Including Students With Disabilities in Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Experiences and Perspectives of Special Educators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As interest in proactive and systematic approaches to supporting positive student behavior grows, important questions remain about the ways in which special education staff and their students participate in school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). We report findings from a statewide study of 849 special educators addressing (a) their involvement in their school’s PBIS framework, (b) the ways their students with disabilities participate, (c) potential barriers to such participation, and (d) the topics and avenues through which they desire professional development. Special educators rarely participated in school-wide PBIS teams, reported variability in the extent to which their students with disabilities participated in aspects of the school’s framework, indicated that they implemented some features of the framework in their classroom more than others, and highlighted salient barriers to student involvement. The views and actions of special educators working primarily with students with low-incidence disabilities differed from those of teachers working with students with high-incidence disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice aimed at enhancing the implementation and impact of school-wide PBIS on students with disabilities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it