A Qualitative Analysis of Middle and High School Teacher Perceptions of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports

Abstract

Full stakeholder support for any innovation can be difficult to achieve, particularly in complex systems such as middle and high schools. Increasingly, obtaining middle and high school teacher support for Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS) is identified as a challenging yet crucial element of implementation. The reasons behind these challenges are not well understood; thus, the purpose of this study was to attain a better understanding of the SWPBS-related needs and concerns of middle and high school teachers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze open-ended concerns statements and statements of need from teachers working in 19 middle and high schools. Regardless of SWPBS implementation level, the most prevalent concerns pertained to staff support and consensus, and the most prevalent needs were related to collaboration. There were high levels of consistency in concerns and needs, with a few differences found in the concerns and needs statements of teachers in implementing and low-implementing schools. Full results, limitations, and implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

schoolwide positive behavior support teacher perceptions systems change adolescents secondary schools

Evidence supports the implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS) for reducing antisocial behaviors and increasing prosocial behaviors that facilitate learning (e.g., Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006). Yet, many schools struggle to achieve the systemic change necessary to shift from a system of reactive discipline to a more proactive system like SWPBS (e.g., Kincaid, Childs, Blase, & Wallace, 2007; Muscott et al., 2004). An emerging line of research indicates that implementation challenges may be due in part to lack of teacher support for SWPBS. Leadership teams (Kincaid et al., 2007), SWPBS facilitators (Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri, 2008), and problem-solving teams (Bambara, Nonnemacher, & Kern, 2009) alike have identified teacher support for SWPBS as an influential factor in the process of implementation.

A lack of support from teachers can stymie the change efforts of any school, but it may be more problematic in middle and high schools due to the complexities typical of middle and high school settings. As compared with elementary school, middle and high school buildings tend to be larger with more complex departmental organization and administrative structures that present challenges to collaboration and communication (Flannery, Frank, Kato, Doren, & Fenning, 2013). Middle and high school teachers are more content-area specialized, with priorities relating to preparing students for graduation and promoting independent, young adults who can successfully compete in a global economy (Bohanon et al., 2006). Whereas teachers in elementary schools are more apt to view teaching social and behavioral expectations as a natural part of their role, teachers in middle and high schools tend to place increasing responsibility on students to manage their own behavior without supports. Moreover, middle and high school teachers tend to receive less preparation and training in social, emotional, and behavioral supports than elementary teachers (Flannery et al., 2013; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009; Young, Caldarella, Richardson, & Young, 2012), and secondary teachers tend to emphasize punitive consequences (Flannery et al., 2013;), believing them to be more effective and authentic than reinforcement (Lohrmann et al., 2008).

Considering these challenges, it is not surprising that a lower percentage of secondary schools have achieved SWPBS implementation as compared with elementary schools (Horner, 2013). Secondary schools may take considerably more time to reach consensus and achieve meaningful change (Flannery et al., 2013), and they may encounter more struggles in sustainability (McIntosh, Kim, Mercer, Strickland-Cohen, & Horner, 2015). In one study, only a third of secondary SWPBS leadership teams reported they were able to achieve nearly 80% staff support for SWPBS (Flannery et al., 2009). This is particularly important given that achieving this level of support for SWPBS is considered a critical initial step to implementation (e.g., Coffey & Horner, 2012). Yet, there is little research to guide teams in achieving this level of staff support.

Furthermore, the use of data to guide decisions is a key feature of SWPBS. However, data from teachers, the central stakeholder group charged with implementation, are seldom gathered and used to guide implementation decisions. Teacher concerns and needs are not well understood, and the function of their resistance to SWPBS is unknown. Although SWPBS is a positive approach to discipline and behavior support, it is evident that not all teachers will immediately embrace the framework. If we can develop an understanding of their perspectives, we may be able to avoid or mitigate issues that could thwart implementation. Previous studies in SWPBS have examined the perspectives of team members, coordinators, and administrators, but research has yet to examine the perspectives of the teachers at the schoolwide level. Teachers work directly with students and are expected to implement the practices of SWPBS; therefore, it is essential to reach a better understanding of their concerns and needs related to SWPBS.

The more established field of organizational change advises us to consider the perceptions of stakeholders charged with implementing an innovation. In this field, identifying the needs and concerns of members in the system is standard practice. When we understand concerns and needs, we can address them proactively and achieve greater momentum in the change process (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008; McGlinchy & Goodman, 2008). Furthermore, it is important that we do not infer the concerns and needs of stakeholders but directly assess them (Hall & Hord, 2011; Nagle & Gagnon, 2008; Roach, Kratochwill, & Frank, 2009).

Thus, the purpose of this qualitative exploratory study was to gain a better understanding of the landscape of the concerns and needs of middle and high school teachers in schools across different levels of SWPBS implementation. To this end, we adapted a qualitative needs assessment method used in the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). The CBAM is a stage-based theory of educational change wherein understanding stakeholders’ concerns enables change agents to provide the type of support that best fit their needs (Hall & Hord, 2011; Roach et al., 2009). In the CBAM approach, concerns are viewed broadly; concerns could be negative, for example, “I don’t agree with this model” or positive, for example, “I have ideas to make it better.” Gathering data in this manner provides teams with direct and practical information to guide staff support.

Method

Participants

Participating schools consisted of 19 schools across nine districts in western Washington: four urban, three rural, and two suburban. There were 12 middle schools, six high schools, and one middle/high school. All were public schools, with one magnet school, one alternative middle/high school, and one alternative high school. Additional demographic information for the schools can be found in Table 1. Participating schools were recruited based on location and reported involvement with SWPBS. We chose schools based on location, as it was necessary for us to visit the schools to collect Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) data. All participating schools were in the readiness stage of SWPBS implementation or beyond. The readiness stage was operationalized as engaging in planning activities to begin implementation sometime in the next year. As it would not be meaningful to assess the needs and concerns of teachers if they did not have at least a basic understanding of SWPBS, all schools had received an awareness training that described the basic principles of SWPBS. The administrator or the leadership team of the participating schools judged that based on this awareness training, their staff had at least a basic understanding of SWPBS. We did not provide training for the participating schools, and this research was not conducted as part of a funded project.

Table 1.

Demographics, Response Rates, and SET Scores for Participating Schools.

School	District	Enrollment	Grades	FRPL (%)	Number of responses	Response rate (%)	SET score^a
A	1	890	6–8	61	38	84	85
B	1	782	6–8	31	21	50	39
C	1	875	6–8	83	25	51	73
D	2	736	6–8	74	35	67	74
E	2	923	6–8	63	30	52	86
F	2	113	9–12	53	27	39	70
G	3	763	6–8	62	30	75	64
H	3	149	9–12	72	50	63	21
I	4	530	6–8	36	12	44	50
J	5	528	6–8	53	17	40	45
K	6	167	9–12	40	79	93	39
L	7	270	6–8	29	7	44	85
M	7	757	7–8	40	18	56	69
N	7	112	9–12	37	17	40	50
O	7	162	9–12	58	2	20	76
P	8	823	6–8	34	37	75	86
Q	8	172	9–12	46	6	43	38
R	8	117	9–12	28	34	52	63
S	9	530	6–8	47	14	40	48

Note. SET = Schoolwide Evaluation Tool; FRPL = free and reduced-price lunch.

Responses from schools with SET scores above 80 were analyzed as implementing (n = 112). Responses from schools with SET scores below 80 (n = 387) were analyzed as low-implementing.

The nature and amount of training the teachers received varied across the schools. Schools were in various stages of SWPBS implementation, ranging from the readiness stage to full implementation. Thus, staff in the participating schools had received various amounts of training in SWPBS, ranging from overviews of SWPBS to extensive trainings. As compared with the schools not yet implementing, the schools implementing SWPBS had received more training. Teachers in schools not yet fully implementing SWPBS had typically received 1 to 3 hr of training while teachers in schools implementing SWPBS had typically received 4 to 6 hr of training.

Participants were general and special education teachers who work directly with students. The average response rate of 54% among teachers across all schools was comparable with the 52.3% average response rate cited in organizational sciences (Anseel, Lievens, Schollaert, & Choragwicka, 2010). Response rates were calculated as the number of teachers employed when the survey was sent as compared with the number of teachers who responded. Table 1 includes response rates for each school.

Measures

Concerns and needs

To reach an understanding of teachers’ concerns, statements of concern were gathered from teachers. The following open-ended prompt for concern statements was adapted from the CBAM (Fuller, 1969; Hall & Hord, 2011; Roach et al., 2009): “When you think about Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports, what concerns do you have? Please be frank and answer in complete sentences” (Hall & Hord, 2011, p. 79). To gather information related to their needs, teachers were asked, “What is needed to make the behavior and discipline practices in this school work better?” To encourage genuine responses, teachers provided their responses anonymously via an email survey link.

SWPBS implementation

After the needs and concerns data were gathered from teachers, we administered the SET. The SET is an established tool designed to measure the level of SWPBS implementation by assessing the critical components of SWPBS, including expectations defined, behavior expectations taught, ongoing system for rewarding behavior expectations, system for responding to behavioral violations, monitoring and decision making, management, and district-level support. The SET has robust test–retest reliability (M = 97.3), inter-observer agreement (M = 99%), internal consistency (α = .96), construct validity (Pearson’s r = .75), and sensitivity to change. The average percentage of implementation across SET domains is a general index of SWPBS implementation. An average percentage of 80% or above on the SET suggests that schools reached implementation of SWPBS (Horner et al., 2004). Table 1 identifies the SET scores for all the schools. Schools with SET scores above 80 were grouped as implementing (n = 4), and schools with SET scores below 80 were grouped as low-implementing (n = 15).

Data Analysis

We used thematic analysis, a well-established method of qualitative analysis to analyze each response to the concerns and needs prompts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This method of analysis allowed us to understand the specific nature of staff concerns and needs, rather than utilizing a direct application of the CBAM, which would have us determine each respondent’s stage of concern. Thematic analysis is more exploratory and helpful in this instance, where specific concerns and needs are not yet understood. This method of analysis is commonly used for exploring phenomenon without a priori expectations, as such expectations may unnecessarily limit or exclude important information in exploratory studies. In the first stage of analysis, we read 20% of the statements independently, recorded concrete codes or phrases, and then grouped these codes into themes. For example, phrases such as “we all need to buy-in” and “all of us need to be on board” were grouped under a central, higher order theme “consensus and support.” We used a co-occurring coding process because each response typically contained more than one theme. For example, a statement such as “The morale is so bad around here that I doubt all teachers will implement this” was identified under the “stress and climate” theme and the “consensus and support” theme. In the open-ended coding process, agreement required both coders to construct the same codes, and this agreement was not based on any set of previously identified codes. We achieved an inter-coder agreement (ICA) of 73% within this first round of analysis of the concerns statements, and an ICA of 71% for the first round of coding of the needs statements. We discussed the process, the resulting themes, and achieved full consensus on coding each statement. We coded the next 20% of the data independently. The ICA for the second round was 86% for the concerns and 79% for the needs. The analysis of new cases did not bring new themes; thus, we were determined that we had reached saturation with the data—that is, we had identified all relevant codes. After consensus was achieved on all codes from this second round, each researcher independently coded the remaining 60% of the data. An ICA of 82% was achieved on this round of coding of the concerns, and an ICA of 79% was achieved on this round of coding of the needs. All instances of disagreement were discussed until 100% agreement was reached.

Validation

The current study utilized several methods of validation. First, the data were coded independently by the two researchers, and high rates of agreement were obtained. Second, regular discussions helped control for potential biases, predispositions, and other issues that might potentially interfere with the reliability of the process and the validity of the findings. Third, after the analyses described above were completed, new data were received from two middle schools and one high school, all in the planning stages of SWPBS. We replicated the coding process applying the previously developed codes to the data from these three schools. We agreed that we could add new codes if necessary, but we found no need to do so. We then compared the new results with the results obtained from the first set of schools using enumeration or frequency of each theme in the new results with those of the prior results. The proportions of the themes occurring in the newer data sets were similar to those in the older data sets. Thus, newly coded responses were used to corroborate results drawn from the previously coded responses. We were unable to perform member checks or follow-up with respondents to validate their responses because responses were completed anonymously to promote honest responses and security of data. However, the consistencies noted across the data sets supported our previous conclusions that we reached data saturation and identified the most prevalent needs and concerns from the participating teachers.

Results

Concerns

The results of the analysis of concerns yielded nine themes. They are presented below in order of prevalence (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Percentage of Teacher Concerns and Needs in Implementing, Low-Implementing, and All Schools.

Item	School
Item	Implementing (%)	Low-implementing (%)	All (%)
Teacher concerns
Staff consensus	47	40	42
Resources	26	32	31
Philosophy	26	27	27
Climate and stress	13	22	19
Administrator support	23	17	19
Change process	18	18	18
Student behavior	14	18	17
Student involvement	11	15	14
Parental involvement	8	6	6
Teacher needs
Collaboration	51	44	46
Discipline system	32	30	30
Resources	19	35	28
Administrator support	23	20	21
Consistency	18	16	16
Specific procedures	10	14	13
Expectations	12	7	9
Relationships	8	7	7
Acknowledgements	6	5	5

Consensus and support

Concerns for consensus and full staff support of SWPBS were identified in nearly half (42%) of all responses (47% implementing and 40% low-implementing schools). Teachers across all schools expressed concern that their colleagues did not buy into SWPBS and would not implement the plan consistently. As one teacher explained, “There isn’t enough understanding and buy-in to the PBIS program here, and that leads to a lack of consistency that will sink the program.” Concerns statements contained phrases such as “unless we are all on board” and “we all need to be on the same page.” Even though fellow staff may have voiced support for SWPBS publically, teachers were skeptical that their colleagues would follow through with implementation once out of the sight of others. As one teacher stated, “There is a passive–aggressive attitude. Staff say they agree to a new policy, yet do not enforce it.” Some described staff tendencies to rely on a “personal point of view instead of seeing the global impact issues have on an entire staff,” and one explained, “I do not believe some teachers see the power in a united staff effort to address student behaviors.” Teachers expressed concern about potentially being in the minority enforcing the rules and worried they would be “isolated in toeing the line.” Many teachers provided their insights into potential causes for the lack of consensus. One teacher described concerns for lack of accountability: “There is never 100% buy-in by the staff. No matter how hard some of us try, there are always a few who sabotage our efforts. This can only be fixed by a strong administration which we don’t have.” Another teacher stated that philosophical differences were a barrier to achieving consensus: “The biggest issue will be that we have differing beliefs . . . so coming up with a plan that all agree on and will participate in is a bit of a Sisyphean task.”

Resources

Concerns for resources such as funding, time, staffing, and training were coded in 31% of all responses (26% implementing and 32% low-implementing schools). In an era of budget reductions and limited grant funding, teachers suspected that insufficient funding was allocated: “We have a long history, at least 11 years in which we have started many things that would have a positive change on our school but then never finish it because of money.” Concerns for limited funds were linked to insufficient allocation of training and release time: “I know that the reality of teaming and common plan time is expensive and difficult in this current economic climate, but I feel to improve behavior teachers need time to collaborate with other teachers.” Teachers aired dissatisfaction with both the quantity and quality of time afforded for training. As one teacher explained, “There needs to be work days for staff to work on this during the year—not after school when everyone is tired but actual work days during the school year.” They also discussed concern for the lack of “serious professional development (not a staff meeting)” and disappointment with the method and content of the training provided, voicing concern for being “talked at,” “no opportunity to see others implementing it . . . and mentoring,” and lack of training that is culturally responsive.

Philosophy

Concerns about the underlying philosophy of SWPBS were identified in 27% of all responses (26% implementing and 27% low-implementing schools). Teachers worried about the impact of extrinsic rewards on students’ intrinsic motivation. One teacher stated, “Students must know that out in the real world, you’re not always rewarded for doing the right thing.” Teachers cited their students’ responses to the rewards systems as evidence for these concerns, “If you comment to a class that they did really well on an assignment or behavior wise their first comment is ‘So what do we get?’ I want to know how to develop the internal drive!!!” In fact, some teachers vehemently disagreed with rewarding students for meeting expectations rather than reserving rewards for exceptional behaviors. As this teacher commented, “We are rewarding students for things that they should already be doing! I have concerns about rewarding the minimum from students, thus reinforcing a culture of mediocrity.”

Teachers also voiced concern for the effectiveness of SWPBS with students at the middle and high school level. As one teacher explained, “It seems unlikely that we will be able to reverse or ameliorate undesirable habits and behaviors entrenched over the course of years in the span of a school year. I feel like we are asked to work behavioral miracles.” Moreover, as this teacher stated, “There are kids that will never follow rules. Progressively what are we prepared to do with kids that do not change?”

Teachers also were concerned regarding the ecological approach to behavior that underlies the philosophy of SWPBS. Some teachers expressed worries for “the focus on teacher behavior rather than those of the student.” As one teacher stated, “I feel too many accommodations are made, and too many exceptions are made. Instead of changing the expectations to fit the child, the child needs to change behaviors to fit expectations.” One teacher described the practices as “micro-management,” resulting in “mindless masses of obedient, but unthinking robot-like beings . . . we talk AT them [students] too much and TELL them how to behave with a trunkful of rubrics, grids, matrixes, etc.” Finally, some teachers expressed philosophical disagreement with the standardization of practices across teachers and departments, citing a need for more autonomy to decide what is best for their students. Some teachers were concerned that they were being asked to change unnecessarily. As one teacher stated, “We do our own thing in this wing and it works.”

Climate and stress

Concerns about climate and stress were noted in nearly a fifth (19%) of all responses (13% implementing and 22% low-implementing schools). Some teachers described a climate of resistance to change and “negative attitudes.” As this teacher stated, “Some of the staff members are just anti-everything: anti-administration and resist anything they put forth, do not want to participate on committees, and take jabs at us that do.” Others described feeling “overwhelmed” and “disenchanted,” stating they felt blamed for many of the problems in the school: “Every concern is met with the same answer that ‘It is the teacher’s fault.’” Teachers often linked their concerns for stress and climate with other prevalent themes, such as lack of staff consensus, administrator supports, and resources. Workload expectations were linked to the broader societal context of the profession: “We currently work under inhumane working conditions, all of us. Educators and students face wildly unreasonable demands, and until the climate is addressed, we are all operating on survival mode.” Also, some cited workload as the cause of personal stress (e.g., “I am overwhelmed with my current responsibilities” and “I need less pressure and fewer tasks”). Some teachers speculated that climate and stress was the cause of low job satisfaction and even burnout.

Administrator supports

Concerns about administrator supports were identified in 19% of concern statements (23% implementing and 17% low-implementing schools). Teachers voiced concern that administrators were ineffective in communicating expectations to staff, inconsistent in enforcing consequences for students, and failed to support staff disciplinary actions. As this teacher described,

Often it feels like administrators don’t think teachers have tried things in the classroom, or given different efforts before sending them to the office. . . . If students are sent down the office it is something serious or the teacher has followed the progressive steps in the classroom and that is the next step.

Teachers detailed instances where administrators overturned their disciplinary decisions, vacillated in the face of parental conflict, or failed to address the situation entirely. Teachers emphasized the necessity of strong leadership; one teacher stated, “Without it, the program would be inconsistent and eventually dissolve into finger-pointing amongst staff and divergent philosophies about how to approach student behavior and discipline.”

Change process

Concerns associated with the process of change were found in 18% of the statements (18% implementing and 18% low-implementing schools). Teachers voiced concern regarding the rate of change, limited involvement in the change process, the number of competing change initiatives, and the potential for sustainability of SWPBS. Teachers were concerned that implementation moved too quickly without adequate training and preparation:

Maybe the cart came a bit before the horse and we started implementing school-wide strategies before some staff really understood what it is. I am concerned some will reject the school-wide effort because they don’t get it and not because they disagree with it. It’s a great idea, but our district has many great ideas. We learn them, use them, then the district just comes up with something different.

Some teachers reported limited opportunities to provide input into the change process; one respondent stated that “teacher input into the process is minimal,” and “these are top down decisions.” As one teacher described, “We aren’t often asked what we think and when we are it sometimes seems that it was just for show and the decision was already made.” Teachers also reported concerns for the number of competing change efforts: “Too many programs . . . and then we’re expected to deliver on top of other programs.”

Some teachers were skeptical of the long-term commitment to SWPBS. As one teacher stated, “I am concerned that a lot of effort is being wasted on a program that will be gone in 2–3 years.” Phrases such as “just another fad” and “it is just the latest thing” were coupled with questions about whether SWPBS could be successful given that past efforts “fizzled” over time due to a “culture of revolving initiatives.”

Student behavior

Responses revealed 17% of concerns related to student behavior (14% implementing and 18% low-implementing schools). Responses discussed concerns about the utility of SWPBS with respect to specific student behavior problems often experienced in the middle and high school settings such as fighting, vulgarity, disrespect to teachers, bullying, noncompliance, use of phones in class, dress code violations, and public displays of affection.

Student involvement

Concerns about student involvement in SWPBS were detected in 14% of concerns (11% implementing and 15% low-implementing schools). Teachers were concerned that students were not meaningfully involved in the process, including the defining of expectations and setting of consequences. In particular, teachers reported concerns about student perceptions of the schoolwide reinforcement system and doubted students understood the significance of rewards. They suggested students were becoming habituated to rewards, viewing them as “commonplace.” They felt students found the acknowledgment system “childish” and viewed them as “doggie treats.” One teacher commented, “Students are insulted and offended by a plan of bribery to behave. Some even refuse them.” Another teacher commented, “The upper classes think it’s a joke and that we are treating them like elementary school students.”

Parental involvement

Concerns regarding parental involvement were detected in 6% of all concern statements (8% implementing and 6% low-implementing schools). Teachers were concerned that parents were not involved in the process of planning for, and implementing, SWPBS. This includes information dissemination as well as the consideration of the larger context of parents and families in implementation. One teacher stated, “I see confusion among parents and how they can positively impact behavior.” Other staff coupled their concerns with ways the school might better involve parents in the process, as this teacher suggested,

A survey with the parents needs to be done to see how they feel about that [SWPBS] and how much they know about what we expect here and the extent to which they are practicing similar concepts at home. The culture of the students/families must be taken into account.

Needs

Results of the analysis of needs yielded nine themes; these are presented below in order of prevalence.

Collaboration

The need for collaboration was coded in nearly half (46%) of all responses (51% implementing and 44% low-implementing schools). As one teacher stated, “Collaboration among the staff. We have a lot of intelligent and experienced teachers among us. We need to use the knowledge of these great teachers to problem solve together.” Teachers expressed needs to work together to develop a unified vision. “We need to decide who we are, what message we want. Teachers need their colleagues to come into the fold with everyone pitching in for the benefit of the students.” Also, teachers suggested that this collaboration helped negative climate issues and that positive adult interactions themselves have a powerful impact, “It’s a puzzle, but I think adults modeling decency and care among each other is a start.”

Discipline system

Needs related to disciplinary consequences for behavioral violations were identified in nearly a third (30%) of all responses (32% implementing and 30% low-implementing schools). Teachers voiced their need for a mutually agreed-on discipline system in which consistent consequences are applied following behavior violations. Responses described the need for greater clarity of disciplinary procedures and immediate delivery of consequences. Some teachers felt current disciplinary procedures were ineffective or needed to be “harsher,” particularly with respect to students with more intense behavioral needs or “tier three students.”

Resources

Resource needs were detected in 28% of statements (19% implementing and 35% low-implementing schools). As was found in the concerns statements, teachers expressed a need for more resources such as training, time, staffing, and funding. Teachers expressed the need for resources that facilitate sufficient preparation. As one teacher said, “This district has consistently brought forward changes that have failed to supply adequate resources for professional development. If there were one factor that will become a ‘failure indicator’ it will be the lack of proper training and support.” Time was particularly prevalent within this theme. As one teacher stated, “[we need] time to plan, time to coordinate, time to create interventions, time to implement interventions, more time for students and on and on with time. We are time starved.”

Administrator support

Similar to what was found in the concerns statements, administrator support was noted in one fifth (21%) of needs statements (23% implementing and 20% low-implementing schools). Again, teachers voiced needs for greater administrator support, active participation, and enforcement of programmatic expectations. One teacher stated, “Teachers need to feel that they [administrators] have our back.”

Consistency

The need for consistency was expressed in 16% of all needs statements (18% implementing and 16% low-implementing schools). Teachers expressed a general need for consistent implementation of the schoolwide plan, including consistency in addressing behavioral violations and providing reinforcement for expected behaviors.

Specific procedures

Needs related to specific discipline procedures were identified in 13% of responses (10% implementing and 14% low-implementing schools). Teachers emphasized a need for procedures specific to their schoolwide plan and offered suggestions for revising discipline policy such as tardy policies and suspensions. Specific suggestions also included the adoption of preventive practices and alternatives to exclusionary discipline, such as restorative justice.

Defining and teaching expectations

Needs related to defining and teaching expectations were coded in nearly one tenth (9%) of responses (12% implementing and 7% low-implementing schools). Teachers voiced a need for clearly defined expectations, common language, and more explicit instruction in behavioral expectations for students.

Student–teacher relationships

Teachers expressed needs related to relationships with students in 7% of responses (8% implementing and 7% low-implementing schools). Some teachers expressed the need to establish more meaningful relationships with students. As one teacher explained, “We need to know more and respond to students’ needs with a clear understanding of their experience.” They stated that teachers value relationships with students and “know that positive interaction with kids is key.”

Acknowledgment system

Needs pertaining to acknowledgment systems were identified in 5% of responses (6% implementing and 5% low-implementing schools). These teachers described the need for additional delivery of acknowledgments for meeting behavioral expectations. In their needs statements, some teachers discussed students who deserved rewards and those who did not. Others expressed the value of ensuring all students were receiving positive reinforcement, including those moving toward positive changes, as stated here, “It’s also important to notice the positive progress and steps of students who tend to make ‘poorer’ choices.”

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of middle and high school teachers’ concerns and needs related to the SWPBS efforts in their schools. The current study builds on our understanding of teachers’ perceptions of SWPBS in important ways. First, this is the first study to elicit teacher needs and concerns specific to SWPBS at the building level. Previous studies targeted a select group of teachers (e.g., Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010) or gathered data from team members, coaches, and administrators (e.g., Kincaid et al., 2007). Second, this study examines the needs and concerns of teachers in middle and high school settings. Previous studies explored perceptions related to SWPBS from mixed levels of schools or elementary only. Finally, this study explores the concerns and needs of teachers working in schools that are implementing SWPBS and in schools that have not yet reached implementation.

Common Themes

Concerns and needs were remarkably similar in schools implementing and not yet implementing SWPBS. Staff consensus and support, resources, and philosophical concerns were the most prevalent concerns regardless of implementation level. The most prevalent needs were related to collaboration and discipline systems, irrespective of implementation level. Previous studies examining facilitators and barriers to implementation and sustainability highlight similar themes as found in the current study, including administrator supports, training, buy-in, and stakeholder involvement (e.g., Coffey & Horner, 2012; Lohrmann et al., 2008). Most studies have uncovered philosophical differences and misperceptions (Kincaid et al., 2007; Lohrmann et al., 2008); concern for students with intense behavioral needs (Kincaid et al., 2007); school culture, climate, time, and collaboration (Bambara et al., 2009); and feelings of disenfranchisement and skepticism (Lohrmann et al., 2008).

Implementation

Although we would expect teacher concerns and needs to evolve with implementation of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 2011), definitive conclusions cannot be made based on the overrepresentation of teachers from low-implementing schools in the current study. Thus, results from this study might be more representative of schools with low levels of implementation. Our findings revealed that the concerns and needs from teachers in low-implementing and implementing schools were more similar than different. This was also found in previous research identifying perceived facilitators and barriers within implementing and low-implementing schools. For example, Kincaid and colleagues’ (2007) interviews of SWPBS facilitators in high and low-implementing schools revealed themes similar to those noted in the current study, with both high- and low-implementing schools reporting staff support as critical to implementation.

However, there were a few differences noted in the concerns and needs of teachers in implementing and low-implementing schools. Comparing implementing schools with low-implementing schools, teachers reported more concern for staff consensus and support (47% and 40%, respectively), more concern for the support of their administrators (23% and 17%, respectively), and more needs related to collaboration (51% and 44%, respectively). These results are supported by systemic change theory, suggesting that as an innovation is implemented, stakeholder concerns shift to working with others to identify ways they might modify the process to produce a stronger effect (Hall & Hord, 2011). Comparing low-implementing schools with implementing, teachers reported proportionately more concerns about the allocation of resources (32% and 26%, respectively) as well as proportionately more need regarding resources (35% and 19%, respectively). Teachers in low-implementing schools, in comparison with implementing, reported more concern about climate and stress (22% and 13%, respectively), a finding aligned with previous research suggesting a significant, positive relationship between SWPBS implementation and the organizational health of schools (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009) and an inverse relationship between SWPBS implementation and teacher burnout (Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2012).

Middle and high schools

Staff consensus and collaboration were prevalent themes in the current study. Indeed, previous studies of secondary schools found that establishing consensus and collaboration schoolwide may be more difficult in secondary than in elementary settings (Flannery et al., 2013). More complex administrative organization and departmentalized structures found in upper level schools can complicate the process of consensus building and create barriers to collaboration. In addition, the current findings suggest that teachers in secondary settings may respond to SWPBS differently. As compared with elementary teachers, teachers working in secondary schools may focus more on disciplinary sanctions (Flannery et al., 2013). In interviews with kindergarten and first-grade teachers, Tillery and colleagues (2010) found that teachers held a positive orientation toward behavior supports and generally agreed with the underlying philosophies of SWPBS. In the current study, however, some teachers were concerned about specific behavioral problems and procedures for addressing behavioral violations. Also, teacher perceptions or beliefs that conflict with the underpinnings of SWPBS may be more prevalent in the middle and high schools; 27% of concerned teachers reflected this theme. A major area of disagreement was observed in the use of extrinsic rewards. More research is needed in the use of rewards with adolescents, as they may respond differently to rewards than elementary students (e.g., Lane, Wehby, Robertson, & Rogers, 2007). Teachers work hard to build trust and credibility with their students, and they may fear this work could be undermined if they offer rewards that students find irrelevant and juvenile. However, it may be that some teachers lacked a comprehensive understanding of the SWPBS framework. As indicated in some of the concerns statements, some schools may have been doling out non-contingent rewards of little value to adolescents, and even in implementing schools, some teachers appeared to believe the entire essence of SWPBS was the application of rewards.

Implications for Practice

It is fundamental that stakeholders be involved in the change process (Curtis et al., 2008; McGlinchy & Goodman, 2008), and offering teachers the opportunity to express their concerns and needs may facilitate their sense of ownership and commitment to SWPBS. It also provides valuable information allowing leadership teams to respond to staff needs and concerns across all stages of planning and implementation (Curtis et al., 2008). Just as in other aspects of SWPBS, in which data are used to guide decision making, we recommend that leadership teams engage in a similar methodology as used in the present study to gather data from teachers. Anonymous statements of concerns and needs may be gathered from staff at the conclusion of staff meetings or through an anonymous email survey link. Then, leadership teams can review the statements to identify salient themes and disseminate the results of the analysis back to the school staff. Dissemination is critical as it serves to demonstrate that staff input is valued, and to the extent possible, their suggestions will be considered, and their needs and concerns will be addressed. Follow-up discussions related to specific themes that arose from the analyses would be a logical next step. This process may require meaningful dialogue, sharing of all perspectives, and addressing issues of equity and distrust (McGlinchy & Goodman, 2008). For more information on the use of a SWPBS staff needs assessment tool, see Feuerborn, Tyre, and King (2015). For more detail on developing staff consensus around schoolwide expectations, see Valenti and Kerr (2014).

Limitations and Future Research

There are limitations to this study that warrant caution in interpretation. First, follow-up interviews of teachers would have allowed for more contextual information, including nonverbal behaviors and validation of our coding through member checks. However, gathering needs and concerns anonymously through an online survey increased the likelihood that participants would provide genuine responses and feel less threatened by the possibility that their responses would be identified by their administrators or colleagues. Second, we asked respondents to report their concerns and needs to provide practical information important for planning and implementation; however, we cannot be sure whether this questioning set up respondents to provide negative responses. The intent of our study was not to assess staff satisfaction with SWPBS, and the results do not allow us to draw any conclusions about satisfaction. Third, participating schools were a convenience sample based on location, and thus the current sample contained an uneven distribution of low-implementing and implementing schools. In fact, the sample did not include any implementing high schools, which may be a symptom of the problems in implementation discussed herein. Although our average response rate is considered adequate from a research perspective, it varied across schools and was higher in implementing schools than low-implementing schools. Also, because responding to the prompts was optional, our sample is a subset of teachers that may have biases or varying motivations for responding. We cannot know the extent or nature of any bias in responses. It could be that those who were very excited about SWPBS were motivated to respond, or it could be that those with a desire to express their dissatisfaction elected to respond. In either case, we cannot conclude that the responses represent all teachers. Finally, training on SWPBS was provided in each school, but we cannot be assured that the participants attended the trainings nor can we be certain that the training was sufficient in terms of quality or quantity. Yet, it is important to understand how teachers view SWPBS, even among those who may have received insufficient training. This allows us to identify concerns based on misunderstanding and misinformation that can impede implementation in naturalistic school settings. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the full landscape of concerns, and these real-life complexities may be particularly relevant to secondary schools and can add value to the findings.

There are many ways in which additional research could elaborate on this exploratory study. Future research may broaden the current sample and create a better understanding of the needs and concerns of staff in schools with different demographic variables, such as socioeconomic status and student enrollment, as these factors may present additional challenges to consistent implementation and sustainability (Bradshaw & Pas, 2011). Future research should incorporate follow-up interviews to validate responses and examine the perceptions of the staff in other roles, such as classified staff. Finally, future research should also identify effective ways to address teachers’ needs and concerns and assess perceptions of facilitators, as they may be even more important to sustainability (McIntosh et al., 2014).

Conclusion

The degree of teacher support for SWPBS can create a significant facilitator or barrier to implementation (e.g., Coffey & Horner, 2012), particularly in secondary schools (Flannery et al., 2009). However, the reasons why middle and high school teachers might or might not support SWPBS are not yet fully understood. This study explored this issue to gain a better understanding of their needs and concerns related to SWPBS efforts in their schools. With an enhanced understanding of teachers’ needs and concerns, practitioners and researchers alike are better poised to proactively address their concerns and target professional development to support their needs. Moreover, through conducting needs assessments such as the one in this study, we may create better contextual fit and greater sustainability of SWPBS (Coffey & Horner, 2012) at the secondary level. In educational change, it is important to be mindful that the identification of evidence-based practice is just one part of the process. To fully bridge the research to practice gap and help bring SWPBS to scale, it may be just as important to understand the concerns, needs, and insights of the very people we are asking to change.

Footnotes

Action Editor: Tim Slocum

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Algozzine

Wang

Violette

A. S.

(2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 3–16.

Anseel

Lievens

Schollaert

Choragwicka

(2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 335–349.

Bambara

Nonnemacher

Kern

(2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 161–176.

Bohanon

Fenning

Carney

Minnis

Anderson-Harriss

Moroz

. . . Piggott

(2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 131–145.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Koth

C. W.

Thornton

L. A.

Leaf

P. J.

(2009). Altering school climate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100–115.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Pas

E. T.

(2011). A state-wide scale-up of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS): A description of the development of systems of support and analysis of adoption and implementation. School Psychology Review, 40, 530–548.

Coffey

Horner

R. H.

(2012). The sustainability of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78, 407–422.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Curtis

M. J.

Castillo

J. M.

Cohen

R. M.

(2008). Best practices in system-level change. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 887–902). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

10.

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, 116–126.

11.

Flannery

K. B.

Frank

J. L.

Kato

M. M.

Doren

Fenning

(2013). Implementing schoolwide positive behavior support in high school settings: Analysis of eight high schools. The High School Journal, 96, 267–282.

12.

Flannery

K. B.

Sugai

Anderson

C. M.

(2009). School-wide positive behavior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 177–185.

13.

Fuller

F. F.

(1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226.

14.

Hall

G. E.

Hord

S. M.

(2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

15.

Horner

R. H.

(2013. March 6). Implementing evidence-based practices at scale with fidelity and impact. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Science Project Director’s Meeting.

16.

Horner

R. H.

Todd

A. W.

Lewis-Palmer

Irvin

L. K.

Sugai

Boland

J. B.

(2004). The School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 3–12.

17.

Kincaid

Childs

Blase

Wallace

(2007). Identifying barriers and facilitators in implementing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 174–184.

18.

Lane

K. L.

Wehby

J. H.

Robertson

E. J.

Rogers

L. A.

(2007). How do different types of high school students respond to schoolwide positive behavior support programs? Characteristics and responsiveness of teacher-identified students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 3–20.

19.

Lassen

Steele

Sailor

(2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in Schools, 43, 701–712.

20.

Lohrmann

Forman

Martin

Palmieri

(2008). Understanding school personnel’s resistance to adopting school-wide positive behavior support at a universal level of intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 256–269.

21.

McGlinchy

Goodman

(2008). Best practices in school reform. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 983–994). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

22.

McIntosh

Kim

Mercer

S. H.

Strickland-Cohen

Horner

(2015). Variables associated with enhanced sustainability of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 40, 184–191.

23.

McIntosh

Predy

L. K.

Upreti

Hume

A. E.

Turri

M. G.

Mathews

(2014). Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 29–41.

24.

Muscott

H. S.

Mann

Benjamin

T. B.

Gately

Bell

K. E.

Muscott

A. J.

(2004). Positive behavior interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Preliminary results of a statewide system for implementing school-wide discipline practices. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 453–475.

25.

Nagle

Gagnon

(2008). Best practices in planning and conducting needs assessments. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 2207–2223). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

26.

Roach

Kratochwill

Frank

(2009). School-based consultants as change facilitators: Adaptation of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) to support the implementation of research-based practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 300–320.

27.

Ross

Romer

Horner

(2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 118–128.

28.

Tillery

A. D.

Varjas

Meyers

Collins

A. S.

(2010). General education teachers’ perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 86–102.

29.

Valenti

Kerr

(2014). Addressing individual perspectives in the development of schoolwide rules: A data-informed process. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4), 1–9.

30.

Young

Caldarella

Richardson

Young

(2012). Positive behavior support in secondary schools: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.