Reducing Behavior Problems 

in the Elementary School Classroom

Reducing Behavior Problems 

in the Elementary School Classroom

IES PRACTICE GUIDE

NCEE 2008-012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education 

to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. 

Authors of practice guides seldom conduct the types of systematic literature searches 

that are the backbone of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work 

when it is already published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the 

most important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a 

search of recent publications to ensure that research citations are up-to-date. 

Unique to IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to rigorous external peer review through the same office that is responsible for independent review 

of other IES publications. A critical task for peer reviewers of a practice guide is to 

determine whether the evidence cited in support of particular recommendations is 

up-to-date and that studies of similar or better quality that point in a different direction have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend on the expertise of 

their authors and their group decisionmaking, the content of a practice guide is not 

and should not be viewed as a set of recommendations that in every case depends 

on and flows inevitably from scientific research.

The goal of this practice guide is to formulate specific and coherent evidence-based 

recommendations for use by educators to address the challenge of reducing behavior problems in elementary school classrooms. The guide provides practical, clear 

information on critical behavior-related topics and is based on the best available 

evidence, as judged by the panel. Recommendations presented in this guide should 

not be construed to imply that no further research is warranted on the effectiveness 

of particular strategies for preventing and intervening with behavior problems.
IES PRACTICE GUIDE

Reducing Behavior Problems

in the Elementary School Classroom

September 2008

Panel

Michael Epstein (Chair)

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA–LINCOLN

Marc Atkins

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS–CHICAGO

Douglas Cullinan

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERsity

Krista Kutash

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER FOR CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH

Robin Weaver

PRINCIPAL, HARMONY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Staff

Michelle Woodbridge

Jennifer Yu

Mary Wagner

SRI INTERNATIONAL

NCEE 2008-012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-07-CO-0062 by the What 

Works Clearinghouse, which is operated by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Disclaimer 

The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors’ and do 

not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed 

and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency 

using it, and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review 

panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was 

available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be used as a tool 

to assist in decisionmaking rather than as a “cookbook.” Any references within the 

document to specific education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 

Phoebe Cottingham 

Commissioner 

September 2008

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is 

not necessary, the citation should be: 

Epstein, M., Atkins, M., Cullinan, D., Kutash, K., and Weaver, R. (2008). Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-012). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.

This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.

Alternative Formats 

On request, this publication can be made available in alternative formats, such as 

Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, call the 

Alternative Format Center at (202) 205–8113.
( iii )

Reducing Behavior Problems 

in the Elementary School Classroom

Contents

Introduction 1

The What Works Clearinghouse standards and their relevance to this guide 2

Overview 5

Scope of the practice guide 11

Checklist for carrying out the recommendations 13

Recommendation 1. Identify the specifics of the problem behavior and the 

conditions that prompt and reinforce it 14

Recommendation 2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease 

problem behavior 22

Recommendation 3. Teach and reinforce new skills to increase appropriate 

behavior and preserve a positive classroom climate 29

Recommendation 4. Draw on relationships with professional colleagues and 

students’ families for continued guidance and support 37

Recommendation 5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant 

adopting schoolwide strategies or programs and, if so, implement ones shown 

to reduce negative and foster positive interactions 44

Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences 51

Appendix B. About the Authors 54

Appendix C. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest 56

Appendix D. Technical information on the studies 57

References 72
( iv )

REDUCING BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM

List of tables

1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides 3

2. Recommendations and corresponding level of evidence to support each 6

3. Example tally-mark data collection tool for a high-frequency behavior problem 20

4. Example entry sheet for a low-frequency problem behavior 20
( 1 )

Introduction

This guide is intended to help elementary 

school educators as well as school and 

district administrators develop and implement effective prevention and intervention 

strategies that promote positive student 

behavior. The guide includes concrete recommendations and indicates the quality of 

the evidence that supports them. Additionally, we have described some, though not 

all, ways in which each recommendation 

could be carried out. For each recommendation, we also acknowledge roadblocks 

to implementation that may be encountered and suggest solutions that have the 

potential to circumvent the roadblocks. 

Finally, technical details about the studies that support the recommendations are 

provided in Appendix D. 

We, the authors, are a small group with expertise in various dimensions of this topic 

and in research methods commonly used 

in behavior research. The evidence we 

considered in developing this document 

ranges from experimental evaluations, to 

single-subject research studies,1 to expert 

analyses of behavioral intervention strategies and programs. For questions about 

what works best, high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental studies,2 such 

1. Single-subject studies rely on the comparison 

of intervention effects on a single participant or 

group of single participants, where outcomes of 

the participant are compared in nontreatment 

(baseline) phases and in treatment phases. Some 

single-subject methods use subsequent withdrawal and reapplication of treatment to estimate 

effects. Others estimate effects using several 

baselines with variable-length durations for different subjects (see Horner et al. 2005).

2. Experimental studies, often called randomized 

controlled trials, estimate effects of interventions 

by comparing outcomes of participants who are 

randomly assigned to experimental and one or 

more comparison groups (Schwartz, Flamant, 

and Lellouch 1980). Using random assignment 

rules out any pre-existing differences between 

groups as a reason for different outcomes and the 

as those meeting the criteria of the What 

Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/

ncee/wwc), have a privileged position. In 

all cases, we pay particular attention to 

patterns of findings that are replicated 

across studies. 

The process for deriving the recommendations began by collecting and examining research studies that have evaluated 

the impacts of individual, classwide, and 

schoolwide behavioral interventions. Research conducted in the United States in 

the last 20 years was reviewed by the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to determine 

whether studies were consistent with WWC 

standards.

Behavioral interventions almost always include multiple components. This bundling 

of components presents challenges when 

reviewing levels of evidence for each recommendation because evidence of the impact of specific intervention components 

on students’ behavior cannot formally be 

attributed to one component of an intervention. Identification of key components 

of each intervention therefore necessarily relied, to a significant degree, on the 

panel’s expert judgment. 

After identifying key components of individual interventions, the interventions 

and their key components were placed in 

a working matrix that helped us identify 

features that were common to multiple 

interventions and, therefore, were logical candidates for generally successful 

practices. 

intervention becomes the probable cause of those 

differences. Quasi-experimental studies, such as 

studies that match intervention participants with 

individuals who are similar on a range of characteristics, also are used to estimate effects of interventions. However, because quasi-experimental 

approaches cannot rule out pre-existing differences between participants and the group created 

by matching as reasons for different outcomes, 

they are considered to be less valid approaches 

for estimating intervention effects. 
Introduction

( 2 )

The panel determined the level of evidence for each recommendation by considering the effects of the intervention 

as determined by the WWC (table 1), the 

contribution of each component to the 

impacts found in the evaluation, and the 

number of evaluations conducted on the 

behavioral interventions that included the 

component.3

Strong refers to consistent and generalizable evidence that an intervention strategy 

or program causes an improvement in behavioral outcomes.4

Moderate refers either to evidence from 

studies that allow strong causal conclusions but cannot be generalized with assurance to the population on which a recommendation is focused (perhaps because 

the findings have not been widely replicated) or to evidence from studies that 

are generalizable but have more causal 

ambiguity than offered by experimental 

designs (statistical models of correlational 

data or group comparison designs for 

which equivalence of the groups at pretest 

is uncertain). 

Low refers to expert opinion based on reasonable extrapolations from research and 

theory on other topics and evidence from 

studies that do not meet the standards for 

moderate or strong evidence. 

3. A number of specific classwide and schoolwide 

interventions are cited in this guide as examples 

of programs that include both components that 

align with the panel’s recommendations of effective strategies to reduce student behavior 

problems and rigorous research methods in the 

study of program effectiveness. Other programs 

with similar components may be available. The 

panel recommends that readers consult the WWC 

website regularly for more information about interventions and corresponding levels of evidence 

(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/). 

4. Following the WWC guidelines, we consider 

a positive, statistically significant effect or an 

effect size greater than 0.25 as an indicator of 

positive effects.

It is important for the reader to remember 

that the level of evidence is not a judgment by the panel of how effective each of 

these five recommended practices would 

be when implemented in a classroom or 

school or of what prior research has to 

say about an intervention’s effectiveness 

or whether the costs of implementing it 

are worth the benefits it might bestow. 

Instead, these levels of evidence ratings 

reflect judgments by the panel of the quality of the existing research literature to 

support a causal claim that when these 

recommended practices have been implemented in the past, positive effects on student behaviors have been observed. They 

do not reflect judgments by the authors 

of the relative strength of these positive 

effects or the relative importance of these 

individual recommendations. 

The What Works Clearinghouse 

standards and their relevance to 

this guide

For the levels of evidence in table 1, we rely 

on WWC evidence standards to rate the 

quality of evidence supporting behavioral 

prevention and intervention programs and 

practices. The WWC addresses evidence for 

the causal validity of programs and practices according to WWC standards. Information about these standards is available 

at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/

review_process. Each study is assessed according to standards and placed into one 

of three categories:

•	 Meets Evidence Standards for randomized controlled trials and regression 

discontinuity studies that provide the 

strongest evidence of causal validity.

•	 Meets Evidence Standards with Reservations for all single-subject research 

studies5 and quasi-experimental studies 

5. At the time this practice guide was developed, 

the WWC did not have standards for assessing 

the validity of single-subject studies (although a 
Introduction

( 3 )

Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides

Strong

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as strong requires both studies with 

high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions) and studies with high 

external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough of the range of participants and settings on 

which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to 

those participants and settings). Strong evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 A systematic review of research that generally meets the standards of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 Several well-designed, randomized controlled trials or well-designed quasiexperiments that generally meet the WWC standards and support the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, 

with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 One large, well-designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets the WWC standards 

and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability and validity that meets the Standards for Educational and 

Psychological Testing.a

Moderate

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as moderate requires studies with 

high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but moderate internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived from studies that support strong 

causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality of a 

relationship but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 Experiments or quasiexperiments generally meeting the WWC standards and supporting the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other conditions 

of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence of groups at pretest and therefore do not meet the WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes for participants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no major flaws 

related to internal validity other than lack of demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g., only one 

teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts of instructional time, highly biased outcome 

measures); OR

•	 Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning influence of endogenous factors and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological 

Testingb but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the population on which the recommendation is focused.

Low

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as low means that the recommendation is based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert 

opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong level. Low evidence 

is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards for the moderate or high level.

a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999).

b. Ibid.
Introduction

( 4 )

with no design flaws and randomized controlled trials that have problems with randomization, attrition, or 

disruption.

•	 Does Not Meet Evidence Screens for 

studies that do not provide strong evidence of causal validity.6

panel was being convened to develop evidence 

standards for single-subject studies). To ensure 

that the single subject studies cited in this report 

met basic criteria for supporting causal statements, a special review process was established 

for these studies. A review protocol was prepared 

to assess the design of each study. This protocol 

was reviewed by the chair of the panel developing evidence standards for single-subject studies. 

Five WWC reviewers with backgrounds in singlesubject research methodology received training 

on this protocol and then applied the protocol 

to the relevant single subject studies. Reviewers 

were directed to identify issues that could compromise the validity of the study, and these issues were examined by a second reviewer. Only 

studies that reviewers deemed valid are referenced in this practice guide.

Following the recommendations and suggestions for carrying out the recommendations, Appendix D presents more information on the research evidence that 

supports each recommendation.

Dr. Michael Epstein

Dr. Marc Atkins

Dr. Doug Cullinan

Dr. Krista Kutash

Ms. Robin Weaver

6. Studies that were eliminated included those 

with major design flaws that seriously undermined the technical adequacy of the research, 

such as comparison studies that did not establish 

equivalent groups at baseline. In addition, only 

studies conducted in the United States in the last 

20 years that examine the effects on student behavioral outcomes were included in the review.
( 5 )

Reducing Behavior 

Problems in the 

Elementary School 

Classroom

Overview

Much of the attention currently given to 

improving students’ academic achievement addresses issues of curriculum, 

instructional strategies, and interventions or services for struggling learners, and rightfully so. However, even 

after addressing these issues, barriers 

still remain for some students. An estimated one-third of students fail to learn 

because of psychosocial problems that 

interfere with their ability to fully attend 

to and engage in instructional activities, 

prompting a call for “new directions for 

addressing barriers to learning.”1 These 

new approaches go beyond explicitly academic interventions to take on the learning challenges posed by problematic student behavior and the ways schools deal 

with it. Approaches aimed at improving 

school and classroom environments, including reducing the negative effects of 

disruptive or distracting behaviors, can 

enhance the chances that effective teaching and learning will occur, both for the 

students exhibiting problem behaviors 

and for their classmates.

In many schools general education elementary classrooms are generally orderly, 

teacher-student and student-student relationships are positive, and teaching and 

learning go on without major disruption. 

Teachers in such classrooms recognize the 

importance of preventing significant behavior problems and are effectively using 

fundamental prevention tools—engaging 

instruction, well-managed classrooms, 

and positive relationships with students. 

1. Adelman and Taylor (2005).

Looking to these prevention fundamentals should always be the first step in 

promoting good behavior at school. However, some teachers have a class in which 

one or a few students exhibit persistent 

or significant problem behaviors—those 

that are disruptive, oppositional, distracting, or defiant. Sometimes when a number 

of students in a classroom demonstrate 

such behaviors, it can create a chaotic environment that is a serious impediment 

to learning for all students. In these cases 

teachers have exhausted their classroom 

management strategies without successfully eliminating the obstacles to learning 

that problem behaviors pose. The purpose 

of this practice guide is to give teachers 

additional tools to help them deal proactively and effectively with behaviors that 

seriously or consistently fail to meet classroom expectations.

This practice guide offers five concrete 

recommendations (see table 2) to help elementary school general education teachers 

reduce the frequency of the most common 

types of behavior problems they encounter among their students. The recommendations begin with strategies teachers can 

use immediately on their own initiative in 

their classrooms (recommendations 1–3), 

then broaden to include approaches that 

involve resources from outside the classroom. We recognize that teachers encounter situations where they need the guidance, expertise, and support of parents 

and other teachers or behavior professionals (for example, a school psychologist or 

behavior specialist) in the school or community, and that school administrators 

play a critical role in enabling mentoring 

and collaborative opportunities for staff 

(recommendation 4). We also acknowledge 

that the social and behavioral climate of 

a classroom can reflect the climate of the 

school more broadly, and we address the 

contributions of schoolwide strategies or 

programs to improving student behavior 

(recommendation 5).
Overview

( 6 )

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding level of evidence to 

support each

Recommendation Level of evidence

1. Identify the specifics of the problem behavior and the conditions that 

prompt and reinforce it. Every teacher experiences difficulty at one time 

or another in trying to remedy an individual student’s behavior problem 

that is not responsive to preventative efforts. Because research suggests 

that the success of a behavioral intervention hinges on identifying the 

specific conditions that prompt and reinforce the problem behavior (i.e., 

the behavior’s “antecedents” and “consequences”), we recommend that 

teachers carefully observe the conditions in which the problem behavior 

is likely to occur and not occur. Teachers then can use that information 

to tailor effective and efficient intervention strategies that respond to 

the needs of the individual student within the classroom context.

Moderate

2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior. Many effective classroom-focused interventions to decrease students’ problematic behavior alter or remove factors that trigger them. 

These triggers can result from a mismatch between the classroom setting or academic demands and a student’s strengths, preferences, or 

skills. Teachers can reduce the occurrence of inappropriate behavior 

by revisiting and reinforcing classroom behavioral expectations; rearranging the classroom environment, schedule, or learning activities to 

meet students’ needs; and/or individually adapting instruction to promote high rates of student engagement and on-task behavior.

Strong

3. Teach and reinforce new skills to increase appropriate behavior and 

preserve a positive classroom climate. We recommend that teachers 

actively teach students socially- and behaviorally-appropriate skills 

to replace problem behaviors using strategies focused on both individual students and the whole classroom. In doing so, teachers help 

students with behavior problems learn how, when, and where to use 

these new skills; increase the opportunities that the students have to 

exhibit appropriate behaviors; preserve a positive classroom climate; 

and manage consequences to reinforce students’ display of positive 

“replacement” behaviors and adaptive skills.

Strong

4. Draw on relationships with professional colleagues and students’ families for continued guidance and support. Social relationships and collaborative opportunities can play a critical role in supporting teachers 

in managing disruptive behavior in their classrooms. We recommend 

that teachers draw on these relationships in finding ways to address 

the behavior problems of individual students and consider parents, 

school personnel, and behavioral experts as allies who can provide 

new insights, strategies, and support.

Moderate
Overview

( 7 )

5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant adopting schoolwide strategies or programs and, if so, implement ones shown to reduce 

negative and foster positive interactions. Classroom teachers, in coordination with other school personnel (administrators, grade-level teams, 

and special educators), can benefit from adopting a schoolwide approach to preventing problem behaviors and increasing positive social 

interactions among students and with school staff. This type of systemic approach requires a shared responsibility on the part of all school 

personnel, particularly the administrators who establish and support 

consistent schoolwide practices and the teachers who implement these 

practices both in their individual classrooms and beyond.

Moderate

Source: Authors’ compilation based on analysis described in text.

Fundamental to these recommendations 

is the notion that behavior is learned—

children’s behaviors are shaped by the 

expectations and examples provided by 

important adults in their lives and by their 

peers.2 In the elementary grades, general 

education classroom teachers are arguably the most important adults at school 

for the large majority of students. As such, 

they can play a critical role both in proactively teaching and reinforcing appropriate student behaviors and in reducing 

the frequency of behaviors that impede 

learning. Accepting responsibility for the 

behavioral learning of all students is a 

natural extension of the responsibility for 

the academic learning of all students that 

general education teachers exercise with 

such purpose every day. The goal of this 

practice guide is to help teachers carry out 

their dual responsibility by recommending 

ways to shape and manage classroom behavior so that teaching and learning can 

be effective.

Understanding what prompts and reinforces problem behaviors can be a powerful tool for preventing them or reducing 

their negative impacts when they occur. 

The first recommendation emphasizes 

teachers’ gathering information about 

important aspects of problem behaviors 

in their classrooms—for example, the 

2. Bandura (1977).

specific behavior a student exhibits, its 

effects on learning, and when, where, and 

how often it occurs. This information can 

provide important clues to the underlying 

purpose of the problem behavior and a 

foundation for developing effective approaches to mitigate it.

The second recommendation points to 

classroom conditions or activities that 

teachers can alter or adapt to influence 

the frequency or intensity of problem behaviors. When teachers understand the 

behavioral hot spots in their classroom 

in terms of timing, setting, and instructional activities, for example, they can proactively develop classwide and individual 

student strategies (such as a change in 

instructional groupings, the seating plan, 

or the order or pace of reading and math 

instruction) to reduce the contribution of 

these classroom factors to students’ problem behaviors.

The third recommendation recognizes 

that, just as poor academic performance 

can reflect deficits in specific academic 

skills, some students’ failure to meet behavioral expectations reflects deficits in 

specific social or behavioral skills. And 

just as explicit instruction can help students overcome some academic deficits, 

explicit instruction can help students learn 

the positive behaviors and skills they are 

expected to exhibit at school. Showing 
Overview

( 8 )

students how they can use appropriate 

behaviors to replace problem behaviors 

and consistently providing positive reinforcement when they do so can increase 

students’ chances of experiencing social 

and behavioral success.

Recognizing the collective wisdom and 

problem-solving abilities of school staff, 

the fourth recommendation encourages 

teachers to reach out to colleagues in the 

school—other classroom teachers, special educators, the school psychologist, 

or administrators—to help meet the behavioral needs of their students. Similarly, 

by engaging family members, teachers can 

better understand their students’ behavior 

issues and develop allies in intervening 

both at school and at home to help students succeed. When behavior problems 

warrant the services of behavioral or mental health professionals, teachers are encouraged to play an active role in ensuring 

that services address classroom behavior 

issues directly.

The fifth recommendation reflects an understanding that a teacher may be more 

successful in creating a positive behavioral 

environment in the classroom when there 

also are schoolwide efforts to create such 

an environment. Just as teachers can document and analyze the nature and contexts 

of behavior problems in the classroom, 

school leadership teams can map the behavioral territory of the school and use the 

information to develop prevention strategies and select and implement schoolwide 

programs for behavior intervention and 

support when warranted.

Several principles run throughout these 

recommendations. One relates to the importance of relationships in any focus on 

student behavior. Schooling is “an intrinsically social enterprise.”3 Student behavior is shaped by and exhibited and interpreted in a social context that involves 

3. Bryk and Schneider (2002), p. 19. 

multiple actors (teachers, students, support personnel, specialists), multiple settings (classrooms, hallways, lunch room, 

playground), and multiple goals (enhancing academic performance, encouraging 

development of the whole child). Positive 

behavior is more likely to thrive when relationships at all levels are trusting and 

supportive and reflect a shared commitment to establish a healthy school and 

community.

In the classroom, for example, positive 

teacher-student interactions are at the 

heart of the recommendation regarding 

modifying classroom environment and 

instructional factors to improve student 

behavior. Associations have been found 

between positive interactions with teachers and increases in students’ social skills, 

emotional regulation, motivation, engagement, cooperation with classroom rules 

and expectations,4 and academic performance. Associations also have been noted 

between negative interactions with teachers 

and increases in students’ risk for school 

failure.5 Teachers show the warmth, respect, and sensitivity they feel for their 

students through small gestures, such as 

welcoming students by name as they enter 

the class each day, calling or sending positive notes home to acknowledge good behavior, and learning about their students’ 

interests, families, and accomplishments 

outside of school. Teachers also can help 

students develop peer friendships by having them work together, thereby learning to 

share materials, follow directions, be polite, 

listen, show empathy, and work out disagreements. Fostering students’ social and 

emotional development can improve their 

interactions and attitudes toward school, 

thereby reducing problem behaviors.6

4. Greenberg et al. (2003); Hamre and Pianta 

(2005); Pianta et al. (2002); Solomon et al. (1992); 

Wentzel (2003); Zins et al. (2004).

5. Hamre and Pianta (2005).

6. Zins et al. (2004).
Overview

( 9 )

Enabling the development of strong 

teacher-teacher relationships in support 

of collaborative problem-solving regarding 

student behavior is central to the fourth 

recommendation. Schools with strong, 

trusting staff relationships are more likely 

to have teachers who are willing to engage 

in new practices and, consequently, who 

can help to produce gains in student outcomes.7 The fifth recommendation also 

reflects the importance of relationships 

in seeking to establish “a schoolwide culture of social competence.”8 Changes in 

practices, structures, or programs within 

schools are unlikely to be implemented, 

sustained, or effective in the long term 

without concerted attention to enhancing the fundamental relationships within 

schools.

Another principle that underlies the panel’s recommendations is the critical need 

for increased cultural competence in developing positive relationships in school 

and community contexts. As our school 

and community populations become increasingly diverse, all school staff are challenged to learn about, become sensitive to, 

and broaden their perspectives regarding 

what may be unfamiliar ways of learning, behaving, and relating. Teachers can 

establish an inclusive classroom environment through practices such as using and 

reinforcing language that is gender neutral 

and free of stereotypes, selecting curricular materials that reflect and honor the 

cultures and life experiences of students 

in the class, encouraging and respecting 

the participation of all students in classroom activities, and holding high expectations for all learners.9 School leaders can 

be proactive in supporting opportunities 

for expanding the cultural competence of 

school staff through “a vigorous, ongo7. Bryk and Schneider (2002).

8. Vincent, Horner, and Sugai (2002), p. 2.

9. Davis (1993); Gay (2000); Harry and Kalyanpur 

(1994); Shade, Kelly, and Oberg (1997).

ing, and systemic process of professional 

development”10 that involves building 

trusting relationships among school staff, 

taking on issues of personal culture and 

social disparities, and engaging the entire 

school community in creating a welcoming environment for all students and their 

families.

Additionally, the panel recognizes the 

need for and ability of school staff to 

translate the recommendations into actions that are appropriate to their specific 

contexts. One clearly important contextual factor is the age and developmental 

stage of the students with whom teachers 

work. The ways that recommendations 

involving rewards for positive behavior 

are carried out, for example, will necessarily look different in 1st and 5th grade 

classrooms, because different forms of 

motivation are appropriate to students’ 

developmental stages. Schools in large 

urban districts often encounter different 

kinds and intensities of behavior issues 

than schools in affluent suburbs and have 

different forms and levels of resources in 

and outside the school to address them. 

The panel honors the insights of school 

staff in understanding what will work in 

their schools, classrooms, and communities. Thus, recommendations emphasize 

processes and procedures that can be 

adapted to a wide range of contexts rather 

than providing specific recipes that may 

have limited applicability.

Finally, the recommendations emphasize 

the importance of being data driven. This 

means having current, timely information 

about behavior problems and successes 

at the school, classroom, and student levels, such as where and when the behavioral hot spots occur in the school and 

during the school day, which classroom 

instructional periods or transitions are 

associated with increased behavioral disruptions, which students exhibit the most 

10. Howard (2007), p. 16.
Overview

( 10 )

challenging behaviors and when they are 

most likely to occur, and what strategies 

teachers have found to be effective in improving classroom behavior. Without a 

solid foundation in these kinds of data, 

interventions might not just be ineffective, 

but might even exacerbate the problems 

they are meant to solve. Observation and 

documentation of student, classroom, and 

school behavior challenges can be invaluable in targeting resources and changing 

strategies to improve behavior at school. 

Monitoring the effectiveness of strategies 

by continuing to collect and review data 

also can support continuous improvement 

to achieve maximum results. Challenging 

behaviors are learned over a long period 

of time; acquiring positive behaviors also 

takes time. Monitoring progress and celebrating small achievements along the 

way can help sustain the efforts needed 

to bring success.
( 11 )

Scope of the 

practice guide

The purpose of this practice guide is to 

help school staff promote positive student behavior and reduce challenging 

behaviors in U.S. elementary schools—

those serving students in kindergarten 

through 5th grades. Because most students, including students who receive 

special education services, spend the 

majority of their school day in general 

education classrooms,11 the teachers in 

those classrooms play a central role in 

influencing students’ behaviors. Thus, 

they are a primary focus of this practice 

guide. Elementary school principals and 

other administrators also are an audience 

for the recommendations presented here 

because they establish the structures and 

direct the resources needed to support 

teachers and other school staff in promoting positive environments in classrooms 

and schoolwide.

In the panel’s view, improving the behavioral climate at school must begin with 

an emphasis on prevention—heading off 

behavior problems through programs and 

approaches that set, encourage, and reinforce positive behavioral expectations for 

all students. These “universal prevention 

programs”12 often are described as the first 

component of a three-tiered prevention 

model13 and, when applied to children’s 

behavioral health, are considered to be 

effective in preventing behavior problems 

11. Wagner, Marder, and Chorost (2004).

12. Kutash, Duchnowski, and Lynn (2006).

13. Commission on Chronic Illness (1957). The 

three-tiered model of behavioral supports includes an emphasis on matching the intensity of 

the intervention to the severity of the behavior 

problem, including primary or universal (schoolwide) strategies, secondary targeted intervention 

efforts, and tertiary or intensive individual support for students with the most severe problems 

(Sugai et al. 2000).

for 80–90 percent of students.14 This emphasis on prevention is reflected in many 

of the panel’s recommendations that involve, for example, collecting data on incidents of problem behaviors, communicating expectations and reinforcing positive 

behaviors, and managing classrooms effectively to avoid negative behaviors. We 

draw on the considerable research that 

explicitly addresses prevention strategies 

and intervention programs related to children’s behavior and mental health needs 

in this guide. But the research on the most 

intensive interventions that are provided 

to students with the most serious behavior 

problems (tier 3), often outside the general 

education classroom, is not the primary 

focus of this guide. Rather, the panel suggests strategies to help general education 

classroom teachers address the needs of 

students for whom preventive approaches 

are insufficient to head off behavior problems but whose behavior does not warrant 

removal from their classrooms.

A focus on providing recommendations 

to help general education teachers deal 

with problem behaviors in part reflects 

the fact that many teachers come to the 

classroom poorly prepared to manage the 

range of behaviors common among today’s 

students.15 Indeed, only one-third of principals believe that their teachers are well 

prepared to maintain order in the classroom, and only 30 percent believe that 

teachers are well prepared to meet the 

needs of students with disabilities.16 Improving teachers’ preparation in classroom 

and behavior management at colleges and 

universities could be an important step in 

improving students’ behavior at school.

Further, ongoing professional development provided by districts or schools is 

14. Office of Special Education Programs (2008); 

Sugai et al. (2000); Sugai, Sprague, et al. (2000).

15. Levine (2006); MetLife, Inc. (2006).

16. Levine (2006).
Scope of the practice guide

( 12 )

much more likely to focus on building 

the instructional skill set of teachers than 

on strategies for managing classroom behavior. For example, a national study that 

involved general education teachers who 

had students with disabilities in their language arts classes indicated that teachers received an average of 60 hours per 

year of professional development, or 180 

hours over a three-year period. Yet only 

36 percent of students had teachers who 

reported receiving at least 8 hours of professional development related to behavior management in that time, whereas 81 

percent had teachers who received that 

level of professional development related 

to reading and language arts instruction.17

These data raise the question of whether 

increasing teachers’ capacity to promote 

positive student behavior and to deal effectively with problem behavior should be 

a higher priority for both preservice and 

ongoing professional development.

17. Special Education Elementary Longitudinal 

Study, Wave 1 Teacher Survey (2001).

Recommendations for changes to teacher 

preparation and teacher professional 

development programs are beyond the 

scope of this practice guide. However, such 

changes must be addressed by institutions 

of higher education and school districts if 

teachers and their schools are to be fully 

successful in addressing the diversity of 

students’ behavioral support needs.

Finally, the charge presented to the panel 

in developing this guide stressed that 

we focus on students’ behavior. Therefore, any academic outcomes that might 

be attributed to interventions were not 

considered to be evidence for their effectiveness. Only behavioral outcomes were 

considered in evaluating the strength of 

evidence for an intervention. Also, we did 

not consider the effects of interventions on 

adults (parents or teachers) in evaluating 

the evidence for their effectiveness.

Within these parameters, the panel reached 

consensus on the five recommendations 

that follow and on the implementation 

steps associated with them.
( 13 )

Checklist for carrying out the 

recommendations

Recommendation 1. 

Identify the specifics of the problem 

behavior and the conditions that 

prompt and reinforce it

 Concretely describe the behavior problem and its effect on learning.

 Observe and record the frequency and 

context of the problem behavior.

 Identify what prompts and reinforces 

the problem behavior.

Recommendation 2. 

Modify the classroom learning 

environment to decrease problem 

behavior

 Revisit, re-practice, and reinforce classroom behavior expectations.

 Modify the classroom environment to 

encourage instructional momentum.

 Adapt or vary instructional strategies to 

increase opportunities for academic success 

and engagement.

Recommendation 3. 

Teach and reinforce new skills to 

increase appropriate behavior and 

preserve a positive classroom climate

 Identify where the student needs explicit instruction for appropriate behavior.

 Teach skills by providing examples, 

practice, and feedback.

 Manage consequences so that reinforcers are provided for appropriate behavior 

and withheld for inappropriate behavior.

Recommendation 4. 

Draw on relationships with 

professional colleagues and students’ 

families for continued guidance and 

support

 Collaborate with other teachers for continued guidance and support.

 Build collaborative partnerships with 

school, district, and community behavior 

experts who can consult with teachers when 

problems are serious enough to warrant help 

from outside the classroom.

 Encourage parents and other family 

members to participate as active partners 

in teaching and reinforcing appropriate 

behavior.

Recommendation 5. 

Assess whether schoolwide 

behavior problems warrant adopting 

schoolwide strategies or programs 

and, if so, implement ones shown to 

reduce negative and foster positive 

interactions

 Address schoolwide behavior issues by 

involving a school improvement team.

 Collect information on the hot spots 

throughout the school, such as the frequency 

of particular schoolwide behavior problems 

and when and where they occur.

 Monitor implementation and outcomes 

using an efficient method of data collection 

and allow ample time for the program to 

work.

 If warranted, adopt a packaged intervention program that fits well with identified behavior problem(s) and the school 

context.
( 14 )

Recommendation 1. 

Identify the specifics of 

the problem behavior 

and the conditions that 

prompt and reinforce it

Every teacher experiences difficulty 

at one time or another in trying to 

remedy an individual student’s behavior 

problem that is not responsive to 

preventative efforts. Because research 

suggests that the success of a behavior 

intervention hinges on identifying the 

specific conditions that prompt and 

reinforce the problem behavior (that 

is, the behavior’s “antecedents” and 

“consequences”), we recommend that 

teachers carefully observe the conditions 

in which the problem behavior of an 

individual student is likely to occur 

and not occur. Teachers then can use 

that information to tailor effective and 

efficient intervention strategies that 

respond to the needs of the individual 

student within the classroom context.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence 

supporting this recommendation to be 

moderate. A number of single-subject 

research studies demonstrate the effectiveness of behavioral interventions that 

are designed to address and modify what 

prompts and reinforces the problem behaviors of special and general education elementary school students.1 Three 

1. Much of the evidence for this recommendation 

is from studies involving students with schoolidentified emotional and behavioral disabilities—

some receiving a majority of their education in 

self-contained classrooms. The panel believes 

the evidence is relevant for general education 

teachers because many students with disabilities spend part or all of their day in a general 

education environment. In addition, behaviors 

exhibited by students with disabilities are similar 

recent single-subject studies examined 

the effectiveness of interventions chosen for individual students after teachers gathered data on the antecedents 

and consequences of students’ problem 

behaviors, as opposed to interventions 

selected without attention to these factors.2 Findings demonstrated greater success in reducing inappropriate behaviors 

through the use of approaches based 

on the gathered data. An emerging literature provides further evidence that 

general educators can play a key role in 

this information-gathering process by 

identifying the context of a problem behavior (when, where, and why a problem 

behavior occurs) and selecting appropriate strategies that meet students’ needs. 

But more research is needed to determine whether consistent results can be 

obtained when the strategies are implemented by a teacher without professional 

consultation.3

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Research suggests that identifying the 

problem behavior’s specific antecedents 

and consequences and then tailoring an 

intervention to address the distinct needs 

of the individual student in the classroom 

context are more likely to yield positive 

outcomes than an intervention applied 

without attention to the factors prompting 

to those exhibited by students without schoolidentified disabilities in the general education 

population. Studies include Broussard and Northup (1995); Ervin et al. (2000); Lane et al. (2007); 

Moore, Anderson, and Kumar (2005); Sasso et al. 

(1992); Stahr et al. (2006); Umbreit (1995). For research reviews, see Ervin et al. (2001); Heckaman 

et al. (2000); Kern et al. (2002).

2. Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, and Sugai (2005); Newcomer and Lewis (2004); Payne, Scott, and Conroy (2007).

3. Kamps, Wendland, and Culpepper (2006); 

Lane, Weisenbach et al. (2007); Mueller, Edwards, 

and Trahant (2003).
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 15 )

and reinforcing it.4 In fact, strategies not 

linked to the specific context of a problem 

behavior are associated with increases in 

the occurrence of the problem behavior, 

perhaps because such strategies can inadvertently reinforce the misbehavior.5

The practice of analytically identifying 

the purpose of a behavior before selecting and applying an intervention forms 

the foundation of functional behavioral assessments6 conducted to support students 

with emotional disabilities or severe behavior problems. It is important to clarify 

that although the panel has drawn on the 

research evidence from studies in which 

teachers contributed to functional behavioral assessment processes, we are not 

suggesting that general education teachers conduct formal functional behavioral 

assessments and analyses on their own. 

However, we do believe that teachers can 

benefit from observing and collecting data 

on where, when, and why a specific problem behavior occurs so they can establish 

effective and efficient behavioral supports 

for all students in their classrooms. This 

information can assist teachers in fulfilling 

their important classroom duties by neu4. Ingram, et al. (2005); Newcomer and Lewis 

(2004); Payne, Scott, and Conroy (2007). 

5. Ibid.

6. A functional behavioral assessment identifies 

and measures a specific problem behavior by describing and analyzing the student’s interactions 

in his environment to understand variables that 

contribute to the occurrence of the misbehavior. 

There is no standard set of resources and procedures to conduct a functional behavioral assessment, but often it includes a variety of indirect 

assessments (for example, teacher interviews, 

parent interviews, or school records review), 

direct assessments (such as classroom observations or standardized behavior checklists), and 

data analysis conducted by the school psychologist or other behavioral experts to determine 

whether there are patterns associated with the 

behavior. For a review of sample methods and 

procedures to conduct a functional behavioral 

assessment, see O’Neill et al. (1997).

tralizing events that may trigger problem 

behaviors, maintaining consequences for 

appropriate behaviors, and eliminating the 

rewarding consequences of inappropriate 

behavior (recommendations 2 and 3).

Three single-subject studies have demonstrated the success of an approach that 

specifically identifies and modifies what is 

prompting and reinforcing problem behaviors in general education settings, with general education teachers taking substantive 

roles in data gathering and in the design 

and implementation of behavioral strategies. In these studies investigators successfully trained general education elementary 

school teachers to respond effectively to inappropriate behaviors by following a reinforcement protocol developed for each student who exhibited problem behaviors—all 

while teachers fulfilled regular classroom 

responsibilities and routines.7

These studies do not provide enough evidence to conclude that these practices will 

be effective for all students or in all settings. 

The studies differ in data collection methods 

(using a variety of both direct and indirect 

assessment measures such as observations 

and interviews), in the extent of assistance 

from behavioral consultants (for example, 

in-school specialists such as school psychologists or outside resources such as 

community-based behavioral experts), and 

in the methods used to select interventions 

and strategies on the basis of accumulated 

knowledge about the problem behavior. As 

a result, some researchers have called for 

additional studies to be conducted with a 

variety of target behaviors across different 

settings because of concerns regarding inconsistencies when the approach involves 

different types of students, school-based 

personnel, and assessment methods.8

7. Kamps et al. (2006); Lane, Weisenbach, et al. 

(2007); Mueller et al. (2003).

8. Gresham (2004); Gresham et al. (2004); Sasso 

et al. (2001); Scott et al. (2005).
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 16 )

Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that 

the practice of understanding a problem 

behavior’s context can yield an effective 

intervention to change the behavior. We 

offer guidelines and examples on how 

general education teachers can adopt 

these practices. Still, teachers who believe they are not equipped to handle a 

student’s behavior problem alone should 

seek ways to collaborate with other school 

staff, including general education teachers, special education teachers, school 

counselors, school psychologists, and 

administrators (as described in recommendation 4). As teachers gain experience 

and confidence in their ability to observe 

and collect data on target behaviors, we 

believe their capacity for selecting and 

designing effective strategies to engage 

students with behavioral difficulties will 

grow.

How to carry out the 

recommendation

1. Concretely describe the behavior problem 

and its effect on learning.

When a student repeatedly displays offtask behavior, it is important to define the 

specific behavior and pinpoint the setting 

(or settings) in which it occurs. We recommend that teachers describe the behavior 

problem in concrete terms that are easy to 

communicate to the student and simple to 

measure. If descriptions of behaviors are 

vague (for example, “Jacob is always disruptive”), it is difficult to assess the extent 

of the problem, when and where it most 

often occurs, and how to intervene appropriately. Examples of concrete descriptions 

of problem behaviors are: 

•	 Abraham blurts out answers without 

raising his hand during whole-class 

instruction.

•	 Thanh is physically aggressive toward 

his peers (hits, kicks, punches) during 

recess. 

•	 Silvia frequently leaves her seat without permission during small-group 

instruction.

It is equally important to assess the behavior’s impact on student learning. Misbehavior that is brief and does not seriously interfere with learning (such as short 

instances of daydreaming, talking during 

transitions, or momentary inattention) 

should be addressed without interrupting instruction through eye contact or 

physical proximity, for example.9 Behavior warrants immediate and additional attention if it: 

•	 Persists, escalates, or spreads to other 

students.

•	 Lessens the student’s or other students’ ability to successfully engage 

in learning.

•	 Detracts from a positive classroom 

climate.

•	 Deviates significantly from the developmentally appropriate behavior of 

other students.

•	 Causes other students or adults to 

avoid interacting with the student.

•	 Threatens the safety of students or 

the teacher.10

Teachers also should weigh other important factors as they try to understand a 

student’s behavior: 

•	 Could the behavior reflect a cultural 

difference? Some behaviors, such as a 

student’s persistent lack of eye contact 

or unwillingness to compete against 

9. Evertson, Emmer, and Worsham (2006).

10. Wolery, Bailey, and Sugai (1988) review characteristics of problem behaviors that warrant attention due to the behavior’s impact on classroom climate and instructional time.
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 17 )

peers, may be indicative of a student’s 

cultural background.11 Teachers should 

account for differences in cultural background when assessing the severity of 

students’ behavior problems.

•	 Does the student have the academic 

or behavioral skills necessary to meet 

expectations? Students with skill deficits may exhibit behavior problems to 

help them avoid or escape tasks that 

are difficult for them. Teachers should 

frequently assess students’ abilities 

and help them build requisite skills 

for appropriate behavior (see recommendation 3).

•	 Could the behavior reflect episodic 

stress or trauma? A student’s behavior 

may be a temporary reaction to a difficult event, such as the death or illness 

of a family member. Regular communication with students’ families helps 

teachers be understanding and supportive when events in students’ lives 

affect them in school.

2. Observe and record the frequency and 

context of the problem behavior.

Teachers should carefully observe and 

record key information about a student’s 

persistent problem behavior in different 

settings and during different activities 

(for example, during solitary time, group 

assignments, unstructured peer interactions) to understand better the contexts 

in which it does and does not occur. Depending on the frequency of the behavior problem, teachers should make note 

of its occurrence over the course of a 

few days to a week until clear patterns 

emerge between the behavior and environmental conditions.12 Key information 

11. See, for example, Gay (2000); Harry and Kalyanpur (1994); Shade et al. (1997). 

12. O’Neill et al. (1997). See roadblock 1.1 for further recommendations on how (and how often) 

to document behavior problems.

to note about each instance of the behavior includes: 

•	 Time of day.

•	 Classroom location (for example, computer center, reading area).

•	 Subject matter being taught.

•	 Type of learning activity.

•	 Difficulty of the task. 

•	 Presence of particular peers or adults.

Teachers might also consult with parents 

about whether they see similar behavior 

at home and, if so, the specific context of 

its occurrence (for example, with adults 

or peers). Once these data are collected, 

teachers may decide to discuss the findings 

with colleagues or local school or district 

behavior experts (see recommendation 4). 

Patterns revealed by this information will 

provide important clues as to what prompts 

the problem behavior, when it is most likely 

to happen, and what reinforces it.

3. Identify what prompts and reinforces the 

problem behavior.

Because students learn to behave in ways 

that satisfy a need or result in a desired 

outcome, we recommend that teachers examine the frequency and context data they 

have collected to figure out the prompts 

and payoffs for a particular student’s 

misbehavior.

Teachers should carefully examine triggers 

that may prompt a student’s misbehavior by 

asking themselves when, where, and with 

whom problem behaviors are most likely 

to occur. Common environmental triggers 

usually cluster in three general categories:

•	 Curricular variables (tasks that are too 

hard, easy, boring, or unstructured for 

the student).
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 18 )

•	 Social variables (small or large group 

settings or the presence of particular 

individuals).

•	 Setting variables (for example, time 

of the day or week; distractions at 

home or in class; or the student’s physical states, such as fatigued, ill, or 

hungry).13

We recommend that teachers also carefully reflect on what usually happens after 

the behavior occurs, including how they 

react, how other students react, and the 

consequences that may be reinforcing the 

behavior. Reinforcers of a student’s persistent problem behavior usually derive from 

two common outcomes—the student’s attempt either to get something, such as attention or access to a preferred activity, 

or to escape something, such as demands, 

reprimands, or difficult tasks.14

Consider this example:

Michael’s disruptive behavior during math 

instruction is distracting others from participating and learning. When the teacher 

asks three students to solve a problem 

at the board, Michael teases the students 

when they walk past his desk. The snide 

remarks continue while they are solving 

the problems, and at one point, Michael 

takes the pencils off one of the student’s 

desk and hides them in his desk. When the 

teacher’s reprimand is not effective, she 

moves closer to his desk to monitor his 

behavior. This only causes Michael’s misbehavior to escalate and further disrupt 

the lesson, so she sends him out of class 

to the principal’s office.

To anticipate Michael’s disruptive behavior and adjust environmental triggers and 

reinforcers, his teacher noted what happened before the misbehavior to prompt 

13. O’Neill et al. (1997).

14. Ibid.

it (its antecedents) and after the misbehavior to reinforce or decrease it (its 

consequences).

What happened before (antecedent): A difficult concept in math was modeled to the 

class and students were called on to work 

problems at the board.

Behavior: Michael distracted and teased 

students who were participating in whole 

class exercises in math. The disruptive 

behavior recurred two days later during 

a math lesson.

What happened after (consequence): Verbal 

reminders, physical proximity, and finally 

removal from class (allowing student to 

avoid doing the math lesson).

The teacher observed that the disruptive 

behaviors only occurred during math, indicating that Michael may have wanted to 

avoid engaging in the lesson. The teacher 

asked herself if the concept was too difficult or too easy to sustain his attention 

and gauged the developmental appropriateness of Michael’s behavior against 

the instructional and disciplinary strategies in play. She realized that removal 

of Michael from the classroom may have 

inadvertently reinforced his disruptive 

behavior because it allowed him to avoid 

doing the task. Because the context for 

the disruptive behavior was identified, the 

teacher planned to adjust the antecedent 

and consequences by using the developmentally appropriate strategies described 

below, and to continue to observe his behavior to evaluate the success of her new 

approach.

Adjusted antecedents: Forewarn Michael 

when new concepts will be introduced in 

math and tell him he will be one of the 

students called on to offer an answer to 

a problem. Gauge Michael and his classmates’ understanding of the new concept 

by asking several questions and offering a 

variety of problems for students to solve. 
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 19 )

Adjust the difficulty of the problems on 

the basis of the students’ success.

Consequences: If misbehavior occurs, take 

Michael aside and remind him of behavior 

expectations during whole-group lessons. 

Describe how the observed behavior affects students’ learning. If behavior persists, give Michael a choice of participating 

in the lesson or relocating to a designated 

area to work on problems independently 

until he is ready to return to the whole 

group.

As demonstrated in the example, teachers’ attention to the antecedents and consequences of reoccurring behavior problems can inform the development of more 

effective and efficient behavioral support 

strategies to prevent or reduce behaviors 

that interfere with successful classroom 

learning.

Potential roadblocks and solutions

Roadblock 1.1. “I don’t know how to collect all this information about behavior 

problems when I’m trying to teach a room 

full of students.” General education teachers in public schools must attend to, on 

average, more than 20 students in their 

classroom,15 so to add data collection responsibilities to their tasks can seem impractical or impossible.

Suggested Approach. We recommend 

keeping methods of information gathering 

very simple. For example, if the problem 

behavior occurs several times a day, we 

recommend that teachers record occurrences over just a few days. If the problem behavior occurs infrequently (such as 

a few times a week), we recommend that 

teachers gather data over one or two weeks 

to be sure to include enough instances of 

the behavior to inform a plan for intervention. For daily observations teachers 

can use a chart of their daily classroom 

15. U.S. Department of Education (2004).

schedule and make a simple tally under 

the time of day and lesson activity when 

the target behavior occurs (see table 3).16

Over time patterns should become apparent, showing when the behavior is more 

likely and less likely to occur. For a behavior of low frequency teachers can make a 

very brief entry in a notebook or journal 

during transition periods (for example, at 

recess or between lessons) or at the end 

of the day about the immediate antecedents and consequences of the target behavior (see table 4).17 After recording and 

reviewing a number of these observations, 

teachers should be able to denote patterns in the frequency and triggers of the 

misbehavior. 

Roadblock 1.2. “This class has so many 

behavior problems, I don’t know where to 

start.” Students’ problem behaviors can be 

a source of great frustration and confusion 

to teachers, especially when they are persistent and appear to be inexplicable. 

Suggested Approach. Multiple problem 

behaviors, such as disruption, inattention, 

and noncompliance, often originate from 

similar student needs, so by concentrating 

on one behavior in one setting, teachers 

may have a positive impact on others. We 

suggest that the teacher identify one priority behavior problem—not necessarily the 

most troublesome or disruptive—on which 

to focus initial efforts. By assessing the antecedents and consequences that prompt 

and reinforce the problem behavior and 

developing strategies that specifically link 

to the underlying function of the student’s 

16. The example data collection tool was adapted 

from O’Neill et al. (1997), p. 29. In table 3, each 

tally mark represents an occurrence of the highfrequency target behavior. 

17. The example data collection tool was adapted 

from O’Neill et al. (1997), p. 33. Using table 4, 

teachers can enter information about low-frequency problem behaviors by describing the 

behavior in concrete terms and its antecedent(s) 

and consequence(s).
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 20 )

Table 3. Example tally-mark data collection tool for a high-frequency behavior problem

Name:

Directions: Mark a tally under the time and day when behavior problems occur with the student.

Source: Authors’ adaptation from O’Neill et al. (1997), p. 29.

Table 4. Example entry sheet for a low-frequency problem behavior

Name:

Date:

Class Period:

Antecedents:

What happens before 

the problem behavior?

(curricular, social, and setting variables) 

Behavior:

What does it look like?

(frequency, duration, 

intensity)

Consequences:

What happens after the 

problem behavior?

(reactions and reinforcers)

When, where, and with whom 

is the problem behavior most 

likely to occur? Least likely to 

occur? (for example, during 

solitary time, group assignments, or unstructured peer 

interactions)

How often does the problem 

behavior occur?

How long does it last?

How serious is it?

How do you react?

How does the student react?

How do other students react?

Source: Authors’ adaptation from O’Neill et al. (1997), p. 33. 
1. Identify the speci fics of the problem behavior and the conditions that prompt and rein force it

( 21 )

behavior, there may be immediate relief 

of problems across multiple settings and 

even across other problem behaviors and 

students. When such improvements are 

noted, however small, celebrate those successes with the students involved to encourage behavior improvements in other 

contexts.

Roadblock 1.3. “I identified the trigger for 

the problem behavior and applied an intervention, but the student is still misbehaving.” Sometimes problem behaviors persist 

following careful selection and implementation of an intervention.

Suggested Approach. First, it is important to be sure that the intervention has 

been given enough time to work. As a general rule, teachers should stick with an 

intervention for about a month or more 

to adequately assess its effect on problem 

behavior. It is not uncommon for teachers 

to observe a rebound effect, the worsening 

of behavior problems following an initial 

decrease, so patience and persistence are 

important. It also is important to remember that a single problem behavior may 

stem from multiple triggers, so sometimes 

a succession of changes in classroom conditions is required to remedy one problem 

behavior. Thus, we suggest that teachers 

continue to collect data and observe any 

recurrences of a problem behavior after 

an initial intervention has been implemented, identify antecedents and consequences, and assess if there might be another explanation for the behavior. With 

this additional information, teachers can 

try another approach that responds to the 

function of the misbehavior and continue 

to collect data to assess the effectiveness 

of the intervention.

Roadblock 1.4. “The problem isn’t in my 

classroom—it travels into my classroom 

from the playground.” Some teachers recognize that disruptions outside the classroom can carry over and disrupt learning 

within it, but they are unsure how to deal 

with it or do not feel it is their responsibility to correct such problems. 

Suggested Approach. To maintain positive behaviors in the classroom, we recommend that teachers agree together 

to invest time and attention in monitoring behaviors that ensue throughout the 

school (see recommendation 5). By stepping out of the classroom and observing 

lunchtime or recess activities, teachers 

can identify where behavior problems 

tend to erupt, the antecedents and consequences of those problem behaviors, and 

where increased adult supervision or behavioral interventions may be warranted 

to improve the situation. Brief but regular conversations between general education teachers and other staff (for example, 

lunchroom and recess aides, P.E. teachers, and music teachers) can bridge support systems responsible for supervising 

students’ behavior inside and outside the 

classroom. Teachers also can inform students that their behavior will continue to 

be monitored outside the classroom and 

that in-class rewards and consequences 

will be administered accordingly. 

In addition, to calm and focus students 

after they reenter the classroom from an 

outside activity or class, teachers can implement a brief cool down period before 

beginning a lesson. The structure and duration of the cool down can be adjusted 

to the students’ developmental levels. 

For example, younger elementary students could be expected to refocus their 

attention after the conclusion of a song; 

older elementary students may need just 

a 10-second countdown before proceeding 

with instruction.
( 22 )

Recommendation 2. 

Modify the classroom 

learning environment 

to decrease problem 

behavior

Many effective classroom-focused 

interventions to decrease students’ 

problematic behavior alter or remove 

factors that trigger them. These 

triggers can result from a mismatch 

between the classroom setting or 

academic demands and students’ 

strengths, preferences, or skills.18

Teachers can reduce the occurrence 

of inappropriate behavior by revisiting 

and reinforcing classroom behavior 

expectations; rearranging the 

classroom environment, schedule, or 

learning activities to meet students’ 

needs; and/or individually adapting 

instruction to promote high rates 

of student engagement and on-task 

behavior.

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel rated the level of evidence 

for this recommendation as strong. This 

recommendation reflects best practices in elementary classroom management and pedagogy, as defined and articulated by experts in the field since 

the early 1970s.19 Research across decades has demonstrated that consistent 

18. Kern and Clemens (2007) provide a rationale 

for the use of antecedent strategies that focus on 

structuring the classroom environment to prevent behavior problems and enhance student 

motivation. 

19. For example, Axelrod and Mathews (2003); 

Bear (1998); Brophy (1983); Doyle (1992); Evertson 

et al. (2006); Evertson and Harris (1995); Good 

and Brophy (2003); Hall and Hall (1998–2004); 

Kellam (1999); Kounin (1970); Walker (1995); 

Walker, Colvin, and Ramsey (1995).

implementation and reinforcement of 

well defined classroom rules is associated 

with positive student behavior in both 

the classroom and other school settings, 

such as the playground and hallways.20

More recently, three randomized controlled trials,21 one quasi-experimental 

design,22 and six single-subject research 

studies23 demonstrate empirical support 

for (1) preventative classroom management, with particular emphasis on teachers’ attention to specific environmental 

variables that evoke problem behaviors;24

and for (2) direct and differentiated instructional strategies to increase student engagement and decrease problem 

behaviors.25

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Research demonstrates that teachers who 

proactively decrease problem behaviors 

implement classroom management approaches that:

•	 Establish an orderly and positive classroom environment by teaching and reinforcing rules and routines.

20. For example, see reviews by Kern and Clemens (2007); Sugai and Horner (2002); Sugai, 

Horner, and Gresham (2001).

21. Evertson (1989); Ialongo et al. (2001); Ialongo 

et al. (1999).

22. Heller and Fantuzzo (1993).

23. Dunlap et al. (1994); DuPaul et al. (1998); 

Kern, Bambara, and Fogt (2002); Kern et al. (1994); 

Kern, Mantegna, et al. (2001); Nelson, Johnson, 

and Marchand-Martella (1996).

24. Dunlap et al. (1994); Evertson (1989); Ialongo 

et al. (2001); Ialongo et al. (1999); Kern, Bambara, and Fogt (2002); Kern et al. (1994); Kern, 

Mantegna, et al. (2001). For relevant research 

reviews, see Davis et al. (2004); Kern and Clemens (2007).

25. DuPaul et al. (1998); Heller and Fantuzzo 

(1993); Nelson, Johnson, and Marchand-Martella 

(1996).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 23 )

•	 Reinforce the appropriate behavior of 

individuals and groups of students.

•	 Practice instructional principles that 

incorporate presentation of new materials with modeling and practice.

•	 Offer a variety of activities and materials at a pace and level of difficulty 

appropriate to the range of student 

abilities in the class.

•	 Encourage collaborative peer support 

(peer tutoring) as an instructional 

strategy.

Three randomized controlled trials26 and 

one single-subject study27 have demonstrated that group contingency programs—

where teachers clearly specify behavioral 

goals and their students work in teams 

to maintain appropriate behavior—are 

effective in both preventing and then intervening with behavior problems when 

implemented in well managed classrooms. 

Significant benefits of group contingency 

programs28 modeled after the Good Behavior Game29 have been shown across grade 

levels and settings, for different target 

behaviors (for example, shyness and aggression), and both immediately and five 

years after the intervention with hundreds 

of students.

26. Dolan et al. (1993); Ialongo et al. (2001); 

Ialongo et al. (1999).

27. Lohrmann and Talerico (2004).

28. Teachers use contingency programs when 

they apply techniques to reinforce appropriate 

behavior to the class as a whole in order to benefit 

from students’ peer support in enhancing the behavior of an individual or group of students. For 

example, teachers can divide the class into teams, 

reward teams with checkmarks when they display 

appropriate behavior during an activity, and allow 

the winning team with the most checkmarks a 

special reward, such as extra computer time.

29. Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969). The Good 

Behavior Game manual is available at: http://www.

jhsph.edu/prevention/Publications/gbg.pdf.

In addition, two randomized controlled 

trials evaluated the effectiveness of training teachers to use comprehensive classroom management approaches with the 

goals of reducing students’ time off task 

(the Classroom Organization and Management Program) and disruptive behaviors in 

the classroom (the Incredible Years Training for Teachers Series).30 Participants in 

both programs were trained to create and 

maintain well-organized classrooms and 

to use the instructional and skill-building 

strategies as prescribed. Only the investigators examining the Classroom Organization and Management Program were able 

to demonstrate that students significantly 

increased their task engagement and reduced their inappropriate behavior as a 

result of their teachers’ participation in 

the training.31

Studies examining direct instruction practices in a single-subject alternating treatment design suggest that lessons delivered 

in small steps, at the appropriate level of 

difficulty, and with ample opportunities 

for practice result in higher levels of ontask behavior and student engagement.32

Single-subject research data also support 

the practice of increasing the number of 

opportunities that students have to respond to academic or social prompts, 

thereby increasing academic engaged time 

30. Evertson (1989); Webster-Stratton, Reid, and 

Hammond (2004).

31. Evertson (1989). In the study of the Incredible Years Training for Teachers Series (WebsterStratton, Reid, and Hammond 2004), the authors 

reported statistically significant reductions in 

conduct problems after 6 months. However, when 

WWC reviewers applied a multiple comparison 

adjustment to the analyses, the findings showed 

no statistically significant differences between 

the outcomes of the intervention and comparison students.

32. Nelson et al. (1996). See relevant research reviews by Adams and Engelmann (1996); Rivera, 

Al-Otaiba, and Koorland (2006); Rosenshine and 

Stevens (1986).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 24 )

and fluency with the material and reducing inappropriate behavior.33

A series of four single-subject research 

studies also have demonstrated the effectiveness of increasing opportunities for 

student choice as an intervention that decreases inappropriate behaviors. Choice 

can be embedded in academic tasks in various ways, including by offering students 

a choice of the specific task to complete,34

materials to use,35 and the sequence of activities to tackle.36

Finally, one randomized controlled trial 

and one single-subject study have demonstrated the effectiveness of structured 

classwide peer tutoring programs, such 

as the Peer Assisted Learning Strategies, 

for improving the classroom behavior of 

students with behavior problems.37 Peer 

tutoring, where students work in pairs as 

a tutor and tutee, has been shown to improve students’ academic engagement and 

learning, help students develop cooperative work habits, increase positive social 

interactions among students, and reduce 

off-task behaviors.

How to carry out the 

recommendation

1. Revisit, re-practice, and reinforce classroom behavioral expectations.

Teachers should actively teach expectations for appropriate student behavior 

33. Sutherland, Alder, and Gunter (2003).

34. Dunlap et al. (1994); Kern, Bambara, and 

Fogt (2002).

35. Kern et al. (1994).

36. Kern, Mantegna, et al. (2001).

37. Heller and Fantuzzo (1993); DuPaul et al. 

(1998). For reviews of relevant research, see Rivera et al. (2006); Ryan, Reid, and Epstein (2004). 

For information about Peer Assisted Learning 

Strategies (PALS), see Fuchs et al. (2008); http://

kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/. 

and corresponding classroom routines to 

students at the beginning of the year and 

revisit them regularly, showing students 

clearly what to do and what not to do.38

A key assumption underlying the panel’s 

recommendation is that consistently implementing and reinforcing well defined classroom rules and expectations will result in 

positive student behavior in both the classroom and in other key school settings, such 

as the playground and hallways.39 Expectations should be conveyed daily through explicit teaching strategies, modeling positive 

behavior, and building positive relationships among students and adults. Students 

need concrete, positively-stated guidelines 

on how to conduct themselves in a variety 

of situations, including: 

•	 Arriving at and leaving the classroom.

•	 Distributing materials and turning in 

assignments.

•	 Requesting help from the teacher.

•	 Transitioning to new activities or 

settings.

•	 Experiencing interruptions in routines, such as fire drills or substitute 

teachers.

•	 Working independently and in groups.

•	 Returning from recess or another class 

(art, music, or P.E.).

We recommend that teachers provide students with ample time to learn each step in 

38. Sugai and Horner (2002) provide helpful 

guidelines in establishing a small set of positively-stated classwide rules. One important 

principle to keep in mind is that classroom rules 

should align with and support schoolwide rules, 

as described more fully in recommendation 5.

39. For example, see reviews by Kern and Clemens (2007); Sugai and Horner (2002); Sugai et 

al. (2001).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 25 )

the desired routine and to practice them, 

with more time and practice provided to 

younger elementary students who are new 

to learning how to behave in a school environment and among peers. In fact, for 

students in the primary grades teachers 

should consider practicing behavioral expectations daily for the first few weeks of 

school, and then reserving at least brief 

(about 10 minutes) instructional and practice periods in their weekly class schedule 

or as needed, such as when new expectations arise or students lapse into inappropriate behaviors. Younger elementary 

students also can benefit from constant 

visual reminders, such as pictures that 

are enlarged and posted in the classroom 

of students exhibiting expected behaviors 

(for example, sitting at their desk, cleaning 

a learning center, or lining up for recess). 

Older elementary school students might 

also need reminders about behavioral expectations, particularly after vacations. 

Taking time at the beginning of the school 

year and revisiting expectations regularly 

will develop students’ ownership of a positive classroom environment.

Teachers who start the school year with 

well-ordered classrooms might still find 

occasions when students need behavioral 

expectations to be reestablished.

Consider this example:

Mr. Boyle has been frustrated with his 4th 

grade students’ behavior since returning 

from winter break. More and more students have become loud and distracting 

during whole-class lessons. When working with small groups, he is interrupted 

by students wanting help on their individual assignments. Other students wander around the room, talk with their seat 

mates, and make little progress on their 

own work.

The class may benefit from Mr. Boyle restating and posting instructions and expectations for behavior during group and 

individual assignments and providing additional practice and praise for expected 

behaviors while withholding reinforcers 

for inappropriate behaviors. Mr. Boyle 

also can consider implementing individual contingencies (for example a token 

system where individual students who 

follow a specific expectation earn points 

or tokens that can be exchanged for a reward of choice, such as a preferred activity) or group contingencies (where rewards 

are contingent on individual student behavior or the behavior displayed by the 

whole class) to increase student motivation and compliance with classroom rules 

and routines.

Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of group contingency programs for 

both preventing and intervening with behavior problems.40 When students know 

and master classroom behavioral expectations, we recommend that teachers 

gradually reduce prompts for appropriate 

behavior and allow routines to be initiated by normal events (the bell ringing).41

Similarly, artificial rewards, such as tokens, gradually can be replaced by other 

forms of reinforcement and natural consequences, such as allowing students who 

clean up quickly to use their extra time to 

do a preferred activity.

2. Modify the classroom environment to encourage instructional momentum.

For persistent behavior problems we recommend that teachers identify and modify specific environmental variables that 

precede problem behavior, such as the 

classroom layout, agenda, procedures and 

routines, and teaching strategies, so that 

the classroom environment no longer contributes to problem behaviors.

40. For example, Barrish et al. (1969); Dolan et al. 

(1993); Ialongo et al. (2001); Ialongo et al. (1999); 

Lannie and McCurdy (2007); Lohrmann and Talerico (2004).

41. Harvey et al. (2003); Lewis et al. (2004).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 26 )

We recommend that teachers revisit their 

daily lesson plans and schedule and ask 

themselves, for example: 

•	 Do I schedule the most academically 

demanding activities during the times 

of day when most students’ engagement is high? Teachers also should 

consider scheduling preferred activities after rigorous lessons to increase 

students’ incentive to participate (for 

example, conducting math lessons before recess).

•	 Is my teaching strategy appropriate for 

the lesson? Teachers should consider 

using multiple strategies (for example, 

whole-class, small-group, and individual-work formats) in various locations in the classroom (for example, at 

desks, on the floor, in group settings, 

and in learning centers) to keep students engaged in learning tasks.

•	 Is the length and pacing of my lesson 

suited to my students’ developmental 

abilities? Many experienced teachers 

have observed that younger elementary students have a limited attention 

span—perhaps no more than 10 or 

15 minutes, depending on their developmental level—and so they frequently switch activities and incorporate movement into their lessons 

to keep younger students engaged in 

learning tasks.

•	 Do I offer my students choices in how 

they participate in learning activities?

Because students’ engagement often 

increases and disruption decreases 

when they are offered choices in their 

lessons,42 we recommend that teachers 

occasionally provide students with options in how they participate in learning tasks. This does not mean students 

get to choose everything they want 

42. Dunlap et al. (1994); Kern et al. (1994); Kern, 

Mantegna, et al. (2001).

to do, but teachers can incorporate 

some choice when options are negotiable, such as the order or number of 

activities, the choice of materials to 

use, alternative ways to demonstrate 

mastery (for example, writing a poem 

or story), or the structure of the task 

(such as working with a partner or 

independently).

•	 Do I manage transitions quickly and efficiently? In many classrooms a significant proportion of class time (about 25 

percent, on average) is spent on transitional activities such as gathering 

and putting away materials, listening 

to nonacademic directions, and waiting for help or for the next activity to 

begin, resulting in a large loss to academic engaged time.43 To minimize 

this loss of instructional momentum, 

we recommend that teachers prepare 

carefully for transitions by warning 

students about the close of one activity 

and the opening of another, providing 

brief but clear directions, having materials immediately available, actively 

monitoring and reinforcing appropriate student behavior, and beginning 

the new activity quickly and with a 

high degree of enthusiasm.

We recommend that teachers also reconsider the arrangement of the classroom 

to promote a smooth rhythm and traffic 

flow that avoids areas getting congested 

or going unsupervised. For primary elementary classrooms teachers might need 

to define the appointed activity spaces in 

the classroom, such as by putting carpet 

squares or signs in places where the children are expected to sit during group activities. In all grades teachers may need to 

designate certain shelf areas for putting 

away specific materials or for turning in 

work. Seating plans can be designed to 

support different student interactions 

(such as small groups and whole-class) and 

43. Doyle (1986); Rosenshine (1980).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 27 )

access to instructional materials, while 

providing the teacher with enough room 

to move freely about the classroom and 

monitor student engagement. The desks 

of students with frequent problem behaviors can be positioned where there is less 

traffic and distraction and greater access 

to the teacher and work materials.

3. Adapt or vary instructional strategies to 

increase opportunities for academic success 

and engagement.

Research shows that when there is a mismatch between a student’s ability level and 

the difficulty or length of an academic task, 

inappropriate behavior is more frequent.44

If teachers observe that a recurring problem behavior is exhibited primarily during academic activities, we recommend 

that teachers identify the specific aspects 

of the task that challenge or frustrate the 

student and accommodate their instruction to the student’s abilities and rate of 

learning.

Most teachers understand that to tailor 

instruction to students’ needs, they must 

provide students with academic tasks that 

are neither too difficult nor too easy. To 

gauge students’ level of learning and increase their academic engagement, teachers can pose frequent questions at a level 

most students can succeed in answering 

and intersperse more complex tasks.45

Guidelines for teaching students with 

behavioral difficulties recommend that 

teachers elicit four to six responses per 

minute from students during the presentation of new material, with a target of 80 

percent accuracy in the students’ answers; 

44. For example, Davis et al. (2004); Kern et al. 

(2001); Lee, Sugai, and Horner (1999); Umbreit, 

Lane, and Dejud (2004).

45. Adams and Engelman (1996); Cotton (1989); 

Council for Exceptional Children (1987); Davis et 

al. (2004); Engelmann and Carnine (1983); Slavin 

(1994); Sutherland et al. (2003); Sutherland and 

Wehby (2001).

the number of responses doubles, with 

a target of 90 percent accuracy, during 

practice drills.46 Students’ on-task behaviors increase when they experience more 

opportunities for academic success, for 

example answering questions correctly. 

In contrast, their disruptive behaviors increase when they are faced with queries 

that are too difficult.47

Researchers also have found that instruction delivered at a brisk pace contributes 

to higher levels of on-task behavior and 

student engagement, as does instruction 

that incorporates presentation of new materials with modeling, guided practice, and 

student independent practice.48 Teachers 

might also use differentiated instructional 

strategies to reach all students at their 

particular academic and behavioral levels 

of performance by varying their materials, processes, and assessment strategies. 

For example, materials selected for a language arts lesson could include nonfiction 

and fiction at a variety of reading levels, 

video clips, and newspaper or magazine 

articles. Teachers might work with the 

whole class, small groups, individual students, or a combination of formats. Finally, 

teachers could allow students to choose 

between various options, such as a written essay, an oral presentation, or an art 

project, to demonstrate their mastery of 

the content.49

Peer tutoring also has been demonstrated 

to be effective in promoting appropriate behavior as well as academic gains.50

Students work in pairs as a tutor and tutee 

or in groups where each student takes a 

46. Council for Exceptional Children (1987).

47. Lee et al. (1999).

48. Adams and Engelmann (1996); Nelson et al. 

(1996).

49. For an overview on the classroom practice of 

differentiated instruction, see Hall (2002). 

50. DuPaul et al. (1998); Fuchs et al. (2002); Heller 

and Fantuzzo (1993); Spencer (2006).
2. Modify the classroom learning environment to decrease problem behavior

( 28 )

turn being the tutor. The goals of this approach are to improve academic learning, 

develop cooperative work habits, and increase positive social interactions among 

students. Often, students need to be taught 

the social and communication skills that 

will make the peer-assisted learning experience more productive and positive (see 

recommendation 3).

Potential roadblocks and solutions

Roadblock 2.1. “I just don’t have the time 

to rethink my classroom practices.” Most 

teachers have tried-and-true methods of 

classroom management and instruction, 

and their busy schedules are a disincentive for learning and practicing new strategies that might benefit a few students with 

problem behaviors. 

Suggested Approach. We recommend 

that teachers first concentrate on making 

just one strategic change in one setting 

and assessing the benefit and success of 

the strategy before moving on to other 

potentially beneficial changes. For example, a teacher could make a concerted 

effort to reduce transition time by picking the point in the daily schedule when 

a significant amount of instructional time 

is lost. After teaching, practicing, and 

reinforcing students’ efficient transition 

to the next activity and keeping track of 

the time it takes the class to get ready 

each day, the teacher can systematically 

reward improvements (perhaps through 

a group contingency program) and assess 

gains made in instructional time. Teachers also may find that students can easily 

apply their new routines to other transition periods, reducing instructional time 

lost in other subjects and at other times 

of the day.

Roadblock 2.2. “Making changes now to 

my schedule or classroom routines will just 

make things worse.” Some teachers are reluctant to make adjustments to their established and predictable routines, fearing 

that the changes will result in increased 

disruption. 

Suggested Approach. It is true that a 

change in routine may result in an increase 

in disruption for a short time, but the time 

used to practice and re-practice effective 

routines will likely increase the quantity 

and quality of the classroom instructional 

time. Teachers also can prepare students 

before implementing any change in routines to minimize the disruption. For example, teachers can discuss with their students any challenges posed by ineffective 

routines, engage them in decision-making 

about adjustments, and actively teach, 

practice, and reinforce the new behavioral 

expectations. To reinforce the new routines further, students who demonstrate 

mastery could model the new routines for 

their classmates as a reward for their appropriate behavior.
( 29 )

Recommendation 3. 

Teach and reinforce 

new skills to increase 

appropriate behavior 

and preserve a positive 

classroom climate

We recommend that teachers 

actively teach students socially- and 

behaviorally-appropriate skills to 

replace problem behaviors using 

strategies focused on both individual 

students and the whole classroom. In 

doing so, teachers help students with 

behavior problems learn how, when, 

and where to use these new skills; 

increase the opportunities that the 

students have to exhibit appropriate 

behaviors; preserve a positive 

classroom climate; and manage 

consequences to reinforce students’ 

display of positive “replacement” 

behaviors and adaptive skills.

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel rated the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as strong. This recommendation is based on five randomized controlled trials51 and three singlesubject research studies52 examining the 

effectiveness of teaching and reinforcing 

new appropriate behaviors and skills to 

students with problem behaviors. These 

studies have shown success in teaching 

students replacement behaviors (such 

as appropriate attention-seeking, social 

skills, problem-solving, and self-management strategies) and, as a result, in reducing inappropriate behaviors such as 

disruption and aggression. Furthermore, 

51. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 

(1999); Daunic et al. (2006); Frey et al. (2005); 

Grossman et al. (1997); Walker et al. (1998).

52. Beard and Sugai (2004); Peterson et al. (2006); 

Todd, Horner, and Sugai (1999).

studies that span almost half a century 

demonstrate that positive reinforcement is 

associated with initial and long-term academic benefits and with increases in the 

frequency of appropriate behaviors among 

general education students.53

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Studies of classroom-based interventions 

for students with behavior problems have 

focused on enhancing skills, such as appropriate attention-seeking, social skills, 

problem-solving, and self-management 

strategies. One randomized controlled 

trial54 and two single-subject research 

studies55 have demonstrated that reductions in inappropriate behaviors, such as 

disruption and aggression, and increases 

in academic engagement are associated 

with skill-building instruction and reinforcement of positive behavior.

In addition, four randomized controlled 

trials56 and one single-subject study57

have demonstrated the effectiveness of 

specific classroom-based early interventions across dozens of schools and with 

hundreds of students (using the First Step 

to Success, Promoting Alternative THinking 

Strategies, and Second Step intervention 

programs). These programs are designed 

to reduce antisocial behaviors among elementary school students by modeling 

and teaching appropriate replacement 

skills and behaviors and rewarding students when those behaviors are exhibited. 

Results of the interventions demonstrated 

53. For example, Akin-Little et al. (2004); Cameron, Banko, and Pierce (2001); Hall, Lund, and 

Jackson (1968); Hall et al. (1968).

54. Daunic et al. (2006).

55. Peterson et al. (2006); Todd et al. (1999).

56. Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group (1999); Frey et al. (2005); Grossman et al. 

(1997); Walker et al. (1998).

57. Beard and Sugai (2004).
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 30 )

increases in students’ adaptive and ontask behaviors and decreases in maladaptive behaviors, such as disruption and 

aggression.

One limitation to this body of research 

is that many studies have examined the 

collective effects of multiple components 

of comprehensive intervention packages, 

making it methodologically difficult to determine the effects of their specific components, such as parent involvement modules, teacher-delivered curriculum, and 

student skill-building modules.

Yet one consistent approach in these classroom-based studies is the use of positive 

reinforcement to encourage students’ appropriate behaviors and academic engagement. As early as the 1960s, researchers 

demonstrated that positive reinforcement 

was associated with increased task engagement and reduced disruptive (or “dawdling”) behavior of students in general 

education classrooms.58 Since then, however, the use of rewards in education has 

been veiled in some controversy, primarily 

due to a perceived negative effect on student’s intrinsic motivation.59 The concerns 

are based on studies conducted since the 

1970s, leading some researchers and educators to warn against the use of praise 

and extrinsic rewards in schools (for example, a concern that “token economies 

will produce token learners”).60

To address these concerns, a number of researchers have examined the full body of 

empirical studies on positive reinforcement 

58. For example, Hall, Lund, and Jackson (1968); 

Hall et al. (1968).

59. Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that 

comes from inside an individual student (the 

enjoyment a student gets from the task itself or 

from the sense of satisfaction in completing or 

even working on a task), rather than from any external or outside rewards (tokens or grades). 

60. For example, Deci (1971); Deci, Koestner, and 

Ryan (1999); Kohn (1993).

to determine overarching findings. The results from two meta-analyses concluded 

that little or no detrimental effect was 

found with the use of external reinforcers 

in educational settings; in fact, rewards 

following and linked to appropriate behavior were related to both initial and 

long-term academic engagement and social benefits.61

How to carry out the 

recommendation

1. Identify where the student needs explicit 

instruction for appropriate behavior.

Behavior problems may indicate that students do not know what behavior is expected (see recommendation 2 for a discussion about setting explicit behavioral 

expectations) or that they lack the skills 

needed to exhibit the desired behavior. 

Teachers often assume that students can 

perform a particular behavior, but research shows that many children with 

behavior problems have poor social skills, 

especially the ability to read social situations and conform to group norms for 

appropriate behavior.62 This inability to 

respond appropriately in social situations 

can lead to further disruptive and aggressive behaviors.

Before assuming that a student is knowingly misbehaving, a teacher should discern whether the student has the skills 

and the knowledge to behave appropriately. To assess whether a student has the 

requisite skills for proper behavior, we 

recommend that teachers observe carefully whether there are any circumstances 

where the student can perform the behavioral skill at a level of success commensurate with his peers, and whether 

61. Akin-Little et al. (2004); Cameron et al. 

(2001).

62. Kerr and Nelson (1989); Merrell et al. (1992); 

Newman et al. (2003).
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 31 )

the student knows when and where the 

behavior is appropriate.

Another efficient way to assess a student’s 

ability to perform academic or social skills 

adequately is to employ a self-monitoring 

strategy. Self-monitoring is a process in 

which students assess and record their 

own behavior to help them become more 

aware of and able to maintain appropriate behavior.63 Teachers can use a checklist of questions to guide students in the 

assessment of their social and academic 

behaviors (Did I get started on time? Am 

I following directions? Am I working quietly on my assignment? Did I ask for help 

the right way? Did I turn in my completed 

work?). With this information teachers can 

discuss with students when and where 

the appropriate behaviors are expected, 

whether they know how to perform the 

behaviors, and to what extent they are 

successfully meeting those expectations 

on a regular basis.

2. Teach skills by providing examples, practice, and feedback.

If students lack the skills to behave appropriately, teachers can help them acquire 

the skills by providing instruction and reinforcement of new, appropriate replacement behaviors. The replacement behaviors should be just as likely to produce the 

same consequences sought by the student, 

such as teacher or peer attention, but less 

effortful and more socially acceptable than 

the problem behavior.64 For example, teachers can help students acquire new skills by 

teaching them how and when to:

•	 Gain attention from the teacher or their 

peers appropriately and respectfully.

•	 Share, communicate, cooperate, and 

problem solve in group settings.

63. Mace, Belfiore, and Hutchinson (2001).

64. Lewis et al. (1997). 

•	 Self-manage their social behavior and 

completion of academic tasks.

•	 Develop emotional awareness, responsibility, and self regulation (for example, how to cool down in an angerprovoking situation, or how to tolerate 

delays in getting help).

Instructional strategies that can help students apply and maintain their new behavioral skills in different environments and 

settings are similar to effective academic 

instructional strategies, and include:

•	 Explaining the appropriate behavior 

so that students develop a thorough 

understanding of school norms.

•	 Breaking each behavioral skill down 

into concrete, teachable steps.

•	 Modeling the skill and providing a variety of examples of its appropriate use 

(for example, observing other students 

demonstrating the behavior or reading 

books with messages about the target 

behavior).

•	 Offering opportunities for guided 

and independent practice and role 

playing.

•	 Prompting and cuing the student about 

the use of the behavioral skill.

•	 Giving specific feedback about the student’s skill performance, being sure to 

praise successful approximations of 

the skill and to encourage complete 

mastery.

•	 Diminishing gradually the external 

prompts and rewards for displaying 

the skill.

•	 Reinforcing the use of the behavioral 

skills over time.65

65. McGinnis and Goldstein (1997).
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 32 )

Consider this example:

A number of students erupted into misbehavior (arguing and pushing each other) 

when they vied for positions at the computer learning center, causing a classwide 

disruption. The teacher reminded the 

students of positive behavioral expectations in the classroom, including the importance of turn taking, but as often happened in class, the students continued to 

be frustrated with waiting for their turns. 

After lunch the teacher decided to use the 

incident that occurred earlier that day to 

teach her students the appropriate skills 

needed to wait before doing something 

they desired. First, the teacher explained 

why turn-taking was important in the 

classroom, providing examples of when 

taking turns benefited students. Then, the 

teacher asked the group to think of other 

situations when they were asked to wait 

for their turn (for example, on the playground), what they did during the waiting period, and what they observed other 

students doing while they waited. She 

discussed with the students appropriate 

ways to ask for a turn, other options for 

using their time in the classroom, and how 

to respond to students taking their turn 

at the computer in a friendly and patient 

way. The students took turns role-playing, 

showing the different ways they could 

politely ask for a turn and use the time 

in productive ways. For the next month 

the teacher prompted the students when 

appropriate turn taking skills needed to 

be used, and recognized and responded 

positively when students displayed the 

appropriate behaviors inside and outside 

the classroom.

3. Manage consequences so that reinforcers 

are provided for appropriate behavior and 

withheld for inappropriate behavior.

Research has long demonstrated that a 

behavior will increase if it is followed by 

positive reinforcers, and it will decrease if 

it is followed by negative consequences or 

removal of rewarding consequences.66 Optimally, we recommend that teachers apply 

this principle by redirecting inappropriate 

behaviors toward more appropriate behaviors. Unfortunately, it is easy to inadvertently reward inappropriate behavior by 

attending to it—even a reprimand can be 

rewarding for students who act out to gain 

the teacher’s attention.67

Provide positive reinforcers for appropriate behavior. Many of the practices 

underlying the panel’s recommendation 

are based on the principle that positive interactions between teachers and students 

increase students’ social skills, emotional 

regulation, motivation, engagement, and 

abidance to classroom rules and expectations. Negative interactions between 

teachers and students, however, increase 

students’ risk for school failure.68 Teachers 

can foster positive relationships by engaging in socially positive and academically 

productive interactions with all students, 

especially those who exhibit problematic 

behavior.

One way to foster positive interactions is to 

increase the frequency with which students 

are recognized and reinforced for appropriate behavior. The amount of praise that 

students receive for appropriate behavior 

should substantially exceed the amount 

that they are reprimanded. In fact, a review 

of research shows that a ratio of about four 

positive statements for every one corrective 

statement can improve students’ academic 

and behavioral outcomes.69 Therefore, 

we recommend that teachers monitor the 

amount and consistency of their praise and 

acknowledgement of appropriate behavior 

66. Skinner (1953).

67. Horner and Spaulding (in press); Maag 

(1999). 

68. Greenberg et al. (2003); Hamre and Pianta 

(2005); Pianta et al. (2002); Solomon et al. (1992); 

Zins et al. (2004).

69. Cameron and Pierce (1994).
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 33 )

in the classroom. If teachers’ reprimands 

outweigh their praise, they should consider altering their classroom management 

practices, such as providing students with 

more opportunities to learn, practice, and 

internalize classroom rules and routines 

(see recommendation 2).70

Research shows that rewards (such as approval, praise, recognition, special privileges, points, or other reinforcers built 

into the classroom management plan) are 

most effective in encouraging students’ 

appropriate behavior when teachers follow simple guidelines: 

•	 Use small rewards frequently, rather 

than large rewards infrequently.

•	 Deliver rewards quickly after the desired behavior is exhibited.

•	 Reward behavior, not the individual, 

and communicate to students the specific behavior that led to the reward 

(for example, “Because you’ve been 

doing so well working independently 

for 15 minutes, you get to take a short 

break and take these books back to the 

library for me.”).

•	 Use several different kinds of rewards 

selected carefully to ensure that they 

are reinforcing students (for example, 

allow students to go on errands or to 

the water fountain down the hall; provide 10 minutes for students to read a 

book for pleasure, work on the computer, or draw a picture for display).

•	 Gradually begin to reduce and then 

eliminate rewards.71

It may be necessary—at least initially, and 

especially with the youngest elementary 

70. Evertson et al. (2006).

71. Akin-Little et al. (2004); Brophy (1981); Cameron and Pierce (1994).

school students—to reinforce appropriate behaviors with some type of extrinsic reward, such as stickers, stamps on 

a chart, tokens in a jar, or extra time for 

preferred activities. Teachers also can provide rewards and privileges that support 

students’ learning of academic, social, and 

self-monitoring skills, such as having additional free-reading or computer-center 

time, playing a game or video, or taking on 

classroom helper roles. Gradually, extrinsic rewards should be faded72 or replaced 

with more intrinsic, naturally-occurring 

reinforcements that come from positive 

academic and behavioral experiences, 

such as feeling satisfaction and pride in 

the work produced, enjoying working in a 

team and gaining friendships, and having 

fun while learning.

Withhold reinforcers for inappropriate 

behavior. Instead of drawing attention to 

misbehavior, we recommend that teachers try to make problem behaviors ineffective for the student by systematically 

withholding or preventing access to reinforcing consequences. For example, if the 

student’s problem behavior is reinforced 

by avoiding a task, the teacher should not 

dismiss the student from the activity but 

rather make adjustments to the setting or 

curricular variables to help the student 

achieve success. Similarly, if a student’s 

disruptive behavior is reinforced by attention, then attention from peers and the 

teacher—even negative attention, such as 

reprimands—should be withheld when the 

behavior occurs again.

This is not to say that negative consequences for serious misbehavior are never 

warranted. Teachers should respond 

swiftly to serious problem behaviors, 

72. Fading of rewards can entail moving from 

a continuous schedule of reinforcement to a 

more variable or differential schedule of reinforcement—meaning that the reinforcement 

is provided less often or only during certain 

situations. 
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 34 )

such as defiance, with appropriate consequences that are clearly understood by 

the students involved. We recommend 

that teachers adopt an overall positive 

and problem-solving approach, however, 

because harsh or punitive discipline is not 

effective in increasing the likelihood of appropriate behavior and tends to elicit student resentment and resistance.73 Teachers 

who can successfully prevent disengagement and de-escalate confrontations: 

•	 Provide brief and specific instruction 

in a calm voice that redirects student 

focus without excessive use of other 

verbalizations. Example: Rather than 

saying, “Carl, stop talking to Stella unless you are discussing today’s assignment. Besides, you are only supposed 

to be talking if you’ve finished all your 

work,” say, “Carl, complete your work, 

and then you are free to talk quietly 

with your neighbor.”

•	 Present the noncompliant student with 

positive options and give the student a 

reasonable amount of time to respond 

(at least 10 seconds). Example: Suggest, 

“You can either get back to work with 

the group, or you can work independently at your desk. I’ll give you some 

time to think about your choices.”

•	 Approach disengaged students 

promptly, fairly, and privately to prevent a power struggle and any negative impacts on student learning and 

the classroom environment. Example: 

Offer, “If you need some time to yourself, you can sit quietly without disturbing other students. Let me know if you 

need some help completing the assignment or have questions.”

•	 Use the display of a problem behavior as a teachable moment, showing 

the student how to label the emotion, 

73. Learning First Alliance (2001); Sugai et al. 

(2001).

clarify behavioral expectations, and 

correct her mistake. Example: Emphasize, “It is OK to be angry, but it is not 

OK to call people names. Let’s talk about 

what we do when we are frustrated and 

need help with an assignment.”

•	 Match the severity of the consequences 

with the severity of the behavior violation. Example: For minor infractions, 

verbal redirects or warnings should be 

sufficient. For the most serious offenses, 

teachers should align disciplinary actions with the school’s or district’s discipline plan.74

The following example illustrates a teacher’s strategies to focus on the explicit 

instruction of new skills, the careful 

management of consequences, and the 

building of positive relationships with one 

of his students who exhibited behavioral 

challenges.

Hector received discipline referrals for 

disruptive and defiant behavior in the 

classroom and for his use of inappropriate 

language on the playground. The teacher 

observed Hector for several days and came 

to the conclusion that Hector’s misbehaviors resulted from difficulty with social 

skills and self-control, and were maintained by adult and peer attention. He decided to help Hector build his social skills 

for gaining attention appropriately and to 

reinforce Hector for appropriate behavior 

in the classroom and on the playground. 

The teacher worked on building a closer 

teacher-student relationship with Hector, 

talking to him about things in which he 

showed an interest. At the same time, Hector’s classmates were instructed to ignore 

74. These examples are adapted from a number 

of resources that describe prevention and de-escalation strategies in the classroom: for example, 

Colvin (2004); Colvin, Ainge, and Nelson (1997); 

Colvin and Sugai (1989); Nelson (1996b); Walker 

(1995); Walker et al. (1995); Walker, Ramsey, and 

Gresham (2004).
3. Teach and rein force skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 35 )

his inappropriate language and to reinforce his polite and respectful behavior.

After a week or two Hector advanced to 

monitoring his own behavior by asking 

himself questions from a checklist he 

developed with the teacher. Each week 

the teacher met with Hector to review his 

progress and recognize his accomplishments with verbal praise and rewards, 

and he sent a positive note home about 

Hector’s improvements inside and outside class.

Potential roadblocks and solutions

Roadblock 3.1. “Teaching appropriate behavior is beyond my responsibilities as a 

teacher.” Some teachers see their primary 

responsibility as teaching academics, and 

they are reluctant to dedicate time and effort to teaching students appropriate behavior such as social skills. 

Suggested Approach. Appropriate behavior in the classroom is learned and 

adapted by students’ experiences, just as 

appropriate behavior at home—and across 

all settings for that matter—is learned and 

influenced by cognitive, behavioral, and 

environmental factors.75 Teachers play 

a critical role in helping students learn 

school-based social skills and behaviors. 

But rather than dedicating additional time 

solely to the teaching of social and behavioral skills, we recommend that teachers 

integrate behavioral and social skill-building into their curriculum. Teachers can review their lesson plans and instructional 

formats to identify when social skills are 

prerequisites for students to engage successfully in the curriculum. If a teacher 

is planning a science project in which 

students must work in small groups and 

share materials, for instance, the teacher 

may determine that students need a number of group social skills, such as how to 

listen, follow directions, ask questions, 

75. Bandura (1977). 

share materials, provide feedback, and 

be courteous. Before breaking into small 

groups, the teacher can communicate the 

skills to students in concrete terms, model 

the skills, provide practice time and feedback, and pair these skills with directions 

for the science activity. Seen as part of the 

curriculum, social skills can support student learning without adding to teachers’ 

responsibilities.

Roadblock 3.2. “Too much praise and attention is harmful to students.” Some teachers fear that providing their students with 

extrinsic rewards will undermine students’ 

motivation to learn and succeed without 

rewards. 

Suggested Approach. Some researchers 

have cautioned that rewards that are expected, tangible, and not related to performance can erode students’ engagement 

in learning by encouraging them to work 

solely to earn the reward.76 Not all rewards 

have this effect, however. Research has 

demonstrated that positive reinforcement 

that is tied to student competence can increase the likelihood of appropriate classroom behavior and academic achievement 

without undermining students’ intrinsic 

motivation.77 When teachers use positive 

reinforcers such as praise, rewards, and 

privileges, and communicate a positive attitude to their students, they lay the foundation for students to try hard and reach 

new goals. Therefore, we recommend that 

teachers reward students with behaviorspecific praise; use positive reinforcers 

to encourage student achievement, effort, 

and motivation; convey honest feedback 

to students about the quality of their work 

and effort; and gradually fade extrinsic 

rewards when students display mastery.78

As teachers use these strategies and as 

76. Akin-Little et al. (2004); Deci et al. (1999).

77. Akin-Little et al. (2004); Cameron et al. (2001); 

Morgan (1984); Reiss (2005); Schunk (1983)

78. Brophy (1981).
3. Teach and reinforce skills to increase appropriate behavior and preserve a positive climate

( 36 )

students develop maturity, fewer extrinsic motivators will be needed. Many experienced teachers have found that as 

students become more internally motivated, their behavior issues diminish and 

their academic competence strengthens. 
( 37 )

Recommendation 4. 

Draw on relationships 

with professional 

colleagues and 

students’ families for 

continued guidance 

and support

Social relationships and collaborative 

opportunities can play a critical role 

in supporting teachers in managing 

disruptive behavior in their classrooms. 

We recommend that teachers draw 

on these relationships in finding ways 

to address the behavior problems 

of individual students and consider 

parents, school personnel, and 

behavioral experts as allies who can 

provide new insights, strategies, and 

support.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel rated the level of evidence supporting this recommendation as moderate. One quasi-experimental study79 and 

one single-subject study80 examined the 

effects of peer teacher relationships in 

improving social relationships among students or increasing student engagement 

in the classroom. Additionally, one randomized controlled trial81 confirmed the 

effectiveness of teachers’ consulting with 

behavioral experts in reducing behavior 

problems among students who exhibit 

inattentive and disruptive behaviors. Finally, two randomized controlled trials82

evaluated interventions specifically aimed 

at establishing positive teacher-parent 

79. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

80. Kohler et al. (1997).

81. Dunson, Hughes, and Jackson (1994).

82. Ialongo et al. (1999); Webster-Stratton et al. 

(2004).

relationships, with one study demonstrating decreases in problem behaviors. Although two randomized controlled trials 

with positive outcomes support components of recommendation 4, these studies 

focused on (1) teachers consulting with 

experts on particular problem behaviors 

of students identified with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and (2) a specific teacher-parent education and activity 

program. The recommendation is further 

supported by one quasi-experimental and 

one single subject study that have moderate levels of evidence. Consequently, the 

panel believes that a moderate designation 

is appropriate for the overall level of evidence for this recommendation.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Chronic or serious behavior problems in 

the classroom can quickly exhaust the 

toolkit of instructional and behavior management strategies and interventions of 

many teachers, particularly ones who are 

new to the profession. In such cases the 

guidance and advice of other teachers who 

have successfully overcome similar behavior issues can be a welcomed and effective 

form of support. In fact, research suggests 

that schools with strong, trusting peer relationships among its staff are more likely 

to have teachers who are willing to learn 

and engage in new practices,83 which can 

produce gains in student outcomes.

Establishing these trusting relationships 

can occur through one-on-one interactions as well as participation in collaborative learning teams with other grade-level 

teachers and school staff. Mentors and 

peer coaches often encourage and support 

their colleagues’ consideration of new educational practices and can help their colleagues by conducting informative classroom observations, suggesting innovative 

classroom strategies and techniques, and 

83. Bryk and Schneider (2002).
4. Draw on relationships with pro fessional colleagues and students ’ families

( 38 )

providing an environment that enables 

teachers to feel comfortable and confident 

in trying new approaches in their classrooms.84 Although much of the current 

research on mentoring and peer teacher 

relationships revolves around their effects 

on teacher-centered outcomes, such as 

attrition, teachers’ attitudes and perceptions, and procedural changes, one singlesubject study explored the impact of peer 

coaching on student outcomes and found 

it contributed to increased student engagement.85 Another quasi-experimental study 

found that a restructured school program 

that included peer coaching significantly 

increased the number of students’ social 

relationships.86

Team-based collaborations with gradelevel teachers and other professional colleagues who are experienced in behavior 

management, such as school psychologists and counselors, also can provide effective support to teachers with students 

who exhibit behavior problems. Adult 

learning theories suggest that collaborative learning teams have the potential to 

effectively engage teachers in learning 

and implementing new techniques.87 Such 

theories also complement empirical evidence that suggests that learning teams, 

whether studied independently88 or folded 

into broader school reforms,89 contribute 

to positive student social and behavioral 

outcomes.

Research indicates that consultation with 

experts in behavior management, such 

as school psychologists, can help reduce 

84. Annenberg Institute for School Reform (n.d.); 

Evertson and Smithey (2000); Joyce and Showers 

(1982); Knight (2004).

85. Kohler et al. (1997).

86. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

87. Imel (1991).

88. Joyce et al. (1989).

89. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

severe behavior problems. A randomized 

controlled trial90 found that meetings between behavioral experts and teachers to 

discuss strategies to control the behaviors of hyperactive students resulted in 

significant improvements in the teacher’s 

perception of their student’s disruptive 

behavior.

Families also can be powerful allies for 

teachers in dealing with disruptive behaviors in their classrooms. Researchers 

have found that family involvement in a 

student’s education can yield numerous 

positive outcomes, including improved 

student achievement and behavior.91 Consequently, efforts to enhance the supportive role of family members in addressing 

a child’s emotional and behavioral challenges often are a key component of intervention programs and school reform 

models.92 One randomized controlled trial 

specifically examined a family-school partnership intervention aimed at improving 

parent-teacher communication and parental strategies for child management.93

The findings of this study indicated that 

this partnership succeeded in eventually 

reducing problem behaviors relative to 

comparison students.

How to carry out the 

recommendation

1. Collaborate with other teachers for continued guidance and support.

The current structure and organization 

of most elementary schools often are 

not conducive to collaborative teacher 

90. Dunson et al. (1994).

91. Adams and Christenson (2000); Bempechat 

(1998); Clark (1983); Epstein (1995); Henderson 

and Berla (1994); Jeynes (2005); Stright et al. 

(2001).

92. Battistich et al. (2000); Stevens and Slavin 

(1995); Webster-Stratton et al. (2004).

93. Ialongo et al. (1999).
4. Draw on relationships with pro fessional colleagues and students ’ families

( 39 )

interactions, with separate classrooms that 

physically isolate teachers from their peers 

and with demanding daily responsibilities 

that allow for little discretionary time.94

As a result teachers can feel isolated, as if 

they are “going it alone professionally,”95

and there might be few, if any, opportunities for experienced teachers to help their 

peers grow professionally.96

To enhance teachers’ effectiveness in addressing behavioral challenges, school 

administrators should provide time and 

structures for collaborative learning teams 

to meet. Effective teams are relatively 

small, interdisciplinary groups comprised 

of grade-level general education teachers and—when needed—administrators, 

special educators, or other specialists 

that meet weekly or bi-weekly. An actionoriented agenda and facilitation by team 

leaders who skillfully guide the discussions without assuming an authoritative 

role promote productive meetings.97

The goal of these team meetings should 

be for teachers to generate concrete strategies that can be incorporated into their 

instruction and classroom management. 

Team meetings provide teachers with an 

opportunity to reflect openly on the challenges they experience in their classrooms 

and to receive problem-solving input from 

peers. In addition, these meetings enable 

specialists and administrators to provide 

teachers with guidance on some of the 

organizational and policy issues that influence a teacher’s approach to handling 

behavioral challenges in the classroom. 

For example, teachers can use meeting 

times to discuss:

•	 Observations of a specific student’s behavior problem (see recommendation 

94. Novick (1999).

95. Darling-Hammond (1994).

96. Hoerr (1996).

97. Imel (1991).

1) and ideas on several actionable 

steps the teacher can take to address 

the problem or minimize its impact on 

the rest of the classroom.

•	 Current lesson plans to determine if 

there are any activities or techniques 

that can reduce behavior problems by 

elevating student engagement.

•	 Strategies to approach parents who are 

difficult to engage or who react negatively to suggestions that their child 

has behavior problems.

•	 School policy issues such as bullying 

or removing students from the classroom. These discussions might require 

feedback from the school principal 

or another administrator who can be 

asked to join in on a particular team 

meeting or address such issues schoolwide during a teacher inservice.

During collaborative team meetings and 

professional development sessions, some 

teachers with interpersonal skills that 

enable them to foster collaboration and 

problem-solving with their grade-level and 

cross-grade level colleagues will begin to 

emerge as effective peer leaders. These 

peer leaders can play a particularly useful 

role as liaisons between teachers and administrators, facilitators of learning collaborations, classroom observers, mentors, 

and peer coaches. 98 School administrators 

should provide these peer leaders with the 

time and resources needed to develop and 

apply their mentoring and peer coaching 

skills to enhance other teachers’ classroom 

management and student engagement.99

Effective peer coaches and mentors may 

need training to understand how to support adult learners while providing teachers with strategies, tools, and communication skills to use in handling behavior 

98. Annenberg Institute for School Reform (n.d.).

99. Neufeld and Roper (2003).
4. Draw on relationships with professional colleagues and students ’ families

( 40 )

challenges. By providing peer coaches and 

mentors with the skills to support other 

teachers successfully, school administrators can promote a culture of continuous 

learning and collaborative problem-solving that can increase students’ time spent 

learning.

2. Build collaborative partnerships with 

school, district, and community behavior 

experts who can consult with teachers when 

problems are serious enough to warrant help 

from outside the classroom.

Behavioral consultants, who may be school 

personnel such as school psychologists, 

counselors, and resource teachers, or other 

behavioral specialists, can offer expertise 

in behavioral practices along with technical support in implementing evidencebased, packaged intervention programs.100

However, teachers have the most knowledge of a student’s daily behavior and can 

give a consultant the context necessary 

to identify a student’s particular needs. 

Teachers can provide valuable input regarding the feasibility of implementing a 

behavioral intervention in the classroom, 

such as how well a particular intervention 

would fit, and what might be some potential problems with the intervention. Once 

the intervention is initiated, teachers can 

help promote its success by consistently 

implementing classroom practices or tasks 

entailed in the intervention, reporting 

any progress or setbacks in the student’s 

behavior throughout the school day, and 

responding promptly to the consultant’s 

queries to help the consultant determine 

the intervention’s effectiveness and revise 

accordingly. The panel recommends that 

teachers, with the support of the consultant, use the interventions for 4–6 weeks 

before determining whether or not the intervention is working.

100. For a comprehensive review of the literature on behavioral consultation, see Martens 

and DiGennaro (2007) and Hughes, Lloyd, and 

Buss (2007).

In turn, teachers should expect behavioral 

consultants to show respect for their partnership by scheduling meetings at times 

and locations that are convenient for the 

teacher and other members of the student’s behavior team, providing regular 

updates on the intervention’s progress, 

and making sure that all communication 

is clearly articulated and avoids the use 

of jargon or unfamiliar terminology. Additionally, there may be times when behavioral consultants will benefit from observing the child’s behavior in the classroom. 

In such cases teachers should provide 

them access to the classroom, along with 

guidelines for minimizing any classroom 

disruption. Such guidelines may include 

expectations that consultants will establish a predetermined day and time when 

observations will occur, enter the classroom during breaks in the class schedule 

so as not to interrupt an ongoing lesson, 

and maintain a low profile in the classroom by sitting in an unobtrusive area and 

allowing the teacher to instruct without 

interruptions.

3. Encourage parents and other family members to participate as active partners in teaching and reinforcing appropriate behavior.

Building a strong, trusting relationship 

with the parent of a student who is disrupting the learning process can be challenging, particularly when there are racial 

and cultural differences. Some parents 

distrust school personnel as a result of 

their own negative memories and experiences with schools. Other parents 

have limited English language and educational experiences. Still other parents 

must spend all of their efforts in meeting basic economic needs. Teachers who 

are proactive in reaching out to parents 

to make connections and asking for parents’ input and help in mitigating behavior problems will demonstrate a belief in 

the importance of involving parents in reshaping the student’s behavior and school 

experiences.
4. Draw on relationships with pro fessional colleagues and students ’ families

( 41 )

By communicating encouraging messages 

to students about the value of education 

and ways to succeed in school, parents 

and teachers together can support students’ motivation, engagement, positive 

behavior, and persistence.101 Ideally, teachers should make a concerted effort to build 

positive relationships with their students’ 

families before any identification of behavior problems. Some suggestions for 

engaging parents in working together to 

help promote school success and positive 

behavior include sending positive emails 

or notes home, providing a parent signature log with the child’s homework assignments, communicating regularly by 

phone, and inviting parents to participate 

in school functions, celebrations, and parent conferences.102

When a student’s behavior problem has 

emerged, teachers can approach parents as 

partners by encouraging them to apply the 

classroom’s behavioral rules and expectations at home and by asking for their ideas 

on ways to correct their child’s behavior. 

For behavior issues that are generally mild 

and confined (such as refusing to follow directions, talking out of turn, or book slamming), parents should be contacted if the 

behavior problem persists (for example, if 

it occurs during math lesson for several 

days in a row). If the behavior is more severe or dramatic (such as stealing, throwing objects, or hitting other students), 

parents should be contacted immediately 

to discuss the behavior problem with the 

teacher and, in severe cases, with an administrator over the phone or in person.

Before any parent conference teachers 

should prepare by reviewing school records to learn if there have been recent 

or multiple moves or other family changes 

that may be impacting the student and family. Also, teachers might need to conduct a 

101. Bempechat (1998).

102. Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005).

conference in the family’s home language 

and should determine whether translation 

services are needed for the meeting. We 

recommend that teachers inform parents 

about their child’s behavior problems in a 

respectful and collaborative way by: 

•	 Pointing out one to three strengths 

that the child exhibits, both behaviorally and academically.

•	 Clearly identifying one or two problem 

behaviors by giving examples and having documentation on the nature and 

frequency of the behaviors (see recommendation 1).

•	 Describing strategies that have been 

implemented in the classroom, and 

their results.

•	 Asking the family for help in solving 

the problem at school by learning what 

works at home.

After the meeting teachers can encourage 

ongoing contact with the family by accommodating the parent’s best mode of communication (telephone, personal conferences, or email).

Teachers also can help parents acquire 

the tools they need to support learning 

and positive behavior at home. Research 

shows that reinforcement at home, including rewards and negative consequences 

based on teacher reports, can improve 

student behavior in the classroom.103 If 

needed or requested, teachers can direct 

parents to school or community resources 

that provide information about how to set 

limits and rules effectively, apply appropriate consequences, and reinforce expected behaviors with positive parenting 

approaches.

In addition, many behavioral interventions 

are founded on the principle that family 

103. Christenson and Sheridan (2001).
4. Draw on relationships with pro fessional colleagues and students ’ families

( 42 )

involvement can be critical to an intervention’s success.104 In some cases, a student’s 

behavioral goals can best be achieved 

through evidence-based programs that 

involve family members directly in addition to student-centered interventions. 

Such family-focused interventions seek 

to enhance the parenting skills and supportive role of family members to address 

a child’s emotional and behavioral challenges successfully.105

Potential roadblocks and solutions

Roadblock 4.1. “Meeting with other teachers will just be a waste of time, like all our 

faculty meetings.” Many teachers have 

trouble finding the time to meet with colleagues or are concerned that time spent 

in team meetings will take away from 

instruction. 

Suggested Approach. School administrators can dedicate time for collaborative team meetings as they develop the 

master schedule, thereby emphasizing the 

school’s commitment to promoting a culture of professional learning. Teachers and 

school administrators can find ways to be 

creative and resourceful with their time. 

For example, incorporate learning collaborative meetings into naturally-occurring 

group settings, such as grade-level meetings and in-service trainings. In addition, 

schools can use technology creatively 

to create virtual meeting opportunities 

through email, discussion boards, online 

forums facilitated by behavior experts, 

and video conferencing with peer coaches 

and mentors. Technology also can be used 

effectively to build a resource bank that 

includes classroom and behavior management strategies, lesson plans, and modifications or adaptations of curricula that 

104. Christenson and Christenson (1998); Sheridan, Eagle, Cowan, and Mickelson (2001).

105. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health 

Services (2007).

encourage student engagement and are 

readily accessible to all teachers.

Although one aspect of collaborative learning is to give teachers a place to share the 

behavioral challenges they experience 

in the classroom, the goal of collaborative learning teams should be joint problem-solving and consideration of options 

that result in concrete, measurable behavior goals and intervention strategies. To 

maximize the value of meetings, teachers 

should come prepared with a clear definition of the behavior problem, data on the 

frequency and duration of its occurrence, 

and a list of strategies that have or have 

not worked to help focus the reflective 

problem-solving process. Ground rules 

and an agenda should be established by 

the team, roles such as time-keeper and recorder should be assigned for team members, and a peer leader should facilitate 

the meeting to ensure that members stay 

on task. Finally, at the end of each meeting 

team members should evaluate its helpfulness and provide feedback on how to improve the collaborative process.

Roadblock 4.2. “Behavior consultants expect too much from me; I don’t have time to 

meet with them regularly or to implement 

everything they suggest.” Some teachers 

feel overwhelmed when consultations take 

considerable time or result in numerous 

strategies that are too difficult or timeconsuming to implement effectively. 

Suggested Approach. The initial consultation is an opportune time for the teacher 

and consultant to work collaboratively as 

they design an intervention that is both 

effective and feasible in its implementation. For example, a student’s behavior 

problem might exist throughout the day, 

but the teacher might decide that it is too 

difficult to implement an intervention 

each time a disruptive behavior occurs. 

Instead, the teacher and consultant can 

devise a strategy to intervene intensively 

for a particular type of disruptive behavior 
4. Draw on relationships with pro fessional colleagues and students ’ families

( 43 )

(for example, distracting peers during independent work time), or ones that occurs 

at a specific time of the day (bullying behavior that occurs during lunchtime).

Roadblock 4.3. “Parents won’t participate.” 

In schools that do not have high levels of 

involvement and support from families, 

staff might feel that efforts to engage family members in addressing their students’ 

challenging behaviors are fruitless. 

Suggested Approach. Efforts to engage 

parents in planning and decision-making 

about behavior issues are likely to be more 

effective when teachers have laid a foundation of regular communication with family 

members. Teachers can begin the school 

year by sharing their academic and behavioral expectations of the students, as 

well as their expectations regarding family 

involvement. Teachers can then follow up 

with regular and ongoing communication 

by sending notes or emails or making 

phone calls to the child’s home, praising 

positive achievements, and expressing concerns for problem behaviors tactfully and 

without blame. In reaching out to parents, 

teachers and other team members should 

limit the use of professional terminology 

or other language that could be confusing 

or intimidating to family members. School 

staff can help family members access a 

family advocate, interpreter, or other forms 

of support to help them in interacting with 

the school, for example, by clarifying issues or unfamiliar terminology that come 

up during meetings. School staff also can 

have a list of support groups and resources 

readily available for parents should they 

express an interest in seeking support for 

themselves or for their child. 
( 44 )

Recommendation 5. 

Assess whether 

schoolwide behavior 

problems warrant 

adopting schoolwide 

strategies or programs 

and, if so, implement 

ones shown to reduce 

negative and foster 

positive interactions

Classroom teachers, in coordination 

with other school personnel (such as 

administrators, grade-level teams, and 

special educators), can benefit from 

adopting a schoolwide approach to 

preventing problem behaviors and 

increasing positive social interactions 

among students and with school staff. 

This type of systemic approach requires 

a shared responsibility on the part 

of all school personnel, particularly 

the administrators who establish and 

support consistent schoolwide practices 

and the teachers who implement 

these practices both in their individual 

classrooms and beyond.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence supporting this recommendation to be moderate. One quasi-experimental study investigated the impact of schoolwide changes 

in structure, organization, and practices 

and determined that these changes increased the number of social relationships among students.106 In addition, four 

randomized controlled trials 107 and one 

106. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

107. Conduct Problems Prevention Group (1999); 

Frey et al. (2005); Grossman et al. (1997); Ialongo 

et al. (1999).

single-subject108 study examined the impact of specific schoolwide intervention 

programs, each study finding statistically 

significant positive effects for several of 

its behavioral outcomes. Although there 

are several randomized controlled trials to support one component of recommendation 5 (specific schoolwide intervention programs), other components of 

the recommendation (such as changes to 

the overall structure and organization of 

the school, and peer mediation programs 

implemented outside the classroom) are 

supported only by quasi-experimental or 

single subject studies. Consequently, the 

panel believes the overall level of evidence 

for this recommendation is moderate.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Currently, more than 7,400 schools nationwide are implementing schoolwide 

behavior supports.109 Although these practices vary with the nature of the problems 

schools experience and the specific needs 

of their students, the core of many of 

schoolwide programs consists of a commitment and ongoing collaboration between 

administrators, teachers, other school personnel, and families and a systems-level 

approach focused on teaching positive 

social behaviors rather than using punitive tactics for disciplinary infractions. 

These two components were apparent in 

the six studies that explored schoolwide 

approaches to reducing negative behaviors 

and improving social outcomes.110

108. Cunningham et al. (1998).

109. Bradley et al. (2007).

110. There is a growing body of literature that 

supports schoolwide approaches to address 

student behavior. The panel recommends that 

readers consult the Office of Special Education 

Program’s Positive Behavioral and Intervention Support website (http://www.pbis.org/

researchLiterature.htm) for a list of current 

studies pertaining to schoolwide positive behavior support.
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 45 )

One quasi-experimental study examined 

the effects of schoolwide reform measures 

that restructured and reorganized the use 

of school time and space in an effort to increase students’ in-school and school-family 

interactions, as a way to promote positive 

academic and behavioral outcomes.111 The 

numerous changes in organizational and 

educational practices included establishing 

a building-level steering committee to support the implementation of the schoolwide 

approach, mainstreaming students with 

learning disabilities into regular education 

classrooms, increasing peer coaching and 

collaborative opportunities for teachers, 

and providing new academic curricula that 

promoted positive social values. Results of 

the impact of these changes on behavioral 

outcomes revealed an increase in the number of student social relationships, which 

authors interpreted as suggesting that the 

schoolwide approach had a positive impact 

on students’ social competence.

Several of the studies exploring schoolwide 

approaches evaluated curriculum-based 

programs, designed to be implemented by 

teachers in all classrooms throughout the 

school112 (see recommendation 3 for additional information on classroom-based 

intervention programs). Additionally, one 

school level program addressed behavior 

problems that occurred outside the classroom. 113 The findings from this single-subject study revealed that a peer mediation 

program effectively reduced aggressive 

behavior on school playgrounds.

How to carry out the 

recommendation

1. Address schoolwide behavior issues by 

involving a school improvement team.

111. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

112. Conduct Problems Prevention Group (1999); 

Frey et al. (2005); Grossman et al. (1997); Ialongo 

et al. (1999).

113. Cunningham et al. (1998).

Building-level steering or advisory committees can provide valuable input on the 

design and implementation of schoolwide 

behavior practices.114 Accordingly, we recommend that school principals charge a 

newly-formed or existing school improvement team with considering prevention 

and intervention strategies to address 

schoolwide behavior issues. A typical team 

should be comprised of an administrator, a 

teacher from each grade level, and a representative of the school support staff. It also 

could benefit from a behavioral expert, 

such as a school psychologist or counselor, 

and representation from a parent group.

The school improvement team has several responsibilities. Initially, its role is to 

assess the existing schoolwide discipline 

program or, if one does not exist, conduct 

a needs assessment that addresses specific 

behavior problems experienced throughout the school. Next, the team should 

develop an action plan involving schoolwide discipline policies and procedures 

that are positively stated and based on 

high behavioral expectations and present 

their plan in an effort to garner the support and commitment of the entire school 

staff. When the practices have been implemented throughout the school, the team 

will play an important role in monitoring 

the progress of the schoolwide approach 

by meeting regularly to review and update 

the action plan as needed, in an effort to 

ensure the sustainability of these practices 

in the school.

Although school principals must allocate 

time and support for this team, teachers 

also play a key role in the success of a 

schoolwide approach. They have knowledge of and influence on their students’ 

behaviors, which enables them to provide 

information necessary to develop and implement schoolwide behavior practices, 

making their active participation on the 

team essential.

114. Nelson (1996a); Stevens and Slavin (2005).
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 46 )

2. Collect information on the hot spots 

throughout the school—namely, the frequency of particular schoolwide behavior 

problems and when and where they occur.

To determine the most effective approach 

to address schoolwide behavior concerns, 

the school improvement team needs to 

assess systematically where and when 

behavioral hot spots are apparent in the 

school. Hot spots often are areas where 

large groups of students gather with little 

supervision and no structured activities, 

such as hallways, bathrooms, the cafeteria, and the playground. Similarly, behavior problems are most likely to arise before 

or after school, during lunch, or at recess, 

when students congregate without structured activities or much adult supervision. These hot spots can be identified in 

a number of ways: 

•	 Completing teacher surveys that provide general impressions of hot spots 

around teachers’ classrooms and in 

other areas of the school (for example, the bathrooms closest to their 

classrooms).

•	 Allotting time during staff meetings to 

discuss schoolwide behavior problems 

and identify specific times and locations when those behavior problems 

most often occur.

•	 Organizing teachers and other school 

personnel in charge of common areas, 

such as cafeteria and school yard staff, 

to observe and document behavior 

problems throughout the school.

•	 Collecting and analyzing office referral data.

Understanding when and where these hot 

spots arise is essential when developing 

and implementing a schoolwide approach. 

However, even if schoolwide systems are 

not in place, teachers can identify and 

monitor hot spots outside their classrooms 

and develop and implement strategies 

to overcome behavior problems in these 

areas (for example, revisit classroom behavioral expectations or use positive and 

negative consequences to reinforce positive behavior). Disruptions outside the 

classroom often can carry over and disrupt learning within it. Additionally, successful classroom management can rapidly deteriorate when students exit the 

classroom and encounter these hot spots, 

making it difficult to reestablish positive 

behavior when they return to the classroom. Thus, teachers can increase their 

ability to maintain positive behaviors in 

the classroom by recognizing and reacting effectively to behavior problems that 

ensue throughout the school.

3. Monitor implementation and outcomes 

using an efficient method of data collection and allow ample time for the program 

to work.

Changes made schoolwide might initially 

result in seemingly imperceptible changes 

to student behavior, seen only through 

patterns that emerge from data. Thus, 

we believe that ongoing documentation 

of student behavior is fundamental to 

this recommendation. School improvement teams need behavior-related data to 

establish baseline behavior characteristics that help them appropriately identify 

and address the major behavior concerns 

within the school. Regular monitoring is 

then necessary to determine whether the 

programs and strategies implemented are 

successfully reducing the targeted behavior problems and maintaining positive 

behaviors. If not, the data can determine 

what elements of the program need to be 

revisited or revised.115

There are numerous sources of information that can inform school personnel about patterns of schoolwide student 

behavior. For instance, office discipline 

115. Scott and Barrett (2004).
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 47 )

referrals can be a useful source of data, 

as studies have shown that they are both 

sensitive to the general behavioral climate of the school and an accurate index 

of the effectiveness of behavioral interventions.116 117 To ensure that an effort to 

collect office discipline referral and other 

data is sustainable over time, data collection methods should follow several core 

principles. Namely, data collection systems should be:

•	 Efficient. For data collection techniques 

to be implemented widely and continuously, they should be easily learned 

and quickly administered. Efficient 

data collection techniques can range 

from simple procedures, such as tally 

marks for observed behavior problems on notepads carried by teachers, 

to more complex procedures, such as 

computerized data collection systems 

that automatically record office discipline referrals.

•	 Timely. A response to a reported behavior problem is most effective when 

it is administered soon after the behavior has occurred. Thus, data collection 

systems should incorporate strategies 

to promptly relay relevant information 

to all appropriate people (teachers, support staff, or parents) in order to provide a swift response to the child’s actions. For example, if a student exhibits 

aggressive behavior during recess, a 

system should be in place to report this 

behavior to the student’s teacher before the students reenter the classroom 

116. Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, and Vincent 

(2004).

117. The panel acknowledges that office discipline referrals are influenced by teacher judgment. Consequently, office discipline referral 

may be considered a measure of teacher behavior as well as student outcomes. Outcome monitoring that identifies the changes in student responses to interventions would provide a more 

accurate measure of program effectiveness.

and to the student’s family on the day 

the behavior problem occurs. 

•	 Meaningful. A “less is more” approach 

to data collection often is more effective than attempting to collect a large 

amount of information that may become frustrating to digest and difficult to interpret. Data collection systems should focus on the few elements 

that are most valuable to the school 

(such as the frequency of occurrence 

of a behavior that is the focus of a 

schoolwide intervention program), and 

consistently monitor those elements 

throughout the school year.

To augment information generated through 

a schoolwide data collection system, teachers have an ideal vantage point to witness 

specific behavior incidents as they arise 

and provide informal, yet essential, data 

on students’ behavior. By situating themselves in areas where problem behaviors 

are readily observed, teachers can document information about the specific behavior problems witnessed and report 

on the immediate results of any actions 

administered.118

No matter how effective a schoolwide intervention strategy ultimately is, it might 

take several months or more before a 

schoolwide behavioral intervention generates significant changes in problem behaviors schoolwide. For example, the violence 

prevention curriculum used in the study 

by Grossman and others (1997) was taught 

in 30 lessons, given once or twice a week. 

The positive behavioral effects found in 

this and other experimental studies of 

schoolwide programs cannot be expected 

to become evident until after completion 

of the entire curriculum or intervention or 

toward the end of the school year. Broader 

reform efforts can take even longer to 

reach fruition.

118. See roadblock 5.2 for additional suggestions 

about teacher roles in data collection.
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 48 )

4. If warranted, adopt a packaged intervention program that fits well with identified behavior problem(s) and the school context.

As the school improvement team develops 

its action plan for a schoolwide behavior 

program, it might find that the best approach to address the school’s behavior issues is through one or more packaged intervention programs implemented schoolwide. 

Many such programs contain the fundamental components needed to respond to a variety of behavior problems. For example, evidence-based interventions, such as Second 

Step119 and Promoting Alternative THinking 

Strategies,

120 provide classroom-based curricula consisting of specific lessons aimed at 

increasing prosocial behaviors in students. 

However, to ensure that these programs 

will be implemented with fidelity and work 

effectively, the school improvement team 

should consider the appropriateness of a 

program, given the unique characteristics 

and capacities of the school.

Some questions that may assist the team 

when selecting an intervention program 

are: 

•	 What are the types of behaviors we 

want to promote in our school and what 

are some specific behaviors we want to 

reduce or eliminate? For example, do 

we want our students to develop social 

skills with peers and adults? Is bullying 

a problem that needs to be addressed?

•	 Is our school willing and able to spend 

money and other resources, such as 

time for training all teachers on the intervention procedures, to implement a 

packaged intervention program to address particular problem behaviors? 

•	 Are we looking for an intervention that 

is administered by outside consultants 

119. Frey et al. (2005); Grossman et al. (1997).

120. Conduct Problems Prevention Group (1999).

or do we prefer to train existing school 

personnel? 

•	 What are the unique features of our 

school (such as, size, geographic location, culture, and composition of staff 

and students), and how will the intervention fit these features? For example, if a school has a large percentage 

of bilingual students, can an Englishlanguage intervention be modified to 

accommodate all students? 

•	 What do our observations tell us? For 

instance, are there certain student 

populations, such as older students, 

that are particularly prone to behavior 

problems and that could benefit from 

specific interventions?

•	 How will an intervention fit into our 

current school schedule and curriculum? For example, are we willing to 

take time away from academic instruction to invest in a rigorous, year-long 

behavior curriculum or would a less intensive intervention that can be easily 

incorporated into our existing schedule better fit our school’s needs?

To respond to these queries, the principal 

should be either a member of the school improvement team or readily available to meet 

and discuss these issues as the team develops its action plan. In addition, the school 

improvement team would benefit from 

broader input of other teachers and other 

school personnel, either through surveys 

or discussions during staff meetings. By addressing these types of questions, the team 

can tailor packaged intervention programs 

to fit within the school context, thereby increasing the chances that they will be readily implemented and sustained.

Potential roadblocks and solutions

Roadblock 5.1. “There’s no schoolwide system at my school, and it doesn’t seem possible for me to change behavior problems 
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 49 )

outside my classroom.” Many teachers work 

in schools that do not have schoolwide 

systems in place or administrators willing 

to consider implementing such a program. 

Consequently, these teachers feel stymied 

when it comes to applying disciplinary 

practices outside their classroom. 

Suggested Approach. The panel believes 

that a schoolwide approach to behavior 

issues is both feasible and advisable for 

many schools. Consequently, this recommendation encourages a sense of shared 

responsibility between teachers and administrators when supporting a schoolwide 

approach to behavior management and 

support. However, for teachers in schools 

that do not plan to develop a schoolwide 

system to address students’ behavior, some 

of the implementation guidelines provide 

specific tasks that teachers can accomplish 

on their own. For example, teachers might 

notice that a few students often return from 

lunchtime with increased behavior problems. By stepping out of the classroom and 

informally observing lunchtime activities, 

they can identify the cafeteria as a hot spot 

where behavior problems tend to erupt and 

where increased adult supervision could 

improve the situation. They then could inform these students that they will continue 

to monitor their behavior in the cafeteria 

and that consequences will be administered 

in the classroom for those who misbehave 

and rewards will be provided to those who 

exhibit positive behaviors.

Roadblock 5.2. “It’s too costly and burdensome to purchase and implement an 

intervention program or to maintain a 

data collection system.” Considerable time, 

energy, and cost can be involved in purchasing and implementing a packaged intervention program, an investment that 

can yield little benefit if school personnel 

do not know how to use the information 

appropriately. 

Suggested Approach. Although the 

panel encourages all schools to consider 

a schoolwide approach when addressing 

student behavior issues, whether that approach includes the implementation of a 

packaged intervention program depends 

on the particular needs of the individual 

schools. Finances and time are some concerns that the school improvement team 

should address when formulating their action plan. If the team decides that a packaged program is warranted, they should 

consider the questions posed in step 4 

with input from administrators and other 

school personnel to determine the best fit 

for their school.

For teams that do not believe they have 

the finances or time to implement a formal 

data collection system, it is still possible 

to produce and analyze valuable information for decision-making and evaluation 

purposes as long as the general principles 

of data collection (efficient, timely, and 

meaningful) are applied. Teachers can 

play a vital role as both data collectors and 

analysts by observing student behavior in 

everyday situations (for example, monitoring the hallways during transition periods) 

and consistently documenting these observations. In doing so, teachers can make 

an important contribution to understanding patterns of problem behavior, and in 

turn, provide valuable input into formulating an intervention to manage these specific behavior issues.

Roadblock 5.3. “Nothing will work in our 

school. Our demographics and setting are 

too unique and challenging.” Administrators and teachers may feel it is too difficult to introduce a schoolwide system, 

train people, and implement this system 

with fidelity. 

Suggested Approach. When considering 

an approach to improving the behavioral 

climate of an entire school, the critical first 

step is to generate acceptance and active 

participation from all school personnel. 

It has been suggested that a commitment 

secured from at least 80 percent of the 
5. Assess whether schoolwide behavior problems warrant schoolwide strategies or programs

( 50 )

school staff is necessary to proceed with 

this approach.121 To obtain this level of 

acceptance, school administrators must 

show enthusiasm for and commitment to 

establishing the structures and processes 

needed to change the behavioral climate of 

the school. In addition, administrators can 

proactively solicit input on concerns teachers and other personnel might have with 

a schoolwide approach and engage staff 

in developing strategies to address them. 

121. See the OSEP Technical Assistance Center 

on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports for a description of the components of 

an effective comprehensive schoolwide system, 

available at http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.

htm#SystemsApproach.

Some specific concerns might be teachers’ 

belief that their only responsibility is to 

teach academic content, that implementing 

this approach will take time that should 

be invested in achieving academic goals, 

or that discipline policy and practices that 

emphasize positive reinforcement rather 

than punitive measures are ineffective.122

Administrators can respond by emphasizing the fact that the schoolwide approach 

is comprised of evidence-based practices 

and providing the evidence that addresses 

the concerns. This strategy has been applied successfully in a wide variety of 

school settings with a wide range of school 

populations.

122. McKevitt and Braaksma (2004). 
( 51 )

Appendix A. 

Postscript from 

the Institute of 

Education Sciences 

What is a practice guide?

The health care professions have embraced a mechanism for assembling and 

communicating evidence-based advice to 

practitioners about care for specific clinical conditions. Variously called practice 

guidelines, treatment protocols, critical 

pathways, best practice guides, or simply 

practice guides, these documents are systematically developed recommendations 

about the course of care for frequently encountered problems, ranging from physical conditions, such as foot ulcers, to psychosocial conditions, such as adolescent 

development.1

Practice guides are similar to the products of typical expert consensus panels 

in reflecting the views of those serving 

on the panel and the social decisions that 

come into play as the positions of individual panel members are forged into statements that all panel members are willing 

to endorse. Practice guides, however, are 

generated under three constraints that do 

not typically apply to consensus panels. 

The first is that a practice guide consists 

of a list of discrete recommendations that 

are actionable. The second is that those 

recommendations taken together are intended to be a coherent approach to a 

multifaceted problem. The third, which is 

most important, is that each recommendation is explicitly connected to the level 

of evidence supporting it, with the level 

represented by a grade (strong, moderate, low).

The levels of evidence, or grades, are 

usually constructed around the value of 

1. Field and Lohr (1990).

particular types of studies for drawing 

causal conclusions about what works. 

Thus, one typically finds that a strong 

level of evidence is drawn from a body of 

randomized controlled trials, the moderate level from well-designed studies that 

do not involve randomization, and the 

low level from the opinions of respected 

authorities, buttressed by theory or research that does not meet criteria for high 

or moderate ratings (see table 1). Levels of 

evidence also can be constructed around 

the value of particular types of studies for 

other goals, such as the reliability and validity of assessments.

Practice guides also can be distinguished 

from systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 

such as the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) intervention reviews or statistical meta-analyses, which employ statistical methods to summarize the results of 

studies obtained from a rule-based literature search. Authors of practice guides 

seldom conduct the types of systematic 

literature searches that are the backbone 

of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work when it is already 

published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the most important 

research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a search of recent 

publications to ensure that the research 

citations are up-to-date. Furthermore, the 

characterization of the quality and direction of the evidence underlying a recommendation in a practice guide relies less 

on a tight set of rules and statistical algorithms and more on the judgment of the 

authors than would be the case in a highquality meta-analysis. Another distinction 

is that a practice guide, because it aims for 

a comprehensive and coherent approach, 

operates with more numerous and more 

contextualized statements of what works 

than does a typical meta-analysis.

Thus, practice guides sit somewhere between consensus reports and meta-analyses in the degree to which systematic 
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute for Education Sciences

( 52 )

processes are used for locating relevant 

research and characterizing its meaning. 

Practice guides are more like consensus 

panel reports than meta-analyses in the 

breadth and complexity of the topic that 

is addressed. Practice guides are different 

from both consensus reports and metaanalyses in providing advice at the level 

of specific action steps along a pathway 

that represents a more-or-less coherent 

and comprehensive approach to a multifaceted problem.

Practice guides in education at the 

Institute of Education Sciences

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

publishes practice guides in education to 

bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. Although IES has taken advantage 

of the history of practice guides in healthcare to provide models of how to proceed 

in education, education is different from 

healthcare in ways that may require that 

practice guides in education have somewhat different designs. Even within health 

care, where practice guides now number 

in the thousands, there is no single template in use. Rather, one finds descriptions 

of general design features that permit 

substantial variation in practice guides 

across subspecialties and panels of experts.2 Accordingly, the templates for IES 

practice guides may vary across practice 

guides and change over time and with 

experience.

The steps involved in producing an IESsponsored practice guide are first to select 

a topic, which is informed by formal surveys of practitioners and requests. Next, a 

panel chair is recruited who has a national 

reputation and up-to-date expertise in the 

topic. Third, the chair, working in collaboration with IES, selects a small number of 

2. American Psychological Association (2002).

panelists to co-author the practice guide. 

These are people the chair believes can 

work well together and have the requisite 

expertise to be a convincing source of 

recommendations. IES recommends that 

at one least one of the panelists be a practitioner with experience relevant to the 

topic being addressed. The chair and the 

panelists are provided a general template 

for a practice guide along the lines of the 

information provided in this preamble. 

They also are provided with examples 

of practice guides. The practice guide 

panel works under a short deadline of 6–9 

months to produce a draft document. The 

expert panel interacts with and receives 

feedback from staff at IES during the development of the practice guide, but they 

understand that they are the authors and, 

thus, responsible for the final product.

One unique feature of IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to 

rigorous external peer review through the 

same office that is responsible for independent review of other IES publications. 

A critical task of the peer reviewers of a 

practice guide is to determine whether 

the evidence cited in support of particular 

recommendations is up-to-date and that 

studies of similar or better quality that 

point in a different direction have not been 

ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to 

evaluate whether the evidence grade assigned to particular recommendations by 

the practice guide authors is appropriate. 

A practice guide is revised as necessary to 

meet the concerns of external peer reviews 

and gain the approval of the standards and 

review staff at IES. The process of external 

peer review is carried out independent of 

the office and staff within IES that instigated the practice guide.

Because practice guides depend on the 

expertise of their authors and their group 

decisionmaking, the content of a practice 

guide is not and should not be viewed as 

a set of recommendations that in every 

case depends on and flows inevitably from 
Appendi x A. Postscript from the Institute for Education Sciences

( 53 )

scientific research. It is not only possible 

but likely that two teams of recognized 

experts working independently to produce a practice guide on the same topic 

would generate products that differ in 

important respects. Thus, consumers of 

practice guides need to understand that 

they are, in effect, getting the advice of 

consultants. These consultants should, 

on average, provide substantially better 

advice than an individual school district 

might obtain on its own because the authors are national authorities who have 

to reach agreement among themselves, 

justify their recommendations in terms 

of supporting evidence, and undergo rigorous independent peer review of their 

product.

Institute of Education Sciences
( 54 )

Appendix B. 

About the Authors

Panel

Michael Epstein (Chair) is the Director 

of the Center for At-Risk Children’s Services and William E. Barkley Professor 

of Special Education at the University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln. He earned his Ed.D. 

in special education from the University 

of Virginia. Dr. Epstein has published 

more than 200 professional papers and 

is the founding editor of the Journal of 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. He 

is the author of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-2 (PRO-ED, 2004) and 

the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (PRO-ED, 1998), and a co-author 

of Outcomes for Children and Youth with 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and 

Their Families (PRO-ED, 2005).

Marc Atkins is Professor of Psychology 

in Psychiatry and Director of Psychology Training at the University of IllinoisChicago’s Department of Psychiatry. He 

has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from 

Florida State University. Dr. Atkins has a 

long-standing interest in the development 

of effective school-based mental health 

services for children and families in lowincome urban communities. He is a consultant to the Chicago Public Schools, the 

New York City Public Schools, and the Illinois Department of Mental Health. 

Douglas Cullinan is Professor of Special 

Education at North Carolina State University. Dr. Cullinan has an Ed.D. in special 

education from the University of Virginia. 

Since 1973 he has served on the editorial 

boards of Behavioral Disorders, Exceptional 

Children, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Special Education, and other professional journals, and 

authored or coauthored more than 125 

publications. Dr. Cullinan is the author of 

Students with Emotional and Behavioral 

Disorders, a textbook, and has served as 

President of the Council for Children with 

Behavioral Disorders.

Krista Kutash is Professor and Deputy Director of the University of South 

Florida’s Research and Training Center 

for Children’s Mental Health. She holds 

a Ph.D. in measurement and statistics 

from the University of South Florida. Dr. 

Kutash has conducted field research on 

issues related to children with disabilities and their families in 27 states and 

in more than 200 school districts and 60 

mental health facilities. She coauthored 

Outcomes for Children and Youth with 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and 

Their Families (PRO-ED, 2005) and coedits 

the Journal of Emotional and Behavioral 

Disorders. 

Robin Weaver has been Principal of Harmony Hills Elementary School in Silver 

Spring, MD for 21 years. Harmony Hills 

serves 500 students who represent more 

than 25 countries and speak 18 languages. 

Students at Harmony Hills meet or exceed 

local, state, and federal academic standards. Ms. Weaver received her B.A. in humanities and M.S. in library science from 

Case Western Reserve University, and was 

a Fulbright Scholar in India and a Peace 

Corps Volunteer in the Fiji Islands. 

Staff

Michelle Woodbridge, a Senior Research 

Analyst at SRI International, received her 

Ph.D. in education from the University of 

California—Santa Barbara. Dr. Woodbridge 

has more than 13 years of experience in research and evaluation of children’s behavioral and mental health services, and has 

authored or coauthored numerous publications regarding evaluations of interventions and programs serving children with 

emotional and behavioral disabilities and 

their families.
Appendi x B. About the authors

( 55 )

Jennifer Yu, a Research Social Scientist 

at SRI International, received her Sc.D. in 

maternal and child health from Harvard 

School of Public Health, and completed 

a postdoctoral fellowship in health policy from the University of California—

San Francisco. Dr. Yu has considerable 

research experience in the design and 

quantitative analysis of longitudinal studies, particularly those focused on child 

and adolescent mental and behavioral 

health. She has authored and coauthored 

numerous papers regarding mental health 

and behavioral disabilities in adolescents 

and comorbid substance use among adolescents with learning disabilities.

Mary Wagner, Co-Director of SRI International’s Center for Education and Human 

Services, has concentrated her work in the 

last 28 years in two major areas: longitudinal studies of the characteristics, experiences, and achievements of children and 

youth with disabilities, and evaluations of 

interventions and programs serving children and families. Dr. Wagner received her 

Ph.D. in political science from the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill.
( 56 )

Appendix C. 

Disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest

Practice guide panels are composed of individuals who are nationally recognized 

experts on the topics about which they 

are rendering recommendations. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) expects 

that such experts will be involved professionally in a variety of matters that relate 

to their work as a panel. Panel members 

are asked to disclose their professional 

involvements and to institute deliberative 

processes that encourage critical examination of the views of panel members as 

they relate to the content of the practice 

guide. The potential influence of panel 

members’ professional engagements is 

further muted by the requirement that 

they ground their recommendations in 

evidence that is documented in the practice guide. In addition, the practice guide 

undergoes independent external peer review prior to publication, with particular 

focus on whether the evidence related to 

the recommendations in the practice guide 

has been appropriately presented.

The professional engagements reported 

by each panel member that appear most 

closely associated with the panel recommendations are noted below.

Dr. Epstein is the author of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-2 and the 

Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance. 

He receives royalties from PRO-ED, Inc. He 

has also developed interventions aimed 

at improving students’ academic and behavioral outcomes and reported the findings in journal articles and book chapters. 

These instruments and interventions are 

not referenced in this practice guide. 

Dr. Atkins has no financial stake in any 

program or practice that is mentioned in 

the practice guide. He is a consultant for 

the New York City Board of Education on 

alternative models for school counseling, 

which could involve training counselors 

on classroom behavior management programs such as those mentioned in this practice guide. He also has had a long-standing 

consultative relationship with the Chicago 

Public Schools Office of Specialized Services related to his ongoing research in Chicago Public Schools. He is currently funded 

by the National Institute of Mental Health 

to study a model of school-based mental 

health consultation. This model involves, 

in part, training community mental health 

providers and teachers on classroom behavior management programs, such as those 

described in this practice guide. He is a coinvestigator on a proposal to the Institute 

of Education Sciences to develop a model 

to support early career teachers working in 

urban low-income schools, which also could 

involve training in programs such as those 

described in this practice guide.

Dr. Cullinan is a coauthor of the Scale 

for Assessing Emotional Disturbance, for 

which he receives royalties from PRO-ED, 

Inc. This assessment instrument is not 

referenced in this practice guide. Also, 

Dr. Cullinan is the author of Students with 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, for 

which he receives royalties from Pearson 

Education, Inc. This book is not referenced 

in this practice guide.

Dr. Kutash is a coauthor of the book Outcomes for Children with Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders and Their Families: 

Program and Evaluation Best Practices (2nd 

ed.) and a coeditor of the Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, for which 

she receives royalties from PRO-ED, Inc.
( 57 )

Appendix D. 

Technical information 

on the studies

Recommendation 1. 

Identify the specifics of the 

problem behavior and the 

conditions that prompt and 

reinforce it

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence 

supporting this recommendation to be 

moderate. A number of single-subject research studies demonstrate the effectiveness of behavioral interventions that are 

designed to address and modify what 

prompts and reinforces the problem behaviors of special and general education 

elementary school students.1 Three recent single-subject studies examined the 

effectiveness of interventions chosen for 

individual students after teachers gathered data on the antecedents and consequences of students’ problem behaviors, 

as opposed to interventions selected without attention to these factors.2 Findings 

demonstrated greater success in reducing inappropriate behaviors through the 

use of approaches based on the gathered 

data. An emerging literature provides further evidence that general educators can 

play a key role in this information-gathering process by identifying the context 

of a problem behavior and selecting appropriate strategies that meet students’ 

needs. But more research is needed to 

determine whether consistent results 

can be obtained when the strategies are 

1. For example, Broussard and Northup (1995); 

Ervin et al. (2000); Lane et al. (2007); Moore et 

al. (2005); Sasso et al. (1992); Stahr et al. (2006); 

Umbreit (1995). For research reviews, see Ervin 

et al. (2001); Heckaman et al. (2000); Kern et al. 

(2002).

2. Ingram et al. (2005); Newcomer and Lewis 

(2004); Payne et al. (2007).

implemented by the teacher without professional consultation.3

Examples of classroom studies that 

demonstrate the effectiveness of 

interventions based on the context of 

problem behavior

Research suggests that identifying a problem behavior’s specific antecedents and 

consequences and then tailoring an approach to address the distinct needs of the 

individual student in the classroom context are more likely to yield positive outcomes than an intervention applied without attention to the factors prompting and 

reinforcing it.4 In fact, strategies not linked 

to the specific context of the misbehavior 

demonstrate increases in the occurrence 

of the problem behavior, perhaps because 

strategies used to address it inadvertently 

reinforce the misbehavior.5

For example, in one single-subject study, 

researchers compared the outcomes of 

two interventions designed for three general education elementary students with 

aggressive and off-task behaviors.6 One approach was based on assessment information gathered about each student’s specific 

behavioral context and reinforcement (antecedents and consequences), contrasted 

with an approach based on general classroom management principles to address 

the topography of the problem behavior 

(that is, what the behavior problem looks 

like versus the underlying cause). Using an 

alternating-treatment, multiple-baseline 

design across participants, the researchers found that assessment-based interventions were more effective in decreasing 

problem behavior. In fact, data showed 

3. Kamps et al. (2006); Lane, Weisenbach, et al. 

(2007); Mueller et al. (2003).

4. Payne et al. (2007). 

5. Ibid.

6. Newcomer and Lewis (2004).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 58 )

higher levels of problem behavior with the 

non-assessment-based approach than with 

the baseline condition. One potential limitation of the study, however, was that in 

all three cases the non-assessment-based 

interventions preceded the assessmentbased interventions, so the study did not 

control for treatment effect order.

In a follow-up study, researchers measured 

the effectiveness of assessment-based interventions with two middle school students in general education classrooms.7

The investigators controlled for treatment 

order effects by counterbalancing the two 

intervention approaches between the two 

students. Similar to the earlier findings, 

the single-subject withdrawal design demonstrated that the assessment-based interventions were more effective in lowering 

the number of problem behaviors.

Recently, investigators extended the research of these previous studies by examining the efficacy of assessment-based versus non-assessment-based interventions.8

Results of their multi-treatment singlesubject design involving four elementary 

school students demonstrated clear and 

immediate decreases in problem behavior 

with the introduction of assessment-based 

interventions and strong increases in problem behavior with each introduction of 

non-assessment-based intervention.

7. Ingram et al. (2005). The panel believes this 

study, although conducted within a middle school 

general education environment, is generalizable 

to an elementary school population. The students 

examined in this study exhibited common problem behaviors found across elementary school 

grades, such as staring into space and not engaging in or completing math or science assignments. The intervention strategies (the teacher 

checking in with the student about his physical 

state and the student self-assessing his on-task 

and help-seeking behaviors) and rewards (extra 

break and computer time) were also relevant to 

the elementary school level.

8. Payne et al. (2007).

Examples of classroom studies that 

demonstrate the feasibility and 

effectiveness of general education 

teachers applying assessment-based 

approaches

Three single-subject research studies have 

demonstrated the success of an approach 

that specifically identifies and modifies 

what is prompting and reinforcing the 

problem behaviors in general education 

settings, with general education teachers 

taking substantive roles in the data gathering, design, and implementation of behavioral strategies. One research group 

successfully trained general education elementary school teachers to manipulate 

teacher and peer attention to problematic 

off-task and disruptive behaviors while fulfilling regular classroom responsibilities 

and routines.9 In another study, investigators trained teachers to respond effectively 

to inappropriate behaviors by following a 

reinforcement protocol developed for each 

student exhibiting problem behaviors.10

Recently, researchers used a collaborative 

process (including graduate school students who acted as project liaisons and 

consultants) with general education teachers as the primary interventionists and 

assessors, finding that the teachers consistently implemented assessment-based 

interventions that resulted in decreases in 

problematic behaviors.11 However, these 

studies do not provide enough evidence to 

conclude that these practices will be effective for all students or in all settings. The 

studies differ in data collection methods 

(using a variety of both direct and indirect 

assessment measures, such as observations and interviews), in the extent of assistance from behavioral consultants, and 

in the methods used to select interventions 

and strategies on the basis of accumulated 

knowledge about the problem behavior.

9. Kamps et al. (2006).

10. Mueller et al. (2003).

11. Lane, Weisenbach, et al. (2007).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 59 )

As a result, some researchers have called 

for additional studies to be conducted 

with a variety of target behaviors across 

different settings because of concerns 

regarding inconsistencies when the approach involves different types of students, school-based personnel, and assessment methods.12 For example, in one 

study investigators selected staff members 

from four elementary schools who had 

been trained in how to use the outcomes 

of a comprehensive assessment process 

to develop assessment-based intervention 

plans.13 They then formed school-based 

intervention teams and served as facilitators for a total of 31 cases. The same 

cases also were distributed to three national experts who selected interventions 

based on the identified contextual data for 

each case. Comparisons between team and 

expert intervention strategy selection revealed that school-based personnel were 

more likely to select punitive and exclusionary strategies, regardless of the contextual information. Thus, in real-world 

school settings the link between a problem 

behavior’s antecedents and consequences 

and the selection of an appropriate intervention is more complex than has been 

recognized in the literature.

One additional limitation of the literature 

is that no studies to date have experimentally examined the effects of general education teachers alone identifying the antecedents and consequences of problem 

behaviors and selecting suitable strategies to intervene with the problem behavior on the basis of that information. 

All studies employed some amount of 

behavioral consultation in the process. 

However, the panel believes that because 

research shows a strong link between understanding a problem behavior’s context 

and applying an effective remedy, teachers 

12. Gresham (2004); Gresham et al. (2004); Sasso 

et al. (2001); Scott et al. (2005).

13. Scott et al. (2005).

should try to acquire the skills, experience, and confidence needed to carry out 

this information-gathering process and 

seek out their colleagues and the student’s 

family for additional help and guidance 

in addressing behavior problems in their 

classrooms when necessary.

Recommendation 2. 

Modify the classroom environment 

to decrease problem behavior

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel rated the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as strong. This recommendation reflects best practices in 

elementary classroom management and 

pedagogy, as defined and articulated by 

experts in the field since the early 1970s.14

Research across decades has demonstrated 

that consistent implementation and reinforcement of well defined classroom rules 

is associated with positive student behavior in both the classroom and other 

school settings, such as the playground 

and hallways.15 More recently, three randomized controlled trials,16 one quasi-experimental design,17 and six single-subject 

research studies18 demonstrate empirical 

support for (1) preventative classroom 

management, with particular emphasis 

14. For example, Axelrod and Mathews (2003); 

Bear (1998); Brophy (1983); Doyle (1992); Evertson 

et al. (2006); Evertson and Harris (1995); Good 

and Brophy (2003); Hall and Hall (1998-2004); Kellam (1999); Kounin (1970); Walker (1995); Walker, 

Colvin, and Ramsey (1995).

15. For example, see reviews by Kern and Clemens (2007); Sugai and Horner (2002); Sugai et 

al. (2001).

16. Evertson (1989); Ialongo et al. (2001); Ialongo 

et al. (1999).

17. Heller and Fantuzzo (1993).

18. Dunlap et al. (1994); DuPaul et al. (1998); Kern 

et al. (2002); Kern et al. (1994); Kern, Mantegna, 

et al. (2001); Nelson, Johnson, and MarchandMartella (1996).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 60 )

on teachers’ attention to specific environmental variables that evoke problem 

behaviors;19 and for (2) direct and differentiated instructional strategies to increase 

student engagement and decrease problem behaviors.20

Examples of studies that demonstrate 

the effectiveness of modifying the 

classroom environment

Research dating back almost four decades 

has demonstrated the effectiveness of 

group contingency programs (where students work in teams in which each individual is responsible to the rest of the 

group) in both preventing and intervening 

with behavior problems. Upon introducing 

these programs to students, teachers identify specific inappropriate behaviors (for 

example, verbal and physical disruptions 

or noncompliance) that, if displayed, will 

result in a team’s receiving a checkmark. By 

the end of the lesson, teams that have not 

exceeded the maximum number of marks 

are rewarded, for example with a preferred 

activity or privilege, whereas teams that 

exceed the behavioral standard receive 

no rewards. Eventually, the teacher begins 

the game with no warning and at different 

periods during the day so students are 

encouraged to monitor their behavior continuously and strive to meet expectations. 

Researchers first documented the effects of 

such a program in an investigation of the 

Good Behavior Game, which demonstrated 

a reduction in the disruptive out-of-seat 

and talking behaviors of 24 4th-grade students in a general education classroom.21

19. Dunlap et al. (1994); Evertson (1989); Ialongo 

et al. (2001); Ialongo et al. (1999); Kern, Bambara, and Fogt (2002); Kern et al. (1994); Kern, 

Mantegna, et al. (2001). For relevant research 

reviews, see Davis et al. (2004) and Kern and 

Clemens (2007).

20. DuPaul et al. (1998); Heller and Fantuzzo 

(1993); Nelson et al. (1996).

21. Barrish et al. (1969).

Since then, classroom-based contingency 

programs modeled on the Good Behavior 

Game have been applied to other behaviors (for example, aggression or shyness), 

grade levels, and settings, and its impacts 

have been demonstrated both immediately 

following the intervention (at the end of 

1st grade) and longitudinally (five years 

after the intervention) with hundreds of 

children.22 Data demonstrated fewer aggressive and shy behaviors at the end 

of 1st grade and positive outcomes at 

6th grade, especially for males displaying early aggressive behavior. Two randomized controlled trials were conducted 

with a sample of 678 students entering 

1st grade in nine Baltimore City public elementary schools.23 Using a randomized 

block design, three 1st grade classrooms 

in each of nine schools were randomly assigned to either a classroom-centered intervention using the Good Behavior Game

or a family-school partnership intervention, or to a control condition. Findings revealed that in 6th grade, students who had 

been in the Good Behavior Game condition 

in 1st grade were significantly less likely 

than students in the control condition to 

be diagnosed with conduct disorders or to 

have been suspended from school. Participants in both the Good Behavior Game and 

family-school partnership interventions 

received significantly better ratings from 

their teachers for conduct problems than 

students in the control group.

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the effectiveness of training teachers 

to use comprehensive classroom management approaches with the goals of reducing students’ time off task and disruptive 

behaviors in the classroom.24 Participants 

in the programs were trained to create and 

22. Dolan et al. (1993); Ialongo et al. (2001); 

Ialongo et al. (1999), Lohrmann and Talerico 

(2004).

23. Ialongo et al. (2001); Ialongo et al. (1999).

24. Evertson (1989); Webster-Stratton et al. (2004).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 61 )

maintain well-organized classrooms and 

to use the instructional and skill-building 

strategies as prescribed, but findings were 

mixed regarding the impact of these approaches on students’ task engagement 

and academic success.

One randomized controlled trial conducted 

with teachers from two school districts 

investigated the effectiveness of a classroom management program called COMP 

(Classroom Organization and Management Program).25 COMP guides teachers 

in creating a well-organized classroom, 

establishing positive management policies, and maintaining these procedures 

throughout the year. The experimental study included 14 elementary school 

teachers assigned to the COMP intervention and 15 assigned to the control group. 

The COMP teachers received two 1-day 

workshops in the fall, with control group 

teachers receiving the same training at 

the end of the year. Observational data 

indicated that COMP teachers exceeded 

the control group in the use of key management principles, and their students 

showed statistically significantly greater 

task engagement and academic success 

and fewer inappropriate behaviors in the 

classroom.

However, another experimental study 

examining the effectiveness of a teacher 

training series that emphasized similar 

classroom management skills, reinforcement contingencies, and instructional 

and skill-building strategies showed less 

definitive results. Researchers examined 

the Incredible Years Training for Teachers 

Series in a randomized controlled group 

evaluation.26 The teacher training series 

focused on the effective use of teacher 

attention, praise, and encouragement; 

how to manage inappropriate classroom 

behaviors; the importance of building 

25. Evertson (1989).

26. Webster-Stratton et al. (2004).

positive relationships with students; and 

how to teach empathy, social skills, and 

problem-solving. Observational data indicated increases in teachers’ use of praise 

and encouragement and reduced use of 

criticism and harsh discipline. But effects 

on concomitant student outcomes (for example increases in positive interactions 

with teachers and peers, improved task 

engagement, and reduction in aggression), 

although reported as statistically significant by the study’s authors, could not be 

independently confirmed.27

In a series of four single-subject studies, 

student choice as an intervention also has 

been empirically demonstrated to be effective in decreasing inappropriate behaviors 

of students with emotional and behavioral 

disorders. Student choice includes many 

variations, such as choosing the specific 

task to complete,28 materials to be used,29

and sequence of activities.30 For example, 

researchers investigated the effects of 

choice on the academic engagement of elementary school students with emotional 

and behavioral challenges using a multiphased, single-subject design.31 In the 

first analysis, two participants were given 

choices from menus of academic tasks 

that were pertinent to their educational 

objectives in English and spelling. Reversal 

27. The authors reported that preplanned comparisons using composite scores adjusted by 

pretest scores of treatment and control groups 

showed statistically significant reductions in the 

intervention students’ conduct problems after 6 

months. However, when What Works Clearinghouse reviewers applied a multiple comparison 

adjustment to the analyses, the findings showed 

no statistically significant differences between 

the outcomes of the intervention and comparison students.

28. Dunlap et al. (1994); Kern, Bambara, and 

Fogt (2002).

29. Kern et al. (1994).

30. Kern, Mantegna, et al. (2001).

31. Dunlap et al. (1994).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 62 )

designs showed that the choice condition 

increased task engagement and reduced 

disruptive behavior for both students. An 

additional analysis was performed with a 

third student in an effort to further distinguish the effects of choice from preference. In this study, one of the no-choice 

phases was yoked to a previous choice 

condition. This analysis demonstrated 

that the choice condition was superior to 

baseline and yoked-control phases, as determined by levels of task engagement and 

disruptive behavior.

Examples of studies that demonstrate 

the effectiveness of modifying classroom 

and individual instructional strategies

Reviews of research and retrospective observations of students who exhibit problem behaviors have concluded that these 

students are also likely to have poor academic performance,32 although the direction of relationship between academics 

and behavior remains unclear.33 Three 

single-subject studies have shown that 

curricular variables, such as assigning 

work that exceeds a student’s skill level34

or attention span, using a single and constant learning task (for example, written 

assignments or workbook pages) rather 

than a variety of activities, and delivering instruction at a slow pace or without 

sufficient interactive practice, can set the 

occasion for or exacerbate problem behaviors in the classroom.35

Another single-subject investigation examining the techniques of direct instruction 

suggested that lessons delivered in small 

32. Montague, Enders, and Castro (2005); Nelson 

et al. (2004); Reid et al. (2004).

33. Epstein et al. (2005).

34. Lee et al. (1999).

35. Kern, Delaney, et al. (2001); Nelson et al. 

(1996). See a review of additional relevant research by Kern and Clemens (2007).

steps, at the appropriate level of difficulty, 

and with ample opportunities for practice 

result in higher levels of on-task behavior 

and student engagement.36 Single-subject 

research data also support the practice of 

increasing the number of opportunities 

that students have to respond to academic 

or social prompts, thereby increasing academic engaged time and fluency with the 

material and reducing inappropriate behavior. In one study researchers increased the 

number of teacher-presented opportunities 

to respond from 1.7 per minute during a 

baseline phase to 3.5 during an intervention phase in a class of nine students (ages 

8 through 12) with emotional and behavioral disorders. The increase in opportunities to respond was associated with higher 

correct responding, fewer disruptive behaviors, and increased on-task behavior.37

There also is evidence that using effective 

instructional principles positively impacts 

students’ academic and social behaviors. 

In one alternating-treatment design study 

researchers compared the effects of instruction incorporating modeling, guided 

practice, and student independent practice 

(that is, direct instruction, following guidelines derived from the literature38) with 

two other types of instruction: cooperative learning, where students participated 

in teams of one target student and two or 

three classmates, and independent learning, where participants were given individual folders detailing the lesson for the 

day.39 Findings demonstrated higher rates 

36. Nelson et al. (1996). See relevant research reviews by Adams and Engelmann (1996); Rivera et 

al. (2006); Rosenshine and Stevens (1986).

37. Sutherland et al. (2003).

38. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) provide a 

synthesis of research on the practices of teachers who effectively implement direct instruction, 

including teaching in small steps and providing 

ample opportunities for students’ guided and 

independent practice.

39. Nelson et al. (1996).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 63 )

of on-task behavior and lower rates of disruptive behavior among four elementary 

school students with emotional disorders 

in a self-contained classroom who were 

in the direct instruction group, relative to 

their performance in the other two conditions. The independent learning approach 

resulted in increased levels of disruptive 

behavior and decreased levels of on-task 

behavior relative to the direct instruction 

approach. The authors concluded that the 

instructional system underlying direct instruction practices reduced the disruptive 

behavior of students, and that certain instructional methods can serve as aversive 

stimuli in classrooms.

Finally, peer tutoring is an instructional 

strategy in which students work in pairs 

(or groups) as a tutor and tutee(s). The 

goals are to improve academic learning, 

develop cooperative work habits, and increase positive social interactions among 

students. Using both experimental group 

and single-subject research designs, researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of peer tutoring as an instructional strategy for students with behavior 

problems.40 One randomized controlled 

trial examined the effects of peer tutoring and parent involvement interventions 

on mathematics achievement of 84 academically at-risk 4th and 5th graders. 

The findings demonstrated that students 

who participated in the peer tutoring intervention groups (with or without parent 

involvement) displayed higher levels of 

accurate mathematics computations, and 

both groups also showed significant behavioral improvements in the classroom 

(decreases in acting out behaviors and 

increases in task engagement, as rated 

by their teachers) compared with control 

students.41 Additionally, a single-subject 

40. DuPaul et al. (1998); Heller and Fantuzzo 

(1993). For reviews of relevant research, see 

Rivera et al. (2006); Ryan, Reid, and Epstein 

(2004).

41. Heller and Fantuzzo (1993).

research study investigated the effects of 

classwide peer tutoring on the classroom 

behavior and academic performance of 

students with and without attention deficits.42 The study included 18 students with 

attention problems (as reported by their 

parents and teachers) and 10 typically 

developing classmates in 1st–5th grades 

across schools in two districts. During the 

treatment condition, tutoring pairs worked 

with each other for about 20 minutes a day 

for 3 to 4 days a week on specific academic 

skills, switching roles (from tutor to tutee) 

every 10 minutes. The intervention was 

associated with significant increases in 

active engagement in academic tasks for 

both students with and without attention 

deficits, reductions in off-task behaviors 

for most study participants, and improvements in academic performance.

Recommendation 3. 

Teach and reinforce new skills 

to increase appropriate behavior 

and preserve a positive classroom 

climate

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel rated the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as strong. This recommendation is based on five randomized 

controlled trials43 and three single-subject 

research studies44 examining the effectiveness of teaching and reinforcing new 

appropriate behaviors to students with 

problem behaviors. These studies have 

shown success in teaching students replacement behaviors (such as appropriate 

attention-seeking, social skills, problemsolving, self-management skills, and selfcontrol strategies) and, as a result, in 

42. DuPaul et al. (1998).

43. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 

(1999); Daunic et al. (2006); Frey et al. (2005); 

Grossman et al. (1997); Walker et al. (1998).

44. Beard and Sugai (2004); Peterson et al. (2006); 

Todd et al. (1999).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 64 )

reducing inappropriate behaviors such as 

disruption and aggression. Furthermore, 

studies that span almost half a century 

demonstrate that positive reinforcement is 

associated with initial and long-term academic benefits and with increases in the 

frequency of appropriate behaviors among 

general education students.45

Examples of studies that demonstrate 

the effectiveness of teaching new skills 

to increase appropriate behaviors

Studies of classroom-based interventions 

for students with behavior problems have 

focused on enhancing skills, such as appropriate attention-seeking, social skills, 

problem-solving, self-management skills, 

and self-control strategies. One randomized controlled trial46 and two singlesubject research studies47 have demonstrated that reductions in inappropriate 

behaviors, such as disruption and aggression, and increases in academic engagement are associated with skill-building 

instruction and reinforcement of positive 

behavior.

For example, one recent randomized controlled trial involving 165 students in 4th 

and 5th grades demonstrated that teaching students problem-solving skills useful 

in anger-provoking situations can improve 

teacher-reported behavior, including selfcontrol and aggression.48 Teachers delivered the classwide intervention to all 

students (both those identified with behavior problems and their typical peers) 

twice a week for 10 weeks, rated the social 

skills curriculum positively, and reported 

that behavior was significantly improved 

45. For example, Akin-Little et al. (2004); Cameron et al. (2001); Hall, Lund, and Jackson (1968); 

Hall et al. (1968).

46. Daunic et al. (2006).

47. Peterson et al. (2006); Todd et al. (1999).

48. Daunic et al. (2006).

relative to comparison students and maintained over several months.

Two other groups of investigators, using 

single-subject research designs, have 

shown that self-monitoring interventions 

with older elementary school students 

lead to increases in academic engagement 

and decreases in off-task behaviors.49 Researchers examined the relationship between self-monitoring of on-task behavior, 

overall teacher perceptions of student performance, task completion, and frequency 

of teacher praise. The single-subject multiple-baseline design was employed across 

class periods for one 4th grade student 

with learning disabilities and problem behavior in a general education classroom. 

Eight male students were randomly selected from a pool of 16 to serve as comparison students. Results indicate that 

implementation of the self-management 

technique resulted in a decrease in the 

frequency of problem behaviors and an 

increase in on-task behavior and task completion. In addition, the intervention was 

associated with increased positive teacher 

perceptions of student performance.

Recently, another group of investigators 

examined whether a self-monitoring strategy, coupled with a student-teacher matching strategy (assessing if students’ behavior ratings on a four-point scale were 

matched within one point to teachers’ ratings), would improve the classroom social 

skills of five inner-city middle school students who were at risk for school failure.50

Using a multiple-probe design across students and class periods, the researchers 

found that self-monitoring and studentteacher matching led to increases in appropriate social skills and decreases in offtask behavior for all five students across 

all class periods. Data suggested that selfmonitoring is an effective procedure to 

49. Peterson et al. (2006); Todd et al. (1999).

50. Peterson et al. (2006).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 65 )

promote the use of appropriate social 

skills across multiple general education 

settings, but improvements were more 

dramatic and consistent when a matching 

strategy also was used.

Additional studies, including one randomized controlled trial and one singlesubject design, have demonstrated the effects of a specific classroom-based early 

intervention program, First Step to Success, 

designed to reduce antisocial behaviors 

by modeling and teaching appropriate 

replacement skills and behaviors and rewarding students when those behaviors 

are used.51 First Step consists of three interconnected modules: proactive, universal screening of students for emotional 

and behavioral risks; a classroom-based 

intervention involving the teacher, peers, 

and the target child; and a home-based 

module of parent or caregiver education 

to support the student’s school adjustment. The classroom strategy capitalizes 

on a brief consultative relationship established between the teacher and a behavioral coach who works with teachers 

for 10 days to model strategies to teach 

students appropriate replacement behaviors and reward students when those behaviors are used. During the school day 

the teacher gives the student visual cues 

(showing a green or red card) to indicate 

whether the student is on task and using 

appropriate behaviors. Throughout the 

day the student accrues points toward 

his or her behavioral goal. A student who 

makes the daily goal may choose an enjoyable activity for the whole class.52 Using 

a cohort design with random assignment 

of 46 kindergartners to intervention or 

wait-list control conditions, students in 

the First Step program showed statistically significant increases in adaptive 

and on-task behaviors and decreases in 

maladaptive behaviors relative to control 

51. Walker et al. (1998); Beard and Sugai (2004).

52. Walker et al. (2005).

group students and maintained gains into 

the primary grades. In addition, teachers 

using the program in their classrooms 

expressed a high degree of satisfaction, 

remarking that it was easy to learn and 

implement and had favorable results with 

their students.53

The most recent study conducted by Beard 

and Sugai (2004) examined the effects of 

First Step on rates of problem behavior and 

academic engagement for six kindergarten students who were identified by their 

teachers as having high rates of problem 

behaviors. Half of the students received 

the classroom-based, teacher-directed intervention and the other half received the 

classroom- and home-based components. 

Using a single-subject design across students and classrooms, results showed a 

decrease in problem behaviors and an increase in academic engagement for all six 

children during the intervention phase, 

with effects persisting for four of the six 

students for 5 months after the end of the 

intervention.

One limitation to the collective research 

on First Step, however, is uncertainty regarding the impact of the home-based 

component of the dual intervention. Research to date has not been able to determine whether there is added benefit to the 

subscribed model of parent involvement 

when implemented with fidelity (6 weeks 

of meetings between the coach and parents or guardians).

Researchers also have examined the longterm effectiveness of the PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) curriculum, which focuses on developing 

students’ self-control, emotional awareness, peer relations, and problem-solving 

skills. PATHS is a component of the Fast 

Track project, a multi-site intervention 

designed to prevent serious antisocial behavior and related problems in children 

53. Walker et al. (1998).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 66 )

at high risk when entering 1st grade.54 Cohorts of participants were recruited to Fast 

Track from 1991–93, yielding a total sample of nearly 900 children. One randomized controlled trial involved 198 intervention and 180 comparison classrooms, with 

1st grade teachers delivering the PATHS 

curriculum. Findings from classroom observations and peer ratings indicated significant reductions in students’ levels of 

aggression and disruptive behavior.

Similarly, researchers have investigated 

the impact of Second Step, a violence-prevention, social and emotional learning 

program designed to reduce impulsive 

and aggressive behavior in elementary 

school students by increasing their social 

competence. The multi-lesson curriculum 

is designed for classroom teachers to deliver once or twice a week, and it includes 

discussion questions, modeling, coaching, 

and practice. At least a dozen evaluations 

have been conducted on Second Step, with 

two of the most rigorous studies described 

in more detail here. In one randomized 

trial, researchers used 6 pairs of matched 

schools, involving 790 2nd and 3rd grade 

students.55 Aggressive and prosocial behavior changes were measured two weeks 

and six months after participation in the 

curriculum by teacher reports and by 

observation of a random subsample of 

588 students in classroom, playground, 

and cafeteria settings. Although behavior observations collected by trained researchers revealed an overall decrease in 

physical aggression two weeks after the 

intervention and an increase in appropriate behaviors in the intervention group, 

with most effects persisting six months 

later, changes in teacher-reported behavior did not differ significantly between 

the intervention and comparison schools 

54. Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group (1999). For more information on the Fast 

Track project, see http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/

centers/child/fasttrack/index.html.

55. Grossman et al. (1997).

after adjusting for students’ demographic 

differences.56

The most recent evaluation of Second Step

involved 1,235 students from 15 elementary schools in 3 cities in Washington 

State.57 The findings demonstrated that 

students who participated in Second Step

were more likely to prefer prosocial goals, 

require less adult intervention, behave less 

aggressively, and (among girls) behave 

more cooperatively. Teacher ratings also 

showed increases in their students’ social 

competence and decreases in antisocial 

behaviors in the first year of the program. 

But these impacts did not persist into the 

second year, when the students’ new teachers failed to notice continued improvement in students’ behavior.

One limitation of this body of research on 

classwide social skill-building interventions, however, is that many studies examined the collective effects of multiple 

components of comprehensive intervention packages, making it difficult to determine the value-added effects of specific 

components, such as parent involvement 

modules.

Examples of classroom studies that 

demonstrate the effectiveness of 

positive reinforcement

As early as the 1960s, research studies 

demonstrated that positive reinforcement 

increased the task engagement and reduced disruptive (or “dawdling”) behavior 

of students in general education classrooms.58 Since then, however, the use of 

56. The researchers adjusted the teacher ratings 

on standardized behavior scales for the students’ 

sex, age, socioeconomic status, race, academic 

performance, household size, and class size.

57. Frey et al. (2005).

58. For example, Hall, Lund, and Jackson (1968); 

Hall et al. (1968).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 67 )

rewards in education has been veiled in 

some controversy, primarily due to a perceived negative effect on student’s intrinsic motivation. The concerns are based on 

studies conducted since the 1970s, leading 

some researchers and educators to issue 

warnings against the use of praise and 

extrinsic rewards in schools (for example, 

a concern that “token economies will produce token learners”).59

To address these concerns, a number of 

researchers have examined the large body 

of empirical studies on positive reinforcement to determine overarching findings. 

The earliest meta-analysis reviewed 128 

studies to examine the overall effects of extrinsic rewards on students’ intrinsic motivation and interest in activities.60 Findings 

revealed that several types of rewards—

engagement-contingent rewards given for 

engaging in a task regardless of completion, completion-contingent rewards given 

for completing one or more tasks, and 

performance-contingent rewards given for 

performing up to a specific standard—significantly undermined students’ return to 

and persistence in a target activity during 

a free choice period (“free-choice intrinsic 

motivation”), and their self-reported interest in the target activity. Positive feedback, 

however, enhanced both free-choice behavior and self-reported interest.

The results from two other meta-analyses 

ran counter to this earlier study and concluded that little detrimental effect was 

found with the use of external reinforcement in educational settings; in fact, rewards following and linked to appropriate behavior were related to both initial 

and long-term academic engagement and 

social success.61 The first set of researchers reviewed more than 100 experimental 

59. For example, Deci (1971); Deci et al. (1999); 

Kohn (1993).

60. Deci et al. (1999).

61. Akin-Little et al. (2004); Cameron et al. (2001).

studies conducted over the previous 30 

years.62 Results suggested that rewards 

given for low-interest tasks enhanced freechoice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produced positive effects on free-choice motivation and 

self-reported task interest. Negative effects 

were found on high-interest tasks when the 

rewards were tangible, expected (offered 

beforehand), and loosely tied to level of 

performance. When rewards were linked to 

level of performance, measures of intrinsic 

motivation increased or did not differ from 

a non-rewarded control group.

More recently, the researchers examined 

the extrinsic-intrinsic dichotomy debate 

using a meta-analytic approach that drew 

on evidence from cognitive and behavioral literatures.63 From this review, it 

was concluded that little detrimental effect was found with the use of external 

reinforcement. Specific recommendations 

on the appropriate use of reinforcement 

programs in educational settings were offered to counteract inadvertent negative 

effects when rewards were not delivered 

with vigilance—namely linking rewards 

to specific behaviors, delivering rewards 

frequently and immediately after the behavior, and gradually fading away rewards 

for appropriate behavior.

Recommendation 4. 

Draw on relationships with 

professional colleagues and 

students’ families for continued 

guidance and support

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel rated the level of evidence supporting this recommendation as moderate. One quasi-experimental64 study and 

62. Cameron et al. (2001).

63. Akin-Little et al. (2004).

64. Stevens and Slavin (1995).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 68 )

one single-subject study65 examined the 

effects of peer teacher relationships in 

improving social relationships among students or increasing student engagement 

in the classroom. Additionally, one randomized controlled trial66 confirmed the 

effectiveness of teachers’ consulting with 

behavioral experts in reducing behavior 

problems among students who exhibit 

inattentive and disruptive behaviors. Finally, two randomized controlled trials67

evaluated interventions specifically aimed 

at establishing positive teacher-parent relationships, with one study demonstrating 

decreases in problem behaviors. Although 

components of recommendation 4 are 

supported by two randomized controlled 

trials, one study focused on teachers consulting with experts on particular problem behaviors of students identified with 

attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 

and the other on a specific teacher-parent 

education and activity program. The other 

studies supporting the recommendation 

include one quasi-experimental study and 

one single subject study. Consequently, 

the panel believes that the overall level 

of evidence for this recommendation is 

moderate.

Examples of studies in which 

relationships with professional 

colleagues affect students’ social 

relations and student engagement

A quasi-experimental study considered a 

comprehensive school reform model that 

included a relationship-building component for teachers consisting of peer coaching, classroom observations, and teacher 

collaborations.68 Findings indicate that 

students from the comprehensive school 

65. Kohler et al. (1997).

66. Dunson et al. (1994).

67. Ialongo et al. (1999); Webster-Stratton et al. 

(2004).

68. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

reform programs substantially increased 

the number of peer social relationships 

relative to students in comparison schools, 

though it is unclear if the teacher relationship component alone was effective in establishing this outcome.

A single-subject study reported on the effects of peer coaching for four teachers 

representing various grade levels, content 

areas, and levels of teaching experience.69

A veteran elementary teacher with experience in coaching served as their peer 

coach and provided the teacher participants with an all-day inservice where they 

were trained on a new instructional technique and curriculum. The peer coach’s 

involvement also included seven collaborative sessions with each teacher and inclass support during these lessons. The results from this study revealed high levels 

of student engagement and participation 

for the lessons where teachers were taught 

and supported by a peer coach.

Example of one study in which 

consultation with behavioral experts 

reduces behavior problems

One randomized controlled trial that examined teacher partnerships with behavioral consultants revealed strong evidence 

that consultations with behavioral experts 

can reduce behavior problems in the classroom.70 The researchers explored the effects of having teachers whose students 

were identified with significant inattentive 

or hyperactive disorder participate in several behavioral consultation sessions that 

were structured to help the teacher identify 

and analyze problem behaviors and design 

and implement a behavior plan. Findings 

reveal that, compared with teachers with 

no consultation, those who collaborated 

with a behavioral consultant reported a 

69. Kohler et al. (1997).

70. Dunson et al. (1994).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 69 )

significant reduction in their students’ hyperactivity and in the incidence of behavior severity below clinical levels.

Examples of studies in which 

relationships with families reduce 

behavior problems

Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial that assessed the effects of 

two universal 1st grade preventive interventions on several student outcomes, 

including early risk behaviors for conduct disorders such as disruptive and 

aggressive behavior.71 One of the two interventions explored family-school partnerships, which consisted of a combination of trainings for teachers on effective 

parent-teacher partnership building and 

communication, along with weekly homeschool activities and parent workshops 

aimed to increase parental involvement 

in their child’s classroom activities. The 

study revealed that over the course of 1st 

and 2nd grades, both boys and girls in the 

intervention had significantly fewer behavior problems by the spring of 2nd grade 

relative to the comparison group.

Another randomized controlled trial examined the effects of The Incredible Years, a 

parent-teacher-child training program, on 

social competence and conduct problems 

among 4- to 8-year-old children who met 

criteria for oppositional defiant disorder.72

Parental involvement was the cornerstone 

of the parent training condition in this 

study, with parents attending weekly clinic 

visits where they participated in programs 

aimed to strengthen positive interactions 

with their children. More relevant to the 

recommendation on teacher relationship 

building, however, was the teacher training 

component where a constant theme was to 

encourage positive communication with 

71. Ialongo et al. (1999).

72. Webster-Stratton et al. (2004).

parents and strengthen parent-teacher 

collaborations.73 The study’s authors reported that comparisons between the 

treatment groups (including the treatment 

groups where teachers received training) 

and control groups showed statistically 

significant reductions in conduct problems after six months of the intervention. 

However, when the What Works Clearinghouse reviewers applied a multiple comparison adjustment to the analyses, the 

findings showed no statistically significant 

differences in child conduct problems between the intervention and comparison 

students.

Recommendation 5. 

Assess whether schoolwide 

behavior problems warrant 

adopting schoolwide strategies or 

programs and, if so, implement 

ones shown to reduce negative and 

foster positive interactions

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence supporting this recommendation to be moderate. One quasi-experimental study investigated the impact of schoolwide changes in 

structure, organization, and practices and 

determined that these changes increased 

the number of social relationships among 

students.74 In addition, four randomized 

controlled trials75 and one single-subject76

study examined the impact of specific 

73. Participants were randomly assigned to 

one of six conditions—five treatment conditions or a comparison group. Treatment conditions included: (1) parent training alone (PT); (2) 

child training alone (CT); (3) parent training plus 

teacher training (PT+TT); (4) child training plus 

teacher training (CT+TT); or (5) parent, child and 

teacher training (PT+CT+TT).

74. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

75. Conduct Problems Prevention Group (1999); 

Frey et al. (2005); Grossman et al. (1997); Ialongo 

et al. (1999).

76. Cunningham et al. (1998).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 70 )

schoolwide intervention programs, each 

study finding statistically significant positive effects for several of its behavioral 

outcomes. Although there are several randomized controlled trials to support one 

component of recommendation 5 (specific 

schoolwide intervention programs), other 

components of the recommendation (such 

as changes to the overall structure and organization of the school, and peer mediation programs implemented outside the 

classroom) are supported by quasi-experimental or single subject studies that have 

moderate levels of evidence. Consequently, 

the panel believes that a moderate designation is appropriate for the overall level of 

evidence for this recommendation.

Example of one study that 

demonstrates the effectiveness of 

schoolwide strategies

A quasi-experimental study was conducted 

on a sample of more than 1,000 2nd–6th 

grade students in five elementary schools 

to evaluate the effects of a cooperative elementary school, in which the concept of 

cooperation was embedded in the reorganization of the school’s environment and 

learning processes.77 Elements of this restructured schoolwide program included 

widespread use of cooperative learning 

and inclusion of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms; 

regular opportunities for teacher coaching 

and collaborative support; a building-level 

steering committee comprised of administrators, teachers, special services, and 

other faculty to develop goals for the school 

and act as an open forum for discussion of 

school management and policy issues; and 

numerous opportunities to encourage active family involvement at the classroom 

and schoolwide levels.

In addition to evaluating the academic 

outcomes of this schoolwide program, 

77. Stevens and Slavin (1995).

the researchers also considered behavioral outcomes by assessing the number of social relationships established 

by students. The findings indicate that 

the social relationships among students 

had greatly increased after the program 

was implemented relative to students in 

comparison schools. In addition, there 

appeared to be greater social acceptance 

of students with learning disabilities in intervention schools after the program had 

been implemented.

Examples of schoolwide interventions 

that demonstrate a reduction in 

behavior problems

A number of studies evaluated the effects 

of classroom-based curricula aimed at 

promoting positive outcomes in schoolwide behaviors and social competency 

(see recommendation 3 for a detailed description of several studies implemented 

in classrooms). One example involves 

a randomized controlled trial that explored the impact of a preventive intervention program for 1st graders at high 

risk for long-term antisocial behavior.78

This program consisted of several components, such as social skills training and 

academic tutoring sessions that occurred 

during two hours of extracurricular enrichment programs provided to students 

and families. One of the components of 

the program was PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies), a schoolwide curriculum that was implemented 

by teachers in an average of two to three 

lessons a week during the school year. 

Lessons from the curriculum addressed 

four domains of skills: emotional understanding and communication, friendship, 

self-control, and social problem-solving. The study found that by the end of 

1st grade, significantly fewer aggressive 

and disruptive behavior problems were 

found among students in the intervention 

78. Conduct Problems Prevention Group (1999).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 71 )

schools compared with those who did not 

receive the intervention.

One single-subject study considered an 

intervention that targeted behavior problems occurring on school playgrounds.79

Fifth grade students were trained in a 

conflict resolution program and were 

79. Cunningham et al. (1998).

involved in peer mediation teams that 

intervened within 10 seconds of the start 

of a conflict. The study found that the 

peer mediators successfully resolved approximately 90 percent of the playground 

conflicts in which they intervened and 

that physically aggressive playground 

incidents were reduced by 51–65 percent when the mediation program was 

implemented.
( 72 )

References

Adams, K., & Christenson, S. (2000). Trust 

and the family-school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences 

in elementary and secondary grades.

Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 

477–97.

Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years 

beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational 

Achievement Systems.

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2005). The school 

leader’s guide to student learning supports: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Corwin Press. 

Akin-Little, K., Eckert, T., Lovett, B., & 

Little, S. (2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom: Bribery or best 

practice. School Psychology Review, 33, 

344–62.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for 

educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: AERA Publications. 

American Psychological Association. 

(2002). Criteria for practice guideline 

development and evaluation. American 

Psychologist, 57, 1058–51.

Annenberg Institute for School Reform. 

(n.d.). Instructional coaching: Professional development strategies that improve instruction. Providence, RI: Author. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from 

http://www.annenberginstitute.org/

pdf/InstructionalCoaching.pdf.

Axelrod, S., & Mathews, S. (Eds.) (2003). 

How to improve behavior series. Austin, 

TX: ProEd.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. 

New York: General Learning Press.

Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). 

Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a 

classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 2, 119–24.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effect of the 

Child Development Project on students’ 

drug use and other problem behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 

21(1), 75–99.

Bear, G. (1998). School discipline in the 

United States: Prevention, correction, and long-term social development. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 

724–42.

Beard, K., & Sugai, G. (2004). First Step to 

Success: An early intervention for elementary children at risk for antisocial 

behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 29(4), 

396–409.

Bempechat, J. (1998). Against the odds: How 

“at-risk” children exceed expectations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bradley, R., Doolittle, J., Lopez, F., Smith, 

J., & Sugai, G. (2007). Discipline: Improved understanding and implementation. OSEP Part B Regulations Regional 

Implementation Meeting: Building the 

Legacy IDEA 2004, Washington, DC, 

January 30.

Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P. (in 

press). Examining the effects of schoolwide PBS on student outcomes: Results 

from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.

Brophy, J. (1981). On praising effectively. 

Elementary School Journal, 81(5), 

268–78.

Brophy, J. (1983). Classroom organization 

and management. Elementary School 

Journal, 83(4), 265–85.

Broussard, C., & Northup, J. (1995). An approach to functional assessment and 

analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10(2), 151–64.

Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002) Trust in 

schools: A core resource for improvement. 

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cameron, J., Banko, K., & Pierce, W. (2001). 

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on 

intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 1–44. 
References

( 73 )

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: 

A meta-analysis. Review of Educational 

Research, 64(3), 363–423.

Christenson, S., & Christenson, C. (1998). 

Family, school, and community influences on children’s learning: A literature 

review (Report No. 1, Live and Learn 

Project). Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota Extension Service.

Christenson, S., & Sheridan, L. (2001). 

School and families: Creating essential 

connections for learning. New York: 

Guilford Press.

Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school 

achievement. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

Colvin, G. (2004). Managing the cycle of 

acting-out behavior in the classroom. 

Eugene, OR: Behavior Associates.

Colvin, G., Ainge, D., & Nelson, R. (1997). 

How to defuse defiance, threats, challenges, confrontations. Exceptional Children, 29(6), 47–51. 

Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1989). Managing escalating behavior. Eugene, OR: Behavior 

Associates.

Commission on Chronic Illness. (1957). 

Chronic illness in the United States

(vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group (1999). Initial impact of the Fast 

Track Prevention Trail for conduct problems: Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 

648–57.

Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: RandMcNally.

Cotton, K. (1989). Educational time factors. 

Close-Up No. 8. Portland, OR: Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://

www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu8.html.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1987). 

Academy for effective instruction: Working with mildly handicapped students.

Reston, VA: Author.

Cunningham, C., Cunningham, L., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primary 

division, student-mediated conflict resolution programs on playground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology 

and Psychiatry, 39(5), 653–62.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National 

standards and assessments: Will they 

improve education? American Journal 

of Education, 102, 479–511.

Daunic, A., Smith, S., Brank, E., & Penfield, R. (2006). Classroom based cognitive-behavioral intervention to prevent aggression: Efficacy and social 

validity. Journal of School Psychology, 

44, 123–39.

Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Davis, C., Lane, K., Sutherland, K., Gunter, 

P., Denny, R., Pickens, P., & Wehby, J. 

(2004). Differentiating curriculum and 

instruction on behalf of students with 

emotional and behavioral disorders 

within general education settings. In 

L. Bullock, R. Gable, & K. Melloy (Eds.), 

Fifth CCBD Mini-Library Series: Meeting the Diverse Needs of Children and 

Youth with E/BD—Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. Arlington, VA: 

Council for Children with Behavior 

Disorders. 

Deci, E. (1971). Intrinsic motivation. New 

York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A 

meta-analytic review of experiments 

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–68.

Dolan, L., Kellam, S., Brown, C., WerthamerLarsson, L., Rebok, G., Mayer, L., Laudolff, J., & Turkkan, J. (1993). The shortterm impact of two classroom-based 

preventive interventions on aggressive 

and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental 

Psychology, 14, 317–45.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock 

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 
References

( 74 )

3rd edition (pp. 392–431). New York: 

Macmillan.

Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook 

of research on curriculum (pp. 486–516). 

New York: Macmillan.

Dunlap, G., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., & Gomez, 

A. (1994). Choice making to promote 

adaptive behavior for students with 

emotional and behavioral challenges. 

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 

27, 505–18.

Dunson, R., Hughes, J., & Jackson, T. (1994). 

Effect of behavioral consultation on student and teacher behavior. Journal of 

School Psychology, 32, 247–66.

DuPaul, G., Ervin, R., Hook, C., & McGoey, 

K. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and 

academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 31, 579–92.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1983). Theory 

of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.

Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community 

partnerships: Caring for the children we 

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–12.

Epstein, M., Nelson, J., Trout, A., & Mooney, 

P. (2005). Achievement and emotional 

disturbance: Academic status and intervention research. In M. Epstein, K. 

Kutash, & A. Duchnowski (Eds.), Outcomes for children with emotional and 

behavioral disorders and their families. 

Programs and evaluation best practices

(Second Edition) (pp. 451–77). Austin, 

TX: ProEd.

Ervin, R., Kern, L., Clarke, S., DuPaul, G., 

Dunlap, G., & Friman, P. (2000). Evaluating assessment-based intervention 

strategies for students with ADHD and 

comorbid disorders within the natural 

classroom context. Behavioral Disorders, 25(4), 344–58.

Ervin, R., Radford, R., Bertsch, K., Piper, 

A., Ernhardt, K., & Poling, A. (2001). A 

descriptive analysis and critique of the 

empirical literature on school-based 

functional assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 193–210.

Evertson, C. (1989). Improving elementary classroom management: A schoolbased training program for beginning 

the year. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 82–90.

Everston, C., & Harris, A. (1995). Classroom Organization and Management 

Program: Revalidation submission to the 

Program Effectiveness Panel (PEP), U.S. 

Department of Education. Nashville, TN: 

Vanderbilt University, Peabody College 

(ED 403 247).

Evertson, C., Emmer, E., & Worsham, M. 

(2006). Classroom management for elementary teachers (7th Edition). Boston: 

Allyn & Bacon.

Evertson, C., & Smithey, M. (2000). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom 

practice: An experimental field study. 

The Journal of Educational Research, 

93(5), 294–304.

Field, M., & Lohr, K. (Eds.). (1990). Clinical 

practice guidelines: Directions for a new 

program. Washington, DC: Institute of 

Medicine.

Frey, K., Nolen, S., Van Schojack-Edstrom, 

L., & Hirschstein, M. (2005). Effects of 

a school-based social competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. The Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 

171–200.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Simmons, D., and Mayes, 

P. (2008). Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: Reading methods of grades 2-6 

(Revised edition). Nashville: Vanderbilt 

Kennedy Center for Research on Human 

Development, Vanderbilt University.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al 

Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, 

M., & O’Connor, R. (2002). Exploring 

the importance of reading programs 

for kindergartners with disabilities in 

mainstream classrooms. Exceptional 

Children, 68(3), 295–311. 

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New 

York: Teachers College Press.
References

( 75 )

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in 

classrooms (9th edition). Boston: Allyn 

& Bacon.

Greenberg, M., Weissberg, R., O’Brien, M., 

Zins, J., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & 

Elias, M. (2003). Enhancing school-based 

prevention and youth development 

through coordinated social, emotional, 

and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–74.

Gresham, F. (2004). Establishing the technical adequacy of functional behavioral 

assessment: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 

28(3), 282–98.

Gresham, F., McIntyre, L., Olson-Tinker, 

H., Dolstra, L., McLaughlin, V., & Van, 

M. (2004). Relevance of functional 

behavioral assessment research for 

school-based interventions and positive 

behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 19–37.

Grossman, D., Neckerman, H., Koepsell, 

T., Liu, P., Asher, K., Beland, K., Frey, 

K., & Rivara, F. (1997). Effectiveness 

of a violence prevention curriculum 

among children in elementary school. 

The Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605–11.

Hall, R., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). 

Effects of teacher attention on study 

behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 1, 1–12.

Hall, R., Panyan, M., Rabon, D., & Broden, 

M. (1968). Instructing beginning teachers in reinforcement procedures which 

improve classroom control. Journal of 

Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 315–22.

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction: 

Effective classroom practices report.

Washington, DC: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, Center 

for Applied Special Technology, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special 

Education Programs. Retrieved July 10, 

2008, from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html. 

Hall, V., & Hall, M. (1998–2004). How to 

manage behavior series. Austin, TX: 

ProEd.

Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the 

first-grade classroom make a difference 

for children at risk of school failure? 

Child Development, 76(5), 949–67.

Harry, B., & Kalyanpur, M. (1994). Cultural 

under-pinnings of special education: 

Implications for professional interactions with culturally diverse families. 

Disability & Society, 9(2),145–65.

Harvey, M., Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R., 

& Sugai, G. (2003). Trans-situational interventions: Generalization of behavior 

support across school and home environments. Behavioral Disorders, 28(3), 

299–312.

Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, 

A. (2000). Functional assessment-based 

intervention research on students with 

or at risk for emotional and behavioral 

disorders in school settings. Behavioral 

Disorders, 25(3), 196–210.

Heller, L., & Fantuzzo, J. (1993). Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a 

difference? School Psychology Review, 

22(3), 517–34.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new 

generation of evidence: The family is 

critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for 

Citizens in Education.

Hoerr, T. (1996). Collegiality: A new way 

to define instructional leadership. Phi 

Delta Kappan, 77(5), 380–81.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Sandler, 

H., Whetsel, D., Green, C., Wilkins, A., & 

Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and 

implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–30.

Horner, R. (1994). Functional assessment: 

Contributions and future directions. 

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 

27, 401–04.

Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., 

Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use 

of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–79.
References

( 76 )

Horner, R., & Spaulding, S. (in press). Rewards. Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan Reference.

Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, 

L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, 

J. (in press). A randomized controlled 

trial assessing schoolwide positive behavior support in elementary schools. 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral 

Disorders.

Howard, G. R. (2007). As diversity grows, 

so must we. Educational Leadership, 

64(6), 16–22.

Hughes, J., Loyd, L., & Buss, M. (2007). Empirical and theoretical support for an 

updated model of mental health consultation for schools. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. 

Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of Research 

in School Consultation (pp. 343–60). 

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ialongo, N., Wethamer, L., Kellam, S., 

Brown, C., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999). 

Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk 

behaviors for later substance abuse, 

depression, and anti-social behavior. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(5), 599–641.

Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., 

& Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact 

of two first grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. Journal of 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,

9(3), 146–60.

Imel, S. (1991). Collaborative learning in 

adult education. Columbus, OH: ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education (ERIC Digest No. 113).

Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. 

(2005). Function-based intervention 

planning: Comparing the effectiveness 

of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal 

of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 

224–36.

Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T., Sprague, J., Sugai, G., 

& Vincent, C. (2004). Validity of office 

discipline referral measures as indices 

of schoolwide behavioral status and 

effects of schoolwide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior 

Interventions, 6(3), 131–47.

Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the 

relation of parental involvement to 

urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 

40(3), 237–69.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 

40, 4–8.

Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989). School renewal as cultural change. Educational Leadership, 

47(3), 70–77.

Kamps, D., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, 

M. (2006). Active teacher participation 

in functional behavior assessment for 

students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 

31(2), 128–46.

Kellam, S. (1999). The influence of the firstgrade classroom on the development of 

aggressive behavior. Phi Delta Kappan, 

25, 4–8.

Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). 

Class-wide curriculum modification to 

improve the behavior of students with 

emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 27, 317–26.

Kern, L., Childs, K., Dunlap, G., Clarke, 

S., & Falk, G. (1994). Using an assessment-based curricular intervention to 

improve the classroom behavior of a 

student with emotional and behavioral 

challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 27, 7–19.

Kern, L., & Clemens, N. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate 

classroom behavior. Psychology in the 

Schools, 44(1), 65–75.

Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., 

& Childs, K. (2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using 

individualized curricular modifications. 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 239–47.
References

( 77 )

Kern, L., Maher, C., Choutka, C., & Sokol, 

N. (2002). Antecedent-based antecedent 

interventions used in natural settings 

to reduce challenging behavior: An 

analysis of the literature. Education and 

Treatment of Children, 25, 113–30.

Kern, L., Mantegna, M.E., Vorndran, C., 

Bailin, D., & Hilt, A. (2001). Choice of 

task sequence to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior 

Interventions, 3, 3–10.

Kerr, M., & Nelson, C. (1989). Strategies 

for managing behavior problems in the 

classroom (Second Edition). New York: 

Macmillan. 

Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches 

make progress through partnership. 

Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 

32–37.

Kohler, F., McCullough, C., Shearer, D., & 

Good, G. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teacher and student outcomes. 

Journal of Educational Research, 90(2), 

240–50.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The 

trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, 

A’s, praise and other bribes. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin.

Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group 

management in classrooms. New York: 

Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, Inc.

Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A., & Lynn, N. 

(2006). School-based mental health: An 

empirical guide for decision-makers. 

Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, 

The Louis de la Parte Florida Mental 

Health Institute, Department of Child 

and Family Studies, Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health. 

Lane, K., Rogers, L., Parks, R., Weisenbach, 

J., Mau, A., Merwin, M., & Bergman, W. 

(2007). Function-based interventions 

for students who are nonresponsive 

to primary and secondary prevention 

efforts: Illustrations at the elementary 

and middle school levels. Journal of 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 

15(3), 169–83. 

Lane, K., Weisenbach, J., Little, M., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2007). Designing, 

implementing, and evaluating functionbased interventions using a systematic, 

feasible approach. Behavioral Disorders, 

32(2), 122–39.

Lannie, A., & McCurdy, B. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban 

classroom: Effects of the Good Behavior 

Game on student and teacher behavior. 

Education and Treatment of Children, 

30(1), 85–98.

Learning First Alliance. (2001). Every 

child learning: Safe and supportive 

schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from: http://

www.learningfirst.org/publications/

safeschools/.

Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Using 

an instructional intervention to reduce 

problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 

1(4), 195–204.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education 

Schools Project.

Lewis, T., Hudson, S., Richter, M., & Johnson, N. (2004). Scientifically supported 

practices in emotional and behavioral 

disorders: a proposed approach and 

brief review of current practices. Behavioral Disorders, 29(3), 247–59.

Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor 

the Boat: A classwide intervention to reduce problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 113–20.

Maag, J. (1999) Behavior management:

From theoretical implications to practical applications. San Diego: Singular 

Press.

Mace, F., Belfiore, P., & Hutchinson, J. 

(2001). Operant theory and research 

on self-regulation. In B. Zimmerman & 

D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning 

and academic achievement: Theoretical 

perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 39–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martens, B., & DiGennaro, F. (2007). Behavioral consultation. In W. Erchul & S. 

Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of Research 

in School Consultation (pp. 147–70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
References

( 78 )

McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A. (1997). Skillstreaming the elementary school child: 

New strategies and perspectives for 

teaching prosocial skills. Champaign, 

IL: Research Press.

McKevitt, B., & Braaksma, A. (2004). Best 

practices in developing a Positive Behavior Support system at the school 

level. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), 

Best practices in school psychology V

(pp. 735–48). Bethesda, MD: National 

Association of School Psychologists.

Merrell, K., Merz, J., Johnson, E., & Ring, E. 

(1992). Social competence of students 

with mild handicaps and low achievement: A comparative study. School Psychology Review, 21, 125–37.

MetLife, Inc. (2006). The MetLife Survey of 

the American Teacher 2006. Expectations 

and experiences. New York: Author.

Montague, M., Enders, C., & Castro, M. 

(2005). Academic and behavioral outcomes of students at risk for emotional 

and behavioral disorders. Behavioral 

Disorders, 31(1), 83–92.

Moore, D., Anderson, A., & Kumar, K. (2005). 

Instructional adaptation in the management of escape-maintained behavior in 

a classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 216–23.

Morgan, M. (1984). Reward-induced decrements and increments in intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 

54, 5–30.

Mueller, M., Edwards, R., & Trahant, D. 

(2003). Translating multiple assessment techniques into an intervention 

selection model for classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(4), 

563–73.

Nelson, J. (1996a). Designing schools to 

meet the needs of students who exhibit disruptive behavior. Journal of 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 

147–61.

Nelson, J. (1996b). Think Time Strategy for 

schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Nelson, J., Benner, G., Lane, K., & Smith, B. 

(2004). Academic achievement of K–12 

students with emotional and behavioral 

disorders. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 

59–73.

Nelson, J., Johnson, A. & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and 

independent learning practices on the 

classroom behavior of students with 

behavioral disorders: A comparative 

analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(1), 53–62.

Newcomer, L., & Lewis, T. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and 

effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 168–81.

Newman, L., Davies-Mercier, E., & Marder, 

C. (2003). School engagement of youth 

with disabilities. In M. Wagner, C. 

Marder, J. Blackorby, R. Cameto, L. Newman, P. Levine, & E. Davies-Mercier 

(Eds.), The achievements of youth with 

disabilities during secondary school. 

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Novick, R. (1999). Actual schools, possible 

practices: New directions in professional 

development. Portland, OR: Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A 

strategy for developing instructional capacity. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute 

Program on Education, and Providence, 

RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved February 29, 2008, 

from http://www.annenberginstitute.

org/pdf/Coaching.pdf.

O’Neill, R., Horner, R., Albin, R., Sprague, J., 

Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (Second Edition). Pacific 

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. 

Office of Special Education Programs: Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. 

(2008). Schoolwide PBS. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.pbis.org/

schoolwide.htm#SystemsApproach.

Payne, L., Scott, T., & Conroy, M. (2007). 

A school-based examination of the 
References

( 79 )

efficacy of function-based intervention. 

Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 158–74.

Peterson, L., Young, K., Salzberg, D., West, 

R., & Hill, M. (2006). Using self-management procedures to improve classroom 

social skills in multiple general education settings. Education and Treatment 

of Children, 29, 1–21.

Pianta, R., La Paro, K., Payne, C., Cox, M., 

& Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to 

teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. Elementary 

School Journal, 102, 225–38.

Reid, R., Gonzalez, J., Nordness, P., Trout, 

A., & Epstein, M. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students 

with emotional/behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Education, 

34(3), 130–43.

Reiss, S. (2005). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation at 30: Unresolved scientific issues. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 1–14.

Rivera, M., Al-Otaiba, S., & Koorland, M. 

(2006). Reading instruction for students 

with emotional and behavioral disorders and at risk of antisocial behaviors 

in primary grades: Review of literature. 

Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 323–37.

Rosenshine, B. (1980). How time is spent in 

elementary classrooms. In C. Denham & 

A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 

107–26). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute 

of Education.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), 

AERA handbook of research on teaching, 3rd Edition (pp. 376–91). New York: 

Macmillan.

Ryan, J., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. (2004). A 

review of peer mediated intervention 

studies on academic achievement for 

students with emotional and behavior 

disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 330–41.

Sasso, G., Conroy, M., Stichter, J., & Fox, J. 

(2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: 

The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional 

or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 282–96.

Sasso, G., Reimers, T., Cooper, L., Wacker, 

D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descriptive and 

experimental analyses to identify the 

functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 809–21.

Schunk, D. (1983). Reward contingencies 

and the development of children’s skills 

and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 75, 511–18.

Schwarz, D., Flamant, R., & Lellouch, J. 

(1980). Clinical trials. London: Academic 

Press.

Scott, T., & Barrett, S. (2004). Using staff 

and student time engaged in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact 

of schoolwide PBS. Journal of Positive 

Behavior Interventions, 6, 21–27.

Scott, T., & Kamps, D. (2007). The future 

of functional behavioral assessment in 

school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 

32(3), 146–57.

Scott, T., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, 

C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. (2005). An 

examination of the relation between 

functional behavior assessment and 

selected intervention strategies with 

school-based teams. Journal of Positive 

Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 205–15.

Shade, B., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sheridan, S., Eagle, J., Cowan, R., & Mickelson, W. (2001). The effects of conjoint 

behavioral consultation: Results of a 

4-year investigation. Journal of School 

Psychology, 39(5), 361–85.

Skinner, B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Slavin, R. (1994). Quality, appropriateness, incentive, and time: A model of 

instructional effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 

21, 141–57.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1992). Creating 
References

( 80 )

a caring community: Educational practices that promote children’s prosocial 

development. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & 

J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible 

teaching: The new synthesis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Special Education Elementary Longitudinal 

Study, Wave 1 Teacher Survey. (2001). 

Table 157, Hours of continuing professional development in past 12 months. 

Table 156: Participated in continuing 

professional development for 8 or more 

hours within the past 3 years. Retrieved 

April 8, 2008, from http://www.seels.

net/search/tables/5/st1f10frm.html and 

http://www.seels.net/search/tables/5/

st1f9frm.html, respectively.

Spencer, V. G. (2006). Peer tutoring and 

students with emotional or behavioral 

disorders: A review of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 204–22.

Stahr, B., Cushing, D., Lane, K., & Fox, J. 

(2006). Efficacy of a function-based intervention in decreasing off-task behavior exhibited by a student with ADHD. 

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(4), 201–11.

Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on 

students’ achievement, attitudes, and 

social relations. American Educational 

Research Journal, 32(2), 321–51.

Stright, A., Neitzel, C., Sears, K., & HokeSinex, L. (2001). Instruction begins in 

the home: Relations between parental 

instruction and children’s self-regulation in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 456–66.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. (2007). Promotion and prevention in mental health: 

Strengthening parenting and enhancing child resilience. DHHS Publication 

No. CMHS-SVP-0175. Rockville, MD: 

Author.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: Schoolwide 

positive behavior supports. Child & 

Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.

Sugai, G., Horner, R., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T., Nelson, C., Scott, 

T., Liauspin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, 

A., Turnbull, H., Wickham, D., Wilcox, 

B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive 

behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 

2, 131–43.

Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Gresham, F. (2001). 

Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. Shinn, G. Slover, & H. 

Walker, (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems. Silver 

Spring, MD: National Association of 

School Psychologists.

Sugai, G., Sprague, J., Horner, R., & Walker, 

H. (2000). Preventing school violence: 

The use of office discipline referrals 

to assess and monitor schoolwide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 

94–101.

Sutherland, K., Adler, N., & Gunter, P. (2003). 

The effects of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests 

on the classroom behavior of students 

with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–48.

Sutherland, K., & Wehby, J. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased 

opportunities to respond to academic 

requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A 

review. Remedial and Special Education, 

22(2), 113–21.

Todd, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G. (1999). Selfmonitoring and self-recruited praise: 

Effects on problem behavior, academic 

engagement, and work completion in a 

typical classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(2), 66–76, 122.

Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment 

and intervention in a regular classroom 

setting for the disruptive behavior of a 

student with ADHD. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 267–78.

Umbreit, J., Lane, K., & Dejud, C. (2004). Improving classroom behavior by modifying task difficulty: Effects of increasing 
References

( 81 )

the difficulty of too-easy tasks. Journal 

of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 

13–20.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). 

Schools and Staffing Survey, Public 

Teacher Questionnaire, 2003–04. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 15, 2008, 

from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d07/tables/dt07_064.asp.

Vincent, C., Horner, R. & Sugai, G. (2002). 

Developing Social Competence for All 

Students. Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children (ED 468 

560). Retrieved May 19, 2008 from, 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/

data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_

01/0000019b/80/1a/63/b4.pdf.

Wagner, M., Marder, C., & Chorost, M. (2004). 

Instructional settings. In J. Blackorby, M. 

Wagner, R. Cameto, C. Marder, P. Levine, 

M. Chorost, & A. Guzman, Inside the classroom: The language arts classroom experiences of elementary and middle school 

students with disabilities. Menlo Park, 

CA: SRI International. Retrieved April 

8, 2008, from http://www.seels.net/

designdocs/SEELS_W1C4_Ch3_Setting_

042104final.pdf.

Walker, H. (1995). The acting-out child: Coping with classroom disruption (2nd Edition). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). 

Antisocial behavior in public school: 

Strategies and best practices. Pacific 

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H., Golly, A., McLane, J., & Kimmich, M. (2005). The Oregon First Step 

to Success replication initiative: Statewide results of an evaluation of the program’s impact. Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders, 13, 163–72.

Walker, H., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, 

A., Severson, H., & Feil, E. (1998). First 

Step to Success: An early intervention 

approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders, 6(2), 66–80.

Walker, H., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. 

(2004). How disruptive students escalate hostility and disorder—and how 

teachers can avoid it. American Education (2003-2004). 

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, 

M. (2004). Treating children with earlyonset conduct problems: Intervention 

outcomes for parent, child, and teacher 

training. Journal of Clinical Child and 

Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 105–24.

Wentzel, K. (2003). Motivating students 

to behave in socially competent ways.

Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 319–26.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D., & Sugai, G. (1988). 

Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis 

with exceptional children. Boston: Allyn 

& Bacon.

Zins, J., Bloodworth, M., Weissberg, R., & 

Wahlberg, H. (2004). The scientific base 

linking social and emotional learning to 

school success. In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, 

M. Wang, & H. Wahlberg (Eds.), Building 

academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research 

say? (pp. 3–22). New York: Teachers College Press.