School leaders react to inappropriate behaviors by excluding students, despite research suggesting an association with poor student outcomes. Students with disabilities are frequently subjected to these practices. One framework that has been proposed to reduce the reliance on reactive discipline procedures is schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports (SWPBIS). In this study, we replicated several state-level quasi-experimental studies with discipline data from California. Using propensity score matching, we compared 544 schools implementing SWPBIS with fidelity and 544 schools that had never been trained. We found statistically significantly fewer out-of-school suspensions and days missed due to out-of-school suspensions across all students. Students with disabilities were statistically significantly less likely to be sent to alternative settings due to behavior in schools implementing SWPBIS with fidelity, with an effect size of −0.65. These results replicate and extend prior findings.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Policy statement: Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131, e1000–e1007. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3932
3.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective schools: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852
4.
ArciaE. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38, 359–369. doi:10.1177/0013124506286947
5.
BearG. C. (2012). Both suspension and alternatives work, depending on one’s aim. Journal of School Violence, 11, 174–186. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.652914
6.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
7.
BradshawC. P.KothC. W.ThorntonL. A.LeafP. 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. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
8.
BradshawC. P.MitchellM. M.LeafP. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
9.
California Department of Education. (2017a). School Accountability Report Card. Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
10.
California Department of Education. (2017b). State schools chief Tom Torlakson announces fifth year in a row of declining student suspensions and expulsions [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr17/yr17rel80.asp
11.
ChildsK. E.KincaidD.GeorgeH. P.GageN. A. (2016). The relationship between school-wide implementation of positive behavior intervention and supports and student discipline outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 89–99. doi:10.1177/1098300715590398
12.
CholewaB.HullM. F.BabcockC. R.SmithA. D. (2018). Predictors and academic outcomes associated with in-school suspension. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 191–199. doi:10.1037/spq0000213
13.
CuellarA. E.MarkowitzS. (2015). School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline. International Review of Law & Economics, 43, 98–106. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2015.06.001
GageN. A.Grasley-BoyN.GeorgeH. P.ChildsK.KincaidD. (2019). A quasi-experimental design analysis of the effects of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on discipline in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21, 50–61. doi:10.1177/1098300718768208
16.
GageN. A.LeeA.Grasley-BoyN.GeorgeH. P. (2018). The impact of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on school suspensions: A statewide quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20, 217–226. doi:10.1177/1098300718768204
17.
GageN. A.LeiteW.ChildsK.KincaidD. (2017). Average treatment effect of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on school-level academic achievement in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19, 158–167. doi:10.1177/1098300717693556
18.
GageN. A.WhitfordD. K.KatsiyannisA. (2018). A review of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports as a framework for reducing disciplinary exclusions. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 142–151. doi:10.1177/0022466918767847
19.
HansenB. B.FredricksonM.BucknerJ.ErricksonJ.SolenbergerP. (2018). Optmatch: Functions for optimal matching (R Package Version 0.9-8). Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/optmatch/
20.
HoD.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE.WhitworthA. (2017). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8), 1–28. doi:10.18637/jss.v042.i08
21.
HornerR. H.SugaiG.AndersonC. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1–14. doi:10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906
22.
JackmanS. (2017). pscl: Classes and methods for R developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory (R Package Version 1.5.2). Retrieved from http://pscl.stanford.edu/
23.
LehrC. A.TanC. S.YsseldykeJ. (2009). Alternative schools: A synthesis of state-level policy and research. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 19–32. doi:10.1177/0741932508315645
24.
LeiteW. (2017). Propensity score methods using R. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
25.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McIntoshK.MassarM. M.AlgozzineR. F.GeorgeH. P.HornerR. H.LewisT. J.Swain-BradwayJ. (2017). Technical adequacy of the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19, 3–13. doi:10.1177/1098300716637193
28.
MorrisE. W.PerryB. L. (2016). The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement. Social Problems, 63, 68–86. doi:10.1093/socpro/spv026
29.
MowenT.BrentJ. (2016). School discipline as a turning point: The cumulative effect of suspension on arrest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 628–653. doi:10.1177/0022427816643135
NoltemeyerA. L.WardR. M.McloughlinC. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44, 224–240. doi:10.17105/spr-14-0008.1
32.
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2017). Positive behavioral interventions and supports. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org
33.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/
34.
RosenbaumP. R. (1989). Optimal matching for observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1024–1032. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478868
35.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
36.
RumbergerR. W.LosenD. J. (2016). The high cost of harsh discipline and its disparate impact. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
37.
SadlerC.SugaiG. (2009). Effective behavior and instructional support: A district model for early identification and prevention of reading and behavior problems. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 35–46. doi:10.1177/1098300708322444
38.
SimonsenB.EberL.BlackA. C.SugaiG.LewandowskiH.SimsB.MeyersD. (2012). Illinois statewide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Evolution and impact on student outcomes across years. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 5–16. doi:10.1177/1098300711412601
39.
SugaiG.HornerR. H. (2009). Defining and describing school-wide positive behavior support. In SailorW.DunlapG.SugaiG.HornerR. (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
40.
SullivanA. L.KlingbeilD. A.Van NormanE. R. (2013). Beyond behavior: Multilevel analysis of the influence of sociodemographics and school characteristics on students’ risk of suspension. School Psychology Review, 42, 99–114.
41.
SullivanA. L.Van NormanE. R.KlingbeilD. A. (2014). Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities: Student and school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 199–210. doi:10.1177/0741932513519825
42.
TheriotM. T.CraunS. W.DupperD. R. (2010). Multilevel evaluation of factors predicting school exclusion among middle and high school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 13–19. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.009
VuongQ. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307–333. doi:10.2307/1912557
45.
WaasdorpT. E.BradshawC. P.LeafP. J. (2012). The impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 166, 149–156. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.755
WilkersonK.AfacanK.PerzigianA.JustinW.LequiaJ. (2016). Behavior-focused alternative schools: Impact on student outcomes. Behavioral Disorders, 41, 81–94. doi:10.17988/0198-7429-41.2.81
48.
WoolridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
