Abstract
This study examined data from 96 schools in a Southeastern U.S. state participating in training and/or coaching on School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) provided by the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) in their state. Schools studied either received training only (“non-intensive” sites) or training and on-site coaching (“intensive” sites). Fidelity of implementation was self-evaluated by both types of schools using the Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ). Some schools were also externally evaluated using the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET), with those scoring 80% or higher determined “model sites.” Using an independent sample t-test, analyses revealed statistically significant differences between intensive and nonintensive schools’ Quality of Distribution Index (QDI) scores and between model sites and nonmodel sites on QDI scores. Correlations were performed to determine whether the fidelity of implementation of SWPBIS as measured by the BOQ was related to any of the state’s accountability measures: performance classification, QDI, or growth.
Highlights
In 2005, the State Board of Education adopted the ThreeTier Instructional Model (MDE, 2012) to meet students’ needs
The aim of this research is to determine (a) if the level of training and coaching received by the schools was related to the schools’ Quality of Distribution Index (QDI); (b) if the schools’ classification into “model sites” or “non-model sites” based on the results of the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET) instrument was related to the schools’ QDI; (c) if the levels of training and coaching and the results of the SET instrument that classified the schools into “model sites” and “non-model sites” were related to the schools’ QDI, and (d) if the level of SchoolWide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) implementation fidelity, Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ), was related to the schools’ performance classifications, QDI, or Growth status
The first research objective sought to determine whether the intensity of the training was related to the schools’ QDI
Summary
In 2005, the State Board of Education adopted the ThreeTier Instructional Model (MDE, 2012) to meet students’ needs. The Response to Intervention (RtI) movement gave a way to monitor progress toward accountability targets as stated by Carney and Stiefel (2008) These systems provide a framework for schools to provide interventions and supports to students as they encounter difficulty in the classroom (MDE, 2010). The resulting score is utilized to rank schools and school districts as follows: A, Star School; B, High Performing; C, Successful; D, Academic Watch; and F, Low Performing, At-Risk of Failing, and Failing The use of both Performance Classifications allows districts, schools, and parents to understand how the former classification, used during the 2011-2012 school year, relates to the letter grades approved by the State Board of Education for the 2012-2013 school year (MDE, 2013). The Performance Classification summarizes the performance of schools and school districts after all the state’s accountability measures have been accounted for
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
