling frame should include the whole population. To conduct this type of sampling, tools like random number generators or other techniques that are based entirely on chance can be used. 2. Systematic sampling – is similar to simple random sampling, but it is usually slightly easier to conduct. Every member of the population is listed with a number, but instead of randomly generating numbers, individuals are chosen at regular intervals. 3. Stratified sampling – involves dividing the population into subpopulations that may differ in important ways. 4. Cluster sampling – also involves dividing the population into subgroups, but each subgroup should have similar characteristics to the who sample. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 119 Simple random sampling was utilized for this capstone project to select the professional staff members for the PBIS semi-formal interview. This provided opportunities for the Researcher to sample from all of the professional staff members and not just a selected few. Summary Chapter III has linked the research within the Literature Review to the processes used in data collection and analysis that supported the answering of the three research questions posed within this doctoral capstone project. Chapter IV will enhance the data collected by the qualitative/quantitative mixed method action research. This chapter has explained the purpose of the study, the need for the study, the action research that has been completed, the surveys and semi-formal interviews utilized, how the data was collected, and the validity behind the research. The in-depth explanation regarding the SPBD survey was needed to ensure the Researcher had the validity to utilize the survey to collect the perceptive data needed to answer each of the research questions. Furthermore, the data collected from the semi-formal interview gave additional support to the research questions. Based on the research, it is important to have total buy-in to ensure a PBIS Tier 1 framework will work within a building. The SPBD survey and the semi-formal interview provided this information from the staff to be analyzed and gain a deeper knowledge of what is needed moving forward with Wings of Praise within CCHS. Analyzing this data on a convergent parallel process provided sufficient information to have a positive impact on the current PBIS Tier 1 framework already in place within the high school. Additionally, this allowed the Researcher to address the financial applications of this TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 120 capstone project within Chapter V. The ultimate goal of this project was to understand the perceptions of the staff toward PBIS within the high school and to effectively continue to build a workable Tier 1 framework, in order to ultimately ensure a positive school climate and culture. Chapter IV gives a detailed analysis and interpretation of the results of the SPBD survey and the common threads because the SPBD open-ended questions and the semi-formal interviews. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 121 CHAPTER IV Data Analysis and Results Overview The information in Chapter IV represents the analysis and synthesis of the data collected from two different evaluation tools that allowed the Researcher to extrapolate the perceptions of the staff at Cedar Crest High School regarding Wings of Praise (WofP), a Tier 1 PBIS framework. The two evaluation tools included the Staff Perception Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) survey and a semi-formal interview, which were chosen to meet the needs of the research questions. Perception of Wings of Praise is a priority within CCHS to ensure the school is building on the climate and culture of the building. Additionally, the Researcher was interested in if this PBIS framework made an impact in the high school. Creating opportunities to positively reinforce expected behaviors has become challenging due to Covid-19 and the methods students are assimilating back into the traditional school day. An analysis of the data has provided an opportunity for the Researcher to understand the perceptions of the staff and utilize the data to drive improvements to the climate and culture within Cedar Crest High School (CCHS). Each research question was designed to support a critical evaluation of the culture and climate in the building and ultimately the connections teachers make with their students within CCHS. The idea of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, such as WofP was generated not only to provide opportunities to build on that climate and culture, but also to promote opportunities to make connections with the students. This process was completed by acknowledging students could exhibit optimal positive behaviors and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 122 recognizing the students’ efforts of meeting expectations. The focus of this study was determining the perceptions of high school teachers towards PBIS, the impact of those perceptions on student recognitions, and the teacher’s level of buy-in to this framework. The analysis of the data provided the perceptions of the teachers within CCHS, and gave a starting point for how to continue and build Wings of Praise in a positive fashion. Research Questions Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? Research Question 3 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? Each research question (RQ) was specifically represented and linked to the SPBD survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview, and to the WofP data. Utilizing the data collected, the Researcher was able to triangulate those results to provide a complete interpretation of the findings. Data Analysis Qualitative data was collected through the use of a survey and interview, as well as quantitative data, was collected from professional staff who are currently employed at CCHS. A detailed list of the professional staff was provided in Chapter 3, Figure 8. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 123 Figure 8 summarized the largest group within the professional staff are the teachers. A list of departments for the teachers and the number of teachers in each department were listed within Figure 9. Exploratory data analysis (EDA) was utilized to analyze the data collected within this capstone research project. Komorowski et al. (2016, p. 185) state the following about EDA: EDA is a fundamental early step after data collection and pre-processing where the data is simply visualized, plotted, manipulated, without any assumptions, in order to help assessing the quality of the data and building models. “Most EDA techniques are graphical in nature with a few quantitative techniques. The reason for the heavy reliance on graphics is that by its very nature the main role of EDA is to explore, and graphics gives the analysts unparalleled power to do so, while being ready to gain insight into the data. There are many ways to categorize the many EDA techniques (Kaski, 1997 as cited in Komorowski et al., 2016).” According to Howard Seltman of Carnegie Mellon University (2012 as cited in Komorowski et al., 2016), “loosely speaking, any method of looking at data that does not include formal statistical modeling and inference falls under the term exploratory data analysis”. EDA was chosen for this capstone research project because the data collected mainly consisted of perception data and in analyzing this data, it produced many visuals representing the perceptions and viewpoints of the participants. Additional to EDA, student discipline was evaluated from each of the school years from 2014-2022 to see if there was a positive or negative regression that correlated to the number of WofP slips handed out. Again, discipline information was extrapolated TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 124 from CCHS’s student information system, Skyward, and correlated to the number of WofP slips handed out during each of the years in which WofP was implemented within CCHS. This data provided information about the climate and culture of the school. Lastly, WofP information was detailed, explaining how many slips were handed out to each grade and how those slips correlated to PRIDE. PRIDE is the core values of CCHS and provides the expectations for the building. PRIDE represents Personal Responsibility, Respect, Integrity, Dedication, and Excellence; these core values determine the expectations for each aspect of CCHS, from the classroom, to the buses, to even the cafeteria. Analyzing this data showcased what core values the students met. The final step of analyzing the data presented was triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative data. Results SPBD Survey Results The SPBD survey was sent to 159 professional staff members at the high school, 68 staff members consented to completing the survey. Feuerborn & Tyre (2022, para. 1) state the SPBD survey is the following: The SPDB is an anonymous, online survey completed by certified and classified staff who work directly with students. The SPBD helps schools understand staff beliefs about behavior and discipline, including their beliefs about schoolwide expectations, school climate, and supports and resources. Understanding staff perceptions enables schools to better support staff while planning and implementing schoolwide positive behavior supports (SWPBS). TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 125 There were three (3) areas SPBD measures. The first was staff support for implementing SWPBS and it assessed staff perceptions and beliefs in five domains: Domain 1: Teaching & Acknowledging Expectations Domain 2: Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate Domain 3: Implementation Integrity Domain 4: Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline Domain 5: Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change. The second area of measurement were the four areas that are critical to the successful implementation of SWPBS, which include knowledge, training, support or buy-in, and communication. The last area of measurement were open-ended questions, giving the staff a voice to allow for concerns, strengths, and needs for the school. These three areas of measurement were completed by the use of a Likert scale survey, and within this survey Feuerborn, Tyre, and Beaudoin break down the data and indicated whether there were facilitators or barriers within the data. Facilitators identified a strength to be highlighted and used as building blocks, and barriers that impede a successful implementation and require further investigation. Total participation for the SPBD survey was 68 respondents (n=68) or 42.8% of the professional staff; this was recorded by the first identifier question which is represented by Figure 16. The largest group that participated in the survey were teachers at 77.9%. Certified support (e.g., counselor, school psychologist) were second with 8.8%. Classified staff (e.g., office staff, kitchen staff) were next with 7.4%. Lastly, administrators and other (nurse) rounded out the last two groups at 4.4% and 1.5% respectively. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 126 Figure 16 SPBD Total Participants Note: N=68 total participants to complete the survey. The next set of data represented the strengths and needs represented within the SPBD survey. Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 12) explains the strengths and needs in the following representation: An inventory of current practices can highlight areas of existing capacity and areas in need of improvement. Identifying staff strengths and practices that are currently working well respects the knowledge and activities of staff. Also, it can reduce the amount of change necessary to reach and sustain implementation. Question 23, Figure 17, identifies the level of understanding the staff within CCHS had toward PBIS. The chart is broken down into Certificated and Classified staff members; combined 72.1% of the staff had a “Basic; I could implement” understanding of PBIS, 16.2% stated they had a “High; I could teach others”, and 11.8% had “Limited; I would need to learn more” capacity. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 127 Figure 17 Question 23 – Level of Understanding Question 24, Figure 18, represents the amount of professional development (PD), in hours, the staff had in the area of PBIS. Between certified and classified staff members 51.5% indicated they had zero (0) hours of PD. Breaking this down between the two groups certified staff members stated 48.4% had zero (0) PD and 83.3% classified had zero (0) PD on PBIS. The data showed the second highest total is 2-3 hours of PD for certified staff members at 25.8% and then one hour at 16.1% for certified and 16.7% for classified. The data revealed there is a need for PD regarding PBIS. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 128 Figure 18 Question 24 – Hours of Professional Development Question 25, Figure 19, explains how if a staff member had PD in PBIS, was the information received helpful; 37.1% of certified staff members stated yes, with 16.7% of classified staff members stating the same. Twenty one percent (21.0%) of certified staff members stated no, which questions the level of buy-in for that group of certified staff members. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 129 Figure 19 Question 25 – PD Helpfulness The next few data points correlate to staff support. “Staff support for implementing PBIS, or staff buy-in, is associated with their actual level of implementation. In the literature, it is generally acknowledged that successful implementation requires 80% or more of staff to support, and show a commitment to implementation” (Feuerborn et al., 2022, p. 14). Question 26, Figure 20, indicates current levels of support or commitment by the CCHS staff. Analyzing the data, 88.2% of the staff either strongly agreed, agreed, or disagreed but will not resist this effort. This measurement met what the literature stated a school should have for support of a PBIS framework. Understanding there is support for the PBIS framework within CCHS is critical, but 8.1% of the certified staff members strongly disagreed with this effort. Additionally, 9.7% of the certified staff members disagreed with this effort but will not resist it, that is 17.8% of the certified staff members do not buy-in to the PBIS framework at CCHS. Commitment is a strength of PBIS; thus, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 130 this analysis shows room for growth and additional information needed to follow up on how to increase that buy-in by all staff members at CCHS. Figure 20 Question 26 – Level of Support or Commitment The last data point within strengths and needs is communication. “Clear and timely communication to all staff is necessary for successful implementation of PBIS. When concerns about communication are voiced by staff, investigating those barriers to clear lines of communications is needed” (Feuerborn et al., 2022, p. 16). Question 27, Figure 21, explains the rate of communication within CCHS. The data states 48.5% of all staff felt communication within CCHS was adequate, 27.9% felt that it needed improvement, and 22.1% stated that it was good. Of the certified staff members, 50.0% felt CCHS has adequate communication, which indicated they tend to be aware of changes before they occur. A concerning data point was the classified staff members who perceived the communication within CCHS as poor or they are unaware of TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 131 changes that affect staff and students. This is a concern because communication is key for all aspects of CCHS, so this data point needs further investigation. Figure 21 Question 27 – Communication Research Question One: What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified six Likert-style questions from the SPBD survey (2, 3, 4, 7, 18, and 21), which correlated to RQ1. These questions identified the perception of the high school staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework. All professional staff who completed the survey (N=68) completed each of the questions associated with RQ1. SPBD survey questions two, three, and four pertain to Domain 1 of the SPBD survey. Domain 1, Teaching and Acknowledging Expectations, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 2): Assesses staff beliefs about the effectiveness of and need for PBIS. When staff feel PBIS is needed and effective, they are more apt to support implementation. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 132 However, it may not be sufficient for PBIS to be perceived as effective when implemented in other schools. Staff must also perceive PBIS as compatible with the staff and students in their school. SPBD survey question two asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “schoolwide behavior supports may work in other schools, but I doubt it will work in ours.” The certificated staff agreed with this question only 1.6%, and disagreed 98.4%. The classified staff did not agree with this statement, 0.0%, and disagreed 100.0%. The total between the two groups was 1.5% agreed, and 98.5% disagreed. SPBD survey question three asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “we should not have to teach students how to behave in school.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 16.7%, and disagreed 83.3%. The total between the two groups was 17.6% agreed, and 82.4% disagreed with this question. This question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block. SPBD survey question four asked the staff, if they agreed or disagreed with, “I resent being asked to do one more thing”, corresponding to the implementation of WofP. The certificated staff agreed with this question 11.3%, and disagreed 88.7%. The classified staff did not agree with this question, and they disagreed 100.0%. The total between the two groups was 10.3% agreed, and 89.7% disagreed with this question. SPBD survey question seven pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD survey. Domain 2, Systemic Resources, Supports and Climate, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 4): TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 133 Assesses staff beliefs about administrative leadership, school climate, and resources to support and sustain PBIS. It is important to secure supports and resources such as materials, space, technology, time, and training for the staff. It is also important that staff are aware these supports and resources exist and know they will be provided to them long-term. SPBD survey question seven asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I have trust in my administrator’s ability to lead us through change.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 72.6%, and disagreed 27.4%. The classified staff agreed with this question 83.3%, and disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 73.5% agreed, and 26.5% disagreed with this question. SPBD survey question 18 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD survey. Domain 4, Philosophical Views of Behavior and Discipline, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 7): Assesses staff beliefs about student behavior and discipline. Misperceptions, misunderstandings, and outright disagreement with the philosophy of PBIS can create difficult barriers to the implementation of PBIS. Often, resistance is due to misinformation and misunderstandings about PBIS. These may be remedied through targeted professional development and open discussions. SPBD survey question 18 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “If students are not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept any discipline at school.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 33.9%, and disagreed 66.1%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 33.8% agreed, and 66.2% disagreed with this question. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 134 SPBD survey question 21 pertained to Domain 5 of the SPBD survey. Domain 5, Systemic Cohesiveness and Openness to Change, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 9): Assesses staff perceptions of the ability and willingness of the whole staff to work together to change for the greater good of the school community. PBIS requires collaboration; therefore, a climate of mutual support, cohesiveness, and professional trust is essential to achieving sustained implementation. SPBD survey question 21 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “My colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 50.0%, and disagreed 50.0%. The total between the two groups was 20.6% agreed, and 79.4% disagreed with this question. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation. Lastly, Figure 22 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ1. This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ1 in the SPBD survey. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS Figure 22 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 1 135 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 136 SPBD Open-ended Responses. The SPBD survey had three open-ended questions which provided the 68 professional staff members the opportunity to elaborate on their perception of CCHS’s PBIS framework WofP. RQ1 correlated to open-ended question 29 and 100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which asked the staff what was needed to make WofP better? Within each of the open-ended questions, three themes or trends emerged in the staff’s responses. The three themes were buy-in from all staff members, administrative support, and the ability of PBIS implementation based on the high school level. Multiple staff members addressed the first theme of buy-in from all staff members. Staff member #1 wrote, “Whole team approach”, staff member #29 stated, “A set of school-wide rules and consequences that all teachers agree upon and enforce. Higher expectations for student behavior and not rewarding the very basics of decency.” Additionally, staff member #33 stated, “Staff buy-in for both rewards and punishments. More importantly, understanding that what works for some teachers in their classrooms might not work for others. One size fits all rules and regulations seem to end up dividing more than uniting.” Staff member #37 added to this concept, “I think everyone on the faculty has to be on the same page. We are not. Hats are not allowed in the school; however, kids wear them in the hallway, in the lunchroom, and in certain classrooms. If hats aren’t allowed, then no one should allow them.” Lastly, on the theme of buy-in, staff member #41 wrote, “More support from all teachers, it has to be an all or nothing.” Adding to that idea staff member #65 stated, “I believe that consistency is needed to make it better. Also, both students and teachers need to know the “why” to really buy-in and commit to PBIS.” TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 137 The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline, ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework, and school wide behavior. Staff member #26 stated, “Clearer expectations and follow-through with consequences on the administrative end. Discipline consequences cannot always fall back on the teacher’s plate.” Staff member #30 added, “Things will get better when there is consistency from the top down, meaning administrators must set the rules and expectations, stick with them, and work with the teachers to implement them. Administrators need to support teachers and vice versa all the time. Classroom rules must be consistent throughout the building, and currently they are far from it. Staff should feel safe and supported at all times, otherwise, these negative feelings trickle into the classrooms.” Staff member #36 wrote, “Clear expectations and clear plan that is communicated to everyone. Monitoring of implementation to ensure fidelity.” Staff member #50 continued with this idea by adding, “More public praise, a tighter rein on enforcing the rules, and increased administrative presence.” Lastly, staff member 60 concluded by stating, “More support from the teachers and students.” The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question was the grade level (HS) in which WofP framework was implemented. With different philosophies regarding discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level can be complex in implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #55 emphasized this point by stating, “Caring and compassionate teachers who are more interested in working with students and families, rather than just controlling them.” Two staff members supported this theme by, staff member #56 stating, “Revamping of classroom teaching techniques.” and staff TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 138 member #64 stating, “Creating better rapports and relationships with students who are consistently involved in disciplinary actions.” Interview Responses. The PBIS semi-formal interview was again utilized to give a voice to the staff members and to obtain an introspective view to WofP specifically within CCHS. As stated in Chapter 3, a third party individual conducted these interviews. They used a process of identifying and obtaining consent from professional staff members. During a two month time period, five (5) professional staff members consented to the PBIS semi-formal interview. Different reasons such as, “I’m not comfortable with doing an interview”, or “I’m not interested” were the reasons as to why only five (5) professional staff members completed the interview. Even though, only five (5) professional staff members consented, the Researcher was confident there was enough saturation to meet the expectations of this action research capstone project and still maintain validity. The Researcher identified two interview questions (3, and 5) that correlated to RQ1. PBIS semi-formal interview question three asked the professional staff member, which will be denoted by a number, did he or she have an understanding of PBIS? Staff member #34 stated: My understanding is enough to implement some things and enough to ask some questions. I don’t know that I would be capable of teaching a professional development or something like that at that level, but I’ve read some about it and I’ve been able to try different things over the course of my career. Some that have worked out very well. Others have been kind of hit or miss. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 139 Staff member #29 stated, “It’s a reward system for students who show exemplary behavior or go above and beyond to do well in the eyes of the teacher, and the teacher offers positive reinforcement through the use of some reward.” Staff member #48 added by stating, “I understand that this is a behavior modification program to encourage students to behave in a positive way, to reward people for the things that they’re doing that are behaviors we want to see in the school.” Staff member #92 had this interpretation, “So, It is pretty much what it sounds like. It’s a way to reinforce positive behaviors, recognize them and try to improve school culture.” Lastly, staff member #137 had a small knowledge of PBIS. Staff member #137 stated, “Basically, helping students with positive behavior, you know, giving them some kind of reward. I believe to help with that behavior. PBIS semi-formal interview question five asked the professional staff members, from their perspective, if they thought Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was effective at the high school level. Staff member #34 stated: I think it can be effective. I think for the population of students that I teach primarily, which are honors level and AP level students, the feedback that I have gotten from them when trying to implement this in my classroom and what I see in the hallway is that it’s embarrassing. They do not like it, and I’ve tried to continue to implement it as to be a team member of the Falcon community and to try and talk them through why it’s to be seen as positive. But frankly, some of them, when I’ve given them Wings of Praise, have thrown them directly in the garbage. Or I think they see it as embarrassing because that’s generally the population of students who all they want is a thank you or they don’t even want TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 140 the thank you. They feel that they should do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do without a reward of some sort. Staff member #29 stated, “It's good enough right now. We should keep doing it and try to make it more streamlined, more efficient, and less time consuming. Make it easy for students to understand that we respect and appreciate their efforts, to motivate and inspire students.” Staff member #48 stated: Everyone likes to be recognized for a job well done. So in terms of is there a way to effectively recognize students, sure I think it does meet that. But the implementation at this point is so sporadic, I think from so many of us that it’s probably not as effective as it could be. I know sometimes I struggle with just the time I think about wanting to do it, but then it’s a time issue for me. And the kids that you want to praise are the ones that are probably already getting praised in a lot of classes. I don’t want to praise someone if they just do one random good thing, but then the rest of the week it’s all negative behavior to me. It needs to be more of an ongoing thing. Staff member #92 added, “It doesn’t seem particularly effective to me.” Lastly, staff member #137 stated, “I don’t think it’s as effective as it could be. Again, I think it’s kind of geared towards now doing what is expected.” Research Question Two: What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified seven Liker-style questions from the SPBD survey (5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16), which correlated to RQ2. These questions identified the impact a teacher’s perception has on student recognition in a Tier TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 141 1 PBIS framework within a high school level. All professional staff who completed the survey (N=68) completed each of the questions associated with RQ2. SPBD survey question five pertained to Domain 1 of the SPBD survey, and it asked staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I feel that rewarding students is the same as bribing them.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 14.5%, and disagreed 85.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 0.0%, and disagreed 100.0%. The total between the two groups was 13.2% agreed, and 89.7% disagreed. SPBD survey question 10 pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD survey, and it asked staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Schoolwide behavior support is likely to be yet another fad that comes and goes in this school.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 14.5%, and disagreed 85.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 16.2% agreed, and 83.8% disagreed. This question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block. SPBD survey questions 12, and 13 pertained to Domain 3 of the SPBD survey. Domain 3, Implementation Integrity, as stated by Feuerborn et al. (2022, p. 6), “Ask staff to report the extent to which they currently implement the schoolwide disciplinary plan. A position to note is that people tend to over-report their own levels of implementations.” SPBD survey question 12 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Currently, I acknowledge/reward students for meeting the agreed upon schoolwide behavior expectations.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 45.2%, and disagreed 54.8%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two groups was 47.1% agreed, and 52.9% disagreed. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 142 SPBD survey question 13 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Currently, I apply the agreed upon schoolwide disciplinary consequences.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 59.7%, and disagreed 40.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 16.7%, and disagreed 83.3%. The total between the two groups was 55.9% agreed, and 44.1% disagreed. SPBD survey questions 14, 15, and 16 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD survey. SPBD survey question 14 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “When problem behaviors occur, we need to get tougher.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 35.5%, and disagreed 64.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 35.3% agreed, and 64.7% disagreed. SPBD survey question 15 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The students at this school need to be held more responsible for their own behavior.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 79.0%, and disagreed 21.0%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two groups was 77.9% agreed, and 22.1% disagreed. SPBD survey question 16 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Parents in the community do not seem to care about how their children behave at this school.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 9.7%, and disagreed 90.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 11.8% agreed, and 88.2% disagreed. This question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 143 Lastly, Figure 23 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ2. This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ2 in the SPBD survey. Figure 23 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 2 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 144 SPBD Open-ended Responses. RQ2 correlated to open-ended question 28 and 100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which asked the staff, “When it comes to behavior and discipline, what is working well in CCHS?” Again, within each of the open-ended questions, three themes or trends emerged in the staff’s responses. The three themes were buy-in from all staff members, administrative support, and the ability of PBIS implementation based on the high school level. Buy-in by staff members represented the first theme of these open-ended responses. Staff member #17 stated, “From my experience, positive reinforcement seems to work better than consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned detention tend to have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.” Staff member #21 added, “Making connections with student to avoid behaviors” and staff TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 145 member #35 responded “Making connections and following through with what is said.” Staff member #42 related to this question in the following manner: The biggest thing I observe has to do with teacher/student relationships. I think that a lot of teachers work really hard to build relationships with our kids and most of the time we do a good job with that. These relationships often can help with behavior in our classroom. And in all honesty, 90% of the kids in our school are good kids. It is unfortunate those 10% ruin it for everyone else. A few staff members remarked on WofP, staff member #45 stated, “the positive reinforcement of good behaviors works well.” Staff member #59 and #60 both stated acknowledging the students with a WofP is a positive within CCHS. Staff member #64 exemplified this theme by stating, “I think we need to create a better rapport with students when it comes to discipline. We can just give the students detention and ISS, but if we are not creating relationships with the student, it limits behavior problems.” The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline, ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework and school wide behavior. Staff member #3 stated, “Strong classroom management from certain teachers who have high expectations for their students.” Staff member #10 stated the following about administrative support: Clear expectations in the beginning of school works as does the focus on positive behaviors discussed and enforced throughout the year. Discipline needs to be instantaneous to be affective as does praise. Our school does it's best to deal with a situation right away. In Special Education, we use other forms of discipline, like lunch detentions for students who do not break a school rule, but maybe a TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 146 classroom rule. This works well for our students. After school detentions do not for most of them. Administration stands behind this use since it is not interfering with the standard discipline. I like that one administrator is following each kid through all 4 years too! Staff member #20 explained their perception regarding this theme in the following way: I'm sure the Wings of Praise programs we have been implementing have done some degree of good. Some students really get excited when they receive them. I hear from students the fears of being ineligible, losing driving privileges, or losing senior option privileges if their grades or behaviors are poor. I think these are good deterrents, and perhaps they are more effective than traditional Detention, ISS, or OSS. Organizations like NHS and Renaissance reward good grades, so I believe in their effectiveness as well. I think students respect and generally like our administrators. When our administrators speak, students usually listen. Furthermore, parents seem to be largely cooperative. Perhaps more communication from administrators to students and parents via weekly announcements over TV or intercom, Twitter messaging, emails, or assemblies could help communicate expectations, praises, and displeasures more frequently. I think the Falcons Connect program is a great idea. I'm not sure it has reached its full potential, but I think it can ultimately be beneficial to students. Overall, staff member #63 stated this final thought about this theme, “Administrators and faculty seem to be very supportive of each other.” The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question was the grade level (HS) in which WofP framework was implemented. Again, with diverse philosophies regarding TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 147 discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level can be complex in implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #12 made this statement: It feels like behaviors are starting to get more severe and the students realize consequences are not working to deter negative behaviors. My perception is that we have loosened too much and the students (maybe just a select few) are really taking advantage and making life miserable for their peers and staff. Staff member #30 wrote the following: I do not think that behavior and discipline are working well at our school. I am not sure that any "thing" is working well. As long as rules are not followed and expectations are not met more consistently, we will continue to have increased struggles in both areas. Teachers are worried about behavior and discipline in the classrooms on a daily basis. I try to begin each day with a fresh, positive attitude and hope for the best. When I began teaching in the district, I did not feel this way. I felt much more positivity. I love my district and my profession, as it is "home" to me. In turn, I will continue to put my best foot forward as an educator and give my students one-hundred percent. However, to add to staff member #30, staff member #33 had this statement: I basically give detention for two reasons - cutting class or something so blatantly disrespectful that it can't be ignored or turned into a teachable moment. I've got to say I have very few behavioral issues in my class. A little respect and understanding that high school kids are going to say and do dumb things but those can be teachable moments rather than handing out a blanket punishments goes a long way. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 148 Staff member #50 concluded this theme with this statement, “PBIS is working, however the level of discipline has diminished, allowing some students to be frequent offenders.” As the staff members completed the open-ended questions, this question had an indicator as a facilitator within the SPBD survey. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block. Interview Responses. The Researcher identified one interview question (4) that correlated to RQ2. PBIS semi-formal interview question four asked the professional staff member, if they thought Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was effectively implemented into CCHS? Staff member #34 responded: I feel that Wings of Praise is a good idea in theory, and I really like the idea of rewarding students for doing things. However, I think that there needs to be more community buy in from all of the colleagues to make it actually effective. I also think it’s a little heavy on the carrots and not enough on the stick, and I realized that it is a positive behavior modification system. I understand that, but it cannot exist in a vacuum, it has to exist. We have to be rewarding students for very positive things, but also holding kids accountable when they are making mistakes and guiding them to the possibilities. Staff member #29 stated: The idea is good. The execution has been decent and I'd like to say that when it first came out, I thought it was a good system. I thought it rewarded students well. There were some just inherent flaws in the system, and I don't really know how we could have done it necessarily so that all the flaws would have been taken out. It started as a paper based, so you know, I write a Wings of Praise for someone TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 149 and they're happy about it. I kind of felt almost pressure to write it for the whole class. You know, if the whole class did well why am I going to single out and single out student in second row seat two and not the one in the third row? It would also, you know, if one student went above and beyond I would write double Wings of Praise, and then the other students might look on that student with some degree of contempt as like: well, I did the same thing, I did my own versions of something good there, why are they getting rewarded? Where's mine? Why do they have five wings of praise? Where's mine? The system is good. Was it was it effective? I think it had good rewards. I think a lot of kids, kind of liked it, but I just don't know that it could have been as effective as it could have been. We went to the online system, but to me, at least, it wasn't well communicated how to do that. In the everyday course of business you are preparing lesson plans, preparing assessments, trying to grade or holding classes, running activities, and getting Schoology up to date. You know, the time was definitely an issue. You know, it's one more thing, that I didn't really have time to do, especially if I wasn't sure how to do it online or write them up. Every time you write one out by hand, it's probably at least 45 seconds of writing and you'll write out five. Okay. Well, there's 5 minutes that are just wasted. Staff member #48 answered with the following: I think the initial implementation went well and it was well received by teachers. We were probably more apt to distribute Wings of Praise to students at that point because it was new it was novel. Students were excited about it, I think at this point it’s kind of morphed into something that there seem to be so few students TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 150 getting them and teachers doing it because we are so busy and so overwhelmed with everything else that it’s probably not as effective as it was in its initial stages. Staff member #92 stated, “I know that I personally find it difficult to fully participate in the Wings of Praise program.” Lastly, staff member #137 answered this question with: I think it was somewhat effective the first year. I think some of the students were excited about it. But, I think it kind of struggled with the teachers were giving them for the stuff they should do normally. And so it became you're doing what you're required to do anyway, so we'll just give you a Wings of Praise. Research Question Three: What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? SPBD Survey Responses. The Researcher identified nine Likert-style questions from the SPBD survey (1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 20, and 22), which correlated to RQ3. These questions identified the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level. All professional staff who completed the survey (N=68) completed each of the questions which associate with RQ3. SPBD survey question one pertains to Domain 1 of the SPBD survey, and it asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I do not have time to teach the schoolwide behavioral expectations.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 11.3%, and disagreed 88.7%. The classified staff agreed with this question 16.7%, and disagreed 83.3%. The total between the two groups was 11.8% agreed, and 88.2% disagreed. This question was indicated as a facilitator for the school. A facilitator indicator identified a strength that was highlighted and can be used as a building block. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 151 SPBD survey questions six, eight, and nine pertained to Domain 2 of the SPBD survey. SPBD survey question six asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The climate at the school is positive.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 30.6%, and disagreed 69.4%. The classified staff agreed with this question 50.0%, and disagreed 50.0%. The total between the two groups was 32.4% agreed, and 67.6% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation. SPBD survey question eight asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Overall, I am satisfied with my job.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 74.2%, and disagreed 25.8%. The classified staff agreed with this question 83.3%, and disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 75.0% agreed, and 25.0% disagreed. SPBD survey question nine asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe CCHS has (or will have) the necessary resources to support schoolwide positive behavior support.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 43.5%, and disagreed 56.5%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two groups was 45.6% agreed, and 54.4% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation. SPDB survey question 11 pertains to Domain 3 of the SPBD survey, which asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “Currently, I teach the agreed upon schoolwide behavior expectations (PRIDE) to students.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 50.0%, and disagreed 50.0%. The classified staff agreed with this question TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 152 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 48.5% agreed, and 51.5% disagreed. SPBD survey question 17 pertained to Domain 4 of the SPBD survey, and asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe we should reserve rewards for students exceeding expectations, not simply for meeting them.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 61.3%, and disagreed 38.7%. The classified staff agreed with this question 66.7%, and disagreed 33.3%. The total between the two groups was 61.8% agreed, and 38.2% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation. SPBD survey questions 19, 20, and 22 pertained to Domain 5 of the SPBD survey. SPBD survey question 19 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The staff tends to resist change with concerns such as “We don’t do it that way here”.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 17.7%, and disagreed 82.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 19.1% agreed, and 80.9% disagreed. SPBD survey question 20 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “This school has successfully implemented change efforts in the past.” The certificated staff agreed with this question 30.6%, and disagreed 69.4%. The classified staff agreed with this question 83.3%, and disagreed 16.7%. The total between the two groups was 35.3% agreed, and 64.7% disagreed. This question was indicated as a barrier for the school. A barrier indicator identified this finding may impede a successful implementation and requires further investigation. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 153 SPBD survey question 22 asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “I suspect that my colleagues will not (or are not) consistently implementing the agreed upon schoolwide behavior plan (PRIDE and WofP).” The certificated staff agreed with this question 38.7%, and disagreed 61.3%. The classified staff agreed with this question 33.3%, and disagreed 66.7%. The total between the two groups was 38.2% agreed, and 61.8% disagreed. Lastly, Figure 24 represents the SPBD survey questions that correlated to RQ2. This figure represents all N=68 responses to each Likert-scale questions related to RQ2 in the SPBD survey. Figure 24 SPBD Professional Staff Responses to Research Question 3 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 154 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 155 SPBD Open-ended Responses. RQ3 correlated to open-ended question 30 and 100% of the professional staff answered the open-ended question, which asked the staff their concerns about WofP? Again, within each of the open-ended questions, three themes or trends emerged from the staff’s responses. The three themes were buy-in from all staff members, administrative support, and the ability of PBIS implementation based on the high school level. Buy-in by staff members represented the first theme of these open-ended responses. Staff member #1 stated, “We need the whole faculty and staff to promote this. Even with 2 bad apples, it is ineffective.” Staff member #5 stated: Its just another thing that will come and go like the rest of our programs. Many kids think it’s a joke and therefore give up on trying to receive positive behavior supports. Seems elementary, not something that HS students will care about in the long run. In contrast to staff member #5, staff member #6 stated the following: I do believe that the majority of the students in our school appreciate and feel good when they are recognized for positive behavior. I do feel that it should not be overused. In other words, given out randomly just for the sake of giving out TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 156 praise. I do feel it should be for something that is a recognizable change in the specific student. Now, that may have levels depending on specific student. What is a major accomplishment for one student may be a consistent behavior for others. I also am concerned for those students who do not exhibit an interest in receiving rewards or make fun of others who do. When I recognize a student for a positive behavior, it is sincere and not just to hand them some kind of "atta boy" I do not mind trying to find things in students to support the plan, but I do feel it should be sincere and mean something. As a rule, I try to recognize students for their behaviors and I feel the majority of the staff creates the atmosphere of acceptance, worth, and support of the students. Staff members #28 answered the question in this way, “If implemented, it needs to be embraced by everyone. Teachers can’t take the approach, well I do it this way. That happens a lot when programs or changes are implemented, I see many teachers just do their own thing.” Staff member #36 added to this idea by stating, “As with all schoolwide supports, it takes a complete buy in by stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, students, administrators) for it to be effective. Resistance to change is expected.” Lastly, the following staff members #39, #46, #50, and #60 all stated the same concept of, “this will work ONLY if 100% of teachers will support and follow the guidelines,” or “it is useful, but only if the entire staff is onboard.” The second theme was administrative support, which correlated to discipline, ensuring everyone is following the PBIS framework, and school wide behavior. Staff member #10 stated: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 157 Like any behavior supports, there needs to be consistency and we need to follow the code of conduct. There is great inconsistency in how this is done across the board, from earbuds, to phones in class, to dress code, we are not following the behavior code the students signed and we are not getting support from administration in these areas. We are letting Facebook opinions by students and parents determine our enforcement of these behavioral codes. We need to stick to what we require. Positive Behavior Supports will work only when the students see consistency. Either we all do it, or we do not. I think the Wings of Praise is only effective if used sparingly. Some kids were getting like one a day and others never got them an entire year. Seriously, I made a list and only went through it once for the year, or semester classes. I found 1 thing each kid did well or improved on. That way they all got one from me for the year. Staff member #13 had the following perspective, “I do not necessarily agree that expectations should be overly rewarded. That being said, I do see merit in making sure we are praising positive behavior with the end goal of seeing more of the same behavior.” Staff member #20 added to this same idea in the following way: I think the Wings of Praise program is a step in the right direction, but inherently flawed. The over-achievers likely do not get the recognition they deserve, while the under-achievers get praised for merely meeting goals (while their overachieving peers do this routinely.) It's difficult, as a teacher, to recognize some students with a Wings of Praise form while not giving it to others. Some of our best students will go months at a time without being recognized, while other students get over-recognized. Teachers don't know which students have gotten TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 158 Wings of Praise (or how many), so there will be inequality. The lottery system of prizes is not bad, nor great. I wonder how much incentive students really have to excel above and beyond when getting a wings of praise is not guaranteed, and even if it does happen, actually being drawn to win a prize is a longshot. I've also seen several students who have a pile of Wings of Praise in their bags. They received the recognitions, but did not submit them to be signed and entered into drawings, rendering the whole process moot. This all said, it's a worthy program that should continue to be implemented despite its flaws. Staff member #30 stated their perception of support in the following manner: I do not think that our school has a set of positive behavioral supports that is predominately followed by staff members because our school lacks consistency in most things. There are too many inconsistencies with discipline or the lack thereof. Discipline is flimsy at our school; there are too many exceptions. Teachers and administrators are not on the same page. I never know if I will be supported when I want to issue disciplinary actions. I ask myself, "Will this administrator support my decision?" I do not know the answer to this question. The school has become too lenient, so behaviors have worsened and expectations are not being met consistently. Lastly, staff members #48 and #58 stated the following about the concerns for WofP, “It does not seem consistent. Does not seem publicized much WITHIN the school”, and “I believe consistency is a major problem. Some teachers use PBIS rewards for anything and everything which hinders what we are trying to accomplish.” TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 159 The last theme for this SPDB open-ended question regarding WofP concerns is the grade level (HS) in which WofP framework was implemented. Again, with different philosophies regarding discipline, academics, and overall behavior, the high school level can be complex in implementing a PBIS framework. Staff member #2 made this statement, “I think students should be acknowledged for meeting expectations and rewarded for exceeding expectations. I think they also should be held accountable when expectations are not met.” This perception was very evident within this question. Staff members #15, #17, #56, #63, and #66 all had the same perceived notion as staff member #2. Staff member #44 has the following concern regarding WofP: I am concerned that students are being rewarded for doing what they should. Verbal positive reinforcement and discussion should be used versus "carrots" (physical rewards). If students are given physical rewards for doing what they should be doing anyway then they expect to be rewarded every time they do something good. We need to try to instill in them an intrinsic motivation for doing good. Lastly, staff member #65 stated the following about the idea of WofP being in the high school: I am concerned that this plan, while appropriate for younger students, is a little too elementary for high school students. It seems like it might be more effective if implemented at the elementary school, so that by the time students reach the high school level, they understand what appropriate and inappropriate behavior looks like. Another concern is that teachers are not consistent with the positive TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 160 behavior supports that are currently in place. Many haven't completely "bought in" to the idea which makes them hesitant to implement it across the board. Interview Responses. The Researcher identified two interview questions (6 and 7) that correlated to RQ3. PBIS semi-formal interview question six asked the professional staff member if they had given any WofP out to students? Staff member #34 stated: I have given some out this year. Yeah. Since it’s been implemented, I have given Wings of Praise out. I’ve done them for things such as helping a student when they spill things out of their backpack. I’ve given Wings of Praise for just being a good human, just being generally awesome and polite and friendly and just wonderful. That’s been met with sometimes kids are really thankful, sometimes kids eye roll and they’re like whatever about it. So it’s been met with mixed reviews. Staff member #29 stated: I haven’t been as good this year. I think I started off the year probably more so giving them out and then I’m, you know, you reach a point like, oh, shoot, haven’t given out any so maybe I’ll hand out five or ten and then that is not equitable. But also I think the administration has been less in our faces about it, less reminding us. I mean, honestly, I would appreciate emails saying like, hey, remember to do that. Here's our, our process of doing it for, you know, maybe a weekly reminder like a small goal or something. It seems like admin, through their actions or through their lack of committed communication about it, has been TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 161 kind of putting it on the backburner, so I’ve been putting it on the backburner and is just not a high priority right now. Staff member #48 stated: So just for simplicity sake, I have issued them, but I’ve done it electronically this year and I did it in one of my classes. So either for a perfect score on a test or because they seem to have mastered the concept, and what I did was I create a badge for those students so they would get the notification in Schoology. We talk about it a little bit, I didn’t make a big deal about it, it was just kind of, hey, I wanted to let you know I issued you a wings of praise and I think that they appreciated it but it wasn’t like a he production in the class and I just don’t have the time to physically write out each one of them. I can type a lot faster and when they were all doing the same thing I could just copy and paste it from one to the next so that was a time saver to me. Staff member #92 stated, “I feel like I pretty consistently try to reinforce positive behavior with, thank you, smiles, good jobs, but I rarely remember to actually fill out a Wings of Praise.” Lastly, staff member #137 stated the following: I've given out a handful of them over the last couple of years. And it was for them doing things that were above and beyond what the student was already required, such as assisting other students needed, picking up trash in the hallways that wasn't theirs, etc... Things that, in my opinion, are not necessarily required of the student. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 162 PBIS semi-formal interview question seven asked the professional staff members, “If the district provided professional development on PBIS would it be beneficial?” Staff member #34 stated: I think personally we have a lot on our plates right now and I think something else would have to go for us to be able to implement this effectively. So if you’re going to add in more professional development on this, then something else needs to be like a plate needs to be removed. I think that for this type of professional development you could have us do it at our own pace. Something that we could do it doesn’t have to be a three hour or eight hour training is something that we could if we wanted more information here’s how you could implement this. So you could provide the scaffolding to the staff if you wanted to take that route. I guess that approach to it. Staff member #29 answered the question in the following way: No, more consistent communication, more tangible rewards. And I'm not saying bribes, but like you know, little lottery drawings at every faculty meeting taking out a teacher's name. Hey, this teacher has given Wings of Praise. I don't know if there's a way to track it online, but maybe give some sort of recognition to the teacher that's provided the most or had good feedback. I don't want professional development. But, you know, I think email communication, faculty meeting recognition and just being more consistent with the messaging and also more forthcoming with online Wings of Praise giving procedures. Staff member #48 stated, “I’m always welcome to training, I think as a teacher I’m interested in growing my craft and becoming better at what I do and becoming more TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 163 effective so whatever I can do I’m willing to do it and to learn more.” Staff member #92 stated, “Maybe I don't know, the hard thing for me is, I don't know how to do this regularly. It comes up occasionally, but it's hard to remember to do it, and I don't know how to make it routine.” Lastly, staff member #137 answered this question in the following way, “I would. I'm always up here for training and learning new things. I would like to see maybe a framework, a better framework of what constitutes a Wings of Praise so that we're all on the same page.” Discipline and Wings of Praise Data Discipline Data. The last quantitative data points analyzed for this capstone research project were CCHS discipline data obtained from our student information system (Skyward), and WofP data. Discipline data of CCHS for the school years 20142015 – 2021-2022 was utilized to analyze a correlation between Wings of Praise use and discipline within CCHS. Figure 25 represents the discipline data analyzed within CCHS. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 164 Figure 25 Cedar Crest High School Discipline Data 2018-2022 School Years Note: This figure displays the reduction of discipline when Wings of Praise slips were implemented during the 2018-2022 school years. The 2014-2021 school years data was extrapolated on the same date, March 13 to ensure validity in the data; 2021-2022 school year data was extrapolated on February 16, 2022. Even with this difference in extrapolation date, the 2021-2022 school year still showed an increase in discipline, which correlates with a low number of WofP slips given to students. During the 2018-2019 school year, 3073 WofP slips were handed out to students. The data depicts a drop of consequences between 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school year, the first year of WofP. Addressed are the most dramatic decreased consequences: Detention – 2 – 136 to 85, In School Suspension – 1 – 76 to 55, In School TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 165 Suspension 2 – 83 to 64, Out of School – 3 – 24 to 12, and Saturday Detention – 56 to 29. In the 2019-2020 school year, 1850 WofP slips were given to students and a reduction in consequences continued, particularly in the number of Detentions – 2 – 86 to 79, In School Suspensions – 1 – 55 to 38, In School Suspensions – 2 – 64 to 50, and Saturday Detentions – 29 to 24. In the 2020-2021 school year, 1412 WofP slips were given and while there was a reduction in some discipline areas, there was an increase in other discipline areas. For example, there was a reduction in Saturday Detentions – 24 to 7, but an increase in In School Suspension – 1 – 38 to 40, and In School Suspension – 5 – 6 to 8. The 2021-2022 school year, during which all students returned to CCHS, showed an increase in every discipline category, except for Detention – 10. Additionally, the 20212022 school year marked 203 as the lowest number of WofP slips given to students. Figure 26 showcases Figure 25 in bar-graph format, only the years that WofP slips were handed out are depicted to show the continued decrease in the more prominent consequences used within CCHS. These consequences were Detention – 1, Detention – 2, In School Suspension – 1, In School Suspension – 2, In School Suspension – 3, and Saturday Detentions. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS Figure 26 Cedar Crest High School Discipline for 2018-2022 School Years per Discipline Consequence 166 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 167 Wings of Praise Data. Wings of Praise data was utilized to analyze what aspect of PRIDE the students were exhibiting the most during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. CCHS did not keep Wings of Praise PRIDE data during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. The 2019-2020 school year CCHS documented the number of WofP slips per grade; out of the 1850 WofP slips given, 647 (35%) were given to 9th grade students, 426 (23%) were given to 10th grade students, 329 (18%) were given to 11th graders, and 448 (24%) were given to 12th grade students. The 2020-2021 school year CCHS documented 1412 WofP slips given, 265 (19%) were given to 9th grade students, 444 (31%) were given to 10th grade students, 376 (27%) were given to 11th grade students, and 327 (23%) were given to 12th grade students. Additionally, PRIDE was documented; 435 (31%) WofP slips were given for Personal Responsibility, 152 (11%) WofP slips were given for Respect, 205 (15%) WofP slips were given for Integrity, 290 (20%) WofP slips were given for Dedication, and 330 (23%) WofP slips were given for Excellence. The 2021-2022 school year CCHS documented 203 (through 2/16/22) WofP slips given; 26 (13%) were given to 9th grade students, 60 (29%) were given to 10th grade students, 69 (34%) were given to 11th grade students, and 48 (24%) were given to 12th grade students. PRIDE displayed 69 (34%) WofP slips were given for Personal Responsibility, 24 (12%) WofP slips were given for Respect, 7 (3%) WofP slips were given for Integrity, 16 (8%) WofP slips were given for Dedication, and 87 (43%) WofP slips were given for Excellence. Summary Chapter IV has illustrated the perceptions of CCHS’s staff towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework. With the use of the SPBD survey, the PBIS semi-formal interview, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 168 analyzing CCHS discipline data, and analyzing WofP data, these data points support the research questions posed within this action research project. The data collected additionally offered an understanding of the professional staff’s perception on WofP, and provided additional interest points that will need to be further researched. The Researcher used multiple qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, such as a Likert style survey with open-ended questions (SPBD), interviews (PBIS Semi-formal Interview), discipline data and WofP information to support the research questions. The data was triangulated through the collection and analysis of multiple data sets. These methods gave the participants multiple opportunities to explain their perceptions of WofP, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, throughout the study. Chapter IV presented 68 participants for the SPBD survey and open-ended questions, and five participants for the PBIS semi-formal interview. Using the data collected from the instruments, in conjunction with the additional discipline and WofP data collected, the Researcher gained the ability to provide conclusions to support the results. Chapter V discusses these conclusions, along with recommendations to further the action research within CCHS and CLSD and a description of the fiscal implications that student behavior can bring onto a school district. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 169 CHAPTER V Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction This capstone action research study was designed to understand the perceptions of high school staff members within Cedar Crest High School towards a Tier 1 PBIS framework, Wings of Praise. Chapter V summarizes the results of the study and answers the following research questions: Research Question 1 What is the perception of high school teachers towards a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework? Research Question 2 What impact does teacher perception have on student recognitions in a Tier 1 PBIS framework on the high school level? Research Question 3 What are the reasons that teachers do not participate in a Tier 1 PBIS framework at the high school level? Additionally, Chapter V will specifies the SPBD survey results, particularly the facilitators and barriers that were identified in the study. Focusing on these nine areas of growth will provide future recommendations and provide an opportunity to build on this capstone action research study, along with other recommendations, which will be presented. Additionally, this chapter summarizes the positive and negative perceptions of a Tier 1 PBIS framework within a high school setting, based on WofP data and discipline data. Lastly, a description of how the research will influence CCHS positively and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 170 improvements that will continue to build WofP within the high school and the district is discussed. Conclusions The Staff Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (SPBD) survey provided pertinent data to showcase the perceptions of CCHS’s high school staff. Within the survey, alerts and recommendations per staff responses triggered either a facilitator symbol or a barrier symbol. These alerts were specific to the strengths and needs of the staff within CCHS. Facilitators signified a finding of strength that can be highlighted and used as a building block within the school. Barriers signified a finding of need or this finding may impede a successful implementation of PBIS into the school and may need to be investigated more. Figure 27 identifies each of the facilitators and barriers within CCHS’s SPBD survey conducted. Each of these questions pose both a recommendation as to how to move this study forward, and the changes that can be made to the study in further research. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 171 Figure 277 SPBD Core Item Summary Note: There are four (4) facilitators listed, and five (5) barriers listed, which correspond to the questions triggered within the SPBD survey. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 172 Facilitators Question one, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “I don’t have time to teach the schoolwide behavioral expectations” was designated as a facilitator. The majority of staff members disagreed (88%) with this question, which revealed they do have time to teach behavioral expectations, thus making it a priority in their perception. This building block is great for CCHS, as teacher buy-in is integral for PBIS. A questions to consider is, “Do staff prioritize teaching social, emotional, and behavioral expectations?” A recommendation for this question is to continue to engage staff members to purposefully teach their classroom management within each of their classes. CCHS is building on this recommendation by adding additional professional development specifically about PBIS and the importance within each classroom. Explaining classroom expectations based on the school's core values (PRIDE) is essential in a PBIS framework. The professional development provided will specifically engage staff members in how a PBIS framework is implemented within a classroom and the importance of buy-in by all staff. Additionally, it will dive into the importance of maintaining a consistent message throughout the school. This is particularly important within a high school setting due to the diverse philosophical views of staff members, physicality of the building in terms of the size, the age of the students, and the idea of a token society. The perception of staff members is important to ensure positive professional development can be implemented with fidelity. The second facilitator the SPBD survey identified was question three, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “We should not have to teach students how to behave at school.” The majority of staff again disagreed (82%) with this TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 173 question. Most staff in the school believe it is within their job responsibilities to teach behavioral expectations. A follow-up question to consider is “Do staff feel that teaching behavior is their responsibility?” Students have to understand a teacher’s expectations within their classroom. Chapter II discusses many examples of research regarding communication and the importance of explaining classroom expectations or behavioral expectations to students. If students understand the expectations, then teachers have a baseline to hold them accountable. Within this action research, PRIDE outlines the core values of CCHS and provide a basic overview of CCHS’s behavioral expectations. A recommendation for this question and facilitator is to continue to give teachers the opportunity to understand a PBIS framework through professional development opportunities. Additionally, CCHS has to create a PBIS team. Creating a PBIS team is imperative to ensure the framework continues in a positive direction. This team needs to include administration, staff members, and students, thus meeting the needs of everyone within CCHS. The Center on PBIS (2021) explains how this team establishes the systems and practices for Tier 1. Furthermore, they monitor school-wide data, create a framework for all students, ensure everyone has access to the supports within the framework, and evaluate overall effectiveness of the implemented framework. They are a foundational aspect of implementing a Tier 1 PBIS framework into any school. It is clear from the data presented in this research, the high school setting creates many challenges for complete buy-in from staff and students overall. The third facilitator the SPBD survey identified was question 10, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “Schoolwide behavior support is likely to be yet another fad that comes and goes in this school?” The majority of the staff (83.8%) TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 174 disagreed with this question, which indicates they do support WofP and feel it can be a long-term effort. Establishing WofP as a long-term priority is an important implementation strategy for CCHS. Staff member #17 made a very pertinent statement regarding this concept, “From my experience, positive reinforcement seems to work better than consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned detention tend to have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.” Creating the buy-in among the staff is important and also builds a great foundation for the continued implementation of WofP throughout CCHS. The fourth and last facilitator the SPBD survey indicated was question 16, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “Parents in the community don’t seem to care about how their children behave at school?” The majority of staff (88.2%) disagreed with this statement, which indicates the staff perceives that parents are involved in their children’s behavior at school. This facilitator will be a useful aspect in the continuation of complete buy-in within CCHS. Additionally, a recommendation is to bring parents into the conversation on the PBIS committee. Parent input is valued to ensure all stakeholders are involved in the Tier 1 implementation of a PBIS framework, particularly in a high school. The reason it is important at a high school level is based on the philosophical views of staff members, students, and administration. Parent perception is powerful to ensure they understand the expectations of the high school to reinforce the proper behaviors at home, thus creating a cooperative relationship with the school. Creating a partnership with parents is a positive aspect of a strong Tier 1 PBIS framework. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 175 The recommendations presented by the facilitators depict the strengths of WofP. A staff member had a profound comment on staff buy-in which stated “Staff buy-in for both rewards and punishments, more importantly, understanding that what works for some teachers in their classrooms might not work for others. One size fits all rules and regulations seem to end up dividing more than uniting.” Chapter IV indicated CCHS’s staff has a basic understanding of PBIS (72.1%) and they could implement the framework. It also showcased, 51.5% of the total staff has had zero (0) professional development on PBIS, with 41.2% of the total staff who wanted to actively participate and support WofP. This information foreshadowed the need of professional development and the creation of a PBIS team at the district level and within each building that utilizes the WofP framework. Due to the need, professional development has been created for the staff to utilize during the summer after the 2021-2022 school year. Additionally, CCHS’s discipline data identified that when WofP slips are used, discipline consequences are reduced. The data presented in Chapter IV, provided guidance for the Researcher to continue to build on the action research. The next steps, in regards to the facilitators, are to establish a PBIS committee, continue to provide professional development opportunities, and build off the positive perceptions formed for WofP. It is critical to increase the buy-in by explaining to staff the importance of all being on the same page regarding classroom expectations and school core values, and stress to them the importance of creating a clear and concise message to students, families, and all stakeholders. The high school provides a great learning opportunity for staff to utilize a PBIS framework, and how to implement it with fidelity. This action research provides opportunities to present data points on the perceptions of high school teachers towards a TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 176 Tier 1 PBIS framework. Furthermore, it provides the barriers in which a high school setting and physicality of that setting affect the perceptions of high school teachers. Barriers The SPBD survey identified five barriers within CCHS and the implementation of WofP. The first question identified as a barrier was question six, which asked the staff if they agreed or disagreed with, “The climate at this school is positive?” The majority of staff disagreed (67.6%) with this question which suggests there is a negative school climate. A negative school climate can adversely affect morale and trust among colleagues and administration, and it can lead to reactionary discipline practices. Recommendations to increase school climate would be to identify the specific sources of these perceptions. A staff member stated, “A set of school-wide rules and consequences that all teacher agree upon and enforce, and higher expectations for student behavior and not rewarding the very basics of decency” is a starting point into this perception. An additional question asked the staff if, “They believe the climate is supportive?” The SPBD’s open response nature exposed multiple staff members felt the administration does not support them, that the entire staff needs to buy-into the framework or it will not work, and that discipline within CCHS has become to lenient. These ideas or thoughts are evidence of a negative climate within the school. Addressing these concerns and perceptions has to be a main priority of the PBIS committee. One data point that was unrelated to this capstone project but correlates to the praising of students, climate, and culture of CCHS, was analyzed through the use of a Pennsylvania Youth Survey (PAYS) which was given to 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students of CLSD. This survey was distributed by CLSD in November, 2021. Question TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 177 15 of the PAYS survey asked students, in each of the grade listed if they agreed or disagreed with, “My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.” Figure 28 depicts the students’ answers and that in November of 2021, 36% of 10th grade students answered either “YES!” or “yes” to the PAYS question, but 64% of 10th grade students answered either “NO!” or “no”. It also indicates, 38% of 12th grade students answered either “YES!” or “yes”, but 62% of 12 grade students answered “NO!” or “no.” Figure 288 PAYS Question 15, Positive Feedback from Teachers Note: The chart above displays data for the question: “My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.” The chart presents data for two groups – students who marked “NO!” or “no” to the item (light blue bar) and students who marked “YES!” or “yes” to the item (dark blue bar). Even though the PAYS survey was not directly linked to any of the research questions of this action research, it correlates to the data points of 2021-2022 school year that as WofP slips decreased, the number of consequences increased. Additionally, it correlates to the qualitative data in regards to buy-in by the staff with supporting CCHS’s PBIS framework WofP. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 178 The second barrier identified was question nine, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe our school has (or will have) the necessary resources to support schoolwide positive behavior support?” A large amount of the total staff disagreed (54.4%) with this question. Staff may be hesitant to implement PBIS if there is a lack of resources in which are allocated toward this framework. CCHS’s WofP has grown with the use of invested funds from community businesses that were solicited to assist in the future of students. The Researcher and a few other CLSD administrators went to community businesses and did presentations explaining the importance of WofP, and how it positively affected the community and businesses. The presentation explained if the schools are proactive about student behavior, there would be an increase in student citizenship, which would ultimately transfer to positive workforce. Having students understand the importance of expectations, meeting those expectations, and following through on those expectations creates employees who local businesses will want to hire. This barrier reveals that the financial implications that correlate to this doctoral capstone research, are significant only on a high school level (such as resources used because WofP is funded from private money), but also on a macro school level. Negative student behavior can cause stressful financial situations if not addressed early and often. The purpose of PBIS and an MTSS framework is to supply supports to students who are struggling and being identified early. Gage et al. (2020, p. 42) states, PBIS is a multi-tiered framework for preventing problem behavior before it occurs and implementing evidence-based intervention services, based on data, for students demonstrating school-based behavior problems. As the name suggests, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 179 PBIS focuses on the use of proactive and preventive discipline practices focusing on positive reinforcement instead of punishments across all prevention and intervention practices. Unfortunately, the use of exclusionary practices are used to try to deter behaviors. These styles of disciplinary practices tend to increase negative trends such as dropout, failing grades, disassociation with school, and others. Noltemeyer et al. (2015, p. 224) states, The rationale undergirding both OSS and ISS use is that these practices will serve as punishment, decreasing the likelihood of future negative behaviors. However, some students may actually find the conditions of school more punishing than removal (Hyman, 1997 as cited in Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Although there is evidence of negative outcomes associated with suspension, it is unknown how much they affect academic achievement and school dropout. Noltemeyer et al. (2015, p. 234) continues by stating, In addition, although there were insufficient studies to analyze data on each suspension type individually, a statistically significant positive relationship between overall suspension rate and dropout rate emerged for OSS. The unfavorable relationship between suspensions and both outcome variables is consistent with a plethora of recent calls for shifts away from the use of exclusionary discipline (e.g., Losen, 2011; Noltemeyer & Fenning, 2013 as cited in Notemeyer et al. 2015). As concerns grow around reactionary and exclusionary discipline perpetuating increase dropout rates or students entering the juvenile justice system (Gage et al., 2020), the financial implications for school districts could be great. For example, CLSD has TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 180 contractual agreements with Special Education placement facilities, such as a School for Emotional Support students, which costs the district $25,000 per student within that placement. Additionally, Gage et al. (2020, p. 46) completed a study in California and his research states: Another benefit of implementing PBIS with fidelity is the reduction in long-term economic burden. We can assume that, if all schools implemented PBIS with fidelity, in California, there would be a 9.87% decrease in OSS and, subsequently, a $264,417,300 reduction in lifetime costs to the state of California for a studied cohort of students. These figure were based on assumptions and extrapolations, but the point remains that implementing PBIS with fidelity may have additive impacts beyond the school by reducing suspension rates. Within CLSD, this would mean the reduction of funds in multiple areas, which were identified in Chapter 1 of this capstone research. Hence, it is importance to present this information to local companies and business leaders to highlight the commitment CLSD has towards WofP. Implementing support frameworks allows CLSD to help drive down future costs to the district. It also creates positive civilians to work in the community, and reduces chances that students will dropout or be connected with juvenile justice system. A recommendation for this study is to complete a deep dive into ISS and OSS data and determine if CLSD’s dropout rates have increased or reduced since the implementation of WofP. The analysis of this research study shows a reduction of exclusionary discipline when WofP are used. The third barrier was question 17, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “I believe we should reserve rewards for students exceeding expectations, TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 181 not simply for meeting them.” The majority of staff members agreed (61.8%) with this statement. CLSD staff may feel that rewarding students for simply meeting expectations lowers standards and dilutes the value of rewards. Additionally, they may believe that systems of extrinsic reinforcement or rewards are detrimental to students’ intrinsic motivation. A recommendation for this barrier is to lead a discussion in extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, it is critical to not only address the misconceptions that PBIS involves rewarding all students (Tier 1) for menial behaviors that do not require effort, but also remind staff that some students work very hard to simply meet expectations, and acknowledging their efforts encourages additional effort. In completing this research study, a common theme at the high school level, that kept arising was less buy-in from teachers. Teachers remarked on the open-ended questions of the SPBD survey in the following manner: “CCHS should worry less about the carrot and more about the stick.” “I do not think students should be rewarded for doing what they are supposed to be doing in school.” “I believe that we are rewarding kids for doing the bare minimum of what they are supposed to do and not having them suffer any consequences for inappropriate or unacceptable behaviors. The real world does not work that way, and we are doing a disservice to the students by taking away natural consequences. I understand the idea of having everyone buy into the PRIDE theme, but do not think it is pervasive enough, or reality based enough, to have the student make real life connections.” TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 182 “I am concerned that students are being rewarded for doing what they should. Verbal positive reinforcement and discussion should be used versus “carrots” (physical rewards). If students are given, physical rewards for doing what they should be doing anyway then they expect to be rewarded every time they do something good. We need to try to instill in them an intrinsic motivation for doing good.” The idea of creating intrinsic motivation by not utilizing a token society is ultimately flawed. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was discussed in Chapter 2, which explained intrinsic motivation could be increased by extrinsic motivation. Teachers’ compensation, for example, is extrinsic motivation; they complete a job and get paid. How is that any different than praising a student for meeting the expectations of CCHS? The recommendation for this barrier is to provide professional development that expresses the importance of setting classroom expectations and having students meet those expectations, explains the concept of PBIS and that consequences do not go away when a student does not meet the classroom, school, or district expectations, and emphasizes that positive behaviors, no matter how menial they are, will improve the culture and climate of the school. This barrier is pervasive in a large high school setting due to the physicality of the level and size of school. The students are older, teachers are more concerned with the content being taught, and discipline is more reactionary and exclusionary than proactive and inclusionary. Thus, the expectation of high school students is that they should know how to act. However, students need to be taught what the expectations are within each classroom, so they can meet those expectations. This concept ties back to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. If a teacher explains, his or her TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 183 classroom expectations and the student meets those expectations through praising then the students’ extrinsic motivation to meet that expectation again will increase. Ideally, this will increase the students’ intrinsic motivation. Horner et al. (2010, p. 8) states the following, The expectation is that improving social behaviors leads to more student time in instruction and greater academic engagement during instruction. Algozzine, Putnam, and Horner (under review) build on this logic, arguing that good teaching is linked to both improved academic outcomes and reduction in problem behavior. Their point was that focusing on behavior support may improve academic engagement and that focusing on effective teaching may improve social behavior. While the basic mechanisms remain to be isolated, the link between implementation of PBIS and combined improvement in both behavior and academic performance was documented not just in descriptive reports (Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Fienberg, 2005; McIntosh, Chard, Boland & Horner, 2006; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2006; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001; Musscot et al., 2008 as cited in Horner et al. 2010) but also in randomized controlled trials (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton & Leaf, 2009; Hoerner et al, 2009 as cited in Horner et al. 2010). It is premature to claim that investing in PBIS is causally associated with improved academic outcomes. In fact, the conceptual logic does not support the expectation that building social support would lead to improved reading, math, or writing skills. Rather, the expectation is that establishing a predictable, consistent, positive, and safe social culture will improve the behavioral engagement of students in learning, and that if this TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 184 engagement is coupled with a functional curriculum and effective teaching, academic outcomes will be more likely. Increasing students’ intrinsic motivation will ultimately match the goal of the teacher, which is to have the ability to teach his or her content and not have to worry about classroom discipline. This starts by making positive connections with the students, supporting PBIS and WofP as an important framework in this process. High school settings tend to have zero tolerance or reactive policies, which increase exclusionary practices for behavior and decrease the climate and culture of the school. By implementing of a PBIS framework, even in a larger high school, those reactive policies can be changed. This is evident by focusing on the data analysis of Chapter IV. As WofP were introduced and utilized in 2018-2019, the consequences of the school decreased over the next few years, this was presented in Figure 25 and Figure 26. WofP ultimately proved the ideals of a PBIS framework, which explains if a high school staff is proactive with behavioral management and increase the praise for students, then there will be an increase in school climate and culture and a decrease of behavioral consequences. The SPBD open-ended questions showcased these perceptions of the staff by the following statements: “From my experience, positive reinforcement seems to work better than consequences, such as detention. Students who are assigned detention tend to have detention every day. It does not seem to correct the behavior.” “Making connections with students to avoid behaviors.” “Catching kids doing well and even exceeding expectations, not disciplining the problem right away, actually finding out what is the cause of the problem.” TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 185 “I believe that our efforts to get to know students and understand them is the best thing we have been doing over the past few years.” “I think we need to create a better rapport with students when it comes to discipline. We can just give the students detention and ISS, but if we are not creating relationships with those students they will continue these behaviors post high school.” The fourth barrier that was identified was question 20, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “This school has successfully implemented change efforts in the past.” The majority of the staff members disagreed (64.7%) with this statement. A history of unsuccessful change efforts creates a barrier for PBIS. Staff is less willing to invest in a new change effort knowing other efforts have failed. A recommendation for this barrier is to learn from the past and continue to communicate the reasons as to why WofP is important within CCHS. This needs to be expressed by administration and the results of WofP distribution need to be communicated to all staff members. An additional recommendation is to utilize the Student Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline (StPBD) survey offered by Dr. Laura Feuerborn and Dr. Ashli Tyre. Surveying the students’ perceptions of WofP would give additional data to determine an appropriate way to continue with the framework within CCHS. The PBIS committee could continue to grow WofP and then analyze this additional data. The fifth and final barrier indicated within the SPBD survey was question 21, which asked staff members if they agreed or disagreed with, “My colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline.” Again, the majority of the total staff disagreed (79.4%) with this statement. Differences in philosophy are beneficial when TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 186 objectively looking at different situations within a high school. Having candid conversations regarding situational issues is an aspect of shared leadership that is needed within a high school setting. The issue is when there is philosophical conflict; this creates divides among staff and hinders the implementation of a PBIS framework. PBIS can successfully be facilitated when staff perceives a shared vision among their colleagues and feels they are working toward a common goal. A set of common expectations can be identified within staff meetings or within a PBIS school committee. Small work groups or professional learning communities can refine common expectations or aspirations info specific goals, which can be reported back to the whole staff. This idea was also a recommendation for this barrier; create a professional development opportunity for the 2022-2023 summer in-service sessions to allow school staff to learn about PBIS and how to properly implement it into the school and classrooms. Additionally, within the professional development, staff could work on building common expectations for the building, and then report this information back to administration. Thus, a baseline, or a beginning set of expectations that each building can work from to grow their own personal building expectations and core values, could be generated. Providing the staff the opportunity to have a collective stake in the expectations could create buy-in towards the PBIS framework. Furthermore, it could promotes a positive perspective towards the schoolwide core values and expectations, so they are properly taught throughout the building to create the consistency needed. As per the SPBD survey open-ended questions, the CCHS staff had the following to say regarding this barrier: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 187 “We need the whole faculty and staff to promote this, even with two (2) bad apples, it is ineffective.” “Philosophically the idea (WofP) makes a great deal of sense, but I’m definitely worried about consistency of application.” “If implemented, it needs to be embraced by everyone. Teachers can’t take the approach, well I do it this way. That happens a lot when programs or changes are implemented, I see many teachers just do their own thing.” “The big concern is that not all teachers will be on board. This will work ONLY if 100% of teachers will support and follow the guidelines.” “If everyone in the school is not on board with how we are going to implement positive behavior, than it creates inconsistencies for the students.” A recommendation for this barrier is to have a consistent message regarding WofP. Additionally, there has to be departmental meetings and whole school conversations as to how to continually implement WofP within CCHS. As evident in Figure 25 and Figure 26, there was less buy-in during the 2021-2022 school year from the teachers toward WofP. COVID and the last two years of “school” may have changed the philosophical viewpoints of the staff due to all the extra state requirements needed to have schools open. Nevertheless, as the number of WofP slips decreased the increase of discipline consequences increased. This correlation demonstrates as positive behaviors are not recognized, negative behavior increases with reactionary discipline taking place. Limitations This result of the doctoral capstone project is subject to limitations which should be considered as both part of the review of the research and guidance to further provide TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 188 additional data to analyze this specific topic. Along with the recommendations written below, the following limitations could be utilized within future studies to provide additional data to analyze this specific topic. As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to the following limitations:  Utilize the action research methods within a school that has a full PBIS framework implemented.  Utilize the action research on a school that has a Tier 2 and/or 3 PBIS framework.  Utilize student data, such as grade, attendance, academic grades, Tier 1, 2, 3 at risk students, discipline, demographic information, etc…  Utilize a school that had received proper training by PBIS trainers.  Utilize a student population that has knowledge of a PBIS framework.  Utilize a school that does not use a token society or rewards to correlate to positive reinforcements, this will increase the data collected on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  Transfer the action research across grade levels – Elementary and Middle School.  Utilize the action research on a school that employs other MTSS supports, such as restorative practices (RP) and response to intervention (RTI), that complement PBIS. Recommendations As this action research was completed, there were additional questions that arose through the process; this opportunities to further this research were created particularly at a high school level. The first and most pertinent question and recommendation is to TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 189 continue to research the reasons why high school teachers lose the buy-in factor towards a PBIS framework. The research completed within this action research touched on aspects of this question, such as, administrative communication, time, and the high school level itself. There has to be more definitive answers regarding the time factor, what causes the lack of time within the day to not praise students. Some answers within the SPBD survey stated the staff did not have enough time to complete the WofP’s slips and completing them is just another “thing on their plate.” Due to these aspects, there needs to be further research to necessarily determine how to provide more dedicated time in the school day for the staff to properly complete the work associated with PBIS. The second recommendation to further this action research is to consider the students’ perception of WofP. The students’ perception would be a very important indicator, of how to understand and continue to increase the effectiveness WofP within CCHS. The importance is to understand their level of knowledge of PBIS and MTSS within the high school. Do they understand the purpose of WofP, and do they understand completely the behavioral expectations of CCHS? Do they understand who to speak to if there is a situation taking place within the school or do they feel comfortable with a staff member because they have a connection or trust to speak out? Utilizing student input would provide another form of feedback to consider which ultimately would support a great understanding of both the strengths and areas of concerns of WofP. Along with all of the recommendations that were explained within the conclusions section of Chapter V, the last recommendation is to look at the exclusionary forms of consequences within CCHS. Do these exclusionary practices, particularly ISS and OSS have a significant negative effect on the students within CCHS? Do these TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 190 practices increase dropout rates, increased attendance issues, and how does this link to students being associated with juvenile justice system? Knowing that zero tolerance polices do not work, what is CCHS doing to incorporate Tier 2 and Tier 3 PBIS supports into CCHS? Additionally, is CCHS adding restorative practices into its policies for students who are suspended, either via ISS or OSS, to ensure they transition back into CCHS in a positive manner. Students need to understand the expectations they have not met, and how to remediate those behaviors. Adding MTSS supports into place will help students, specifically at a high school level, to not continue to make those same behavioral mistakes; this is the goal prior to them leaving high school. Summary In summary, the ability to complete a doctoral action research project within a high school setting has been invaluable as a high school Assistant Principal. The opportunities to understand the perceptions of teachers and understand their focus, struggles, and comprehension of a Tier 1 PBIS framework, has given the Researcher the opportunity to create Professional Development, an understanding of the need for a PBIS committee, and a focus on how to grow Wings of Praise into a very effective and productive PBIS framework. Additionally, it has provided new questions that need to be answered regarding the direction of CCHS overall in terms of behavioral management and the expectations of the students and staff. This research has not only increased conversations taking place within CCHS, but also has created opportunities for change. Wings of Praise needs to be broken down and re-built using the CCHS’s professional staff’s input, the students’ input, the administration’s input, and the parents’ input, thus creating fidelity and ownership of the framework. Additional measures to take are to TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 191 incorporate the Intermediate Unit into the process, so CCHS can be an accredited Tier 1 PBIS school. The action research completed in this doctoral capstone study is a great beginning to this process! TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 192 References Akin-Little, A., & Little, S. G. (2009). The true effects of extrinsic reinforcement on “intrinsic” motivation. In A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. A. Bray, & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies. (pp. 73–91). American Psychological Association. Almalki, S. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research—Challenges and benefits. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 288–296. Alsawy, S., Mansell, W., Carey, T. A., McEvoy, P., & Tai, S. J. (2014). Science and practice of transdiagnostic CBT: A Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) approach. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 7(4), 334–359. Austin, V. L., Malow, M. S., Josephs, N. L., & Ecker, A. J. (2016). The implications of a system-wide positive behavioral intervention initiative: From design to successful implementation (pp. 6–16). Lower Hudson Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Center (RSE-TASC). https://rsetasc.pnwboces.org Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 161–176. Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (2005). Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved? The Behavior Analyst, 28(2), 85–98. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 193 Bhandari, P. (2020, May 8). Understanding external validity. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/external-validity/ Bornstein, J. (2017). Can PBIS build justice rather than merely restore order? In N. S. Okilwa, M. Khalifa, & F. M. Briscoe (Eds.), Advances in race and ethnicity in education (Vol. 4, pp. 135–167). Emerald Publishing Limited. Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Debnam, K. J., & Lindstrom Johnson, S. (2015). A focus on implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in high schools: Associations with bullying and other indicators of school disorder. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 480–498. Bruhn, A., Hirsch, S., Gorsh, J., & Hannan, C. (2014). Simple strategies for reflecting on and responding to common criticisms of PBIS. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27, 13–25. Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson, J. L., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4–16. Center on PBIS. (2021). Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. https://www.pbis.org/about/about Chance, P. (1998). First course in applied behavior analysis. Brooks/Cole. Cober, W., & Adams, B. (2020). When interviewing: How many is enough? International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(1), 73–79. Coffey, J. H., & Horner, R. H. (2012). The sustainability of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 194 Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson UK. Cornwall-Lebanon School District. (2019). District comprehensive plan. https://www.clsd.k12.pa.us/cornwall-lebanon-school-district/our-district/aboutus/district-comprehensive-plan/ Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools, 2nd Ed.: The behavior education program. Guilford Press. Dean, J. E. (2018). A mixed methods study of high school teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports [Doctoral dissertation, Columbus State University]. https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=th eses_dissertations Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Factors influencing staff perceptions of administrator support for tier 2 and 3 interventions: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 116–126. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Publishing Co. Dixon, D. R., Vogel, T., & Tarbox, J. (2012). A brief history of functional analysis and applied behavior analysis. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Functional assessment for challenging behaviors (pp. 3–24). Springer New York. Evanovich, L. L., Martinez, S., Kern, L., & Haynes, R. D. (2020). Proactive circles: A practical guide to the implementation of a restorative practice. Preventing School Failure, 64(1), 28–36. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 195 Feuerborn, L. L., & Tyre, A. D. (2022). SPBD support: Staff and student surveys assessing perceptions of behavior and discipline. SPBD Support. https://spbdsupport.com/ Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & Beaudoin, K. (2022). The staff perceptions of behavior and discipline (SPBD): Data summary report for Cedar Crest High School. Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & King, J. P. (2015). The staff perceptions of behavior and discipline survey: A tool to help achieve systemic change through schoolwide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(2), 116– 126. Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & Zečević, M. (2019). Factor validation of the staff perceptions of behavior and discipline (SPBD) survey. Remedial and Special Education, 40(1), 32–39. Filter, K. J., & Brown, J. (2019). Validation of the PBIS-ACT full: An updated measure of staff commitment to implement SWPBIS. Remedial and Special Education, 40(1), 40–50. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute Publication #231, University of South Florida. http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem behavior in high schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 111–124. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 196 Flannery, K. B., Horner, R., Hershfeldt, P., Martinez, S., & Salle, T. L. (2020). High school acknowledgement systems. Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. www.pbis.org Foxall, G. (2016). Addiction as consumer choice: Exploring the cognitive dimension. Routledge. Freeman, J., Wilkinson, S., & Vanlone, J. (2017). Status of high school PBIS implementation in the U.S. PBIS Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 1–10. Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N., Lombardo, M., & Anderson, L. (2020). The effect of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on disciplinary exclusions: A conceptual replication. Behavioral Disorders, 46(1), 42–53. Glen, S. (2016). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy from StatisticsHowTo.com: Elementary statistics for the rest of us! Statistics How To. https://www.statisticshowto.com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/ Gresham, F. M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to intervention. School Psychology Review, 20(1), 23–36. Hall, N., Bohanon, H., & Goodman, S. (2016). Behavioral support: Research-based program reduces discipline problems. American School Board Journal Online. https://www.nsba.org/newsroom/american-school-board-journal/behavioralsupport Hansen, S. D., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2005). Effects of a dependent group contingency on the verbal interactions of middle school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 30(2), 170–184. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 197 Horner, R. H., & Macaya, M. M. (2018). A framework for building safe and effective school environments: Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS): Rámec pro budování bezpečného a efektivního prostředí ve škole: Pozitivní intervence a podpora chování (PBIS). Pedagogická Orientace, 28(4), 663–685. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1– 16. Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2010). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 1–14. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2021). U.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2015). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support. Springer. Jones, R. T., & Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Programming response maintenance after withdrawing token reinforcement. Behavior Therapy, 6(2), 153–164. Kelly, J., & Pohl, B. (2018). Using structured positive and negative reinforcement to change student behavior in educational settings in order to achieve student academic success. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 5(1), 17–29. Kelm, J. L., McIntosh, K., & Cooley, S. (2014). Effects of implementing school-wide positive behavioural interventions and supports on problem behaviour and TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 198 academic achievement in a Canadian elementary school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(3), 195–212. Koegel, L. K. E., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. E. (1996). Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Komorowski, M., Marshall, D. C., Salciccioli, J. D., & Crutain, Y. (2016). Exploratory data analysis. Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43742-2_15 Lanoue, P. D. (2009). The effect of professional development in perceptual control theory on administrator and teacher beliefs about classroom management [Doctoral dissertation, Mercer University]. https://ursa.mercer.edu/bitstream/handle/10898/11490/3374150_1.pdf?sequence= 7&isAllowed=y Leach, D., & Helf, S. (2016). Using a hierarchy of supportive consequences to address problem behaviors in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(1), 29– 33. Macy, M., & Wheeler, T. (2021). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Factors that influence teacher buy-in. International Journal of Educational Organization & Leadership, 28(1), 17–33. Main, G. C., & Munro, B. C. (1977). A token reinforcement program in a public juniorhigh school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 93–94. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 199 Marchant, M., Heath, M. A., & Miramontes, N. Y. (2013). Merging empiricism and humanism: Role of social validity in the school-wide positive behavior support model. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(4), 221–230. McCombes, S. (2019, September 19). An introduction to sampling methods. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/ McCullagh, J., & Vaal, J. (1975). A token economy in a junior high school special education classroom. School Applications of Learning Theory, 7(2), 1–8. McIntosh, K., Kelm, J. L., & Canizal Delabra, A. (2016). In search of how principals change: A qualitative study of events that help and hinder administrator support for school-wide PBIS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 100– 110. McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semistructured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–12. Menousek, K. M. (2011). A Comparison of the effects of two PBIS token reinforcement systems on appropriately-engaged behavior [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/568 Miltenberger, R. G. (1997). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures. Cole Publishing Company. Netzel, D. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive to proactive discipline in an urban school district: A change of focus through PBIS implementation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 71–79. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 200 Nevin, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of group and individual contingencies on academic performance and social relations of special needs students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116(1), 41–59. Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224–240. PAPBS. (2021, September 21). Schoolwide PBIS. https://papbs.org/SchoolwidePBIS.aspx Rao, J. (2020). Preceived barriers and enablers to office discipline referrals in schools implementing positive behavior interventions and supports. California State University, Sacramento. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools? The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–382. Skiba, R., Waldron, N., Bahamonde, C., & Michalek, D. (1998). A four-step model for functional behavior assessment. NASP Communique, 26(1), 24–25. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. AppletonCentury. Sugai, G. (2015). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Application of a behavior analytic theory of action. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 1–20. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 201 Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral interventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 120–136. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. B. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessments in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131–143. Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: History, defining features, and misconceptions. Center for PBIS & Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://www.hbgsd.us/cms/lib/PA50000648/Centricity/Domain/288/PBIS_.pdf Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Taylor, M. M. (1999). Editorial: Perceptual control theory and its application. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50(6), 433–444. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. The Macmillan Company. Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Phillips, D. (2012). School-wide evaluation tool (SET) implementation manual. OSEP Center on Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports, Effective School-Wide Interventions. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 202 Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2017). The minority report: The concerns of staff opposed to schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in their schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 145–172. Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2021). Ten common misses in PBIS implementation. Beyond Behavior, 30(1), 41–50. UCLA: Statistical consulting group. (2021). What does Cronbach’s Alpha mean? Introduction to SAS. https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachsalpha-mean/ Wager, B. R. (1993). No more suspension: Creating a shared ethical culture. Educational Leadership, 50(4), 34–37. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209. Wanzek, A. (2011). The role of a principal in establishing and maintaining positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS): An ethnographic case study [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota]. https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3438&context=theses Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 203 Yarbrough, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Lee, Y. J., & Lemmons, C. (2004). Decreasing transition times in a second grade classroom: Scientific support for the timely transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 85–107. Yeung, A., Craven, R., Chen, Z., Mooney, M., Tracey, D., Barker, K., Power, A., Dobia, B., Schofield, J., Whitefield, P., & Lewis, T. (2016). Positive behavior interventions: The issue of sustainability of positive effects. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 145–170. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 204 APPENDICES TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 205 Appendix A Institutional Review Board Letter Institutional Review Board California University of Pennsylvania Morgan Hall, 310 250 University Avenue California, PA 15419 instreviewboard@calu.edu Melissa Sovak, Ph.D. Dear John, Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled “High School teachers’ perception of a Tier 1 Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework” (Proposal #20-035) has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted. The effective date of approval is 7/31/21 and the expiration date is 7/30/22. These dates must appear on the consent form. Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any of the following: (1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented) (2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects (3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any events reported in (2). (4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 7/30/22 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu Please notify the Board when data collection is complete. Regards, Melissa Sovak, PhD. Chair, Institutional Review Board TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 206 Appendix B Cornwall-Lebanon School District Research Permission Letter TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 207 Appendix C SPBD Survey Consent Form Staff Perceptions of Behaviors & Discipline (SPBD) Survey Consent Form Dear Professional Staff Member, My name is John Shaffer and I am currently pursuing my Doctorate in the Educational Administration and Leadership Doctoral program at California University of Pennsylvania. For my Doctoral Capstone Project, I am conducting a study to investigate the perceptions of high school teachers regarding the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework Wings of Praise, and CCHS’s behavioral expectations PRIDE. I am asking if you could complete a one-time survey that will provide valuable research information as it relates CCHS’s PBIS framework, Wings of Praise. In this SPBD survey, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your perception of a Tier 1, PBIS framework. You will also be asked about your perspective on professional development and if it is needed regarding the implementation of the Tier 1 PBIS framework. The only personal information I will collect about you will be your ethnicity, this will be utilized by SPBD Support. You are NOT required to answer this question or any question that you do not feel comfortable answering. You have been selected to participate in this study due to being employed as a full time staff member within the Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Cedar Crest High School. The survey consists of the following types of questions: multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended. There is no potential risk if you are willing to complete the survey. In addition, all the research data will be kept confidential. Privacy is my number one concern, and all data that is collected will not be correlated back to you, thus keeping all material confidential within this study. If you do not want to participate please do not complete the survey. If you do agree to participate in this study, please understand you have the right to stop at any point in time. By completing the survey and submitting your answers at the end, you are giving your consent to participate in this survey/questionnaire. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 208 You are being asked to participate in the SPBD survey that will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete, this survey will be completed utilizing the following link: Staff Perceptions of Behaviors & Discipline (SPBD) Survey The benefits of this study and your participation will allow the Researcher to improve our high school PBIS framework, and provide additional data to create a professional development opportunities for our high school staff. If you have questions about this Doctoral Capstone research investigation please contact John Shaffer at sha9040@calu.edu or 717-585-1201. If you would like to speak to someone other than the Researcher, please contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, California University of PA Capstone Committee Faculty Chair, at keruskin@calu.edu. Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board, Proposal #20-035. This approval is effective 7/31/21 and expires 7/30/22. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 209 Appendix D Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline Survey Staff Perceptions of Behavior & Discipline (SPBD) Cedar Crest High School The purpose of the SPBD is to gather your insights on current school disciplinary practices and efforts to improve discipline through school wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS or PBIS). Your honest input is valued. It will be used to guide future practices. Your responses are confidential and cannot be connected to your name. SWPBS or PBIS is a framework of multi-tiered behavior supports that includes defining, teaching, and acknowledging expected behavior and applying consistent consequences for violations of these expectations. Question 1 Please indicate your role(s) at this school. Certificated teacher Classified staff (e.g., office staff, kitchen staff, security) Certificated support personnel (e.g., counselor, school psychologist, speech & language pathologist) Administrator Other Question 2 What student grade level(s) do you work with? Preschool Kindergarten 1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 210 12th grade Question 3 What is your race or ethnicity? White Black Latino/Latina Asian Pacific Islander Native American Multiple races Other I prefer not to say Question 4 How many years of experience do you have in your current role? Question 5 How many years have you worked in this building? Question 6 I have trust in my administrator's ability to lead us through change. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 7 Schoolwide behavior support is likely to be yet another fad that comes and goes in this school. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 211 Question 8 The climate at this school is positive. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 9 We should not have to teach students how to behave at school. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 10 I believe our school has (or will have) the necessary resources to support school wide positive behavior support. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 11 I suspect that my colleagues will not (or are not) consistently implementing the agreed upon school wide behavior plan. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 12 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 212 My colleagues and I share a common philosophy for behavior and discipline. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 13 Overall, I am satisfied with my job. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 14 The students at this school need to be held more responsible for their own behavior. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 15 The staff at this school tends to resist change with concerns such as "We don't do it that way here." Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 16 This school has successfully implemented change efforts in the past. Totally agree TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 213 Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree I don't know Question 17 I don't have time to teach the school wide behavioral expectations. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 18 School wide behavior supports may work in other schools, but I doubt it will work in ours. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 19 Parents in the community don't seem to care about how their children behave at school. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 20 I believe we should reserve rewards for students exceeding expectations, not simply for meeting them. Totally agree TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 21 I feel that rewarding students is the same as bribing them. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 22 I resent being asked to do one more thing. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 23 If students are not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept any discipline at school. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 24 When problem behaviors occur, we need to get tougher. Totally agree Agree 214 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 215 Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Question 25 When it comes to the concepts and procedures of positive behavior supports, my level of understanding is: Unfamiliar; I don't know what it is Limited; I would need to learn more Basic; I could implement High; I could teach others Question 26 If you are familiar with school wide positive behavior supports, please indicate your current level of support or commitment. I strongly disagree with this effort. I disagree with this effort, but I will not resist it. I agree with this effort, but I do not plan to participate in leadership or committee work. I strongly agree with this effort; I plan to actively support it. I am unfamiliar with positive behavior supports. Question 27 Currently, I teach the agreed upon school wide behavior expectations to students. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Currently, my school does not have a common set of student expectations. Question 28 Currently, I acknowledge/reward students for meeting the agreed upon school wide behavior expectations. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 216 Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Currently, my school does not have a common set of student expectations. Question 29 Currently, I apply the agreed upon school wide disciplinary consequences. Totally agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Totally disagree Currently, my school does not have a common set of consequences. Question 30 Over the past year, about how many hours of professional development in behavior supports have you received? Question 31 If you have received professional development in behavior supports, did you find it to be helpful? Yes No I have not received professional development in this area. Question 32 Please rate the communication at this school. Poor: I am unaware of changes that affect staff and students. Needs improvement: I am sometimes unaware of changes. Adequate: I tend to be aware of changes before they occur. Good: Communication is clear and timely. Question 33 When you think about schoolwide positive behavior supports, what concerns do you have? Please be frank and answer in complete sentences. Question 34 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS When it comes to behavior and discipline, what is working well in this school? Question 35 What is needed to make it better? Thank you for your assistance regarding this survey, I really appreciate your help. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me: John P. Shaffer California University of Pennsylvania Sha9040@calu.edu 217 TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 218 Appendix E PBIS Semi-formal Interview Consent Form Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview Consent Form Dear Professional Staff Member, My name is John Shaffer and I am currently pursuing my Doctorate in the Educational Administration and Leadership Doctoral program at California University of Pennsylvania. For my Doctoral Capstone Project, I am conducting a study to investigate the perceptions of high school teachers regarding the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework Wings of Praise and CCHS’s behavioral expectations PRIDE, and its impact on the high school. In this semi-formal interview, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your years of service at Cedar Crest High School (CCHS), your knowledge of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and your perception of Wings of Praise a Tier 1, PBIS framework. In addition, you will also be asked about your perspective on professional development and if it is needed based off the implementation of Wings of Praise into CCHS. The only information I will collect about you will be how many years you have been working at CCHS, and how many years you have been teaching overall. You have been randomly selected to participate in this study due to being employed as a full time teacher within the Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Cedar Crest High School. I changed all names into numbers this making no identifying markers to your name. I then utilized Microsoft Excel and a randomized function to select your number from a list of all Teachers of Cedar Crest High School. You will be asked to participate in the interview that will take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. A third party individual, who has knowledge of conducting semiformal interviews, will complete this interview. The interviews will take place either in the teachers’ classroom or in one of the conference rooms located in CCHS’s main office. The interview consists of seven (7) questions. There is no potential risk, but there might be a feeling of uncomfortableness, as some individuals do not like to give negative feedback or information. Please understand, no one participating in this study is required to answer any question of his or her choice. All participants, also, have the right to stop their participation in the interview at any time without being questioned. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 219 Privacy is my number one concern, and no data that is collected will be correlated back to you, thus keeping all material confidential within this study. Any interview information will be kept on a secure server and password-protected and/or in a locked file or office at all times. You do not have to be interviewed for this study, if you do not want to participate please just notify the interviewer and I can randomly select another teacher. If you do agree to participate in this study, please understand you have the right to stop at any point in time. By completing this Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview Consent Form, you are giving your consent to participate and have your answers audio recorded for transcription for this Capstone research study. The benefits of this study and your participation will allow the Researcher to improve the PBIS framework, and provide additional data to create a professional development plan. If you have questions about this Doctoral Capstone research investigation please contact John Shaffer at sha9040@calu.edu or 717-585-1201. If you would like to speak to someone other than the Researcher, please contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, California University of PA Capstone Committee Faculty Chair, at keruskin@calu.edu. I have read the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-form Interview Consent Form. Any questions I have about participating in this Capstone Research study have been answered and I agree to take part in this study. I understand that participating in this study is voluntary, and I can stop my participation at any time and for any reason without being questioned, during this study. I agree to participate in this Capstone Research study, and by doing so, I have read this form and understand all the expectations of this study. Signature: ______________________________________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________________________ Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board, Proposal #20-035. This approval is effective 7/31/21 and expires 7/30/22. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PBIS 220 Appendix F PBIS Semi-formal Interview Questions Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Semi-formal Interview Questions 1. Can you please tell me how many years have you been teaching for Cedar Crest High School? 2. Can you please tell me how many years have you been teaching overall? 3. Do you have any understanding of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports or PBIS? i. If so what is that understanding? 4. Do you think Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, was effectively implemented into the high school? i. If so, explain what was effective. ii. If not how could it have been? 5. In your perspective, do you think Wings of Praise, a Tier 1 PBIS framework, is effective at the High School level? i. If so, explain what is effective. ii. If not how could it become effective in the high school? 6. Have you given any Wings of Praise out to students? i. If so, how is the interaction with the students? ii. If not please elaborate as to why you have not given any out. 7. If the school districted provided professional development on Tier 1 PBIS training, would this be beneficial? i. What would you like to see, particularly towards Wings of Praise to increase participation within this framework?