Positive Behavior Support - Research Paper Example

Positive Behavior Support Abstract For several years, positive behaviors support (PBS) has been the appropriate approach for delivering behavioral services and it has emerged to be a highly visible movement. However, the applied behavior analysis (ABA) has influenced PBS has significantly. Additionally, the PBS has been pegged on other historic factors. Regardless of numerous angles that PBS can be analyzed, this paper aims at describing PBS in relation to behavior analysis (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). Furthermore, the article aims at providing growing evidence that PBS is a growing distinct discipline (Klein, Cook, and Richardson-Gibbs, 2001) that needs to be separated from the applied behavior analysis. There is a fundamental need to evaluate the origin and features of PBS towards understanding its underlying implications to the development and behavior correction in students. Introduction The positive behavior support is an essential form of applied behavior analysis. The PBS often uses system towards understanding the principles that often maintains the changing human behaviors. The inappropriate behaviors of humanity are often difficult to change since they form the functional purpose of humanity. Human behaviors are often supported and reinforced by the environment upon which they exist (Klein, Cook, and Richardson-Gibbs, 2001). Therefore, in case of children and students, adults’ form the environment about which the child grows. Thus, the behaviors of the adult that will shape and reinforce the child or student’s desirable behaviors since children and students will only receive attention and or objects because of the adult’s behavior. According to functional behavior assessments (FBAs), behaviors are often identified within defined contexts including situation, time, and events that usually define or predict the occurrence or lack of occurrence in behavior as well as the identity that will consequently maintain such a behavior. FBAs also create and summarize hypothesis on behavior (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). This hypothesis directly collects data and observes behaviors to obtain the baseline of these behaviors before other external or social factors get into play. Ideally, positive behaviors often support processes that lead to identification of goals, information gathering, implementation and monitoring, hypothesis development, and support plan design (Simonsen and et al., 2010). Decreasing undesirable behaviors requires techniques that include desirability, feasibility, and effectiveness. However, teachers and parents often require these strategies, and they must be willing to use them towards making the students and children to participate in school and community development activities (Hanbury, 2007). Notably, positive behavior support has been recognized as a strategy that helps in meeting these strategies effectively. Changing reinforcement and stimulus in the teaching and environment of the child will automatically strengthen deficit skills in areas that their behaviors will change to allow them general education setting (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). There are usually three deficit skills areas that children and students will always changes due to the change in their environment factors. These areas include social skills, communication skills, and self-management skills (Riffel, 2011). Positive behavior support often forms a re-directive therapy especially in line with parent child relationship. In most cases, when other treatments plans fail, the re-directive therapy is often allowed for positive interaction between children and parents as well as between teachers and teachers. Origin and Development of Positive Behavior Support The positive behavior support or the positive behavioral intervention and or support originated from quite controversial circumstances that were overseen as related to the individuals’ disability developmental. Some contributors to the development of PBS describe the models as nonaversive behavior management (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). According to these schools of thought, nonaversive behavior management has led to alternative applications of aversive events. Additionally, some schools of through insist that some people have subjected themselves to dehumanizing intervention’s that are neither beneficial nor ethical (Simonsen and et al., 2010). There are many PBS definitions. However, the most complementary definition has some fascinating differences with the original definition. For instance, the PBS approach refers to interventions that alter deficient environment conditions. In the deficient context, PBS approach is considered with respect to dependent variables (Ternus, 2008). The recent definitions consider PBS as a variable that increases positive behavior, decreases problem behavior, and improve lifestyle. Recently, the PBS has found its application as an educational method that aims at expanding individuals’ behavior repertoire. The PBS is also considered considered changing an individual’s living environment thereby enhancing the quality of their lives through minimizing problem behavior (Hanbury, 2007). Therefore, application of the PBS model in schools aims at enhancing people’s living stands through improving the quality of life and preventing or minimizing problem behavior through rational integrations that include biochemical and behavioral science, valued outcomes, system changes, and empirically supported procedures. Different schools of thought have a different understanding on how PBS approach can blend right values in people towards improving on their disabilities (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). Nonetheless, it should be noted that PBS encompasses numerous distinctive elements that include emphasis changes in lifestyle, multicomponent interventions, functional analysis, manipulation, and setting of the ecological events, teaching adaptive behaviors and building effective and consequential environments (Odom, 2009). Other parameter of PBS includes antecedent manipulation, minimum use of punishers, differentiating between proactive programming and emergency, and social validation with the main aim of maintain the dignity and self-esteem of the persons undergoing these interventions (Simonsen and et al., 2010). Between the years 1987 and 1992, the United States department of education national institution of the Disability and Rehabilitation (NIDRR) bolstered the development of PBS at a grand cost of $670,000. The Nonaversive Behavior management was directed to the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Referenced Technologies. This program was later entrusted under consortium of different universities that formed a center that later become Positive Behavior Support Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC). This center is presently funded through the University of South Florida (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). The main function of this center is to disseminate and support practical, effective, and empirical validated process and procedures towards supporting individuals with disabilities (Simonsen and et al., 2010). The office of the special program education (OSEP) center often complements the activities of the RRTC. These activities are often related to the positive behavior interventions as well positive behavior interventions supports (Hanbury, 2007). Most universities form the basic participants in these programs. The main aim of the OSEP center is to give schools the capacity to build information and technical assistances towards identifying, and adapting sustainable schools’ disciplinary practices. Additionally, currently, the PBS forms most developmental disability and special education conferences that include national and regional meeting. These meetings incorporate councils for mental retardation and exceptional children. In the year 2003, association of positive behavior support (APBS) was formed an international organization whose main aim was advance the positive behavior supports towards expanding the application PBS approach among children, adults, and adolescents particularly with behavior problems (Simonsen and et al., 2010). The most effective and influential dissemination effort was the 1999 publication of a positive behavior international journal that describes PBS experimental studies. The most effective ways to execute the PBS programs in schools aimed at initiating policies that would discourage punishment procedures as means of conducting the behavioral interventions with liability-associated aspects. Additionally, the Kansas law for children has mandated PBS to be admitted to children who are eligible for medical screening (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). The Medicaid funds these services. Furthermore, the PBS programs are extended to critical problem behaviors including aggression, self-injury, pica, disruption, defiance, and property destruction (Hanbury, 2007). Other category involves children with autism, neglect, or abuse from the family members, preschool children, children suffering from traumatic brain injuries, urban children, and adjudicated youths. Application of PBS in Schools Schools are expected to implement functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and apply the positive behavior support to students who have been identified as disadvantaged and are at risk to exposure (Wheeler and Richey, 2010). Other targeted students are those who are subjected to alternative school placement as well as those who are facing over ten days of suspension. Despite the use of the positive behavior support approach, the FBA requires professionals to practice the use of problem solving approach towards managing behavioral problems in the school setting (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). Implementation of the Positive Behavior Intervention supports has been used in numerous schools. The program find is applications in primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of intervention. The basic approach of the PBIS approach aims at identifying students with the three categories that aim at identifying risk to behavior problem (Klein, Cook, and Richardson-Gibbs, 2001). After the identification of the problem, the student is then subjected to any of the three-tiered categories of the of PBIS implementations including primary, secondary, and or tertiary. The approach aims at helping practitioners along varied and different interventions along the three-tiered model. Interventions have been made on each of the strategies or levels towards reducing social or academic failures in the identified children. Therefore, the interventions are always academic and or social interventions that are scientifically proven in line with instructional forms such as the direct instructions (Simonsen and et al., 2010). However, these interventions are sometimes complex and focused especially when determining the strategies per level of intervention. The primary intervention strategies aim at focusing on interventions that are used on the basics that are applied for all students in the entire school (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). This strategy is considered primary strategy since all students are exposed to the implement and the basics of the strategy the same way and at the same level of intervention. This level of intervention forms the largest level among other interventions specifically by number. Notably, a larger number of students, approximately 80 to 85 percent, who are never at risk of behavioral problem usually, respond positively to the prevention initiatives (Hanbury, 2007). The most common primary intervention strategies include use of effective teaching techniques and practices as well as curricula. These practices must provide explicit acceptable teaching behaviors that are environmental friendly, ecological focus towards encouraging student and systems applied on them. The primary strategies also apply the use of the pre-correction strategies and procedures and active supervision in the commonly identified areas as well as creating systems of reinforcing the use of school wide basis. On the other hand, the secondary intervention strategies often involve the efforts of students. This intervention engulfs about 10 to 15 percent of the school population (Menendez, Payne, and Mayton, 2008). This population never responds to the primary intervention strategies like identification of the risky activities towards academic failure and behavior problems. Nonetheless, this strategy is not concern with an individual support, but intends to support the entire school community (Gonzalez and Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, 2009). The secondary interventions are often implemented in small groups in order to minimize effort and time in developing the unique needs of students within the already classified groups (Spaulding, and et al., 2010). Some of the secondary interventions include academic support (including research validation interventions tutoring and programs) and social skills training (giving explicit instructions in relationship clubs, skill deficit areas, role-playing, and check in and check out). Other secondary strategies include programs like the behavioral support approaches (including simple behavioral assessment, self-management training, and pre-corrections) (Matson, 2009). Despite the intensity of the implementation of the secondary interventions, some percentage (one to seven percent) will still requires additional assistance. This additional assistance often falls under the tertiary level of intervention (Horner, Sugai, and Anderson, 2010). The tertiary intervention programs often focus on students with persistent pattern of disciplinary problems. These programs are sometimes referred to the individualized or intensive interventions (Wheeler and Richey, 2010). They are usually comprehensive and complex intervention positive behavior support programs. They are based on the strength, intensity, and complexity interventions plans that are directed to complex and intense behavioral problem (Emerson and Einfeld, 2010). It should be noted that student undergoing tertiary interventions are also subjected to both primary and secondary intervention programs at the same time. The involvement of all intervention programs ensures that the FBA is full supported, and the student receives de-escalated training that will help in heightening the use of natural support. The natural support will involve the support of the family members, fellow students, and friends. Collective use of these programs including the natural programs will lead to the development of a behavior intervention plan (BIP). Despite of concentrating on students with certain behavioral problems, comprehensive positive behavior support services are vital for all students. However, the critical aspects of these interventions or the three-tiered model should be identified as per each student’s behavior support needs (Spaulding, and et al., 2010). Therefore, it is vital for teacher or professionals obligated with the students’ positive behavior support to identify what student needs what kind of the intervention support service or services. Numerous methods of positive behavior support professionals can use to intensify which students needs the PBS services. For instance, student with the need of intervention can be identified through analyzing office disciplinary referrals (ODR) that are often obtained from the school records (Dunlap and Koegel, 2001). The ODRs may also help in assessing the student’s risk levels to both academic failure and antisocial behaviors. Naturally, this method is cheap and provides data that often occur naturally; thus, it an effective and efficient means of measuring PBS programs. Additionally, the ODRs are usual effective in determining what intervention level the identified student will fall within the three-tiered model. This advantage will help the professionals in developing a well skill skilled program that will them coordinate school efforts while working with relevant community agencies (Matson, 2009). Through ODRs, schools’ failure in supporting students’ positive behaviors can be analyzed and determined especially from the referrals. The results are usually useful in determining effective and proactive pre-correction measures and techniques to be applied to both individual students and the entire school (Spaulding, and et al., 2010). Finally, the analysis of the referral discipline data will help the school management in identifying areas that need ecological improvement with the school (Bambara and Kern, 2005). Moreover, the school management will be helped to determine the common areas that it needs to increase active supervision. Personal Reflection From the analysis, it is apparent that positive behavior support plans in students can only be learned and determined after understanding the effectiveness and applications of the functional behavior assessment. It is through assessment that the behavior and environmental factors can be determined in relation to the events within an individual’s setting towards predicting behavior as a guide towards developing appropriate and effective support plans. Some of the vital assessments that are vital towards mapping and effectively applying appropriate interventions include: Describing the problem behavior and its wider setting of occurrence Identifying events, time, and situation that may have led to the problem behavior Identifying consequences of maintaining the behavior Identifying the motivational function of the behavior Collecting observational data concerning the behavior Identifying an alternative behavior that is likely to replace the student’s problem behavior effectively The positive behavior support in student can only be conducted through the above steps. The last step in the list is the point where the professional will determine what intervention mechanism or strategy to apply to the already identified and analyzed problem behavior. Notably, only a correct interventional strategy will help in correcting the behavior of the student in question. The assessment help results are helpful in developing an individualized behavior plan. The plan should effectively outline procedures for teaching alternative positive behavior to the problem behavior. Additionally, the plan should include the environmental design that makes the problem behavior inefficient, irrelevant, and ineffective. References Bambara, L. M., & Kern, L. (2005). Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans. New York: Guilford Press. Dunlap, G. & Koegel, R. L. (2001). Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore [u.a.: Brookes. Emerson, E., & Einfeld, S. L. (2010). Challenging behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gonzalez, S. A., & Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership. (2009). Analysis of positive behavior support plans: A comparison between low and high quality positive behavior support plans and implications for students. Hanbury, M. (2007). Positive behaviour strategies to support children and young people with autism. London: Paul Chapman. 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) issue. Klein, M. D., Cook, R. E., & Richardson-Gibbs, A. M. (2001). Strategies for including children with special needs in early childhood settings. Albany [etc.: Delmar. Matson, J. L. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders. New York: Springer. Menendez, A.L. Payne, L.D., & Mayton, M.R. (2008). The implementation of positive behavioural support in an elementary school: processes, procedures, and outcomes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 448-462. Odom, S. L. (2009). Handbook of developmental disabilities. New York: Guilford. Riffel, L. A. (2011). Positive behavior support at the tertiary level: Red zone strategies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin. Simonsen, B., Shaw, S.F., Faggella-Luby, M. Sugai, G., Coune, M.D., Rhein, B., Madaus, J.W, & Alfano, M. (2010). A schoolwide model for delivery: Redefining special educators as interventionist. Remedical and Special Education. 31(1), 17-23. Spaulding, S.A., Irvin, L.K., Horner, R.H., May, S.L., Emeldi, M., Tobin, T.J., & Sugai, G. (2010) Schoolwide social-behavioral climate, student problem behaviour, and related administrative decisions: Empirical patters from 1,500 school nationwide. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 69-85. Ternus, J. (2008). Evaluation of positive behavior support program implementation in a community summer program. Wheeler, J. J., & Richey, D. D. (2010). Behavior management: Principles and practices of positive behavior supports. Boston: Pearson. Read More