School-wide and individualized effective behavior support: An explanation and an example.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The principles of applied behavior analysis provide the foundation for the Effective Behavior Support (EBS) approach to school discipline. EBS in action is exemplified in the Individualized Positive Support (IPS) project, which emphasized teacher training in functional assessment and positive behavior support. The IPS project examined the effect of in- service training in function-based support for teachers and paraprofessionals on office discipline referrals for cohorts of elementary school students. Thirty cohorts of students, starting in Kindergarten through Grade 4, were studied in terms of discipline referrals over a three-year period. Five schools participated in the study and all were using the EBS approach with an 80% or higher level of implementation by the last year of the project. In the second year of the project, all five schools implemented the School Wide Information System (SWIS), a computerized system for recording and charting discipline referrals. Average reliability for SWIS data entry across 5 schools, when compared to the original paper referrals, was 86.56% (s.d., 6.69%). For 4 out of 5 schools, changes in school-wide discipline referrals were validated by teachers' perceptions of changes in students' behaviors. Four of the five schools also participated in the in-service training on function-based support, with 2 to 10 staff members per school receiving training. Schools where 6 or more staff members participated in training in function based support had more cohorts of students who improved or remained low in comparison to typical grade level expectations than schools where fewer staff members participated in the training. Implications for behavior therapists are discussed. ********** Effective Behavior Support (EBS) is a systems approach to school discipline designed to enhance the capacity of schools to educate all students, including students with challenging social behaviors, by establishing an efficient and effective approach of (a) systems that support staff, (b) practices that support students, and (c) data that guide decision-making. Although relatively young as an approach, EBS already has been adopted by many schools in the U.S. and Canada and interest in it is growing (e.g., Colvin & Fernandez, 2000; Homer, Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Todd, 2001; Homer, Sugai, & Todd, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Nakasato, 2000; Sugai et al., 2000; Sugai & Homer, 1994, 1999, 2001; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Taylor-Greene, & Kartub, 2000; Todd, Homer, Sugai, & Colvin, 1999). EBS is not a one-size-fits-all curriculum but a process based on a set of guiding principles to enable each school to proactively address the discipline needs of their students. The EBS process enables schools to apply to their own situation the basic concepts of applied behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968) for individual students and classrooms (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988) and on a school-wide level, using concepts from organizational behavior management (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1992). The following list represents the seven minimum requirements for a school to initiate the EBS systems approach: 1. Team-based approach to problem solving issues related to school-wide discipline. 2. Active administrator support and participation on the school-wide discipline team. 3. Proactive instructional al roach (positive and preventative) to teaching social behaviors. 4. Local behavioral expertise that can provide specialized, individualized, and intensive support to individual students. 5. Data-based decision making to determine needs, strengths, and 6. School-wide discipline as a high priority (one of the top 3 school improvement goals). 7. Sustained and long-term commitment (3-4 years) to systems approach. The proactive instructional approach is the hallmark of successful EBS programs. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".