The Verdict on School-wide Positive Behaviour Supports

SWPBS (School-wide Positive Behaviour Supports) are increasingly being rolled out across the education departments of Australian states in an effort to address the increasing impact of behavioural issues on teaching and learning in Australian schools. The approach is evidence-based, and is supported by significant research that suggests this is a highly effective method of achieving positive outcomes related to problematic behaviours. The main aim is to put in place an environment where behavioural triggers are limited and provide a system of supports to students, both universally and more individually targeted, to prevent and address behaviours that are considered problematic. It’s a fairly noble aim, and in a perfect world, with all aspects in place, it may just live up to the hype. However, we don’t live in a perfect world, and SWPBS does not work - and here’s why…

It's Time Consuming
Ask any teacher - what are they most short of in order to do their job to the best of their ability. I have a strong suspicion a high percentage would suggest time as a critical factor. With increased administrative requirements and more complex planning systems, on top of the many additional roles a teacher must undertake in addition to their actual teaching responsibilities, time is in short supply. Unfortunately, SWPBS takes up a significant amount of time in both establishing the processes and then maintaining them, and this is an immediate red flag for teachers.

Professional Learning (PL) or Professional Development (PD) is an essential part of what teachers need to undertake in order to build their skills and I don’t know many teachers who would argue against PL/PD. However, SWPBS requires A LOT of PL/PD and teachers simply don’t have the time to devote to this. Even if scheduled as part of their school’s meetings there are a million other tasks that require tending to, most of which are more pressing and more immediately relevant, so it is difficult to motivate oneself in such a circumstance. Beyond the individual, if it is to be introduced properly (or “with fidelity” as the SWPBS literature says is necessary), the process can take years to introduce. Like any lengthy project, it is often difficult to see the immediate benefit from undertaking such a project. Added to this is the challenge of staff movement. If new staff members arrive, they need to undertake the same lengthy training in order for the processes to be implemented consistently (a major factor in SWPBS’ success) and this cannot be achieved overnight, so immediately, as a new staff member who may be unfamiliar with SWPBS (or the individual school’s version of SWPBS) steps in, a hole is created that cannot be rapidly filled. This sets up a situation where schools can be constantly chasing their tails, as in the great majority of schools there is movement either within or between school years.

Aside from any of this, the monitoring of behaviours, the additional meetings and all that goes along with administering SWPBS in the classroom can add hours to a tired teacher’s week. With the process being so dependent on everything being delivered exactly as planned (which fails to account for the human element of what we are working with and the inevitable mistakes or natural variation with which it is conveyed) there is a considerable chance that failure is somewhere nearing inevitable.

Too Complex
As previously alluded to, SWPBS consists of a wide range of processes that must be established before it can even commence. This can sometimes take years to organise effectively, and in the interloping years there can be considerable confusion about how to respond to behavioural issues.

The range of documents that need to be created including Functional Behaviour Assessments and Positive Behaviour Support Plans (amongst others) are complex and need regular revision. I am not for a moment suggesting that these do not have value, but for the time and energy expended, there is some argument to suggest they may not provide “bang for buck” in terms of the benefits gained opposed to the efforts undertaken. The classroom is a dynamic and immediate environment and this often calls for simple and instantaneously operable solutions to behavioural issues. The complexity of SWPBS may allow this, but in a highly scripted and manufactured way, often not in tune with the human elements at play in circumstances that require fast and decisive action to maintain the safety and wellbeing of students.

Studies I have read suggest less than 5% of schools who claim to be undertaking SWPBS are doing so “with fidelity”. If less than 1 in 20 schools can implement this to a good standard, doesn’t this say something about the suitability of the program?

Too Expensive
Just as teachers need time, schools need money to run their programs. SWPBS does not come cheap due to the myriad of processes that need to be in place, the dedicated staffing that needs to be allocated to leading it and the length of time required to establish and administer the program. These elements all contribute to additional costs, and in the government school sector, in particular, even schools who attempt to implement SWPBS are rarely able to do so “with fidelity” as is so often demanded by the literature. Why? Because simply the money is not there. Money to finance extended PL/PD, money to replace staff members in their teaching capacity to undertake the meetings required, money to staff a position within the school that deals directly with leading the implementation and maintenance of SWPBS. Many schools claim to be running SWPBS, but they are often cutting corners and as suggested before, due to each element being highly reliant upon the other elements functioning in the manner spelled out in SWPBS literature, a single weak link means the program crashes and burns (often spectacularly). I find it difficult to believe that were a cost/benefit analysis conducted on the implementation of SWPBS in your average school it would indicate that the benefits gained were equal to or greater than the expense incurred.

No Consequences
A big issue that many teachers and families have with SWPBS is that there seems to be little consequence for inappropriate actions on behalf of the student. Obviously, there are obstacles that many students face in terms of what we might term “appropriate” decision-making when it comes to their behaviour. However, if there are no consequences for these decisions how will they learn to try to avoid them in the future? SWPBS seems to be built upon a “no consequence” model, where every focus is looking at antecedents to behavioural choices. Of course this is relevant, as there are triggers to behaviour, but every behaviour is a choice, and with every choice there should be a consequence. There seems to be little opportunity or impetus for students who have behaved inappropriately to own or take responsibility for this. If there are no consequences for their chosen behaviour, then is the behaviour being discouraged? Is SWPBS creating a generation of people for whom their inappropriate actions have no consequences? Imagine the possible extrapolations and dangers this may present, to the student and to the target of their behaviour. To take this further, where in society does inappropriate behaviour not have (at least a stated) consequence? This appears so out of step with the society our schools are meant to represent that one must question how the confused student can integrate the expectations of them as individuals within the school environment with those of wider society. Surely this is the biggest and most important inconsistency.

Resilience
I begin this section by acknowledging that the literature seems to suggest quite universally that SWPBS is associated with increased resilience. Certainly, some of the approaches, such as “front loading” students with skills to respond to challenging situations (often named Tier 1 supports) would appear to have merit. However, given the small number of schools that are able to implement SWPBS “with fidelity” some doubts must be cast upon these claims as a wider picture.

I have long had qualms about the current movement towards all teachers developing instructional techniques that are identical. Whilst I see the argument, that predictability can be useful to students, I also have concerns about what this means for the development of resilience in children. We develop resilience by being exposed to and finding solutions to a range of circumstances and situations. It is difficult to picture how this ability can develop if all interactions, instruction and responses are framed in identical ways. I also see the opposite point of view, that dealing with a range of differing approaches may cause confusion. However, surely it is at that point of confusion where resilience is developed. In teaching, students are often introduced to a point in their understanding that is referred to as the learning pit, because they are dealing with unknown and possibly confusing content. If this is encouraged for academic learning, why is it not considered appropriate for social and emotional development? This is one of the many contradictions I see in schools, and one of the reasons I have reservations about the effectiveness of SWPBS.

Students are Sick of it
Within the SWPBS framework, one aspect relates to establishing protocols each year, as students begin in their new class. This is reasonable, and could be considered a positive way to establish expectations in the classroom and across the school. I have absolutely no issues with this, with the exception of one small obstacle…the students are sick of it. Each year for the first month the same processes are repeated and students spew out the same comments and ideas they vomited forth the previous year, as a necessary pre-cursor to getting into the “real” teaching and learning. Just as I have witnessed the disdain with which they approach regular NAPLAN, Essential Assessment testing or the surveys based around student agency (well meaning, but horribly overused), I have seen students roll their eyes and groan each year when the same old routines are rolled out. If all these standard-setting measures are required, could we at least find a new and engaging way to present them? This boredom and frustration at the beginning of the year sets a negative tone and attitude towards SWPBS and certainly doesn’t help engagement with the ongoing social skills lessons that occur under the SWPBS banner. This in itself may contribute to the lack of effectiveness, and encourage teachers to vary from the “script” to regain the engagement of students (which as has been indicated before, leads to SWPBS not being implemented “with fidelity” and therefore losing impact). If the great majority of students are under-engaged, how can it possibly find success?

There is absolutely no doubt that SWPBS has value in a perfect world, but in the absence of a perfect world, and a proven inability of this program to be delivered as intended in the great majority of environments, is this really the solution to problem behaviour in our schools?

Image by Lilartsy