University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

(USC Thesis Other)

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

KMO Factors Influencing the Culturally Responsive Implementation of PBIS:
A Mixed-Methods Study
by
Daniel G. Russell, Jr.

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Daniel G. Russell, Jr. 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Daniel G. Russell, Jr. certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kathy Stowe
Jane Rosenthal Dieken
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The persistence of overrepresentation of Black students in exclusionary discipline remains a
problem despite the implementation of the positive and practice discipline framework called
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Racial disparities in exclusionary
discipline can be mitigated, though, if PBIS is implemented with cultural and contextual fit. This
study was focused on identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of each schools
(i.e., culturally responsively) in elementary and middle schools in the Midwest School District
(MSD). The purpose was to determine what assets and needs MSD’s teachers had for
implementing PBIS in this way. Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model, mapped onto
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory (1979), served as the theoretical and conceptual framework
for this study. A convergent mixed methods design was used to answer the key research
questions aligned to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Results from the surveys
and interviews were used to identify key themes from the data which aligned with the KMO
conceptual framework. These findings revealed what KMO assets were in place in MSD and
what KMO barriers needed to be addressed, then the findings were used to provide
recommendations for practice that addressed MSD’s teachers’ KMO assets and needs in relation
to implementing PBIS culturally responsively. These recommendations were followed by an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan based on the Kellogg Foundation’s (2004)
Outcomes Approach Logic Model.

v
Dedication
To my mother, who was never afforded the opportunity to have a formal education yet was one
of the most brilliant people I have known, I thank you deeply. Though you were not with me
long enough to even learn that I had been accepted into USC Rossier’s OCL doctoral program,
you were with me every step of the way. The example you set kept me focused and
accomplishing this milestone was made possible because of centering honoring you as my
“why.”

To my wife, Kiechelle, and kids – Geena, Carter, and Desmond, thank you for your
understanding and constant support.

To my father, Pop, as always in my life, you were there when I needed you.

To my sisters, Timi and Sora, thank you for being the loving and supportive sisters that you are.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to my chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy, for
her responsiveness and guidance throughout this process, as well as Dr. Kathy Stowe for her
sage recommendations. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Jane Rosenthal who supported me
since the LDT program, as well as all the incredible professors who contributed to my learning
and growth over the past four years. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge my cohort
members, especially those who began with me in the LDT program. Thank you for your support,
encouragement, and sharing of knowledge.
I especially want to acknowledge the person who originally sparked a passion for
relentlessly advocating for the needs of underserved students, particularly Black students –
“Momma” Noma. She has been a guide throughout my career as an educator and the model of
excellence and commitment. Additionally, I want to express my gratitude towards Dr. Sharroky
Hollie and Anthony Jackson who have been colleagues, mentors, and friends during all the
phases of my journey in education.
Lastly, I would like to thank all the students whom I have the honor to teach and work
with over my 20+ years in public school education. You have been a major source of inspiration
throughout this process, and though I was officially your teacher, you have taught me so much
about what it means to be a teacher and advocate for educational justice. Thank you all.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 8
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 9
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................ 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 14
Trends in School Discipline Policies and Practices .......................................................... 15
Disproportionate Discipline and Black Students ............................................................... 21
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) ................................................... 36
Influences of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors .................................. 45
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 60
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 65
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 65
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 65
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 68

viii
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 70
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 72
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 84
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 87
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 88
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 88
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 93
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................................ 108
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................................ 124
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 153
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 156
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 156
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 166
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 184
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 197
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 198
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 200
References ................................................................................................................................... 203
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 222
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 232

ix
List of Tables

Table 1: Data Sources 67
Table 2: Respondent Demographics 92
Table 3: Willingness to Examine Biases 118
Table 4: Knowledge Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the Implementation
of PBIS Adapted to the Culture and Context of Each School
158
Table 5: Motivation Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the Implementation
of PBIS Adapted to the Culture and Context of Each School
161
Table 6: Organizational Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the
Implementation of PBIS Adapted to the Culture and Context of Each
School
164
Table 7: Requisite Knowledge Regarding Cultural Responsiveness 169
Table 8: Logic Model–Focus Area Questions, Indicator, and Technical
Assistance Needed
191
Table 9: Logic Model–Evaluation Plan 193

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 62
Figure 2: Distribution of Respondents by Grade Level (Choice Count) 89
Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Subject Area(s) Taught (Choice Count) 90
Figure 4: Demographic Subgroups Believed to Receive the Most ODRs (by
Percentage)
106
Figure 5: Responses to Items Regarding Levels of Confidence 123
Figure 6: Survey Responses Regarding Areas of Culturally Responsive TPDs
Provided
127
Figure 7: Outcomes Approach Logic Model 188

xi

List of Abbreviations
CLR Cultural and Linguistic Responsiveness
CRCM Culturally Responsive Classroom Management
EBDM Evidence-based Decision Making
MSD Midwest School District
PBIS Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Equity has perennially been a significant area of concern in U.S. public schools for Black
students. Evans (2005) described inequity in academic outcomes for Black students as the
achievement gap. In contrast, Linda Darling-Hammond referred to the lack of access to quality
schools and educational resources resulting in inequitable academic outcomes as the opportunity
gap (Schott Foundation, n.d.). Added and related to these divides that negatively impact Black
students is a discipline gap (Bottiani et al., 2018).
Black students attending U.S. public schools have perennially been overrepresented in
punitive and exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions. Since the 1970s,
exclusionary discipline has been collected and analyzed for signs of racial disparities and the
data have consistently shown that Black students disproportionately experience exclusionary
discipline, particularly in comparison with White students. For example, according to the Civil
Rights Data Collection Data Snapshot: School Discipline (The U.S. Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights, 2014), Black students were suspended and expelled from school three
times more than White students. Moreover, Black students have been overrepresented in all
forms of punitive and exclusionary discipline. The U.S. Government Accountability Office
(2018), or GAO, reported that Black students have been overrepresented in out-of-school
suspensions (OSS), in-school suspensions (ISS), referrals to law enforcement, expulsions,
corporal punishment, and school-related arrests. These racial disparities have even persisted
despite socio-economic status. For instance, though the overrepresentation of Black students in
OSS has been greatest for Black students where the poverty level of the school is the highest
(75–100% poverty), Black students at all socio-economic levels were suspended more often than
Latinx, Asian, Native American, and especially White students (U.S. Government
2

Accountability Office, 2018). The racial disparity in suspensions holds true despite the type of
school Black students attended, as well. The GAO (2018) reported that Black students received
disproportionate suspensions in traditional, magnet, charter, and alternative schools.
Though patterns of racial disparities in discipline persist overall for Black students, the
racial discipline gap impacts Black students regardless of sex or gender expression. Black male
students have been suspended and expelled more often than any other demographic subgroup
when considering the total number of exclusions, and this aligns with the data that show that
boys, in general, receive exclusionary discipline more often than girls (Crenshaw et al., 2015;
Morris & Perry, 2017; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2018). In just looking at national
suspension data, Black boys have been suspended three times more than White boys (The U.S.
Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2014). The disparity in exclusionary discipline
is worse for Black girls, though, when looking at rates of suspensions rather than total
suspensions (Blake et al., 2010; Crenshaw et al., 2015; Farinde & Allen, 2013; Morris & Perry,
2017; Parks et al., 2016). National data has shown that Black girls are suspended six times more
often than White girls (The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2014;
Townsend Walker, 2019). In examining discipline data from specific cities, Crenshaw et al.
(2015) found that this pattern of disparity persisted. In Boston, whereas as Black boys were
disciplined at twice the rate of White boys, Black girls were disciplined over eleven times as
often as White girls. In New York, Crenshaw et al. (2015) reported that, whereas Black boys
were expelled ten times more than White boys, Black girls were expelled fifty-three times more
than White girls. Furthermore, in their study of discipline disparities in Kentucky public middle
and high schools, Morris and Perry (2017) found that, not only were Black girls far more likely
to receive an office disciplinary referral (ODR) as White girls, but Black girls were also almost
3

as likely as White boys to receive an ODR. This negative pattern of Black girls
disproportionately receiving punitive and exclusionary discipline has even been termed
“pushout,” and it highlights the intersectionality of race and gender that compounds Black girls’
risk of being driven away from school and into the criminal justice system (Morris, 2016).
In addition to the intersection of race and gender, the racial discipline gap has even been
evident across different age levels, special education status, and sexual orientation. For instance,
according to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (2014), Black children
represented about 18% of preschool enrollment but nearly half of all out-of-school suspensions.
Being Black and having a special education (SPED) status are also high indicators of
overrepresentation in exclusionary discipline (Anyon et al., 2014; Townsend, 2000; U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018)
reported that Black students receiving special education were suspended nearly 30% more often
than White students. Black girls with identified disabilities, in particular, have received multiple
suspensions more than any other student demographic group (U.S. Commission on Civil Right,
2019). Furthermore, the problem of racial disproportionality in punitive and exclusionary
discipline is compounded when Black students’ sexual orientation is taken into consideration
(U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). Though trends regarding the overrepresentation of
Black LGBTQ students are more challenging to identify because sexual orientation data has not
been consistently collected with respect to exclusionary discipline (Balonon-Rosen, 2016),
researchers found in their national longitudinal study that nonheterosexual youth, in general,
have a higher risk of being disproportionately disciplined (Himmelstein & Bruckner, 2010).
Therefore, with race being the most critical factor in overrepresentation in exclusionary
discipline (McIntosh et al., 2014), Black students who identify as nonheterosexual are more
4

likely to be punished or removed from the learning environment. All told, this evidence
highlights that the discipline gap is a persistent problem in U.S. public schools wherein Black
students are the most disproportionately impacted by inequitably administered discipline
practices.
Context and Background of the Problem
The Culturally Responsive Teacher Center (a pseudonym), from this point on referred to
as the Center, provides public school districts, individual schools, teachers, and staff support in
developing their capacity for cultural responsiveness to meet better the academic and behavioral
needs of their historically underserved students. The Center's clients are geographically
distributed throughout the nation, but all have a common purpose for contracting the Center's
services – receiving expert assistance in mitigating racial disparities in academic achievement
and exclusionary discipline, particularly for their Black students. Some clients have even
disclosed being mandated by their state departments of education to address racially inequitable
outcomes reported in Office of Civil Rights (OCR) data or risk being taken over by their state
departments of education.
Regarding efforts to mitigate racial disproportionality in exclusionary discipline, the
Center’s client districts and schools have reported trying various disciplinary approaches in
alignment with shifting national trends. An approach most of the client schools currently report
using is the Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework. PBIS,
alternatively referred to as School-wide PBIS (SWPBIS), is a behavioral intervention framework
based on a positive behavioral approach intended to improve schools' climate and culture (Sugai
& Horner, 2002). Overall, researchers suggest that PBIS has the potential to reduce the usage of
exclusionary discipline practices (Bradshaw et al., 2010), but implementation data reveal that the
5

discipline gap persists for Black students even though there have been overall reductions in
exclusionary discipline (Sugai et al., 2012; Vincent et al., 2013; Vincent & Tobin, 2011).
Similarly, the Center’s clients also report this continuance of the racial disparity in discipline in
their districts and schools despite their implementation of PBIS.
In response to the persistence of the racial discipline gap in schools implementing PBIS,
the original developers of the PBIS framework emphasized that it needs to be adapted to the
“culture and context” of each school's population to be most effective in reducing racial
disproportionality in the exclusionary discipline, (Sugai et al., 2012, p. 202). In other words, they
were stating that PBIS is supposed to be implemented culturally responsively to work for
different cultural groups (i.e., culture) at each specific school-site (i.e., context). This means that
the policies, practices, and systems of PBIS must be implemented with thorough consideration of
the cultural differences reflected in each school’s student demographics and not in a cookie-
cutter fashion devoid of cultural alignment. Expounding on this, Leverson et al. (2019), in their
field guide for PBIS trainers and coaches, stated, “Because contextual fit is a core principle of
SWPBIS, SWPBIS is not fully implemented until it is culturally responsive" (p. 2). Therefore,
schools must implement their PBIS framework with culturally responsiveness (i.e., with cultural
and contextual fit) to mitigate the continuance of the overrepresentation of Black students in
exclusionary discipline.
Teachers, staff, principals, and district leadership in the Center’s client schools have
reported to Center personnel that they have not considered the critical element of cultural
responsiveness in implementing PBIS. Schools in these districts have been implementing PBIS
for many years, and different organizations have formally recognized them for implementing
PBIS with fidelity using the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET). The SET is an official measure
6

developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
Technical Assistance Center on PBIS for assessing how well a school is implementing the
critical components of the PBIS framework (Bradshaw et al., 2008). The SET, though, does not
include items related to the core principle of cultural responsiveness. Therefore, even though
outside organizations could officially recognize schools as implementing PBIS with fidelity,
these schools may not be doing so in alignment with culturally responsiveness. To address this
potential gap, OSEP provides general technical assistance and resources to districts and schools
to develop and implement their individual PBIS frameworks, as well as specific support
implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on
PBIS, 2019). Despite this availability if this specific technical assistance, the Center’s client
districts and schools reported a lack of awareness and use of this support in aligning their PBIS
frameworks with cultural responsiveness.
This dissertation is focused on examining the implementation of PBIS in one district with
whom the Center works to determine the district’s assets and needs related to implementing
PBIS adapted to the culture and context (i.e., aligned to culturally responsiveness) of each of its
schools implementing PBIS. Despite the Midwest School District’s (MSD), a pseudonym,
successful implementation of PBIS in its elementary and middle schools, for which MSD has
been officially recognized for fidelity by an external organization, Black students throughout
MSD continue to have inequitable disciplinary experiences. For MSD, the overrepresentation of
Black students in exclusionary discipline is persistent and pervasive as Black students are
suspended over four times as often as White students which is above the national average of
Black students being suspended more than three times as often as White students. In fact, Black
students in MSD are overrepresented in every punitive and exclusionary discipline category –
7

office disciplinary referrals, in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and referrals to
law enforcement.
This racial discipline gap is evident when examining exclusionary discipline data
collected and reported by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. According to
the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (2018), in 2017, Black students comprised 15.3% of
MSD’s in-school suspensions (ISS), 21.3% of out-of-school suspensions (OSS), and 20.0% of
referrals to law enforcement even though they were only 4.8% of student enrollment. When
disaggregating the discipline data for non-disability and disability status as defined by IDEA,
non-disabled Black students, both female and male, in MSD received OSS six times more often
than their White peers. Black female students in MSD with a disability status received OSS over
three times as often as White female students and Black male students identified with a disability
status received OSS over three times as often as White male students. In one MSD middle school
implementing PBIS, Black students were 5.2% of enrollment, yet 14.3% of in-school
suspensions and 16.7% of out-of-school suspensions. This racial disparity in exclusionary
discipline in MSD is also exemplified in one of its elementary schools where Black students
received 50.0% of in-school suspensions and 18.8% of out-of-school suspensions despite
comprising only 10.2% of the school’s enrollment. Both external data such as this, and internal
reporting by MSD officials to the Center, highlight the inequitable exclusionary discipline
impacting Black students being a continual pattern throughout MSD’s elementary and middle
schools implementing PBIS without cultural and contextual fit.

8

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study aims to identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing
teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of each school in a
sampling of MSD’s schools to determine what assets and barriers exist to implementing PBIS in
this way. The study focuses on teachers specifically because the exclusionary discipline process
begins with office discipline referrals (ODRs) which are primarily written by teachers, therefore
efforts to mitigate the racial discipline gap must begin with teachers in the classroom (Kourea &
Owens, 2016; Larson et al., 2018). The following research questions will be used to guide this
study to examine this problem of practice and understand why it persists with these schools:
1. What are the knowledge factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
2. What are the motivation factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
3. What are the organizational factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS
adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student population?
Importance of the Study
Despite the potential of PBIS to mitigate the historical pattern of students
disproportionately receiving exclusionary discipline, PBIS has not been consistently successful
in closing the discipline gap, particularly between Black and White students (Bal, 2018; Sugai et
al., 2012; Vincent et al., 2013). Researchers have shown, though, the capability of PBIS to
reduce the disparity in exclusionary discipline when adapted to be culturally responsive
(Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; McGoey et al., 2016; McIntosh et al., 2014). This study is critical
because, unless the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing why teachers
9

in MSD’s schools do or do not implement the critical PBIS core principle of cultural
responsiveness (i.e., contextual fit) are uncovered, Black students in those schools may continue
to be disproportionately suspended, expelled, and excluded from instructional contexts.
Furthermore, this perpetuation of the discipline gap can have adverse impacts on the Black
students in these schools.
Exclusionary discipline, especially that which is racially disproportionate, has been noted
to have compounding adverse effects on students. For example, McIntosh et al. (2014) asserted
the possibility of exclusionary discipline implying to students that school is not a place for them.
Simmons-Reed and Cartledge (2014) added that suspensions and expulsions result in poorer
academic and behavioral outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students,
negative perceptions of school by these students, and a cyclical pattern of problems.
Furthermore, exclusionary discipline negatively impacts the quality of life and opportunities for
those most affected by it. Allen and Steed (2016) identified the long-term effects of suspensions,
such as increased school dropout, repeat suspensions, and an increased probability of
incarceration. In fact, the increased prospect of those students disproportionately impacted by
exclusionary discipline becoming involved with the criminal justice system has come to be
referred to by researchers as the school-to-prison pipeline (Scott, 2017). Discovering what
knowledge, motivation, and organization factors are critical to MSD’s schools implementing
PBIS to be culturally responsive is essential if these negative ramifications of racially
disproportionate exclusionary discipline are to be counteracted by MSD’s educators.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes' (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) theoretical
framework will be used to examine the problem of the Center's client schools not implementing
10

the core PBIS principle of cultural responsiveness. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the
KMO framework is used by researchers to identify the causes of and the solutions to
performance problems. Researchers can attribute these performance problems to one, all, or a
combination of knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors. Knowledge (and skills) refers
to how individuals achieve performance goals and involve understanding the "when, what, why,
where, and who" (p. 44) related to achieving a goal. Motivation refers to an individual's desire to
do something and the belief that the individual can do it (Clark, 2019). Lastly, organizational
factors are policies, procedures, or resources that can influence the achievement of performance
goals.
The KMO framework is an appropriate lens to examine the problem of practice because it
helps address various issues related to implementing PBIS with culturally responsiveness. The
KMO framework can help identify what knowledge and skills teachers need to incorporate the
core principle of cultural responsiveness. For example, researchers can use KMO to identify if
teachers know how to identify cultural differences in behavior or if they are aware of racial
disparities in exclusionary discipline data for their school-sites. Next, Clark and Estes’ KMO
framework is an appropriate theory for this problem of practice because researchers can use it to
examine motivation issues that could be impacting the implementation of PBIS in alignment
with the core principle of culturally responsiveness. For example, teachers may hold biases and
misconceptions about their students or about PBIS itself. Furthermore, client teachers may not
believe implementing PBIS culturally responsively is essential or have self-efficacy for doing so.
Lastly, this theory is appropriate for examining this problem of practice because it also
considers the impact of organizational factors on the culturally responsive implementation of
PBIS. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that “missing or inadequate processes and materials” (p.
11

103) may serve as barriers to attainment of organizational goals even when members of the
organization, such as teachers, have the requisite knowledge and are motivated. Though the
KMO theoretical framework is suitable for examining this problem of practice, researchers
consider it to be deficit-oriented because it focuses on that which is missing rather than also
examining what assets may be present. Tuck and Yang (2014) commented on the propensity of
researchers to take a "damage-centered" perspective on change (p. 227); therefore, researchers
must consider this when using this theoretical lens.
A convergent mixed methods design will be utilized by the researcher to address the
purpose of this study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that this single-phase approach
involves combining both quantitative and qualitative data, which should provide more
understanding of this problem of practice than a quantitative or qualitative approach alone would
provide. Furthermore, this method is useful for collecting data on "parallel variables, constructs,
or concepts" (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 219); therefore, data regarding knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors influencing client teachers' implementation can be
collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. A survey will be administered using a census
method to collect qualitative data. The total accessible population of teachers at MSD’s schools
implementing PBIS will be sent links to online surveys to get a more substantial data set
necessary for better inference of the results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The non-probability
method of purposive sampling will be used to select individual teachers from whom to gather
more in-depth information.
12

Definitions
Cultural and Contextual Fit refers to the state of PBIS being adapted to be culturally
responsive to the cultural demographics of a school’s student population; used synonymously
with culturally responsive (Bal, 2015).
Culturally Responsive refers to instructional and behavior management practices that
validate and affirm the cultures of historically underserved students while simultaneously using
these cultural assets to build and bridge to the culture of school (Hollie, 2012).
Exclusionary Discipline refers to disciplinary practices that result in the removal of a
student from the learning environment, such as referral to the office, suspension, and expulsion
(Bottiani et al., 2018).
Expulsion refers to the permanent removal of a student from the school setting because of
alleged behavior (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2018).
In-School Suspension (ISS) refers to the temporary removal of a student from the
student’s primary instructional setting but still on the school campus as a consequence for
alleged behavior. (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2018).
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) refers a multi-tiered framework
that promotes the replacement of traditional punitive disciplinary practices with evidence-based
practices that are positive (Fallon et al., 2012).
Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) refers to the temporary removal of a student from the
school setting as a consequence of alleged behavior. (The Leadership Conference Education
Fund, 2018).
13

Racial Disproportionality refers to the statistical disparity between the racial group’s
percentage of an overall group and its percentage of representation for a particular data indicator
(Nishioka et al., 2017).
Organization of the Dissertation
The previous introductory chapter included the introduction of the problem of practice,
the context and background of the problem, the purpose of this project and its research questions,
the importance of this study, an overview of the theoretical framework and methodology, and
definitions of key terms pertinent to this study. The second chapter will provide a literature
review that will synthesize critical themes found in the literature about disproportionate
exclusionary discipline and students, trends in school discipline policies and procedures, PBIS,
and culturally responsive PBIS. The third chapter will describe the methodology used in the
study, followed by a description of the study's results in the fourth chapter. The final chapter will
present the findings and implications of this study, as well as delineate its limitations.
14

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter 2 of this dissertation provides a review of the literature regarding the persistent
disproportionality in exclusionary discipline that impacts Black students attending K-12 public
schools in the United States. This review also addresses the root causes of this disparity and
various approaches to mitigate Black students' overrepresentation in office referrals, suspensions,
and expulsions. The first part of this literature review examines different trends in school policies
and procedures since the late 1960s. This section delineates the rise of out-of-school suspensions
(OSS), zero-tolerance policies, and the paradigmatic shift from punitive and reactive to positive
and proactive discipline approaches. The second section focuses on the factors contributing to
the persistence of the racial discipline gap, negative consequences of racial disparities in
discipline, and a description of various efforts to mitigate the discipline gap. The third part of this
chapter delves deeply into one of the specific positive and proactive approaches being used to
address racial disparities in discipline – the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) framework. This section will include an overview of PBIS, documentation of its overall
success as a school discipline approach, an analysis of its limited impact on eliminating racial
inequity in exclusionary discipline, and a description of the need for PBIS to be implemented
with culturally responsiveness (i.e., with cultural and contextual fit) to close the discipline gap.
The chapter concludes with an examination of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that impact the implementation of PBIS culturally responsively and a description of the
conceptual framework, used for this study, built upon Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO theoretical
framework.

15

Trends in School Discipline Policies and Practices
The primary focus of school disciplinary policies and practices has been to help create and
maintain safe environments for students and staff and to optimize learning. From the late 1960s
to the late 2010s, approaches to school discipline have shifted with national trends to achieve this
aim and meet federal government regulations and policies to ensure students' civil rights (Allman
& Slate, 2011; Skiba & Losen, 2015). Different presidential administrations either introduced
new policies or reinforced existing ones, whereas others sought to address inequities believed to
have been caused or exacerbated by these policies (Whitford et al., 2016). State departments of
education, school districts, and schools subsequently shifted their discipline policies and
practices in lockstep with these federal regulations and the contemporaneous national zeitgeist
(Ritter, 2018; Whitford et al., 2016). Consequently, conflicts and confusion have arisen for
education professionals who have had to respond to the shifting mandates and navigate
contrasting ideas about best disciplinary practices (Whitford et al., 2016). Furthermore, despite
the various shifts in discipline approaches, Black students have continued to be overrepresented
in exclusionary discipline (Bottiani et al., 2018; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019).
Though the research has consistently connected punitive policies to the creation and perpetuation
of the discipline gap, more recent trends towards positive and proactive approaches have shown
promise in mitigating this systemic inequity (Skiba & Losen, 2015).
Out-of-School Suspensions Emerge in the 1960s–1970s
Out-of-school suspensions (OSS) as a means of reducing student misbehavior and
improving school safety were first documented in the 1960s and grew into the 1970s. In the
1960s, there was a perceived, though not empirically proven, increase in youth violence (Mallett,
2016). In response to this public perception, the federal government passed the Omnibus Crime
16

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which resulted in the adoption and spread of a punitive
approach to school discipline (Whitford et al., 2016). The use of OSS to address student
behaviors school administrators deemed problematic thus arose in the 1960s and continues to be
used as a disciplinary response (Allman & Slate, 2011). As OSS increased and gradually became
universally applied throughout U.S. public schools, the suspension rates for Black students began
to rise from the 1960s through the 1970s, and early signs of discipline gap began to show
(Allman & Slate, 2011). In the 1970s, civil rights advocates became alarmed about the rising
suspensions rates, particularly of Black students, which led to litigation in court over the
perceived injustices (Skiba & Losen, 2015).
Zero-Tolerance Policies Proliferate in the 1980s–2000s
Building upon the shift to punitive disciplinary policies and practices of the 1960s and
1970s, the zero-tolerance approach arose in the 1980s and existed as the norm through the 2000s.
As applied in the school setting, zero tolerance refers to mandated punishments for specific
behaviors considered intolerable (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). The concept of zero
tolerance originated in the criminal justice system with the "tough-on-crime" movement and
President Reagan's "war on drugs" campaign in the 1980s and became replicated in school
disciplinary policies and practices (Allman & Slate, 2011; Gonzalez, 2012; Mallett, 2016; Payne
& Welch, 2015; Ritter, 2018; Skiba & Losen, 2015; Whitford et al., 2016). The spirit of zero
tolerance continued and even intensified under the Clinton administration as a result of the
passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which was a reaction to another perceived, yet
unsubstantiated, increase in school violence and weapons on or near schools (Allman & Slate,
2011; Mallett, 2016; Ritter, 2018; Skiba & Losen, 2015). Furthermore, due to the tragic incident
at Columbine High School in 1999, public fear of a perceived increase in probability of school
17

violence and the further entrenchment of zero-tolerance policies intensified (Mallet, 2016; Payne
& Welch, 2015). The perpetuation of zero-tolerance policies in the school setting continued
under the Bush administration in the early 2000s with the passage of the No Child Left Behind
Act which mandated schools to apply the concept of zero tolerance through the use out-of-school
suspensions for student behaviors deemed violent or highly disruptive (Allman & Slate, 2011).
By the turn of the millennium, 94% of U.S. public schools had adopted zero-tolerance policies
and practices (Monroe, 2005).
Ineffectiveness of Zero-Tolerance Policies
The widespread use of zero-tolerance policies and practices has not been effective,
though. Despite the espoused intended goal of zero-tolerance policies to improve school safety,
data consistently have shown that schools were no safer as a result of the application of zero
tolerance (Scott, 2017). Whitford et al. (2016) claimed that zero tolerance in schools has been
ineffective, partly due to the lack of a consistent definition of the concept and inconsistent
implementation. This inconsistency in the application of zero-tolerance policies to all students
was noted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019) and highlighted that the policies were
most inconsistently used with Black students. Moreover, this inequitable application of zero-
tolerance policies and practices has been highly correlated with the overrepresentation of Black
students in exclusionary discipline (Eber et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2017; Mallet, 2016; U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019) further
asserted that the disparity in application of zero tolerance hinders the formation of the positive
relationships between students and teachers critical for achieving the zero tolerance’s espoused
goal of safe and positive school climates. The American Psychological Association's Zero
Tolerance Task Force (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019; Whitford et al., 2016) even
18

noted the inadequacy of zero-tolerance policies at achieving this goal and the aim of improving
student behaviors so that exclusionary discipline was less necessary. Not only did this task force
contend that a zero tolerance-approach to school discipline was not efficacious, but they
recommended against its use as well due to the adverse effects produced by its implementation
(Whitford et al., 2016).
Negative Impacts on Black Students
Despite the near-ubiquitous adoption of zero-tolerance policies and practices in most U.S.
public schools, this punitive approach to school discipline has resulted in significant negative
impacts, especially for Black students. For example, Whitford et al. (2016) found the usage rate
of exclusionary discipline escalated under zero-tolerance policies, and Black students were
disproportionately impacted by the increased use of suspensions and expulsions in response to
mandatory punishments. Ritter (2018) noted growing concerns about the justness of zero-
tolerance approaches to discipline after "numerous highly publicized incidents where the
application of zero-tolerance policies resulted in draconian consequences for trivial infractions"
(p. 134) and the increasingly disproportionate percentage of Black students receiving
exclusionary discipline. Allen and White-Smith (2014) cited the role zero-tolerance policies have
had on the overrepresentation of Black males in exclusionary discipline while Grace and Nelson
(2019) also noted the pushing out of Black male students from schools due to zero-tolerance
policies. Pushing out of schools was not just a negative impact on Black boys; zero-tolerance
policies have had the adverse effect of pushing Black girls out, as well (Crenshaw et al., 2015;
Parks et al., 2016).
The disproportionate exclusion of Black students from schools has resulted in Black
students being funneled by educators from schools into the juvenile justice system (Dancy,
19

2014). This criminalizing process of excluded students has come to be referred to by researchers
as the school-to-prison-pipeline (Grace & Nelson, 2019; Mallet, 2016; Scott, 2017). The school-
to-prison pipeline has been connected with zero-tolerance policies (Dancy, 2014; Grace &
Nelson, 2019; Mallet, 2016; Scott, 2017) and found not to improve school nor community safety
(Mallett, 2016). Along with the influence of zero-tolerance policies, the school-to-prison-
pipeline resulted from multiple interconnected causative factors such as organizational policies,
exclusionary discipline, and grade retention (Anyon et al., 2014; Grace & Nelson, 2019; Mallet,
2016; Meiners, 2011). In examining the school-to-prison-pipeline through the lens of critical race
theory, Allen and White (2014) argued both macro-level factors (e.g., poorly funded schools and
racial segregation of schools) and micro-level factors (e.g., teachers who are predominantly
White, middle-class females) have also fueled the school-to-prison-pipeline. Gonzalez (2012)
noted that teachers' differential selection of whom to refer to the office for disciplinary reasons is
another critical entry point into the school-to-prison pipeline. Furthermore, much of the research
into the school-to-prison pipeline has been on the pipeline’s disparate impact on Black male
students, but Black female students have also been disproportionately funneled into the school-
to-prison pipeline (Townsend Walker, 2020). Morris (2017) further challenges that Black girls
experience this phenomenon differently due to the compounding impact of gender and race, as
well as the varied forms of detention females experience besides imprisonment. To delineate this
gendered difference, Morris (2017) refers to the increased risk of different types of incarcerations
for Black girls as “school-to-confinement pathways” (p. 12).

20

Positive and Proactive Disciplinary Policies Expand in the 1990s – the Current Era
Growing concerns about the documented ineffectiveness of the zero-tolerance approach to
improve school safety and the chronic racially disproportionate application of exclusionary
discipline resulted in a call for a diametrical shift to positive and proactive approaches to school
discipline. Though the punitive perspective inherent in zero-tolerance practices reached its zenith
in the 1990s to 2000s, mindsets about effective school discipline began to shift towards positive
approaches during that period (Ritter, 2018). More and stronger voices began to speak out
against the paradigm of zero tolerance and its concomitant deleterious effects on students,
especially Black students. The national teachers' union, the American Federation of Teachers,
publicly renounced zero-tolerance practices and advocated for more empirically effective
alternatives to exclusionary discipline (Skiba & Losen, 2015). Various researchers also noted
positive and proactive disciplinary policies as being conducive to improving Black students'
outcomes and closing the discipline gap. (Bottiani et al., 2018; Grace & Nelson, 2019; Larson et
al., 2018; Reinke et al., 2013).
Furthermore, the federal government made a paradigmatic reversal from its previous
advocacy of zero-tolerance policies. In 2011, under the Obama administration and the leadership
of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the Departments of Education (ED) and Justice
(DOJ) collaborated on the Supportive School Discipline Initiative or SSDI (The Leadership
Conference Education Fund, 2018; Skiba & Losen, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).
The focus of SSDI was to provide schools support and build a national consensus for addressing
the racial discipline gap and school-to-prison pipeline through positive and preventative
approaches to school discipline (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2018; U.S.
Department of Education, n.d.). By 2015, the shift had taken root nationally with 22 states and
21

the District of Columbia having revised their laws and 23 of the largest school districts in the
U.S. having reformed their disciplinary policies to minimize the use of exclusionary discipline
(Ritter, 2013).
Disproportionate Discipline and Black Students
The chronic overrepresentation of Black students in exclusionary discipline has a long
history. From the 1970s until the present time, Black students have persistently and increasingly
been overrepresented in exclusionary discipline in the U.S. public school system. Since 1968, the
Office of Civil Rights has conducted the Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) and, in 1975, the
Children's Defense Fund used out-of-school suspension (OSS) data from this collection to make
the first public report about the racial gap in discipline at the national level (Bottiani et al., 2018).
From the time of this initial report, the discipline gap has continued and widened. In her brief
history of racial disparities in exclusionary discipline, Townsend (2000) chronicled the
"differential administration of exclusionary and punitive discipline with African American
children" (p. 381) that metastasized throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Losen and Martinez (2013)
traced a 12.5% increase in the gap between Black and White students in secondary school
suspensions from 1972–1973 to the 2009–2010 school year. This expansion of the discipline gap
was also reported by Losen et al. (2015), who explained that the gap between Black and White
students in OSS quadrupled in size over the four decades from the 1970s to the 2010s. The
perpetuation and proliferation of racial disproportionality have been officially chronicled by the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights as well.
Factors Contributing to the Persistence of the Discipline Gap
This section will focus on explaining how this racial disparity in office referrals,
suspensions, and expulsions did not develop by happenstance, as race is identified as the most
22

consistent factor related to the differential selection of students to be removed from the learning
environment by educators. This part of the literature review also will examine how Black
students regularly receive exclusionary discipline for subjective reasons and the role of biases in
subjective judgments about Black students’ behaviors. Furthermore, this section will describe
how Black students are routinely administered harsher consequences for lesser infractions as
compared to their White peers, as well as this more severe discipline and higher frequency in
exclusion for Black students persisting despite the lower prevalence of violence. Lastly, this
section will describe how the disparity in exclusionary discipline is related to cultural
mismatches between teachers, usually White, and their Black students.
Race As the Most Salient Factor
A student's ethnicity, or race, has chronically been identified by researchers as the most
salient factor in the discipline gap, even when considering other factors such as age, grade level,
geographic location, and socioeconomic status. In a research study on disproportionality in
exclusionary discipline in Wisconsin schools, Bal (2016) noted that the race of a student was a
crucial determinant in removal from the classroom for disciplinary reasons. Bottiani et al. (2018)
also observed the salience of race in the overrepresentation of Black youth. Furthermore,
McIntosh et al. (2014) asserted race as a common factor in exclusionary discipline regardless of
socioeconomic status. In other words, the gap in suspensions and expulsions between Black and
White students has been evident whether Black students were from affluent families or those
living in poverty. Moreover, a student's race has consistently been a conspicuous commonality in
disproportionality in exclusionary discipline even when examining it across diverse geographic
regions. Noltemeyer and Mclouglin (2010) found the discipline gap between Black and White
23

students held no matter the United States area for which they examined exclusionary disciplinary
data.
Subjective Reasons for Exclusionary Discipline
Looking across the history of the racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions, Black
students have consistently received exclusionary discipline for more subjective reasons than
White students. Excessive noise, willful defiance, and disrespect are several examples of
subjective behaviors for which teachers have disproportionately referred black students to the
office for discipline. In examining ethnic disproportionality in school discipline, Eber et al.
(2010) found teachers referred Black students to the office more often for subjective reasons
(e.g., defiance or disrespect) rather than observable behaviors (e.g., getting up from a seat
without permission or possession of a weapon). Anyon et al. (2014) also identified this tendency
by stating that Black students were referred to the office more often than White students for
"minor infractions and subjective categories" (p. 380). Bal (2016) noted that Black students
disproportionately receive office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) for subjective reasons such as the
nebulously defined infraction of willful defiance. Teachers' subjective judgments about Black
students' behaviors appearing to be the most consistent factor when referring Black students to
the office is also noted by Parsons (2017). Moreover, although this subjectivity is consistent
across gender, as both Black girls and Black boys are impacted by it, Black girls are more
negatively affected by a gendered subjectivity where their behaviors (e.g., relative loudness,
attire, or assertiveness) are judged from White dominant culture norms of femininity (Blake et
al., 2010; Morris & Perry, 2017). In other words, Black girls are overrepresented in exclusionary
discipline, such as ODRs, for not behaving how girls are subjectively expected to comport
themselves according to White perceptions.
24

The Role of Bias
The subjectivity that is a key factor in the racial discipline gap is directly connected to
implicit and explicit biases teachers have towards Black people and Black culture, and these
biases helped create and perpetuate the disparities in discipline. In their study about ODRs,
Greflund et al. (2014) suggested cultural bias played a significant role in the disproportionate
removal of students and, echoing this finding, Kourea and Owens (2016) found implicit biases
by educators about Black students were a significant factor in the overrepresentation of Black
students in school discipline. Anyon et al. (2014) further asserted that biases in the perception of
student behavior would most likely continue to contribute to racial disproportionality in office
referrals if left unaddressed. Moreover, the biases educators hold towards Black students are
attributed to ecological factors, such as societal stereotypes about Black people and national
zero-tolerance policies, which perpetuated these stereotypes (Farinde & Allen, 2013; Gregory &
Mosley, 2004; Monroe, 2005; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). These biases based upon
racial and ethnic stereotypes impact both Black girls and Black boys, albeit in gendered ways.
Whereas Black male students are subjected to stereotypes such as having a higher propensity for
violence, Black female students are subjected to stereotypes about being sexually loose, hostile,
bossy, or angry (Blake et al., 2010; Farinde & Allen, 2013; Crenshaw, 2015; Gregory & Mosley,
2004; Morris & Perry, 2017).
Harsher Consequences for Lesser Infractions
The bias experienced by Black students has also manifested as Black students being
given harsher punishments, for both lesser and the same behavioral infractions, than White
students, and this has further contributed the racial divide in exclusionary discipline. Researchers
have found that Black students are consistently differentially selected for ODRs for what are
25

deemed to be minor behaviors (Anyon et al., 2014; Kourea et al., 2016). According to Vincent et
al. (2009), minor violations include "low-intensity defiance, low-intensity disruption,
inappropriate language, and inappropriate physical contact" (p. 2). In contrast, students' major
violations include "abusive language, insubordination, sustained disruption, and fighting"
(Vincent et al., 2009, p. 2). In her examination of the cause of racial disproportionality in school
discipline, Monroe (2005) found that Black students received harsher punishments than White
students for what researchers deem minor offenses. For example, Black students would be
removed from the classroom, receive detention, and lose privileges whereas White students may
only receive a warning. Kourea and Owens (2016) highlighted that not only have Black students
often been suspended or expelled for trivial reasons, but the differentiation in selection about
whom receives harsher consequences for minor behavioral violations typically occurs at the
classroom level. In other words, teachers are inequitably referring Black students to the office for
the same behaviors they observe White students exhibiting. Johnson et al. (2017) highlighted this
inconsistency in the application of consequences for perceived behavior violations between
Black and White students in their description of a practical approach for addressing the racial
discipline gap. Morris and Perry (2017) also identified this pattern of harsher consequences for
lesser infractions in their study of discipline records from Kentucky public schools. In line with
other researchers’ findings, Morris and Perry (2017) documented that both Black girls and boys
were removed from the learning environment for Class I (i.e., minor) behaviors at higher rates
than all other ethnic or racial groups. Moreover, they found that Black girls received the highest
rates of consequences for minor behaviors of all students.
26

Higher Frequency of Exclusionary Discipline Despite Less Violence
This persistent differential application of exclusionary discipline over the past five
decades, from the 1970s to the 2010s, has continued despite no actual increase in violence or
behavior infractions, especially by Black students. Mallet (2016) described the mythologizing of
an increase in youth violence by the media in the 1980s and 1990s. However, empirical evidence
suggested that was not the reality, and in fact, data showed overall youth violence on the decline.
Grace and Nelson (2019) specifically noted the increased use of punitive policies, particularly
against Black students, even though data indicated school violence was on the decline. In
examining school discipline policies, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019) shared data
that proved students of color did not commit more violent offenses than White students though
they received harsher and more frequent consequences for non-violent behaviors. Furthermore,
the Commission (2019) shared that the data showed no actual increases in violent behavior but
rather structural and systemic factors that led to growth in the use of exclusionary discipline. In
other words, Black students were not exhibiting higher rates of violence, but they were
disproportionately disciplined for minor infractions and subjective reasons.
Cultural Mismatch
Another major contributing factor to the racial discipline gap is the cultural mismatch
between Black students and their educators. Johnson et al. (2017) described cultural mismatch as
the lack of educators’ awareness of the differences between their cultural mores and behaviors
and those of their students. Farinde and Allen (2013) used a similar term – cultural dissonance –
to describe “the cultural conflict or incongruence experienced by members of opposing cultural
groups” (p. 145). Whether referred to as cultural mismatch, dissonance, or incongruence, a state
exists where the culturally based beliefs and practices of teachers’ conflict with those of their
27

students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. For example, Black
students may exhibit culturally determined behaviors that White teachers perceive from a deficit
perspective because they are not consonant with their own cultural behaviors that are rooted in
White middle-class norms. Hollie (2012) specifically delineated sixteen culturally determined
behaviors that CLD students from more collectivist cultures often exhibit which contrast with
what he describes as “school culture behaviors” (i.e., cultural behaviors that reflect White
dominant norms related to individualism and that have been privileged in the school system).
Some specific mismatches between the cultural behaviors of CLD students and school culture
behaviors are being spontaneous versus being prompted, high movement orientation versus little
movement, verbal overlap versus verbal turn-taking, and sociocentric learning versus
autonomous learning. This cultural mismatch in behaviors also relates to culturally incongruent
instructional practices (Boneshefski et al., 2014). Teachers more often use teaching methods that
align with the way students whose culture is consonant with school culture behavior thus
increasing their learning and engagement, whereas the teaching methods that are most congruent
with CLD students are seldom used thus leading to decreased learning and engagement for CLD
students (Hollie, 2012).
Black students, in particular, have disproportionately been negatively affected by these
cultural mismatches with their teachers because these often result in cultural misunderstandings
that lead to their removal from the learning environment. Johnson et al. (2017) asserted that
cultural mismatch is a probable factor in differential exclusionary discipline and this assertion
was supported by Anyon et al. (2014) who found, when examining the persistent effect of race
on school discipline, that cultural and developmental incongruence between students and
educators, was a primary reason for racial disparities in discipline. As aforementioned, Kourea
28

and Owens (2016) identified implicit bias towards Black students as contributing to their
disproportionate representation in exclusionary discipline and they also noted the role cultural
mismatch and racial stereotyping play in perpetuating the discipline gap. Downey et al. (2004)
explained that the process of discriminatory discipline of Black students was subtle and often
related to teachers’ misinterpretations of cultural styles which aligns with Siwatu et al. (2015)
who described cultural conflicts as stemming from teachers’ misunderstandings of their Black
students’ culturally rooted behaviors. The impact of cultural dissonance is felt by both Black
female and male students, but Farinde and Allen (2013) specifically highlighted how cultural
dissonance between White female teachers and their Black female students regarding perceptions
of femininity has resulted in highly disparate exclusion and the aforementioned phenomenon of
push-out from the educational system. Ultimately, cultural mismatches between Black students
and their teachers rises beyond individual conflicts and has created conditions for systemic
school failure for Black students (Monroe et al., 2005).
Negative Consequences of Persistent Racial Disproportionality in Discipline
The perpetuation of racial disproportionality in discipline has had several consequential
impacts on Black students. The following section delineates some of these negative
consequences, such as decreased academic performance, increased likelihood of dropout from
school, and the heightened probability that Black students will come into contact with the
juvenile justice system. Additionally, Black students' adoption of identity-preserving behaviors,
particularly Black males, will be briefly discussed.
Lower Academic Performance
One significant repercussion of the discipline gap's persistence is that Black students
have experienced lower academic performance due to less instructional time in the classroom.
29

Bal (2016) contended that racial disproportionality in school discipline is associated with adverse
academic and social outcomes due to less access to the curriculum. Parsons' (2016) findings
align with Bal's (2016) contention as she identified negative relationships between the use of
suspensions and academic achievement. Black students who are not in class or school due to
exclusionary discipline are denied access to learning opportunities and thus have an increased
likelihood of being retained (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019; Townsend, 2000). Loss of
instructional time due to removal from the learning environment leads to lower academic
performance (Bal et al., 2018), contributing to the widening of the achievement gap between
Black and White students (Townsend, 2000).
Increased Likelihood of Dropout
Besides the decrease in academic achievement, greater exclusionary discipline may lead
to Black students' increased likelihood of dropout from school. According to the National
Educational Center for Statistics (2019), the overall dropout rate for Black students has declined
over the past two decades, from 13.2% to 6.2%. However, despite this improvement, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights (2019) asserted that missing class time due to exclusionary
discipline increases the prospect of students dropping out of school altogether. In other words,
though the dropout rate for Black students has improved, Black students who choose to leave
before graduating may be doing so because of the effects of exclusionary discipline. Dancy
(2014) noted the probability of students dropping out triples when students have been suspended
compared to those who have not been. Townsend (2000) contends the voluntary withdrawal from
school is a consequence of the alienating effects of inequitable disciplinary exclusion has on
Black students. Disciplinary practices perceived as racially unfair result in Black students feeling
30

rejected (Townsend, 2000) and marginalized (Bal, 2016) by the school system, which influences
their decision to drop out.
Adoption of Identity Preserving Behaviors
As a result of feelings of rejection and racial stigmatization, Black students may adopt
identity preserving behaviors as a coping mechanism. Townsend (2000) noted Black students
who are disproportionately disciplined feel a sense of rejection by the school system and
educators, which may result in lower self-esteem and a need for adopting behaviors to offset
negative identity messages. Dancy (2014) also identified Black boys developing resistant
identities and behaviors in response to stigmatization and negative stereotypes. Furthermore, he
delineated three key identity-preserving behaviors: the expression of male heterosexual power,
disruption of the dominant school norms of power, and fighting. Monroe (2005) described this
assumption of identity-preserving behaviors by Black male students as well and added the
adoption of such behaviors might further perpetuate negative stereotypes about them. This
attempt at identity-preservation is not exclusive to Black male students as Parks et al. (2016)
found that Black girls develop ways to “live and maintain their dignity and identity” despite
facing gendered violence and push out from school (p. 214). Moreover, Gregory and Mosley
(2004) noted that the low academic exhibited by Black girls may be the result of using rejection
of schooling as a mechanism for coping with their feelings that school is a racist and unfair
place. Crenshaw et al. (2015) furthered emphasized that Black girls’ detachment from school can
be attributed to the effects of institutional benign neglect as Black girls’ sense of belonging is
undermined by White teachers. In sum, negative perceptions of Black students tend to lead to
inequitable disciplinary practices and racial stigmatization, which produces identity-preserving
31

behaviors that reinforce negative stereotypes of Black students in a perpetual cycle, ultimately
most detrimental to Black students.
Increased Contact With the Juvenile Justice System
Another significant negative consequence of racial disproportionality in exclusionary
discipline is the increased contact of Black students with the juvenile justice system. According
to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (2018), though Black students only
comprise 16% of enrollment in U.S. public schools, they were 27% of students referred to law
enforcement and 31% of school-related arrests. Bal et al. (2018) identified student involvement
in the juvenile justice system as a severe adverse repercussion of the discipline gap. Fowler
(2011) noted that students who received one or more ODRs were over twenty times more likely
to be referred to the juvenile justice system. Parks et al. (2016) highlighted what they deemed a
crisis facing Black girls; Black girls are the fastest growing population being funneled into the
prison system. Furthermore, Morris (2017) echoed this pattern and emphasized that Black girls
are being pushed out of school into varied forms of confinement in addition to detention in a
prison. In explicitly looking at Black males' plight, Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2009) found Black
students who received exclusionary discipline disproportionately more than White students also
had a higher probability of being caught in the juvenile justice system.
Efforts to Close the Discipline Gap
There have been different efforts to close the discipline gap, which have been effective at
the individual school level. Still, no approaches have yet succeeded in eliminating inequities in
discipline on a broader systemic level, such as in entire districts. This section will describe
various approaches that educators have utilized to mitigate racial disproportionality in
exclusionary discipline, such as having teachers use culturally responsive practices. Furthermore,
32

this part of this literature review will explore the use of positive and proactive disciplinary
practices, particularly restorative practices, as a method for increasing racial equity in school
discipline.
Culturally Responsive Instructional Practices
Another approach that has shown promise in mitigating disproportionality in exclusionary
discipline for Black students is the use of culturally responsive instructional practices. For
example, teachers can incorporate more student talk rather than lecture to capitalize on the
cultural strength of sociocentrism whereby learning is optimized though social processing of the
content. Hollie (2012) explained that culturally responsive instructional practices are rooted in
recognizing students' cultural capital and utilizing these funds of knowledge to bridge students to
success in school. Furthermore, Hollie (2012) asserted that the use of culturally responsive
pedagogy increases student engagement and decreases behavior incidents because students feel
validated and affirmed by teachers who interact with them in a more culturally congruent way.
Monroe (2005) also argued that engaging and relevant instruction, two core aspects of culturally
responsive practices, is necessary to reduce the need for exclusionary discipline. Hammond
(2015), as well, emphasized culturally responsive teaching being a mechanism for increasing
student engagement, thus minimizing the need for removing students from the learning
environment for behavioral issues. Additionally, because the cultural mismatch between
educators and Black students is a factor contributing to the discipline gap, Larson et al. (2018)
argued that culturally responsive teaching helps bring educators into cultural alignment with their
Black students. This alignment is the result of teachers using instructional practices that are
culturally resonant because they connect to deep cultural behaviors that affect how information is
processed (Hammond, 2015).
33

Positive and Proactive Disciplinary Practices
The use of positive and proactive disciplinary practices has the potential to close the
discipline gap. Reinke et al. (2013) found that teachers who interact more positively with their
students have students who do better socially and academically, thus reducing the need for
exclusionary discipline. Echoing this finding by Reinke et al. (2013), a study by Larson et al.
(2018) revealed increased cooperation and more positive behavior from their Black students
when researchers observed the Black students' teachers using proactive classroom management
practices. Grace and Nelson (2019) also found that teachers utilizing a positive approach to
discipline resulted in Black students' positive outcomes. School administrators' use of positive
and proactive strategies also results in reductions in the discipline gap. Bottiani et al. (2018)
observed that exclusionary discipline occurred less often when principals believed in preventive
approaches to school discipline.
Restorative Practices. Restorative practices (RP), also referred to as restorative justice,
emerged as a positive alternative to the punitive methods associated with zero-tolerance policies
and developed as a potential solution to mitigating racial disparities in discipline. RP's roots trace
back to the convergence of Indigenous peoples' cultural practices and values and those of
religious groups seeking an alternative to punitive practices incongruent with their values (Song
& Swearer, 2016; Wachtel, 2016). Though rooted in ancient cultural and religious traditions, the
premise of RP was first practically applied in schools outside the U.S. in the 1990s then brought
to our nation's schools via the criminal justice system as restorative justice (Gonzalez, 2012;
Gregory et al., 2014; Wachtel, 2016).
RP is a philosophical approach based on humanism focused on repairing relationships
damaged in the school setting by harmful actions (Gregory et al., 2014; McCluskey et al., 2008;
34

Wachtel, 2016). Although RP came to the school system from the criminal justice system,
researchers see RP as more promising at mending relationships and repairing harm than the
utilization of restorative justice in prisons (Gonzalez, 2012). Researchers have noted RP as an
effective alternative to zero-tolerance practices because of its emphasis on students learning from
the harm they caused, atoning for the damaged relationships, and their reintegration into the
school setting rather than punishing them by removal (Gonzalez, 2012; Song & Swearer, 2016;
Wachtel, 2016). Payne and Welch (2015) emphasized that the successful implementation of
restorative practices requires a conceptual shift from a punitive mindset by educators to valuing
the power of reconciliation.
RP has potential to reduce racial disproportionality in school discipline. For example,
Anyon et al. (2014) presented evidence suggesting restorative practices protecting Black students
from exclusionary discipline. Bottiani et al. (2018) also recognized the potential of restorative
practices to mitigate discipline disproportionality but acknowledged the paucity of supporting
empirical data. Gregory et al. (2014) likewise noted the lack of documentation directly showing a
reduction in the discipline gap due to the use of restorative practices. Still, they asserted the
evidence is suggestive that the improved quality of relationships between students and teachers
across racial groups has the potential to reduce the disproportionality in discipline. Furthermore,
Bottiani et al. (2018) asserted that restorative practices might be culturally congruent with
racially diverse groups. Therefore, because cultural alignment and cultural responsiveness have
demonstrated the potential to create more equitable disciplinary experiences for Black students,
restorative practices may help eliminate the racial discipline gap.
Trauma-Informed Practices. Trauma-informed practices have steadily been growing in
use as another alternative approach to the prolific use of exclusionary discipline resulting from
35

zero-tolerance policies and attempts to close the racial discipline gap. Greflund et al. (2014)
posited intergenerational trauma, along with other factors such as poverty, may play a role in
inequitable exclusionary discipline practices. Dorado et al. (2016) noted that a high percentage of
students receiving exclusionary discipline had been exposed to childhood trauma. Childhood
trauma, or adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), have been linked to detrimental effects on
executive functioning of the brain (Beers & De Bellis, 2002; DePrince et al., 2009; Marusak et
al., 2015), unhealthy mechanisms for coping with stress (DePrince et al., 2009; Johnson, 2018;
Plumb et al., 2016), difficulties developing healthy relationships (Brunzell et al., 2015; Combs,
2009; Crosby, 2018), academic problems (DePrince et al., 2009; Johnson, 2018; Larson et al.,
2017; Plumb et al., 2016), and externalizing behaviors such as verbal and physical aggression
(Johnson, 2018; Larson et al., 2017; Schalinksi et al., 2017). These trauma-influenced behaviors
have been pathologized by educators who label trauma-impacted youth as behavior problems and
respond to their socioemotional and academic needs in a punitive manner (Dorado et al., 2016;
Perry & Daniels, 2016; Plumb et al., 2016).
Trauma-informed practices focus on recognizing that the root causes of challenging
behaviors exhibited by students could be based in ACEs, and decisions about disciplinary
responses by educators should be informed by this data (Rafa, 2019). Plumb et al. (2016) further
asserted that trauma-informed practices require a trauma-sensitive culture resulting from teachers
and staff receiving training in the awareness of trauma's impacts and evidence-based strategies
for working with trauma-impacted youth. Brunzell et al. (2015) argued teachers are "front-line
healers" (p. 4) who can help students with trauma, not through therapy, but by building healthy
and positive relationships with the students, which helps to create a sense of safety and
belonging. Besides fostering caring relationships with students, another trauma-informed
36

practice educators can use is socioemotional learning (SEL) wherein educators teach trauma-
impacted students the emotional self-regulatory skills they need (Brunzell et al., 2015; Plumb et
al., 2016). Lastly, Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) noted that success of trauma-informed
practices requires systems-level change, which is impossible unless educators integrate these
practices with other existing methods through a multi-tiered framework such as Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is another positive and proactive
approach that emerged as a response to zero-tolerance policies' failure. Ritter (2018) asserted that
there are no methods that have indisputably resulted in the systemic mitigation of racial
disproportionality in school discipline exacerbated by zero-tolerance policies. Still, he intimated
PBIS being a promising strategy. Sugai and Horner (2002) argued that reactive discipline
responses such as zero-tolerance practices are ineffective because they fail to produce long-
lasting safe and positive school climates. Thus, Sugai and Horner (2002) asserted the need for a
proactive approach, such as school-wide positive behavioral supports, to create and sustain
positive school environments. Skiba and Losen (2015) insisted only a structural intervention, like
PBIS, which focuses on transforming the existing entrenched zero-tolerance discipline policies
and practices, can effectively close the discipline gap impacting Black students.
History and Theoretical Foundation
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), also alternatively referred to as
School-wide PBIS (SWPBIS) and Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS), was developed over two
decades ago. Educators have known prevention-based approaches for addressing problematic
student behaviors since the 1970s, but they had not yet been implemented wide scale (Sugai &
37

Horner, 2002). In 1997, the federal government passed the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA 97), which included provisions for schools to adopt positive and
preventive disciplinary practices to address the overrepresentation of students with special needs
in exclusionary discipline (Bal, 2015; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018). In response to IDEA 97,
researchers at the University at Oregon developed the PBIS framework and a federally funded
national center, called the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Technical Assistance
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, to support schools, districts, and states
with their implementation of PBIS (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018). In 2004, IDEA 97 was
reauthorized and added requirements for schools to address racial disproportionality in
exclusionary discipline (Bal, 2015). Moreover, PBIS was the only school-wide disciplinary
approach mentioned explicitly in IDEA 2004 (Bal, 2015), and this had a profound effect on
PBIS's subsequent national diffusion.
Adoption and Spread
Over the two decades since its inception in the late 1990s, PBIS has spread and been
adopted by numerous public schools and districts across the U.S. By 2008, due to increased
legislative pressure from the federal government to prevent student behaviors deemed disruptive
and violent, PBIS had propagated to over 7500 schools (Bradshaw et al., 2008). According to
Samuels (2013), in response to IDEA 2004's provision for schools to mitigate racial disparities in
suspensions and expulsions, PBIS was written into federal government initiatives under the
Obama administration, such as SSDI and the Race-to-the-Top competitive grant program, thus
allowing schools to use IDEA and Title I funds to pay for PBIS training and resources. This
official recognition by the federal government led to the number of schools implementing a PBIS
framework to grow to over 20,000 schools by 2015 (Bal, 2015). Just two years later, PBIS had
38

expanded into over 23,000 schools (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018). Based upon the most recent
data provided by the federal government's OSEP Technical Assistance Center for PBIS (2019),
in 2018, PBIS was being implemented in over 27,000, or 25% of all U.S. public schools, making
it the most widely utilized behavioral approach.
Behaviorism Roots of PBIS
Behaviorism is the theoretical foundation of PBIS. B.F. Skinner introduced the cognitive
theory of behaviorism and its emphasis that through operant conditioning behaviors of subjects,
animal or human, could be changed (Santrock, 2014). The original developers of PBIS
acknowledged its foundation in the behavior analytic tradition (Sugai et al., 2012). In applying a
cultural-historical analysis to PBIS, Bal (2015) recounted PBIS's theoretical grounding in radical
behaviorism and its beginning as an approach for addressing behavior support of individuals
with severe disabilities housed in mental institutions based upon principles of behaviorism.
Additionally, Bal (2018) reiterated PBIS's behaviorist roots when he described the focus on the
individuals, rather than systems, as the unit of analysis under behaviorism. Bradshaw et al.
(2008) also described PBIS stemming from behaviorism and noted its drawing from social
learning and organizational principles.
Overview and Structure of PBIS
Although educators often misconstrue PBIS as merely a program, it is a multi-systems
framework for positively and proactively approaching discipline from a school-wide perspective.
According to the OSEP Technical Assistance Center (2019), the overall purpose of the PBIS
framework is to facilitate the creation of safe and welcoming schools through the use of positive
and preventive disciplinary practices in the whole school setting. Educators create safe and
welcoming schools by focusing on change at the systems level rather than changing individual
39

students' behaviors (Bradshaw et al., 2008). Bradshaw et al. (2008) further describe PBIS as "a
non-curricular universal prevention strategy that aims to alter the school environment by creating
improved systems and procedures that promote positive change in staff and student behaviors"
(p. 462).
Systems, Data, Practices, and Outcomes
The PBIS framework integrates the systems, data, and practices that impact students'
achievement to help schools produce positive outcomes for students (Goodman-Scott et al.,
2018; Sugai & Horner, 2002). The focus on systems involves developing the policies, practices,
and structures schools need to sustain the implementation of PBIS (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017;
OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2019). Under PBIS, academic and behavioral data are
identified, collected, and analyzed by educators to inform decisions regarding changes to systems
and practices necessary to generate positive student outcomes (Bal, 2018; OSEP Technical
Assistance Center, 2019; Sugai & Horner, 2002). Lastly, PBIS is grounded in empirically
supported prevention and intervention practices (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; OSEP Technical
Assistance Center, 2019; Sugai & Horner, 2002).
Three-Tiered Structure
According to the OSEP Technical Assistance Center (2019), the PBIS framework has
three tiers of support aligned to students' needs. Tier 1 is referred to as universal prevention and
is meant to be effective for 80% or more of students. The primary tier's purpose is to prevent
behavioral problems from occurring by implementing research-validated instructional and
behavioral practices, as well as effective foundational systems such as a school-site PBIS
leadership team and regular meetings. Tier 2 is referred to as targeted prevention and focuses on
providing targeted prevention for up to 15% of students for whom Tier 1 supports may not be
40

adequate. Some Tier 2 practices teach these students self-regulation and social-emotional skills,
providing more academic support, and increasing adult supervision. Systems integral to this
secondary tier involve behavior specialists, intervention teams, and a method to screen for
students who may require targeted support. Tier 3 is referred to as intensive, individualized
prevention and is meant for approximately 5% of students for whom Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports
are not sufficient. Schools implement intensive and individualized prevention practices such as
function-based assessments (FBAs) and wraparound support under the direction of behavior
specialists and a multi-disciplinary team (OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2019).
Core Features of PBIS
Sugai and Horner (2002), the original architects of the PBIS framework, emphasized six
core features of the PBIS model critical to its effective implementation. The first essential
element is the need for a clear statement of purpose for a school's decision to utilize PBIS as its
disciplinary approach. Another hallmark component of PBIS is the adoption of a common set of
behavioral expectations (e.g., be safe, be respectful, be responsible). The purpose of having a
shared set of expectations is to have consistency in communication between students, staff, and
parents regarding valued behaviors. Schools must also create and display contextualized
behavioral expectation matrices in the classrooms and common areas of the school to make the
expectations as ubiquitous as possible.
Furthermore, these school-wide behavioral expectations are supposed to be explicitly
taught to the students and reinforced through practice and feedback. A fourth core feature of
PBIS is the use of some form of reward system designed to encourage the shared expected
behaviors. Balancing the use of rewards is another component of PBIS, which is the use of a
continuum of procedures (i.e., consequences) for students exhibiting behaviors that are not in
41

accordance with the school-wide expectations. Additionally, problematic behaviors need to be
clearly defined and differentiated between teacher managed versus being handled by an
administrator (e.g., principal or dean). A final core feature of PBIS is the adoption of a system of
collecting, tracking, and analyzing discipline data (e.g., School-wide Information System) used
by the school-site PBIS leadership team to guide decision making (Sugai & Horner, 2002).
Implementation Guidelines
The OSEP Technical Assistance Center for PBIS (2015) has provided a blueprint for
districts and schools to facilitate implementation. The first recommendation is to determine if a
school is both ready and committed to embarking on the implementation of PBIS. For example, a
school shows readiness and commitment when a minimum of 80% of school staff and leadership
indicate buy-in. The next guideline is to implement PBIS through a set of phases ranging from
exploration and adoption to scaling up implementation. Another recommendation is to form a
PBIS leadership team with decision-making authority and representation by various critical
stakeholders. Furthermore, for schools to successfully implement PBIS, structures need to be in
place to ensure PBIS's maintenance and growth and the development of school personnel's
capacity to implement PBIS with fidelity. Lastly, school-site PBIS leadership teams should
develop and follow a three-to-five-year action plan (OSEP Technical Assistance Center for
PBIS, 2015).
Documentation of Success
The efficacy of PBIS has been well-documented in numerous studies over the past two
decades. Researchers have shown that PBIS improves school climates and cultures (Bradshaw et
al., 2008; Caldarella et al., 2011; Noltemeyer et al., 2018; Tyre & Feuerborn, 2011).
Implementation of PBIS with fidelity has also been documented by researchers to produce
42

reductions in the use of exclusionary discipline (Barrett et al., 2008; Bohanon et al. 2006;
Bradshaw et al., 2010). Researchers have even found the implementation of PBIS having a
positive effect on the organizational health of schools wherein in faculty and staff reported more
positive and collaborative work environments, as well as an increased sense of community
(Bradshaw et al., 2008; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Kelm & McIntosh, 2011).
Limited Impact on the Persistence of the Racial Discipline Gap
Despite its documented successes, PBIS has had a limited impact on mitigating racial
disproportionality in school discipline for Black students. For instance, Vincent and Tobin
(2011) found, in their study of the relationship between the implementation of school-wide PBIS
and exclusionary discipline, that Black students still were removed from the classroom at a
disproportionate rate to all other ethnicities. Betters-Bubon et al. (2016) concurred with this
finding in their synthesis of multiple studies that looked at the effect of PBIS on racial disparities
in office discipline referrals (ODRs) and suspensions. Further documenting PBIS's limited
success in effectively mitigating disproportionately administered exclusionary discipline, a year-
long research study of discipline data showed Black students had significantly higher chances of
being referred to the office than White students (Bradshaw et al., 2010). In their study, Kaufman
et al. (2010) focused on patterns of ODRs disaggregated by race, grade, and gender found Black
students were referred to the office for disciplinary reasons more than students from other racial
backgrounds.
The Need for Implementing PBIS Culturally Responsively
A crucial reason why PBIS has had limited success in closing the discipline gap between
Black students and other racial groups, particularly White students, is that schools have not
consistently implemented PBIS culturally responsively. As previously noted, Leverson et al.
43

(2019) emphasized that PBIS cannot be fully implemented by schools unless done with the core
principle of cultural responsiveness. The PBIS framework's originators have stressed PBIS
would be more effective with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students if schools
consider culture in the implementation of PBIS (Sugai et al., 2012). Furthermore, they
emphasized the need for practices, data analysis, and systems to be culturally and contextually
appropriate to result in positive outcomes for CLD students. Parsons (2017) also asserted that
PBIS has not been as effective for students of color because schools are not implementing it in a
way that is culturally responsive.
Failure to Implement Critical Elements of Cultural Responsiveness
Schools implementing PBIS, yet still experiencing racial disproportionality in
exclusionary discipline, continue to do so because of a failure to implement critical aspects of
cultural responsiveness. For example, the discipline gap persists in schools implementing PBIS
because schools have not authentically included and represented parents and community
members from CLD groups in the PBIS process (Bal, 2018; Banks & Obiakor, 2015; Betters-
Bubon et al., 2016; Eber et al., 2010; McIntosh et al., 2014). Bal et al. (2018) further argued that
PBIS's success with CLD students has been limited by hegemonic conceptualizations of school-
family-community relationships by educators. In other words, school leadership tends to center
its authority over others regarding matters of school discipline policies and practices.
PBIS has also not been implemented with culturally responsiveness by schools due to the
lack of alignment with the cultural values and principles of the local or indigenous cultures
(Banks & Obiakor, 2015; McIntosh et al., 2014). Cultural mismatch, as previously delineated, is
a major factor in the overrepresentation of Black students in exclusionary discipline. Thus, when
schools utilizing the PBIS framework have school-wide behavioral expectations that are not
44

consonant with the culture values of their CLD students, they are exacerbating the cultural
dissonance CLD students experience. Furthermore, when the school-site PBIS team does not
acknowledge cultural considerations regarding behavioral expectations and values, PBIS reflects
the dominant culture or White norms (Allen & Steed, 2016; Betters-Bubon et al., 2016). A final
way racial disproportionality in exclusionary discipline persists is because the implementation of
PBIS does not include the culturally responsive practice of requiring educators to identify their
conscious and unconscious racial biases (Allen & Steed, 2016; Banks & Obiakor, 2015).
Echoing this finding, Parsons (2017) found that teachers' subjective judgments of Black students'
behaviors significantly influenced disparate disciplinary outcomes.
PBIS’s Potential When Implemented Culturally Responsively
Although PBIS has had limited effectiveness in closing the discipline gap due to not
being implemented with culturally responsiveness, there have been documented examples of
culturally responsive PBIS, or CR-PBIS, reducing racial disproportionality in exclusionary
discipline. McIntosh et al. (2014) noted a significant decrease in suspensions of Indigenous
Canadian students at a high school that implemented PBIS with the core principle of cultural
responsiveness. This reduction was accomplished by school-site leaders collaborating with tribal
elders to align the school-wide behavioral expectations, acknowledgment systems, and
consequences with the local Indigenous community's values and behavioral norms. McGoey et
al. (2016) documented similar findings at a study of Jewish community day school that culturally
aligned their PBIS framework with Jewish beliefs and values. Though there was a reported initial
spike in negative student behaviors, overall school behaviors significantly improved once the
school's PBIS framework, named the Mensch Program, became fully implemented. Leverson et
al. (2019) explained an essential core concept of cultural responsiveness in PBIS is the need for
45

school-site PBIS teams to regularly disaggregate exclusionary discipline by race to identify and
act on any disproportionality. In examining schools in Illinois that implemented PBIS with this
core concept, Eber et al. (2010) found that the discipline gap was significantly reduced for Black
students.
In sum, the potential for CR-PBIS to mitigate disproportionate exclusionary discipline
and create culturally welcoming school environments for Black students is evident. Furthermore,
these examples of successful implementation, as well as the work of other scholars who have
studied the efficacy of CR-PBIS, have revealed critical knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that must be considered by educators for PBIS to be implemented by them
in alignment with cultural responsiveness.
Influences of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework, as delineated in Chapter 1, is the theoretical
lens through which the researcher will conduct this study. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impact whether an organization can meet its
performance goals. In the case of the MSD, the district has a goal to attain equitable experiences
for its Black students by mitigating their overrepresentation in exclusionary discipline. As
previously noted, the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS has the potential to
accomplish this. Therefore, the KMO theoretical framework can be used by the researcher to
identify KMO assets and barriers to teachers implementing MSD’s PBIS approach with
culturally responsiveness. Specifically, the KMO lens can help identify the knowledge (and
skills) teachers in MSD possess, and still need to acquire, to implement a culturally responsive
PBIS. The use of the KMO framework can also help distinguish what motivational factors affect
MSD’s teachers' will and confidence to implement PBIS culturally responsively, as well as what
46

organizational characteristics impact their implementation of PBIS in alignment with cultural
responsiveness.
Knowledge Needed for CR-PBIS
There is requisite knowledge teachers need to have to implement PBIS with cultural and
contextual fit. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that missing knowledge or skills can impact
job performance; therefore, this section will focus on explaining the essential knowledge and
skills teachers must possess to implement PBIS with the core component of cultural
responsiveness successfully. First, there will be a short overview of the four dimensions of
knowledge, as described by Krathwohl (2002). Next, there will be a brief description of the basic
understanding of PBIS that is necessary. Lastly, there will be a more detailed delineation of the
knowledge and skills required for implementing PBIS culturally responsively.
Four Types of Knowledge
Krathwohl (2002) described the revision of the knowledge dimension of Bloom's
Taxonomy from three to four categories: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Per Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge refers to
the terminology and specific details and elements a person must know regarding a topic or
discipline. Conceptual knowledge focuses on how different elements are interrelated within a
larger structure. Examples of conceptual knowledge are (a) classification and categories, (b)
principles and generalizations, and (c) theories, models, and structures. Krathwohl (2002) further
explained that procedural knowledge involves “how to do something” (p. 214). Skills, methods,
and techniques are some examples of procedural knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge was the
fourth category of knowledge added to the revised taxonomy. According to Krathwohl (2002),
metacognitive knowledge includes both the perception of the process of knowing, in general and
47

"awareness and knowledge of one's own cognition" (p. 214). Some examples of metacognitive
knowledge are strategic knowledge, self-knowledge, and contextual knowledge.
Fundamental Understanding of PBIS
To begin with, teachers need to have a basic understanding of or conceptual knowledge
about PBIS. For example, they need to know PBIS is a proactive and preventative approach to
school discipline rather than a punitive approach like zero-tolerance policies (Bradshaw et al.,
2008). Teachers also need to understand that the main objective of PBIS is to help schools create
and maintain positive and safe school cultures and climates through the implementation of the
six core features of PBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Horner et al., 2010; Sugai & Horner, 2002).
Teachers should also know that PBIS utilizes a three-tiered model of support where Tier 1
supports are their direct responsibility and Tiers 2 and 3 bring in specialized support to assist
teachers with students who do not respond to the universal supports provided by teachers
(Bradshaw et al., 2008; OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2019). Lastly, a fundamental
understanding teachers need to have about PBIS is that it is not a program, but rather, it is a
flexible framework that integrates systems, data, and practices to produce intended outcomes
needs to be contextualized by school-site PBIS leadership teams to each school setting (OSEP
Technical Assistance Center for PBIS, 2015).
In addition to the conceptual knowledge required of teachers, there is procedural
knowledge fundamental to PBIS that teachers must also possess if they are to implement PBIS
culturally responsively. According to the OSEP Technical Assistance Center (2015), teachers
need to know how to create a classroom behavior matrix based on shared school-wide principles
(i.e., behavioral expectations). Moreover, teachers should have the capability of teaching these
behavioral expectations to their students. Teachers must also know how to implement Tier 1 (i.e.,
48

primary) supports in their classrooms, such as using a continuum of procedures for both
encouraging (i.e., providing rewards) desired behaviors and discouraging (i.e., administering
consequences) inappropriate behaviors. Lastly, teachers must know how to request and apply
Tier 2 (i.e., secondary) and Tier 3 (i.e., tertiary) supports in the event Tier 1 interventions are
ineffective for particular students (OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
How to Implement PBIS in Alignment With Culturally Responsiveness
Implementing PBIS with culturally responsiveness requires particular factual knowledge
and procedural knowledge (i.e., skills) that extend beyond a general understanding of PBIS. The
following section will illustrate the knowledge teachers need to have for PBIS to be culturally
responsive to CLD students. This knowledge includes teachers developing cultural awareness
about CLD students, knowledge and skills in culturally responsive teaching, and an
understanding of culturally responsive classroom management.
Development of Cultural Awareness. Building off their general understanding of PBIS,
teachers need to know how to implement PBIS in a way that is responsive to CLD students.
Teachers working with CLD students must develop their metacognitive knowledge by
identifying their implicit and explicit biases about their CLD students (Allen & Steed, 2016;
Kourea & Owens, 2016; Leverson et al., 2019). Teachers also need to grow their factual
knowledge about their CLD students by increasing their cultural knowledge and awareness to
better understand the differences in cultural behaviors between them and their students (Allen &
Steed, 2016; Parsons, 2017). This process is essential because teachers' cultural
misunderstandings of their students' behaviors often lead to unnecessary and inequitable
disciplinary actions (Siwatu et al., 2015; Townsend, 2000). Furthermore, teachers need the
factual knowledge necessary for understanding the difference between cultural behaviors, that
49

may just be situationally inappropriate, and universally unacceptable behaviors (Hollie, 2012;
Leverson et al., 2019).
Culturally Responsive Teaching. To implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit,
teachers also need to have factual and procedural knowledge about culturally responsive teaching
practices (Allen, 2016; Cramer & Bennet, 2015; Parsons, 2017). When students are more
academically engaged, find the academic content relevant, and the instructional methods are
culturally resonant, incidents of inappropriate behavior are decreased (Hollie, 2012). Therefore,
teachers need to learn about and develop proficiency in using culturally responsive teaching
methods. Furthermore, teachers need to have the conceptual understanding that these methods
are crucial because culture mediates the way the brain processes information; therefore, teaching
strategies need to be culturally congruent (Hammond, 2015; Hollie, 2012). Instructional practices
typically used in U.S. public schools tend to reflect dominant culture (i.e., White) norms, which
are based on individualism, whereas CLD students often come from cultures rooted in
collectivist norms (Hammond, 2015; Hollie, 2012). If teachers are to be effective with CLD
students, and hence implement PBIS culturally responsively, they need to have the knowledge
and skills for teaching in a culturally responsive way.
Culturally Responsive Classroom Management. Teachers manage students' behaviors
in the classroom and other spaces in the school daily; therefore, the implementation of culturally
responsive PBIS requires teachers to possess factual and procedural knowledge about culturally
responsive classroom management (CRCM) strategies. Hollie (2012) emphasized that for
teachers to manage their classes culturally responsively, they need to establish rapport with their
students, build relationships with them, and exhibit mutual respect. Furthermore, he explained
that teachers need to know how to wield a democratic management style that is positive,
50

proactive, and procedures based. Weinstein et al. (2004) asserted teachers need to have the
ability (i.e., procedural knowledge) to use classroom management strategies that are culturally
responsive such as monitoring their behavior for equitable treatment of all students, questioning
conventional classroom management practices, and knowing when to integrate students' cultural
norms and when to have students adapt to mainstream norms. Additionally, Cramer and Bennett
(2015) stressed that teachers need the procedural knowledge of knowing how to align reinforcers
and consequences to their students' cultural backgrounds.
Motivational Factors That Impact the Implementation of CR-PBIS
Besides the impact of requisite knowledge, different motivational factors influence the
implementation of CR-PBIS. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that employee motivation also
needs to be considered if stakeholders are to attain organizational goals. Therefore, the following
section will detail various motivational influences and begin with a look at the impact of
teachers' attitudes towards positive and proactive practices. Next, teachers' beliefs about the
pivotal role they play in students' success, and the connection to the role teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs play in implementing PBIS in a culturally responsive way will be briefly reviewed. This
section will conclude with a description of the need for teachers to be willing to examine their
own biases about their Black students.
Teachers' Beliefs in Positive and Proactive Practices
Various motivational factors impact the implementation of PBIS with cultural
responsiveness. One factor is that teachers must believe in positive and proactive approaches to
discipline versus punitive approaches. The shift from the punitive and reactive practices to
positive and proactive approaches, such as CR-PBIS, has been met with much resistance by
many administrators and teachers who still believe an authoritarian and punitive approach is the
51

most effective way to manage student behavior (Gregory et al., 2014). Nevertheless, in a study
examining methods most effective for reducing discipline disproportionality, Bottiani et al.
(2018) found that when teachers believed in an empathetic versus a punitive approach, there
were fewer suspensions. Lastly, Whitford et al. (2016) noted that teachers' attitudes towards
exclusionary discipline practices are more influential than individual students' behavioral
characteristics.
Teachers' Beliefs They Are the Most Critical Factor
In discussing the role of human agency through his social cognitive theory, Bandura
(2000) stated, "Unless people believe they can produce desired effects and forestall undesired
ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act" (p. 75). Thus, teachers must not only
subscribe to a positive and proactive approach to discipline, but they must also believe they are
the most influential factor in students' behavior in the classroom. Larson et al. (2018) argued that
because exclusionary discipline begins in the classroom with teachers' disciplinary decisions,
solutions to disproportionality must start with teachers. Teachers are the primary agents of
change in the classroom (Banks & Obiakor, 2015), set the tone of the classroom (Cramer &
Bennett, 2015; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018), and of the various factors that influence students'
achievement, teachers are the most salient determinant of students' success (Allen & White-
Smith, 2014). Regarding the sustainability of CR-PBIS, Parsons (2016) argued that the strongest
predictor of positive student outcomes was an individual teacher's classroom practices.
Moreover, teachers' beliefs in having a majorly influential role over students' behavior in the
classroom are connected to their self-efficacy beliefs.
Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Even if teachers have the knowledge, skills, and desire
to implement PBIS culturally responsively, they must also feel efficacious about their ability to
52

do so. Kelm and McIntosh (2011) defined teacher self-efficacy as "teachers' perceptions of their
ability to affect student outcomes" (p. 137). Moreover, they explained that this definition
combines two related elements: personal teaching efficacy (PTE) and general teaching efficacy
(GTE). PTE refers to an individual teacher's belief that she can affect how students achieve a
goal (Kelm & McIntosh, 2011). For example, a teacher may feel confident that she can get her
students to listen attentively during direct instruction. In contrast, GTE refers to a more
generalized belief that teachers can impact student outcomes (Kelm & McIntosh, 2011). For
instance, a teacher may believe that parenting styles and students' home lives have more
influence on student achievement than anything teachers can do.
Self-Efficacy Beliefs for CRCM. Ross (1992) found PTE critical for improved student
behavior and success; therefore, PTE is crucial for the culturally responsive implementation of
PBIS. CR-PBIS requires the use of culturally responsive practices and classroom management
strategies, and Larson et al. (2018) found teachers who had PTE regarding these critical elements
of CR-PBIS had higher rates of positive student behavior. In contrast, teachers who do not feel
efficacious about their classroom management are less likely to utilize effective strategies and
hence do not experience improved student behavior (Reinke et al., 2013). In explicitly looking at
culturally responsive classroom management (CRCM), Siwatu et al. (2015) found teachers'
CRCM self-efficacy beliefs determined whether they would put forth effort towards using what
they learned about CRCM to manage challenging disciplinary situations with culturally different
students. Lastly, in examining teacher self-efficacy concerning the implementation of SWPBS,
Kelm and McIntosh (2011) found a reciprocal relationship. They noted that by having a shared
sense of purpose and a more positive school culture as a result of the PBIS implementation
process, teachers felt more efficacious about their ability to affect student outcomes and use
53

different strategies for meeting their students' needs. Furthermore, Kelm and McIntosh (2011)
observed that this greater teacher self-efficacy had the potential to influence the sustainability of
PBIS. Again, because teachers' self-efficacy for PBIS and CRCM has been shown by researchers
such as Kelm and McIntosh (2011), to impact their usage, it can be concluded teachers' self-
efficacy beliefs influence the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.
Teachers Must Be Willing to Interrogate Their Biases
For PBIS to be implemented culturally responsively, not only do teachers need the
procedural knowledge for how to examine their biases and possess the metacognitive awareness
of their biases about Black students, but they must also be willing to interrogate their implicit
biases. Researchers have consistently identified the primary source of racial disproportionality in
exclusionary discipline as due to teachers' biased perceptions of students' cultural behaviors
(Anyon et al., 2014; Whitford et al., 2016). Banks and Obiakor (2015) further asserted that
teachers' judgments about and biases towards their students play a significant role in how a child
does in school despite the implementation of PBIS. Furthermore, because collecting and
analyzing discipline data for racial disproportionality is a critical feature of CR-PBIS (Leverson
et al., 2019), PBIS cannot be said to be culturally responsive unless teachers are willing to
address their biases.
Considering teachers' biases towards Black students are a primary factor contributing to
the racial discipline gap, educators examining their cultural paradigms and identifying their
unconscious biases towards Black students is an approach that has been utilized by educators for
mitigating the problem of racial disproportionality in school discipline. Bottiani et al. (2018)
found that the use of the GREET-STOP-PROMPT technique for managing implicit bias by
teachers resulted in fewer Black male students being referred to the office for disciplinary
54

reasons. This technique involves providing teachers with "(a) proactive classroom management
strategies, (b) a self-regulation technique for teachers to mitigate the impact of biases when
responding to problem behavior, and (c) reactive strategies to increase empathic, consistent, and
appropriate responses" (Gibbons, 2019, para. 10). McIntosh et al. (2014) explained that
"vulnerable decision points" were critical moments where educators' biases could lead to
disproportionate exclusionary discipline and therefore recommended educators learn a process
for recognizing their biases (p. 9). These researchers are echoed by Hollie (2012), who advised
that teachers develop a "deficit monitor" to help make themselves aware of their implicit cultural
biases about their students (p. 30.) In her examination of racial disparities in discipline at the
middle school level, Monroe's (2005) first recommendation to middle school teachers for
redressing disproportionality was to investigate their beliefs and stereotypes about their Black
students deeply. Furthermore, teachers examining their personal biases is not sufficient; school
leaders must also review school policies and practice monitoring for inherent biases (McIntosh et
al., 2014; Townsend, 2000). In sum, teachers must be willing to interrogate their biases through
practices such as these if PBIS is to be aligned with cultural responsiveness.
Organizational Influences on the Implementation of CR-PBIS
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that even with the necessary knowledge and skills,
organizational factors could also influence the achievement of goals. Therefore, this section will
examine how organizational factors influence the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.
First, there will be a description of the role of teacher training and professional development
(TPD) plays. Then, there will be an explanation of the importance of both supportive leadership
and a supportive organizational culture play. This section will conclude with a description of the
need for diverse and inclusive CR-PBIS leadership teams.
55

Training and Professional Development
Key organizational factors can also influence whether PBIS is implemented culturally
responsively. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that knowledge, skills, and motivation are not
enough to realize intended outcomes; thus, to achieve organizational goals, people need to have
access to necessary resources, and effective policies and practices need to be in place. Regarding
the implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, school districts must provide
teachers with comprehensive and ongoing training and professional development (TPD) in CR-
PBIS. Therefore, to build teachers' capacity for working with culturally and linguistically diverse
(CLD) students and address disproportionality in discipline, districts must provide teachers TPD
in culturally responsive practices and enhance teachers' cultural awareness (Banks & Obiakor,
2015; Eber et al., 2010; Leverson et al., 2019). Furthermore, not only must districts provide
teachers TPD to develop their cultural knowledge, but teachers must hold district leaders
accountable if they do not provide effecting and ongoing TPD (Vincent et al., 2011).
Supportive Leadership
The culturally responsive implementation of PBIS is also dependent on supportive
leadership within an organization. Miller (2012) asserted that leadership is essential to the
successful implementation of PBIS in general and must commit to providing long-term fiscal and
personnel support. By doing so, leadership sets a tone of support critical to motivating others to
implement the changes (Lewis, 2011). It is also vital that district and school-site leaders publicly
commit to addressing equity issues related to disproportionate exclusionary discipline (Banks &
Obiakor, 2015). Again, by doing so, this signals to stakeholders that ensuring equitable
experiences for all students is an organizational priority. In illustrating the importance of
leadership, Goodman et al. (2018) recounted how PBIS was successfully implemented in an
56

urban middle school because the principal was an active participant in the process and
relentlessly championed the initiative.
Leadership support of the TPD teachers receive is also crucial if teachers are to
implement PBIS in a culturally responsive way effectively. Limited transfer of learning from
teacher TPD has been a perpetual problem in the field of public-school education (Kraft et al.,
2016; New Teacher Project, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Transfer involves
applying learning, in this case, from teacher TPD to different situations, such as teachers'
classroom settings (Carpenter, 2012). Therefore, leadership must show support for teachers' new
learning to increase the possibility of transfer. Bell and Gilbert (1994) emphasized that teachers
need to feel supported by leadership to feel an increased sense of efficacy to offset their
decreased feeling of self-efficacy resulting from the acquisition of new knowledge and skills
from TPD (Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; McDonald, 2011; New Teacher Project, 2015).
Supportive Organizational Culture
Not only is supportive leadership critical to the implementation of CR-PBIS, but a
supportive organizational culture is also essential. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that
organizational culture has a significant impact on any change effort. Therefore, considering the
organizational culture of districts and the individual schools within them is also essential to the
successful implementation of CR-PBIS. For instance, Goodman-Scott et al. (2018) found that
mutual leadership and stakeholder support were critical for the application and sustainability of
PBIS. They also found that the collaboration process inherent in the PBIS framework helped
create an increased sense of community amongst faculty and staff. In describing the development
of a CR-PBIS model, Bal (2018) emphasized the need for coalition-building between school-site
leadership and diverse representatives inclusive of parents and community members. It is also
57

vital that organizationally there is a commitment to change at the systems level for CR-PBIS to
effectively meet the needs of underserved students (Bal, 2018; Leverson et al., 2019, May;
Vincent et al., 2011).
A supportive organizational culture also includes supporting the learning process teachers
engage in through TPD. Chiaburu and Lindsay (2008) found that the lack of a supportive work
environment can limit the transfer of learning from TPD and even result in teachers' resistance to
change despite their increased sense of efficacy from acquiring new knowledge and skills.
Collaborative work culture is critical if teachers are to apply their new learning to their specific
work contexts (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Brooks, 2009; Durksen, 2017). Therefore, district and
school-site leaders must work with teachers and other staff to foster positive and mutually
supportive work environments. Hargreaves (2009) further emphasized that collegial
collaboration is the most critical factor in teachers' capacity to transfer learning. In other words,
teachers are most able to actualize what they have learned from TPD in their classrooms when
their work environments (i.e., schools) have a collaborative culture. Applying this premise to
CR-PBIS, if teachers feel they are part of a supportive organizational culture, both district and
school, they are more likely to implement PBIS culturally responsively.
Finally, Bandura (2000) asserted groups, such as a school's faculty and staff, will have a
higher motivation to accomplish goals and experience greater performance despite obstacles
when possessing an increased perception of collective efficacy. Collective agency refers to
“people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce desired results” (Bandura, 2000, p.
75). In their study about the relationship between collective efficacy and employee relationships
with leadership, Borgogni et al. (2011) found that employees felt more organizational
commitment when having a greater sense of collective efficacy. Therefore, it is critical that the
58

organizational cultures within teachers' work contexts also foster a sense of collective agency if
teachers are to feel committed to implementing a culturally responsive form of PBIS.
Diverse and Inclusive CR-PBIS Leadership Teams
For the implementation of PBIS to be culturally responsive, a diverse leadership team
must lead the effort. McIntosh et al. (2014) argued that PBIS leadership teams must have
representation from various stakeholder groups, including parents and community members, who
receive continuous training. Allen & Steed (2016) also noted the need to involve parents and
school-site stakeholders and emphasized the need for monthly meetings. Bal (2018),
understanding PBIS as a team-based process, created a collaboration model based upon a
culturally instrumentalist approach wherein parents and community members are authentically
included by school personnel as equal stakeholders to school and district personnel. Bal (2018)
called this process for collaboratively creating a CR-PBIS framework Learning Lab.
Evidence-Based Decision Making
One of the critical functions of a CR-PBIS school-site leadership is to regularly use
evidence to guide decision-making. Leverson et al. (2019) emphasized the need for constant
collection and review of exclusionary discipline data, such as ODRs, to look for signs of
disparity and to inform required interventions to address the disparities. Parsons (2017) asserted
that the consistent evaluation of behavioral data is essential for identifying when teachers'
subjective judgments influence their decisions to refer students to the office and is necessary for
decreasing these biased appraisals. This need was echoed by Allen and Steed (2016), who also
emphasized that discipline data should be examined for signs of teachers' biases.
Discipline data, though, need to be contextualized with other factors to be used in
evidence-based decision making (EBDM). Wilkinson (n.d.) explained that a key difference
59

between data and evidence is that data is just a number or observation (e.g., Black students
comprised 14.9% of suspensions) whereas evidence exists in context (e.g., Black students
comprised 14.9% of suspensions while being just 4.9% of the student population as compared to
White students who only comprised 3.4% of suspensions despite being 67.6% of the student
population). Mandrinach and Schildkamp (2019) also emphasized that data needs to be
contextualized from multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data to serve as evidence for
EBDM. In other words, CR-PBIS leadership teams’ decisions made upon discipline data must
also take into consideration other factors (e.g., childhood trauma, teachers’ biases, and
instructional practices) so that the teams are better able to interpret and understand what the data
might mean. Another key aspect of EBDM is that data only becomes the evidence necessary for
EBDM when there is an argument, hypothesis, or opinion to support (Wilkinson, n.d.). What this
means is that a school’s CR-PBIS team must have a purpose for collecting and analyzing
discipline data for it to serve as evidence for decision making. For example, a CR-PBIS
leadership team may hypothesize that their Black students are being disproportionately referred
to the office for subjective judgments about their cultural behaviors rather than for behaviors
deemed universally unacceptable. Because this team has a hypothesis in place, the data gathered
(e.g., office referrals disaggregated by race/ethnicity, referring teacher, and type of behavioral
“infraction) can be analyzed through the lens of the hypothesis and thus serve as evidence to
inform what action steps the team will recommend. Furthermore, it is critical that evidence is
filtered through the team process, rather than just individually, so that collective sensemaking
can be leveraged to ensure the minimization of bias that occurs when data is filtered by
individuals (Mandinach & Schildkamp, 2019). As previously noted, CR-PBIS teams must be
inclusive of diverse stakeholders and especially ones from historically underrepresented and
60

marginalized groups. Relating to this, Mandinach and Schildkamp (2019) explained that students
must also be part of the collective sensemaking process regarding interpreting data because it
helps shift schools and classrooms to be a more student-centered environment.
Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is “a conception or model of what
is out there that you plan to study, and what is going on with these things and why" (p. 39).
Furthermore, researchers can present this framework in either a visual or written form (Grant &
Osanloo, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). In contrasting a theoretical framework with a conceptual
framework, Grant and Osanloo (2014) noted that a theoretical framework draws from extant
validated theories. In contrast, a conceptual framework integrates three key elements: (a) how the
researcher will explore the research, (b) the direction of the research, and (3) how the different
variables of the study relate to one another. Additionally, Grant and Osanloo (2014) compared a
conceptual framework to a floor plan blueprint for a house wherein “how information flows
throughout the dissertation” (p. 17) is described. This blueprint must also be in alignment with
the researcher's theoretical framework; otherwise, principles and constructs in the conceptual
framework will appear as incongruent (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Clark and Estes' (2008) KMO
model serves as the theoretical framework, or "elevation blueprint" (Grant & Osanloo, 2014, p.
17) used to construct the conceptual framework for this mixed methods research study.
Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework for this convergent mixed methods study.
At the center of the figure, is the problem of practice focused upon in this study—
implementation of PBIS culturally responsively in the Midwest School District (MSD). The
figure incorporates Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model to indicate how each factor influences
the implementation of a culturally responsive form of PBIS. The knowledge factors include
61

Krathwohl's (2002) four dimensions of knowledge (i.e., factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge) as they relate to the problem
of practice. Specifically, the image shows the knowledge needed by teachers to implement CR-
PBIS: (a) a fundamental understanding of PBIS and (b) knowledge about how to implement CR-
PBIS. Knowledge about how to implement CR-PBIS includes developing teachers' cultural
awareness, knowledge about culturally responsive teaching, and knowledge about culturally
responsive classroom management (CRCM). The motivation factors impacting PBIS’s culturally
responsive implementation include (a) teachers’ beliefs about positive and proactive approaches
to discipline; teachers’ beliefs that they are the most critical factor in student discipline; teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs; and teachers’ willingness to interrogate their biases about Black students.
Lastly, the organizational factors address how teachers’ implementation of PBIS in alignment
with culturally responsiveness is influenced by the training and professional development (TPD)
the school district provides them; the support of leadership; how supportive the organizational
culture is; and the presence of diverse and inclusive CR-PBIS leadership teams that utilize
evidence-driven decision-making.

62

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Note: The conceptual framework describes KMO factors that influence teachers’ implementation
of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, as well as ecological influences.

Echoing Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory (1979), the context of the implementation
of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, in service of mitigating racial disparities in exclusionary
63

discipline, begins with teachers at their respective schools. Each school is embedded in other
larger systems, which have both a direct and indirect influence on the school district. For
example, each school must adhere to district policies and practices regarding equity in student
discipline. The district, MSD, is similarly affected by its state department of education's policies;
therefore, MSD must comply with the state’s rules and regulations regarding equity in academic
achievement and disciplinary practices. The state department of education, in turn, must respond
to mandates of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and federal laws, such as
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorized in 2004, tied to federal
funding to address racial inequities in student discipline. Lastly, prevalent societal attitudes and
beliefs regarding effective disciplinary practices, school violence, and Black people influence the
systems below it, thus impacting teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and
context of their respective schools.
Summary
PBIS can help mitigate the overrepresentation of Black students in exclusionary
discipline, but only if implemented culturally responsively. This critical change will require
district and school personnel to consider its knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and
barriers. District leadership, school-site PBIS teams, and teachers must possess the knowledge
and skills necessary for implementing CR-PBIS. Therefore, they must take stock of what
essential knowledge about CR-PBIS they already possess, what existing knowledge may be
inaccurate or inappropriate, and what knowledge may be missing. Furthermore, leadership must
be aware of motivational influences, such as teacher self-efficacy and value for CR-PBIS, that
can impact the implementation of PBIS in a culturally responsive way.
64

Consequently, district and school leaders must know how their teachers' beliefs and
values are both conducive to implementing PBIS with the core principle of cultural
responsiveness and adverse to this organizational aim. Lastly, district and school-site leaders
must be aware of how organizational influences, such as effective training and professional
development, also play a significant role in the successful execution of CR-PBIS. Thus, they
must identify what current organizational assets support the successful implementation of PBIS
with cultural and contextual fit and what organizational characteristics either serve as barriers,
are missing, or are underdeveloped.

65

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter 3 focuses on describing the methodology that was used to study the knowledge,
motivation, and organization factors influencing the implementation of PBIS adapted to have
cultural and contextual fit at elementary and middle schools in the Midwest School District.
Following this introductory paragraph is a statement of the research questions aligned to this
study's stated purpose. Next, the researcher provided an overview of the methodological design,
description of the research setting, details about the researcher, and a delineation of the data
sources used. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of strategies used for maximizing
validity and reliability, the researcher's ethical responsibilities towards the human participants,
and possible limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
Three key research questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
2. What are the motivation factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
3. What are the organizational factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS
adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student population?
Overview of Design
A convergent mixed methods design was used to answer the key research questions and
address the purpose of the study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that mixed methods
procedures integrate quantitative and qualitative data, and this triangulation of data sources helps
to offset the inherent biases and weaknesses of either method alone. Furthermore, they asserted,
66

“both quantitative and qualitative data provide different types of information” (p. 217). Whereas
a quantitative approach can generate data that can be measured and quantified, a qualitative
approach can provide more in-depth information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The single-phase,
convergent mixed methods design involves concurrently gathering and analyzing quantitative
and qualitative data, merging the results of the acquired data, then concluding with an
interpretation of the results to compare whether the data sources were convergent or divergent
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As previously mentioned, a significant benefit of this approach is
that it is well-suited for collecting data on the same constructs in different ways (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
For quantitative data collection, surveys were used in this mixed methods study. Using a
survey to collect quantitative data is an appropriate choice because it allows for assessing the
relationship between different variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For example, a survey is
an effective instrument for studying the association between KMO constructs and the culturally
responsive implementation of PBIS. This data can then be generalized to similar groups to the
sample population of teachers surveyed. Interviews will be used to collect information for the
qualitative component of this convergent mixed methods study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
noted the primary purpose of an interview is to get into the head of the person interviewed by a
researcher, and interviews allow the researcher to get information about that which is not
observable such as participants' feelings and thoughts. Thus, interviews are well-suited for
discerning what teachers know about cultural responsiveness and PBIS, as well as their beliefs
and attitudes towards the implementation of PBIS in a culturally responsive way. Qualitative
interviewing is also appropriate for gathering data on teachers' perceptions of organizational
factors (e.g., training, support, and climate) that influence the implementation of PBIS with
67

cultural and contextual fit. Table 1 indicates what data collection method was used for each
research question.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions Surveys Interviews
RQ1: What are the knowledge factors
influencing teachers’ implementation of
PBIS adapted to the culture and context of
their school’s student population?
X X
RQ2: What are the motivation factors
influencing teachers’ implementation of
PBIS adapted to the culture and context of
their school’s student population?
X X
RQ3: What are the organizational factors
influencing teachers’ implementation of
PBIS adapted to the culture and context of
their school’s student population?
X X

Note: A survey and interviews was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data for each
research question.

68

Research Setting
The research setting in which this convergent mixed methods study occurred is a large
public-school district in the Midwest. The district serves over 16,000 students from 4K through
twelfth grade. There are fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, three high schools,
thirteen charter schools, and one magnet school. Typical class sizes range from 25-to-1 in grades
K–3, 27-to-1 in grades 4–6, and 28.5-to-1 in grades 7-12. Demographically, 0.7% of the students
are American Indian, 11.6% as Asian, 0.1% as Pacific Islander, 4.9% as Black, 11% as Hispanic,
67.6% as White, and 4.1% as two or more races. 16% of the students are officially identified by
school personnel as having disabilities, 9% are English Learners, and 36% are economically
disadvantaged. Over 1000 teachers serve these students, 99.1% of whom meet all state licensing
and certification requirements, with only 5.7% having two years of experience or less. The
majority of teachers are White, reflecting the demographics of the local community where
Whites comprise 91% of the population. Furthermore, the majority of elementary teachers are
White females. For the purposes of this study, only MSD’s elementary and middle schools
identified as implementing PBIS were included. MSD’s high schools, charter schools, and single
magnet school were excluded because they do utilize the PBIS framework and were exempted by
MSD from having to do so. Therefore, this study focused on the fifteen elementary schools and
four middle schools that MSD’s officials have identified as implementing PBIS.
MSD has acknowledged a challenge with racial disparities in exclusionary discipline and
academic achievement. According to MSD’s internal data, though only comprising 4.9% of
student enrollment, Black students comprised 14.9% of out-of-school suspensions during the
2018–2019 school year in comparison to White students who made up 67.6% of the student
population but only 3.4% of suspensions. Regarding performance on state exams, over half of
69

the Black students achieved at the below basic level in English-Language Arts compared to only
18.2% of White students scoring that low. The graduation rate for Black students in 2019 was
71.3% compared to 93.8% for White students. Furthermore, in terms of Gifted and Talented
Education (GATE), Black students only made up 2.2% of the enrollment, whereas White
students comprised 83.6% of enrollment.
MSD has both a PBIS leadership team and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office to
address the racial inequities in discipline and achievement. School officials introduced PBIS to
the district in 2008, and the leadership team has noted that PBIS has become institutionalized in
the district due to having a dedicated district leadership team. Currently, all the district's
community schools implement the PBIS framework with the highest application at the
elementary and middle school levels. Furthermore, their state government has officially
recognized the district for excellence in the fidelity of implementation of PBIS. In response to
persistent inequitable outcomes, the district created a DEI office whose team has sought to
mitigate the disparate outcomes for its students from non-dominant cultures such as its Black,
Latinx, and American Indian students. The DEI team has contracted outside experts in culturally
responsive practices and equity to improve opportunities outcomes for these underserved groups.
Teachers and other district personnel have received training and professional development in
strategies to meet the needs of their underserved students better.
Despite the existence of these two crucial district leadership teams, minimal interaction
has previously occurred between them regarding the implementation of PBIS with cultural
alignment. Thus, though celebrated for fidelity in implementing PBIS and general improvements
to school climates, the district has continued to report racially disproportionate outcomes in
exclusionary discipline. This circumstance made the district ideally suited to the purpose of this
70

study and its aligned research questions. Furthermore, this mixed methods study focused on
surveying and interviewing teachers at the district's schools implementing PBIS yet not in
alignment with the critical principle of cultural responsiveness. These teachers were appropriate
participants for this study because they are front line implementers of PBIS due to their direct
daily interactions with students. Moreover, teachers' decisions regarding how to manage student
behaviors in the classroom often initiate the exclusionary discipline process (Kourea & Owens,
2016).
The Researcher
The researcher is a 50-year-old, cisgender, heterosexual male of mixed Korean and White
American heritage who is married to a Black woman, and the two of them have a daughter and
two sons. Regarding the relationship between the researcher and MSD, he serves as an outside
consultant and instructional coach with the Culturally Responsive Teaching Center. Through the
Center, he is contracted to provide training and professional development (TPD) and one-on-one
coaching in cultural and linguistical responsiveness to some of MSD’s teachers and other
educational personnel in several of MSD’s schools. The researcher strongly believes in the need
for school systems to be interrogated for inherent inequities and for systemic changes to occur to
create and maintain equitable school environments, as well as reverse oppressive conditions of
underserved students. Moreover, in addition to the systems-level changes, the researcher believes
it is not the underserved students who need to change to produce equitable academic and
behavioral outcomes, but rather teachers need changes in their beliefs and knowledge as well.
The researcher is aware of the inherent biases in his positionality and beliefs that could
affect this study. In addition to being the husband of a Black woman and the father of two
mixed-race boys, who are part Black, as well as a Black stepdaughter, the researcher has been
71

deeply involved in culturally and linguistically responsive teaching, culturally responsive
classroom management, and positive approaches to discipline such as PBIS, restorative practices,
and trauma-informed schooling throughout his two and half decades as a public-school teacher,
dean, and instructional coach. These combined characteristics have influenced the researcher's
firm belief that racial disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes are a result of racial
inequities inherent in the American public education system and American society at large, as
well as the belief in the need for change at systems level described above. These strong beliefs
could predispose the researcher to confirmation bias, wherein he interprets data to confirm his
assumptions while discounting data that may be incongruent with these beliefs.
To help mitigate this bias, the researcher followed the recommendations of Creswell and
Creswell (2018) regarding reflexivity. He was transparent about how his beliefs and assumptions
could affect the study’s direction and design, as well as the interpretation of results. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) concurred with this recommendation and added transparency about the
researcher's position helps the reader understand what the researcher's biases are and their
potential impacts on the study. The researcher also mitigated his biases using member checking
to confirm the accuracy of his findings. Creswell and Creswell (2018) noted that member
checking involves having participants review the researcher's significant findings to see if they
align with what the participants have shared. Getting the participants' feedback helped the
researcher identify instances where his worldview influenced the interpretation of the results.
Lastly, the researcher was open to presenting information that was contradictory to his biases
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), which could involve reporting incongruent data and citing
references that run counter to his beliefs and assumptions.
72

Data Sources
Data was gathered using a single-phase, convergent mixed methods approach. Per the
description provided by Creswell and Creswell (2018) regarding this approach, quantitative and
qualitative data was collected concurrently, the results merged, and then the results were
interpreted. Further following the suggestions of Creswell and Creswell (2018), during the
analysis phase, the qualitative data gathered through interviews was coded and categorized into
themes, then the quantitative data from surveys was examined. Next, the databases from both
methods were integrated using a side-by-side comparison approach and finally interpreted for
comparisons and contrasts between the two sources of data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Qualitative Interviews
For the qualitative part of this convergent mixed methods study, interviews were used to
gather information regarding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing
the implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit at the participants' schools. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) commented that interviews are the most common way of collecting data, and
person-to-person is the most common form of an interview. This study utilized the prevalent
person-to-person interview format. Moreover, interviewing teachers was used to gather
qualitative data because it was the optimal method for gathering the needed KMO information. It
was not possible to observe the participants' feelings and interpretations of PBIS implemented
culturally responsively (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
Maxwell (2013) noted that purposive (i.e., purposeful) sampling is a commonly used
method in qualitative research. For the study, this method was used to determine the participants
to be interviewed. Purposive sampling was appropriate because it was necessary to deliberately
73

select participants who could provide specific KMO information regarding the culturally
responsive implementation of PBIS (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, participants were individuals
with whom the researcher could build productive relationships; therefore, teachers with whom
the researcher could make these positive connections were purposefully chosen to be
interviewed.
MSD's teachers, and district leadership, have shared with the Center that they have not
been implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit in their schools; therefore, nine teachers
from these schools were selected to be qualitatively interviewed. These individuals were
appropriate to be interviewed because, as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), they
were typical for the specific purpose of this study and could provide the information needed to
answer the research questions. The teachers were recruited by first getting the permission of
district and school-site leadership (i.e., principals). Once permission was granted and principals
had informed the potential participants, the teachers were anonymously contacted by email with
a specific request to be interviewed. Snowball (i.e., chain or network) sampling was used to
recruit teachers because the purposive sampling method did not net the original goal of eight to
ten teachers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation
A semi-structured interview protocol was used to gather qualitative data for this study.
An interview protocol or guide was the primary tool used to collect information through this
approach (Patton, 2002) and a semi-structured approach was optimal for this study because it
was a compromise between the rigidity of a highly structured method and an unstructured
approach; moreover, the semi-structured interview protocol's flexibility allowed for adaptation to
the questioning in response to the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured
74

approach also helped get the teachers' perspectives and knowledge about PBIS and cultural
responsiveness while mitigating the imposition of the researcher's ideas and beliefs about this
topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). An additional benefit of using the semi-structured interview for
this study was using probing questions to get more in-depth information about the constructs
from the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Maxwell (2013) noted that the purpose of research questions is to represent what a
researcher wants to understand about a topic, and interview questions are the vehicle for
achieving that understanding. Therefore, the questions in this semi-structured interview protocol
were designed to help the researcher understand how knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influence the implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit in schools in the
Midwest district. The function of knowledge questions in an interview is to learn what
participants' factual knowledge is regarding a particular topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this
study, knowledge questions were focused on eliciting from teachers what they know about PBIS
in general, whether they knew how to implement PBIS in alignment with culturally
responsiveness, and whether they were aware of what their school discipline data reveal about
racial disproportionality. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that interview questions could also
be used to discern the perspectives, beliefs, and values regarding an issue or topic. Thus, some of
the interview questions focused specifically on gathering information to answer the research
question centered on the motivation construct. Information was collected about whether teachers’
value PBIS in general and PBIS implemented culturally responsively, teachers’ self-efficacy for
implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, and their willingness to pursue learning
more about how to implement PBIS adapted to be culturally responsive. In addition to these
interview questions intended to gather information about the motivation construct, the semi-
75

structured interview protocol also included questions focused on learning about teachers’
perspectives about organizational factors influencing the implementation of PBIS adapted to
culture and context of their schools. These included questions about training and professional
development provided by the district, policies, and procedures for analyzing disciplinary data,
and school climate influences such as paradigmatic differences in discipline approaches.
Data Collection Procedures
Pazzaglia et al. (2016) recommended not surveying teachers during busy times of the
year, which applies to the conducting of interviews as well. The beginning of the year and near
the holiday seasons are immensely impacted times for teachers and often are cognitively
overwhelming; therefore, interviews were conducted after the first month has passed but before
the Thanksgiving break. Out of respect for teachers’ busy schedules, interviews took 45 to 60
minutes. No follow-ups asking for further information were required. An online conferencing
application with a recording function (i.e., Zoom) was used to conduct the interviews because the
researcher does not reside in the same state as the participants. The use of this method aligned
with a strength of online interviews, noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), being the ability of
the researcher not to be required to be in the same actual physical location as the participants.
Moreover, interviews were conducted virtually in compliance with current IRB standards related
to physical distancing requirements due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The online
interviews were audio and video recorded per the participant's preference, and brief handwritten
notes were taken simultaneously by the researcher. These methods for recording the interview
were used because of the researcher's familiarity with these tools, which is another
recommendation by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) in the selection of recording mechanisms.
Finally, the transcription function inherent in the online meeting application was used to
76

transcribe each interview's audio, then the researcher went line-by-line cleaning up each
transcription for complete accuracy.
In alignment with suggestions made by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the researcher began
each interview with an opening statement about the purpose of the study, assurance of
confidentiality, and an overview of the participants' rights – especially their right to opt-out at
any time during and after the interview. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted the importance of
assuring the security of information provided by participants via online interviews and ensuring
their privacy; therefore, the participants were assured the researcher’s location was chosen to
maintain their confidentiality. Afterward, the participants were asked for their permission to
record the interview in the format that feels most comfortable which was audio-only or audio
with video. Once the participants granted permission to record, the researcher asked KMO-
related questions about PBIS in general, then transitioned to questions specifically designed to
gather information related to the research questions. Furthermore, the researcher asked probing
questions when necessary, to get clarification or more information related to different questions.
Per the recommendation of Patton (2003), a final open-ended question was also asked to provide
an opportunity for the participants to share any further information that may not have been
previously divulged. The researcher concluded each interview with an expression of gratitude,
review of the confidentiality agreement and opt-out rights, and a discussion of any follow-up
logistics.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data collected from qualitative interviews began during the interviews and
continued throughout the interview process. Brief notes were taken during the interviews
indicating data that aligned with the KMO conceptual framework of this study. Because the
77

interviews were live recorded using the Zoom online meeting platform, the transcript option was
enabled thus producing a rough transcript of each interview. While each interview was later
carefully listened to again and each transcript was cleaned up for accuracy by the researcher, a
first cycle of coding was applied using a priori codes aligned to the KMO framework during this
process. As the transcripts were saved in a word processing application, the comment feature was
used to connect notes to selected phrases that aligned with these a priori codes. Following the
cleaning up of each transcript and initial round of rough coding, summative notes were taken
highlighting early impressions of the data.
After the initial interview transcript was revised for accuracy and the first cycle of coding
was applied, the process was repeated for subsequent transcripts and open coding began by
identifying emerging patterns in the data. As early commonalities in the data aligned to the KMO
conceptual framework and emergent codes between the interviews were noticed, they would be
highlighted, and previously revised transcripts would be returned to have pertinent text
highlighted as well. This process continued until all nine interview transcripts were completed,
then an initial codebook was created using the a priori and emergent codes. After this, all the
transcripts were copied into the Atlas.ti computer program for deeper analysis.
Once the transcripts were loaded into Atlas.ti, the first cycle of coding that occurred when
the transcripts were being cleaned up was repeated and both a priori and emergent codes were
identified. Following this cycle of coding, the second cycle focused on axial coding whereby the
code categories were “refined, developed and related or interconnected” (Gibbs, 2018, p. 71).
The data was further coded by categorizing the findings as either helping or hindering teachers’
implementation of culturally responsive PBIS. This process resulted in an axial codebook
aligned to the KMO conceptual framework guiding this study, as well as the emergent codes.
78

Throughout the entire qualitative data analysis process, and during a third phase of analysis,
patterns in the data were noted to identify themes or key findings. One method used to identify
themes was the quantification of the data (e.g., how many different interview respondents spoke
about examining their biases). These findings were then compared to and triangulated with the
findings from the quantitative data collected through surveys.
Quantitative Surveys
A survey was used to collect quantitative data for this part of this convergent mixed
methods study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that a survey design could provide a
quantitative description of relationships between different variables, as well as attitudes and
beliefs of a sampled population. Therefore, in the context of this study, a survey was used to
gather information about the relationship between KMO factors and the implementation of PBIS
with culturally responsiveness. It was also used to get data regarding teachers' biases and
perspectives about the need to implement PBIS with culturally responsiveness to mitigate racial
disproportionality in exclusionary discipline and their self-efficacy for doing so.
Participants
MSD’s teachers in elementary and middle schools implementing the PBIS framework
were the population surveyed for this study. The teachers at these schools were surveyed because
the district reported they are implementing PBIS with the most fidelity as opposed to its high
schools. For the 2019–2020 school year, there were approximately 48 Pre-K teachers, 57
kindergarten, 462 elementary, and 476 secondary teachers (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2020). Teachers who were in high school or at schools not implementing PBIS were
not included in the survey data as an eliminator question was used to disqualify them from
participation. As previously described, most of these teachers in the population were White,
79

mirroring the racial composition of the neighboring communities that were 91% White.
Moreover, most of the teachers were women, especially at the elementary level, reflecting
national trends in education. This population was appropriate to be surveyed because, as
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained, participants should be typical for the topic of interest and
be able to provide the knowledge needed to answer the research questions.
Furthermore, Johnson and Christensen (2014) explained that a census involves studying a
whole population and not just a sample. Therefore, rather than sampling the population of
MSD’s teachers implementing PBIS, the total accessible population of teachers at MSD’s
elementary and middle schools was surveyed for this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
researcher recruited the participant teachers by first requesting permission from district
leadership to administer to the target population. Upon being granted permission, the researcher
communicated with principals at each of the schools about the purpose and scope of the study, as
well as to receive their permission to reach out to the teachers at their respective schools.
Following the principals’ approval, the researcher sent an introductory email and survey link to
the teachers requesting their participation in the quantitative portion of the survey.
According to Qualtrics data, 365 teachers initially opened the survey. Of the 365, 328
(89.86%) responded to the first item which was intended to eliminate respondents who did not
meet the parameters of the target population (e.g., only elementary or middle school teachers at
MSD schools implementing PBIS). The majority of teachers, 244 or 74.39%, met the criteria for
the survey and continued. By the final question, 177 of these 244 teachers (72.54%) completed
every survey item. The survey respondents ranged from PreK-K teachers up to eight grade
teachers with 62.3% of respondents indicating teaching in the elementary school setting and
37.7% indicating they taught in the middle school setting. In terms of subject areas taught, there
80

was a wide range from foreign language teachers (four respondents) to visual arts teachers (seven
respondents) with English (53 respondent) and math (50 respondents) being the subject areas
taught with the highest number of respondents.
Instrumentation
The survey used to gather quantitative data is an original survey created by the researcher
yet influenced by other surveys. Survey items were designed to learn from the participants how
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacted PBIS being implemented in a
culturally responsive way, or not, in their schools. The items in the first part of the survey
focused on collecting information about the participants’ general knowledge about PBIS, their
attitudes toward PBIS, their self-efficacy for implementing PBIS effectively, and their
perspectives about how organizational factors have either helped or hindered the implementation
of PBIS. The items in the latter part of the survey focused on measuring the same KMO
constructs but in relation to PBIS being implemented with cultural and contextual fit. The
purpose of including items about PBIS, in general, was to assess whether participants have a
fundamental understanding of PBIS essential to a culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.
Likert-type items were used (e.g., strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree), and,
per the recommendation of Robinson and Leonard (2019), positive and negative response
options were balanced with no midpoint to force participants to make a definitive choice on each
item. To make the survey accessible to all participants, whether they had knowledge about
cultural responsiveness or not, the use of jargon related to the constructs was avoided. The
survey also included several open-ended questions to get more detailed information about the
participants’ knowledge and perspectives and concluded with an “invitational open-ended
81

question” whereby the participants were asked if they have anything else to share that may or
may not have been elicited by an item (Robinson & Leonard, 2019, p. 96).
An original quantitative survey was created because no surveys specific to KMO factors
influencing the implementation of PBIS culturally responsively could be located by the
researcher to be adopted or adapted to answer this study’s research questions. Thus, teacher self-
efficacy questions were influenced by Bandura’s (2006) teacher self-efficacy scale and
motivation questions related to PBIS were influenced by Feurborn, Tyre, and King’s (2014) Staff
Perceptions of Behavior and Discipline Survey which focused on teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
about students’ behavior, parents’ roles, and the effect of school climate. Items from the School
Climate Survey (OSEP, 2018) and PBIS Self-assessment Survey (OSEP, 2009), two official
PBIS fidelity surveys developed by the OSEP Technical Assistance Center for PBIS, were
influences used to craft the questions related to organizational factors impacting the
implementation of PBIS with culturally responsiveness.
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected using an online survey created with Qualtrics, an online survey
application with USC's access. An online survey was used because it was the most feasible
method due to the aforementioned geographical distance between the researcher and the study
population. Moreover, the online survey was appropriate for the flexibility in designing user-
friendly surveys that can be distributed on multiple mobile platforms such as computers,
smartphones, and tablets (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Additionally, the use of an online
platform was the most cost-effective of various survey formats. Previously it was noted that
Pazzaglia et al. (2016) recommended that survey administration not occur during busy times for
teachers, therefore, as with the interviews being used for collecting qualitative data, surveys were
82

sent out until the second month of school and concluded before the Thanksgiving break.
Furthermore, teachers were provided six to eight weeks to have enough time to complete the
survey (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Lastly, the survey took no more than ten minutes to complete to
minimize survey fatigue exemplified by non-response (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The data collected through the administration of the survey followed further
recommendations by Pazzaglia et al. (2016). First, the survey was not administered until receipt
of university IRB consent and approval from both district and school-site leadership. Before
contacting teachers about the survey, the influence of essential district personnel (e.g., district
leadership, principals, and school-site PBIS teams) was leveraged by notifying them of the
purpose and potential benefits of the study. Along with the support of these key stakeholders,
other individuals with whom the researcher has previously formed positive relationships and are
well-trusted at their respective schools were asked to endorse and build awareness of the survey.
An introductory email describing the survey with the link to the Qualtrics survey used for this
study was sent to an assistant superintendent who was assigned to coordinate with the researcher.
This assistant superintendent then distributed the introductory email and survey link to all
teachers in MSD. Robinson and Leonard (2019) suggested at least four to five points of contact
to maximize participant response, therefore, several reminders to take the survey were sent
during different times of days and days of the week to maximize response rates and the assistant
superintendent forwarded them to all of MSD’s teachers. Upon completion of the collection and
analysis of survey data, the teachers were thanked for their participation, and, at a time to be
determined soon, a summary of findings will be provided to district leadership (Pazzaglia et al.,
2016).
83

Data Analysis
A single-phase, convergent mixed methods design was used to simultaneously collect
qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data from surveys. As responses to the survey
began to come in, initial impressions of the data were made and compared to initial impressions
of the data from ongoing interviews. After the survey participation window was closed, a default
report was run using the Qualtrics software to produce descriptive statistics such as minimum,
maximum, mean, and count. Survey items designed to collect demographic information were
used to identify and quantify respondents by grade level and subjects taught.
Next, because each of the subsequent survey items was designed to align with either the
knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors identified in the conceptual framework for this
study, each item’s data was analyzed to see what it revealed about each factor. Some survey
items were quantified by percentages to indicate whether the data was suggestive or an asset or
barrier to MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. For
example, to gauge the organizational influence of a collegial work culture supporting of new
learning, results were quantified to indicate what percentage of respondents agreed or disagreed
that teachers at their school support one another’s professional growth, and to what degree (e.g.,
strongly agree versus agree). Some items were analyzed to gauge teachers’ beliefs and also
quantified by percentages to infer the relative strength of these beliefs. For instance, teachers
were asked a survey item related to the motivation construct about how effective they believed
PBIS was at reducing the need for ODRs. The results were then used to determine if the
teachers’ beliefs were a help or hindrance to the implementation of culturally responsive PBIS.
In a few cases, data from various survey items were cross-referenced with one another to
determine if they supported or contradicted one another. For example, one survey item asking
84

teachers if they believed it was important to regularly examine their implicit biases about their
CLD students, the majority of responses indicated strong agreement, yet when asked if teachers
at their school believe the same, the belief was not as strong. This contradictory data was used to
determine, again, whether it indicated an asset or barrier to the culturally responsive
implementation of PBIS.
In addition to the primarily closed-ended survey items, three open-ended items were
included on the survey and analyzed for what the data revealed. The comments were tallied and
then quantified by what proportion of the overall comments they represented. For example, in
response to a survey item asking about obstacles to implementing new learning, 74 out of 193
comments (38.34%) mentioned time being an obstacle, whereas 26 of the 193 comments
(13.47%) indicated there were no obstacles to implementing new learning. Therefore, data
quantified in this way was used to analyze whether organizational factors were helping or
hindering the implementation of PBIS in alignment with culturally responsiveness because to do
so new learning must occur. Finally, throughout the entire process of analyzing the quantitative
data from the surveys, the findings were compared to the themes from the qualitative data to see
whether the results support or contradict one another.
Validity and Reliability
Salkind (2014) explained that if instruments for collecting data are not reliable and valid,
then the quality of the data would be dubious. Therefore, to maximize the survey's reliability and
validity to collect quantitative information for this study, several measures were used. Surveys
are inherently imperfect, and survey error, measurement error, bias, the wording of questions,
lack of cultural relevance, survey fatigue, and non-response can all impact the reliability of
surveys (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). To counteract these potential impacts on reliability,
85

Robinson and Leonard's (2019) recommendations about applying principles of design thinking
were followed during the survey development process. First, the potential participants were
empathized with by considering relevant demographic information, their needs as teachers, and
their possible interest in PBIS implemented with cultural and contextual fit. This information
about the participants was combined with the surveys mentioned above that measured similar
constructs to help brainstorm items for the researcher-created survey. These items were then pilot
tested and revised based upon initial results and feedback to increase content validity, other
surveys were used to gather data related to PBIS implementation and teacher self-efficacy were
used as guides though not adopted or adapted. Items were developed based on the conceptual
framework and aligned with the KMO factors that were identified. To offset potential threats to
internal validity caused by the selection of participants who may be predisposed to align with the
researcher's biases (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), all teachers at MSD’s elementary and middle
schools were recruited to complete the survey and not just client teachers who received coaching
from the researcher's organization.
A threat to external validity is the making of inferences from a set of data to other
populations or settings, therefore, to minimize this threat, the researcher explicitly stated that
inferences made from the data specifically apply to the sampled population and are not
necessarily generalizable to other populations and settings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Finally,
to increase external validity and maximize reliability, the strategies mentioned above for
recruitment and increasing response rates were used to achieve a recommended confidence level
of 95% and a margin of error of 5% (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Using the Raosoft Sample Size
Calculator, that meant aiming for a sample size of at least 192 teachers out of an estimated 380 to
complete the survey.
86

For qualitative methods, reliability and validity involve the ethical way a study is done
and conceptualized as credible and trustworthy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, to ensure the
credibility and trustworthiness of the findings of the interviews used to collect data for the
qualitative portion of this mixed methods study, several different methods were used. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013) both emphasized triangulation being an extremely
effective way to reduce the risk of biased conclusion about data and increase how credible and
trustworthy data are, therefore, triangulation was used to compare data from the qualitative
interviews with the statistical data from quantitative surveys. Furthermore, multiple participants
were interviewed to the point of saturation to triangulate the data further and ensure that no
pertinent information was missed (Maxwell, 2013).
To maximize the credibility and trustworthiness of the data, per the recommendations of
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) an audit trail was maintained and a detailed description of the data
collection methodology, procedures, and how key decisions about the study were made was
provided. Due to the interviews being conducted on a purposive sampling of teachers, rich, thick
description was another method employed to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, and thus
transferability. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that this method involves creating such a
detailed description of the study's context that others can make clear connections to how the
findings transfer to their context. Lastly, the researcher's "assumptions, worldview, biases,
theoretical orientation, and relationship to study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259) were
critically self-reviewed and transparently disclosed as a means to increase the credibility and
trustworthiness of the data gleaned from the qualitative interviews of the participants.
87

Ethics
A central and essential concept inherent to an ethical approach to research is minimizing
risks to human participants. The need for minimizing risk is particularly salient given the
cautionary statement by Tuck and Yang (2014) regarding the history of the social sciences
commodifying the stories of “pain and humiliation” collected from participants (p. 223). With
this in mind, the researcher used different methods to protect the participants from potential
harm. Glense (2011) asserted that informed consent is empowering to participants, therefore,
before beginning any interviews or surveys, participants were explicitly told of the purpose of
the study, apprised of all their rights, ensured they were under no pressure to participate, and
consistently reminded they could opt-out at any time during the study – even after data had been
gathered through interviews and surveys.
It was also a responsibility of the researcher to ensure that the teachers' participation and
information shared remained confidential. Glense (2011) emphasized that researchers are
obligated not to share with anyone else what participants disclose to them, as well as preserve
their anonymity. Therefore, participants were assured that audio recordings and video recordings
were stored on an encrypted server or storage device, and handwritten notes were secured in a
safe location. Furthermore, participants were notified that no type of recording could take place
without their expressed consent. It was the researcher’s obligation to apprise the participants of
this right prior to any form of recording and to get permission verbally. The participants were
told that no compensation was to be offered for their participation and they were constantly made
aware participation that their participation was completely voluntary. Finally, to ensure an ethical
approach was utilized for this convergent mixed methods study, the formal IRB process, rules,
and guidelines were strictly adhered to, and this was communicated with all participants.
88

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors either help or hinder MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population, or in other words, in culturally
responsively. To answer the research questions for this study, a convergent-mixed methods
design was used wherein quantitative data was gathered through a survey and qualitative data
collected via interviews. This chapter presents the combined findings of both methodologies as
related to the three research questions. Following a review of the research questions, there will
be a description of the participants for this study. The remainder of the chapter will report
findings organized by each research question as related to the conceptual framework for this
study. The chapter will then conclude with a brief summarization of the findings. These are the
research questions used to guide this study:
1. What are the knowledge factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
2. What are the motivation factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
the culture and context of their school’s student population?
3. What are the organizational factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS
adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student population?
Participants
Survey Participants
The survey used in this study was distributed to all teachers in the district. Because the
target population for this study was only PK–8 teachers at schools implementing PBIS, the first
question served as a filter to eliminate any respondents who did not meet these conditions. Of the
89

328 teachers who answered the filter question, 244 (74.39%) met the criteria for inclusion. Of the
244 qualified to continue, 177 (72.54%) completed all 37 questions in the survey. The
demographic data show that 315 respondents teach between PK–5
th
grades and 112 teach
between 6
th
–8
th
grade. The total of 315 respondents exceeds the 244 that continued taking the
survey, but this indicates overlapping grade level teaching for some of the respondents. For
example, 34 respondents (4.8%) indicated being special education teachers who teach across
grade levels and 13 (1.83%) indicated being performing arts teachers who do so. Figure 2 shows
the distribution of respondents by grade level and Figure 3 shows the distribution by subject
areas taught.

Figure 2
Distribution of Respondents by Grade Level (by Choice Count)

Note: This figure shows the number of teachers at each grade level who responded to the survey.

90

Figure 3
Distribution of Respondents by Subject Area(s) Taught (by Choice Count)

Note: This figure shows the number of teachers per different subject areas taught who responded
to the survey.

Interview Participants
Nine teachers from MSD schools were interviewed for qualitative data. Six of the
teachers taught in the elementary setting whereas three taught in middle school. Of the
interviewees, seven identified as female and two identified as male. One of the nine teachers
interviewed identified as Asian American whereas eight identified as White. The respondents
represented eight different schools with two respondents teaching at the same school. Of these
teachers, three reported being English Learner (EL) teachers, one reported being a special
91

education (SPED) teacher, one reported being a humanities and math teacher, three reported
being music teachers, and one reported being a general education teacher. A commonality
amongst each of these teachers was that all of them had received training and professional
development in cultural responsiveness in some capacity and taught at schools where PBIS was
used. Lastly, pseudonyms were used to protect the confidentiality of each of the respondents.
Maya was an electives teacher who had been with the district for 13 years. She
considered herself a strong believer in intrinsic rewards over extrinsic rewards. Langston was
born and raised in the community of MSD, and though this was community, he had serious
concerns about the racial bigotry he saw in it. He shared he had been with the district for 10
years and was a strong believer in restorative practices. Billie taught at an elementary school and
was on her school’s PBIS leadership, as well as being part of a coaching program for cultural
responsiveness. Martin shared that he had been a teacher for eight years and had a master’s
degree in education. He recounted that he had attended a summer training in cultural
responsiveness and found it to be a “life-changing” experience. Rosa, like Martin, had worked in
the district for eight years. She was an electives teacher at an elementary school, and like Maya,
expressed a preference for intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards. Harriet was an English Learner
teacher at an elementary who started as a substitute teacher in MSD. Like Martin, she shared she
had a master’s degree in education with experience teaching both elementary and high school.
Ida was a special education teacher at an elementary school who was in her seventh year in
teaching. She explained that she served on a school-site committee that fostered the welfare of
students and that she was new to learning about cultural responsiveness. Like Harriet, Ruby was
an English Learner teacher at an elementary school. She shared that she was a mother with
children who attended schools in MSD and that she enjoyed listening to education podcasts,
92

particularly about educational equity and cultural responsiveness. Lastly, Kamala was an English
Learner teacher at an MSD school and, like Ruby, had a child who attended an MSD school. She
also shared that, though she was new to the district, she had previous experience teaching early
childhood education in another school district. Table 2 describes the following demographic data
about the teachers who were interviewed: grade level taught and role.

Table 2
Respondent Demographics
Pseudonym Grade Level Role
Maya Elementary Music
Langston Middle Humanities/Math
Billie Elementary General Education
Martin Middle Music
Rosa Elementary Music
Harriet Elementary EL
Ida Elementary SPED
Ruby Elementary EL
Kamala Elementary EL

Note: Interviewed teachers grade levels and roles.

93

Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: What are the knowledge factors influencing
teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student
population? For this study, there were specific areas of knowledge that were explored in relation
to research question #1. These areas of knowledge centered upon fundamental understandings of
PBIS and knowledge necessary for the implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and
context of individual schools. The following section first details the findings regarding the
conceptual and procedural knowledge MSD’s teachers have about PBIS. After this, the findings
related to MSD’s teachers’ metacognitive knowledge about identifying their biases, factual and
procedural knowledge about culturally responsive practices, and factual and procedural
knowledge about culturally responsive classroom management (CRCM) are detailed.
Fundamental Understanding of PBIS
For teachers to implement PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their school’s
student population, that is, culturally responsively, teachers must first have a fundamental
understanding about PBIS. This understanding includes both conceptual and procedural
knowledge regarding PBIS and its implementation. Findings from this study revealed that
MSD’s teachers appeared to have significant procedural knowledge about PBIS, as well as
relevant conceptual understandings about PBIS.
Conceptual Knowledge about PBIS
Interviews with the nine teachers revealed that they appeared to have some conceptual
knowledge about PBIS being a framework for integrating systems, practices, and data for the
purposes of improving student outcomes, although they had different ways of expressing this
fundamental understanding. For instance, Maya specifically described PBIS being a framework
94

rather than merely a behavioral strategy. She explained, “I would say PBIS means positive
behavior intervention supports or structures and it is a framework for how we basically do life in
our school.” Three out of nine of the respondents seemed to also have this conceptual
understanding although they did not specifically use the term “framework,” but rather the
synonym “structure” to describe what PBIS is. For example, Langston explained, “I would say
that it is a structure—a structure that guides a school approach to discipline.” Overall, eight out
of nine teachers did explain, in some way, that PBIS related to student behavioral management
or behavioral intervention systems. Kamala was the only teacher who did not clearly share an
understanding about PBIS and explained that this was because she was fairly new to the district
and had not received any formal training about PBIS. She did share, though, about her
understanding of the pyramid model which she had previously used in an early childhood
education setting when she stated, “I used something called the pyramid model when I was
teaching early childhood, which they explained as the early childhood version of PBIS whether
that is the case or not, I do not know.”
Another fundamental conceptual understanding about PBIS teachers must have is the
knowledge that PBIS utilizes a positive and proactive approach to student discipline as opposed
to a punitive and reactive approach. According to data gathered from the qualitative interviews,
six of the nine teachers directly or indirectly communicated having this basic understanding. For
instance, Billie stated, “So, PBIS, I would say, is a behavior management system that focuses on
positive reinforcement.” Martin also specifically noted that PBIS was a positive approach to
discipline when he said, “I would tell them PBIS is a system that we use at our school. It's meant
to be positive.” Harriet, though not specifically noting that PBIS was a positive approach, did
communicate the intent of PBIS was to supplant punitive disciplinary approaches. She explained,
95

“PBIS is a system that our district has adopted a couple years ago to respond to—to students’
behavior differently. Now we are trying to understand behavior and try to find solutions that are
not penalizing students or scaring students for the rest of their lives.” Langston also indirectly
shared that he possessed this conceptual understanding about PBIS when he explained that at the
former elementary school at which he taught that positive reinforcements were focused on and,
at his current middle school, there was a focus on using restorative practices. Only one of the
nine teachers interviewed, though, directly commented on PBIS being both a positive and
proactive approach to discipline. For example, Rosa explained, “So, PBIS is supposed to be
proactive and then reinforcing positively and also reactive and looking at data to inform next
steps so that we have a universally supportive model for students and teachers with behavioral
success in the school.” Moreover, Rosa mentioned PBIS being proactive three different times.
For example, she stated, “So, part of PBIS is supposed to be very proactive. It's what we call the
‘teach tos,’ which is, you know, each classroom has the expectations they should be clearly
defined.” Ida and Ruby did not mention the terms “positive” or “proactive," but they did seem to
indicate an understanding that PBIS is based on a positive approach to discipline by mentioning
that PBIS is focused on reinforcing “good” or positive behavior through the use of rewards rather
than punishments. Finally, Kamala, did not directly indicate an understanding that PBIS is a
positive and proactive approach to student discipline, though she did explain that the pyramid
model with which she was more familiar was based upon using positive feedback rather than
negative.
PBIS’s use of a multi-tiered framework to provide behavioral interventions and supports
to students is also a conceptual understanding about PBIS that teachers must possess. The
findings did not reveal, though, if all the interviewed teachers possessed this critical conceptual
96

understanding. Three teachers did mention tiers of PBIS in their responses. For example, Billie
spoke of what her principal, guidance counselor, and dean would do when Tier 1 interventions
and supports were not working for a student. Rosa specifically noted that PBIS used a tiered
structure by stating, “The intention of PBIS, as I understand it, is—is a multi-level approach.”
Martin suggested his awareness of PBIS’s multi-tiered structure by noting that his school has a
Tier 2 committee for handling check-in and check-outs with specific students. Kamala, the only
teacher interviewed who had not received any TPD in PBIS, did describe the pyramid model she
used at her previous school being multi-leveled, but she communicated that she did not know
whether the pyramid model was related to PBIS. No other teacher mentioned that PBIS uses
different levels of intervention and support, but this did not suggest whether they possessed this
conceptual understanding.
Procedural Knowledge About PBIS
In addition to basic conceptual understandings about PBIS, teachers need to also have
fundamental procedural knowledge about PBIS if they are to implement PBIS in a culturally
responsive way. Some examples of this requisite procedural knowledge are how to create
classroom and school-wide behavior matrix, how to teach students the expected behaviors, how
to use a continuum of positive reinforcements, and how to use a continuum of procedures for
discouraging inappropriate behaviors. Based upon the results of the interviews, eight of the
teachers possessed this basic procedural knowledge necessary for implementing PBIS. Rosa was
the only teacher who shared that she did not have this knowledge because of her lack of PBIS
TPD, but her responses did reveal an awareness about some PBIS procedures used at her school-
site. All nine teachers shared they were aware of the school-wide behavioral expectations and
how they are taught to the students. For example, they spoke about school-wide events,
97

sometimes called “rodeos,” where students were gathered in different common areas of the
school to be taught how the school-wide behavioral expectations pertained to that particular area.
Ida explained about rodeos at her school:
Yeah, so we have this—we have three of them like respectful, responsible, and safe. And
then at the beginning of the school year, we typically do like a PBIS Rodeo where we talk
about the rules. And there's typically stations set up and the kids kind of—the classrooms,
go through the stations, like the rules outside and inside the lunchroom.
Seven teachers reported knowing how to create a behavior matrix for their instructional settings
that aligned with the shared school-wide behavioral expectations delineated on the school-wide
behavioral matrix and how to teach them to their students. For instance, Billie shared how
matrices were created at her school:
So, like at the beginning of the year and throughout the year we fill out like classroom
matrix—matrices. Where we outline, like, kind of in each scenario, what are the
expectations and that would be then the tool that you would use to go back and reteach if a
student was not following expectations.
Moreover, all the teachers interviewed were able to articulate how the behaviors described in
their school-wide and classroom matrices are positively reinforced. All of them described some
type of reward or extrinsic incentive system they knew how to use in conjunction with praise to
encourage students to follow the behavioral expectations. Of these nine teachers interviewed,
five described using a ticket system and three described using what they called “bucks” wherein
they were to actively try to “catch” students following the behavioral expectations for the school
and acknowledge them with a ticket or buck. Later, the students would have the opportunity to
98

exchange these tickets or bucks for prizes at some form of a student store. Billie explained about
“gotchas” at her school:
So, in our school we use like a ticket type system. So, we call them “gotchas” and kids
when they're following expectations can earn gotchas. And then those gotchas can be used
to purchase items from our school store. So, we're reinforcing those good behaviors with
those rewards and then they can then turn those into either a physical, tangible thing or
sometimes it's things like lunch or the teacher or those more intangible rewards as well.
In addition to knowing how to use the tickets and bucks (i.e., “gotchas”) to reward students
following expectations, each of the interviewees shared an understanding of the need for having
procedures for discouraging unacceptable behaviors, but they varied on how they do so. Harriet
described following a step-by-step approach where she gives students a first warning, then a
second warning, a conference after class, and finally a parent contact if a student is unresponsive.
Rosa explained that she typically just needs to use brief one-on-one conversations where she
refers a student exhibiting unacceptable behavior back to the communally-created classroom
norms by asking something like, “Hey, you're out of alignment with what we decided on. What
do you need from me to get back in alignment?” She also noted graduated responses depending
on the severity of a student’s behavior. Like Rosa, Martin shared that he knows how to use quick
private conversations to redirect students and how to write an office disciplinary referral (ODR)
if the behavior requires intervention from an administrator. Again, each teacher shared knowing
how to discourage unacceptable behaviors but varied in their particular approach rather than
following a prescribed continuum of responses.
99

Knowledge About Cultural Responsiveness
In addition to fundamental conceptual and procedural knowledge about PBIS, teachers
need to possess various types of knowledge about cultural responsiveness to implement PBIS
with this core principle. That knowledge needs to include factual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge related to awareness of cultural differences, how to teach using culturally responsive
instructional methods, and how to use culturally responsive classroom management techniques.
The quantitative and qualitative data collected for this study indicated varying levels of the
requisite knowledge about cultural responsiveness.
Factual Knowledge About Cultural Behaviors
Survey Results. Teachers require cultural awareness if they are to be able to implement
PBIS in alignment with cultural responsiveness and analysis of data from the survey and
interviews indicate that teachers do not consistently have sufficient factual knowledge about
culturally determined differences in behaviors exhibited by their culturally and linguistically
diverse (CLD) students. Only 25.13% of survey respondents indicated they had received training
and professional development (TPD) in understanding the cultural behaviors of underserved
students. In response to a question item regarding what the surveyed teachers found most
challenging about working with CLD students, 32 out of 175 comments (18.29%) mentioned the
need for knowing more about cultural differences. For example, one respondent commented, “I
still have work to do in finding out how to address unacceptable behaviors vs. cultural behaviors
because sending students to the office or writing Office Discipline Referrals is way overused for
cultural behaviors.” Another teacher who responded to this question on the survey said,
“Knowing what is from their culture and what is behavior not related to culture.”
100

Interview Results. Eight of the teachers interviewed were able to articulate some factual
knowledge about culturally determined behaviors, though data showed that they had a range of
levels of understanding, from tentative knowledge to a deep understanding. Maya and Harriet
specifically mentioned learning about 16 cultural behaviors often exhibited by CLD students and
knowing the difference between cultural behaviors and universally unacceptable ones. Ruby
spoke about cultural behaviors of her students that are English Learners (ELs) as well as other
CLD students, though her words showed a tentative understanding about them. This burgeoning
awareness of behaviors that are culturally-based is evident in her statement, “I guess the opposite
where like the blurting out, the overlapping of—like impulsivity with their body. So just like not
sitting in their seat though having to walk around—and always and then wanting to like
collaborate with other kids for when the teachers talking and things like that.” Ida also shared
about her still developing factual knowledge regarding her CLD students. In specifically talking
about the cultural behaviors of her Black students, she said, “So I mean, we've talked about
some, you know, like students—African American students are—and this wouldn’t just be
specific to them…and this is just coming out of my head, and I'm still very new. So, just bear
with me on this.”
Though the interviewed teachers shared a growing understanding about cultural
behaviors, they commented that many of their colleagues needed more factual knowledge about
cultural behaviors. Rosa explained, “Teachers don't grasp yet because they haven't had the
training, how to interpret different behaviors as being cultural or unacceptable,” and Maya
echoed this perception regarding the paucity in her colleagues’ knowledge about cultural
behaviors by stating, “So I think our staff really what we need at this point is like more clarity on
what is situational inappropriateness and what is a common—what is a cultural behavior.”
101

Langston noted that teachers’ lack of a “good understanding of cultural behaviors” resulted in
racial disparities in office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) at his school. He then further elaborated
on this by explaining that cultural behaviors exhibited by CLD students are often labeled by
teachers at his school as disruptive or disrespectful behavior. Three other respondents also shared
this understanding about the culturally based behaviors of CLD students being misidentified as
what they referred to as the “3 D’s”: disrespect, defiance, and disruptive.
Factual and Procedural Knowledge About Culturally Responsive Teaching
Survey Results. When teachers use instructional strategies that are culturally responsive,
CLD students tend to be more engaged and process information more optimally. In PBIS,
effective instructional strategies are considered a Tier 1 practice; therefore, teachers must know
what teaching strategies are culturally responsive and how to utilize them for PBIS to be
implemented with cultural congruence. According to survey and interview data, responding
teachers have varying levels of factual and procedural knowledge regarding culturally responsive
teaching (CRT). Though all nine of the teachers interviewed indicated knowing different CRT
strategies, only 26.35% of survey respondents reported having been trained in effective
instructional practices for CLD students (i.e., CRT). Moreover, 45 comments mentioned the need
for more TPD in CRT. For example, in response to a survey question about what is still required
to best meet the needs of CLD students, one respondent commented, “more staff development in
CLR,” and another said, “practical instructional practice ideas that are culturally responsive.”
Interview Results. Of the nine teachers interviewed, seven were able to name and
describe different CRT practices that they use, though they shared different levels of ability for
doing so. Six teachers specifically mentioned CRT practices called protocols that they used to
102

engage students in more discussions in class. For example, Harriet mentioned her use of CRT
protocols and one particular one she used with her students:
And I just felt like those protocols are there for a reason. And what I like about those
protocol is that they are considered—considerate of everybody's background. Like I use a
Jump-In reading because some kids might be just comfortable reading the two lines that
they know how to every single word.
The CRT practice of VABBing was named and described by six of the interviewed teachers.
VABB stands for validate, affirm, build, and bridge; it involves acknowledging the cultural
strengths of CLD students and using these strengths to help CLD students learn while also
teaching students the skills they need for academic success. In addressing the practice of
VABBing, Rosa explained, “CLR has completely transformed the way that I lesson plan. I—my
main, like, transformative element is with the proactive VABBing.” Billie also mentioned her
use of CRT protocols and addressed VABBing through the CRT practice of juxtaposition
whereby a teacher intentionally pairs an instructional activity that validates and affirms cultural
behaviors of CLD students with an instructional activity that builds and bridges to traditional
school culture behaviors:
I use a lot of like the discussion protocols—call and response. I do a lot of that stuff. So
those are things that we’ve learned. I also like, you know, talking about the juxtaposition.
I love that idea. You know pairing those more school culture protocols with them—or
like kid culture, matching those together.
Langston, as well, revealed his knowledge of and ability to use the CRT practice of VABBing
and juxtaposition in saying, “right now the biggest change has been my—my frame of mind, my
103

frame of reference and how I'm using the VABB—that VA and the BB and contrasting and the
going back and forth between traditional and non-traditional.”
Factual and Procedural Knowledge About Culturally Responsive Classroom Management
Survey Results. In addition to needing to know culturally responsive practices and how
to utilize them, teachers must also possess factual and procedural knowledge regarding culturally
responsive classroom management if they are to implement PBIS in alignment with the core
principle of cultural responsiveness. Findings from the survey and interview data suggest that
teachers have varying levels of knowledge about culturally responsive classroom management.
According to the survey, only 26.18% of respondents reported receiving any TPD in culturally
responsive classroom management, and in responding to an open-ended question item about
what they found most challenging about working with CLD students, 31 out of 175 (17.71%)
comments related to challenges with culturally responsive classroom management. One
respondent explained, “I still have work to do in figuring out how to address unacceptable
behaviors vs. cultural behaviors because sending students to the office or writing Office
Discipline Referrals is way overused for cultural behaviors.” Echoing this gap in knowledge
about cultural behaviors impacting the teacher’s ability to implement classroom management in a
culturally responsive way, another respondent commented about having a challenge with
“Identifying behaviors as cultural. Knowing how to respond to them without offending.”
Interview Results. Teachers who were interviewed expressed more factual and
procedural knowledge about culturally responsive classroom management. practices than was
evidenced in the survey results. In particular, six out of nine of the teachers described applying
the aforementioned strategy of VABB to their management of student behaviors. VABBing as an
aspect of culturally responsive classroom management involves having the factual knowledge
104

about whether a student’s behavior is cultural or not and the procedural knowledge of how to
validate and affirm a student’s cultural behavior while building and bridging to a school culture
behavior that may be more appropriate in the moment. For example, Ida exemplified this
understanding in describing how she applied the VABB strategy to managing behaviors of CLD
students in a culturally responsive way:
VABBing is huge. So, I've changed the way I listen to students. I'm still working on that.
And then also the way I respond to students’ behaviors because I always like, have that
check in the back of my mind. Is this a cultural behavior? Is this a cultural behavior?
Exhibiting her knowledge of CRCM, Rosa described how she uses what she learned about
“reactive VABBing” to better respond to the cultural behaviors of her students, and Harriet
echoed this sentiment by noting how she uses the VABB strategy to respond to students’ cultural
behaviors in a culturally responsive way.
Metacognitive Knowledge About Cultural Biases
Culturally responsive teaching requires an awareness of one’s own cultural biases and
seven out of nine of the teachers interviewed indicated that they employ metacognitive
knowledge about their cultural biases. Interviewed teachers also shared that they are developing
their understanding about their implicit and explicit biases about the cultural behaviors of their
CLD students. For example, Ruby remarked about examining her thinking for biases:
So, then we have to be careful—like the unconscious biases—are we imposing our—our
own thinking on other students and devaluing things based on our own thinking? And so,
I don't even know the right answer, but it's good to have that conversation.
105

Ida shared about how the TPD in implicit biases has her rethinking her thoughts about students’
behaviors and whether they warrant being referred to the office. The need for examining her
cultural biases was echoed by Billie:
Um personally, I—I guess to call like check yourself, you know. You step back and think,
like, you know, am I dealing with this as an individual or am I looking at what group they
belong to when I’m dealing with this student? You know what, where am I kind of placing
them in my mind, even if it's subconsciously?
Martin also described having knowledge about cultural biases and noted the need for continuing
to work on recognizing implicit biases regarding CLD students.
Awareness of Racial Disparities in Discipline
Survey Results. Both teachers who participated in the survey and those who were
interviewed indicated mixed levels of awareness about racial disparities in ODRs in their
schools. Out of 182 respondents, 98 (53.85%) indicated that some demographic subgroups were
overrepresented at their schools, whereas 23 (13.74%) reported there was no overrepresentation
and 59 (32.42%) indicated that they did not know. In response to a follow-up question about
what demographic subgroup was referred to the office more often than other groups,
respondents’ answers varied (see Figure 4). Boys (30.97% of respondents), Black or African
American students (28.32% of respondents), and students receiving SPED (22.51% of
respondents) were the demographic subgroups that teachers indicated had the highest levels of
ODRs at their schools.

106

Figure 4
Demographic Subgroups Believed to Receive the Most ODRs (by Percentage)

Note: Student demographic subgroups teachers believed receive the most ODRs at their school-
sites.

Interview Results. This range in responses was paralleled by the teachers who were
interviewed but with less certainty. Only two of the nine interviewed teachers clearly knew that
their school’s ODR data showed that some demographic subgroups, particularly Black students,
were most overrepresented, whereas most of the respondents only had vague notions of
demographic disparities in discipline. Maya and Rosa were both able to cite specific data that
indicated what demographic subgroups were overrepresented in ODRs at their respective
schools. For instance, Rosa commented, “The data reinforces my perceptions of the—the lack of
universal cultural responsiveness in my building because it—disproportionately boys and
107

students of color and special ed students are receiving ODRs—is—according to the data.” Six of
the teachers shared that they had an impression that some groups were overrepresented in ODRs
as evidenced by beginning their responses with “I think,” but they could not cite specific data.
For example, Martin responded, “I think what we noticed is that basically like our non-white
students were getting written up the most,” and Harriet answered, “But I think the majority will
be like White and Black students most of the time.” Two of the teachers (Ida and Ruby) could
not cite specific data either, but they inferred from a district-imposed equity goal that Black
students were the most overrepresented in ODRs at their schools. Ida reported about ODRs
disparities at her school:
So, we have data that shows the ODRs, and I think it. I think it might even track it into
more specific categories, but I couldn't tell you that for a fact. I know that as a CSIP—
like our, our district-wide CSIP goal does talk about trying to reduce office behavioral
slips for students that are African American because I'm assuming that the data was high.
Only one interviewed teacher, Kamala, could not name if any demographic subgroups
disproportionately received ODRs at her school. She explained, though, that it was because she
did not believe in the veracity of the data. Lastly, whether certain or vaguely certain, the
interviewed teachers noted that non-White (particularly Black) students, boys, and students
receiving SPED services were those demographic subgroups most overrepresented in ODRs at
their schools. Eight of nine of the teachers indicated that Black students are most
overrepresented, two mentioned non-White students, three mentioned boys with one being
specific about Black boys, and one noted students receiving SPED services as receiving the most
ODRs at her school.
108

Summary
To summarize, Research Question 1 focused on identifying knowledge factors that
appeared to have an influence on MSD’s teachers’ culturally responsive implementation of
PBIS. Findings regarding the fundamental PBIS understandings revealed that MSD’s teachers
appear to strongly know how to implement PBIS and possessed key conceptual understandings
about PBIS. Findings from this study also indicated that MSD’s teachers do not consistently
have factual knowledge about cultural behaviors, factual and procedural knowledge about
culturally responsive teaching, and factual and procedural knowledge about culturally responsive
classroom management. Lastly, this study revealed that MSD’s teachers appear to possess
metacognitive knowledge about cultural biases, yet they do not appear to be consistently aware
of racial disparities in exclusionary discipline in their schools.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: What are the motivation factors influencing
teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student
population? Motivation factors, in addition to knowledge influences, impact teachers’
implementation of PBIS with the core principle of cultural responsiveness. These factors include
teachers’ beliefs that positive and proactive disciplinary practices are more effective than
punitive and reactive practices, teachers’ willingness to interrogate their biases, teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs, and teachers’ beliefs that they are the most influential factor in students’
behaviors in the classroom. The following section will describe the findings from the collected
quantitative and qualitative data as they relate to Research Question 2. Overall, the findings
indicated that MSD’s teachers ranged widely in their beliefs regarding positive and proactive
approaches to discipline, the effectiveness of PBIS, and the Tier 1 PBIS practice of using
109

extrinsic rewards to encourage students to exhibit desired behaviors. The study results also
revealed that, though contradictions existed in the MSD’s teachers’ willingness to interrogate
their thinking for biases, there seemed to be a growing belief that aligning PBIS with cultural
responsiveness was needed. Finally, the following section will describe findings indicating
contradictory general teaching efficacy (GTE) beliefs and moderate levels of personal teaching
efficacy (PTE) for cultural responsiveness.
Beliefs
Beliefs About Positive and Proactive Discipline
Supportive Beliefs. Both survey and interview results showed that respondents indicated
a belief that teachers at their school support a positive and proactive approach to school
discipline, yet they also noted having colleagues who still believe in punitive practices. In
responding to a survey question about whether teachers at their school believe that a positive and
proactive approach to school discipline is the most effective way to create a safe learning
environment, 36 out of 189 (19.05%) indicated they strongly agree and 126 (66.67%) indicated
they agree. Only 27 respondents (14.29%) disagreed with this belief and no teachers strongly
disagreed. Support for a positive versus a punitive approach to student discipline was shared by
several of the teachers who were interviewed, as well. For example, Langston noted that at his
school, the teachers and the administration were more supportive of positive discipline practices.
He commented, “the approach in the disciplinary meetings is much more guided at restorative
rather than just punishment . . . .”
Contradictory Beliefs. Despite this support for restorative practices, which is a positive
approach to discipline, Langston also noted that some teachers at his school are not supportive of
it. He explained, “I know several teachers don't understand the restorative piece and feel that
110

students aren't receiving appropriate consequences for their actions. I’ve heard that several
times.” The theme of contradictory teachers’ beliefs in using positive practices over punitive
ones was also evident in Martin’s response to a follow-up question about ODRs. He explained
that his administration tells teachers at his school, “at the beginning of the year, don't do a whole
bunch of write-ups, don't do a whole bunch of ODRs. Like, teach the kids how to be successful
in school first . . . .” Yet, Martin also noted a contradiction to this belief in a positive approach by
noting how teachers at his school use ODRs in a punitive manner. He commented, “there's a lot
of teachers that are rip-roaring with the ODRs. They're like, I'm gonna write up every little thing.
I'm gonna, I'm gonna try to punish everything.” This dichotomy in teachers’ beliefs regarding
positive versus punitive discipline practices was noted by Rosa, as well:
But I don't want my students to be punished for something that I can handle in-house. I
think there are several teachers who feel that way. I also think there are a lot of teachers
who appreciate the ability to record when students are not following traditional
expectations. You don't bring a pencil to class, you get an ODR. There's a lot of that.
Ida also noted the apparent contradiction at her school between teachers’ beliefs in the
effectiveness of a positive approach to discipline yet also decrying the need for students to be
referred to the office more often. Ida explained, “I still think that there's a lot of teachers who feel
like the office referrals and the ODRs and that those are what should be happening more often
than not.”
Finally, Ruby observed that, despite her school adopting a positive approach to
discipline, some teachers would contradict their espoused belief in this approach by complaining
about the administration being “too soft” when dealing with students’ problematic behavior in a
non-punitive manner. Moreover, Ruby explained that her colleagues, who she called
111

“traditional” teachers, lamented that students needed to fear going to the principal’s office rather
than what they perceived was students just receiving a “pep” talk. In sum, the findings clearly
indicated MSD’s teachers’ espoused beliefs in support of positive and proactive methods of
discipline, but the findings also revealed teachers’ perceptions that their colleagues are not as
committed to positive and proactive disciplinary practices as they profess.
Beliefs About PBIS
Survey Results. In alignment with the contradictory beliefs about the effectiveness of a
positive and proactive approach to discipline, survey and interview data also revealed teachers’
mixed beliefs about the effectiveness of PBIS. In response to a survey question regarding
whether teachers believe PBIS has been effective at creating and maintaining safe and
welcoming environments at their respective schools, only 18 out of 192 respondents (9.38%)
strongly agreed, though 104 (54.17%) agreed. A significant number of respondents, 65 (32.81%),
disagreed that PBIS was helping make their schools safer and more welcoming, but only seven
(3.65%) strongly disagreed with this statement. The contrasting beliefs about the effectiveness of
PBIS was also evident in teachers’ responses to a survey item that asked respondents if teachers
at their school believe PBIS has been effective in reducing the need for exclusionary discipline
practices such as ODRs and suspensions. The differences in beliefs were stark. Only 11 out of
191 respondents (5.76%) believed PBIS was being effective at reducing ODRs and suspensions.
90 respondents (47.12%) did agree that they felt teachers at their schools believed PBIS was
being effective at mitigating the need for exclusionary or punitive discipline, but 82 (42.83%)
disagreed and eight (4.19%) strongly disagreed. Several teachers even made comments to open
ended items addressing their concerns about PBIS’s effectiveness. In expressing issues with
PBIS, one teacher wrote about PBIS:
112

I think we should seriously look at PBIS and whether it works for ALL kids. I don’t
know of any teachers who believe that, but we have several administrators who will lose
jobs if we get rid of it. Like I said, the kids who need help the most don’t benefit from
PBIS. It has run its course and we need a new plan.
Echoing this sentiment, in specifically referring to CLD students, another respondent
commented, “PBIS doesn’t work for them. Or most of my students in general.”
Interview Results. Teachers who were interviewed also shared their own ambivalent
beliefs about the effectiveness of PBIS, as well as their colleagues’ beliefs. Eight of the nine
respondents shared that support for PBIS was mixed at their schools. Rosa reported the strongest
belief in PBIS by her colleagues. She stated, “I think probably 80% of teachers are our pro-
PBIS.” Despite this high percentage of teachers at her school backing PBIS, Rosa also noted
resistance to PBIS:
There are quite a few teachers who are vocal about not believing in PBIS—And those
20% are anti-PBIS for a variety of reasons. I—I would be more pro-PBIS, if the model as
it exists in our schools, was more aligned with the intentions of the creators of the PBIS
model. But I am at that 20% camp.
Langston reported similarly contradictory attitudes by his colleagues towards PBIS. He stated,
“If I was rating it on a scale of one to ten, I'd say five or six, with ten being very supportive.”
Nearly paralleling Langston’s comment, Martin felt that “most everybody is probably a five out
of ten” and teachers at his school were mainly going through the motions of PBIS while still
using their own discipline approach. Though Kamala previously shared that she did not know
much about PBIS, she did comment that she felt teachers were, for the most part, passively
supportive of PBIS with two teachers, in particular being “loud and proud about PBIS.” She
113

further elaborated by saying, “I think it's just kind of a given that we do it,” which seemed to
indicate that most teachers at her school were not particularly enthusiastic about or antagonistic
towards PBIS and had just accepted PBIS as routine or standard practice.
The interviewed teachers shared various reasons for the ambivalent attitudes regarding
PBIS. For instance, Maya reported frustration by her colleagues that PBIS was not helping the
school to be safer and truly reducing the need for ODRs:
I think that every staff member would tell you that in general—like stress in the school is
going up because—because there are so many situationally inappropriate behaviors—that
are really running the school and—and running the school climate and people are feeling
frustrated that PBIS disciplinary practices aren't feeling effective.
Maya also explained that, though the number of students receiving ODRs had lessened, and her
school was even “marked as a school of distinction” for this, challenging student behaviors had
actually increased and were causing staff stress levels to increase in kind. Ruby shared that PBIS
was once strongly supported at her school, particularly in its early years of implementation, but
that support had waned because of an increase in behavioral issues and the shifting of priorities
placed on teachers:
I understand the value of PBIS and understand it was meant to create a solution to a
problem. But at the same time, I feel like I don’t think we’re living, breathing PBIS like
we were like five—ten years ago. Because like everyone’s focus is shifting.
Like Maya, Kamala noted that she did not feel that PBIS was being successful in reducing the
need for ODRs. She shared that, though the number of ODRs issued at her school had lowered,
the behavioral problems had not. In contrast to Maya and Kamala’s comments, Rosa shared that,
114

under PBIS, the use of ODRs had actually increased at her school. She explained that ODRs
were not being used at her school as intended in a PBIS model:
I think that teachers—if office discipline referrals were serving what I believe is their
intended purpose, which is record keeping, they would likely be more effective if they
informed individual teachers and perhaps sections of the school or administrators on
where teachers needed more training in order to prevent situations from getting to the
point of ODRs, suspensions, and expulsions. However, I think the ODRs actually have
become punitive.
Lastly, Billie also noted ambivalence regarding PBIS’s effectiveness at her school. Despite
reporting that most teachers at her school are fairly supportive of PBIS, she felt that PBIS has
only been “mildly effective” at helping to create a safe and welcoming school environment.
Moreover, she highlighted that her school had one of the highest rates of ODRs in her district
and that PBIS had little impact.
Beliefs About Using Rewards in PBIS
Contrasting Beliefs. A core practice in PBIS is the use of a reward system to encourage
students to comply with shared behavioral expectations, but the interviewed teachers had
contrasting beliefs about the use of extrinsic rewards and their overall effectiveness at their
respective schools. Three of nine interviewed felt that the use of rewards at their schools was
effective in promoting desired behaviors, but two of these teachers also reported some cons
about rewarding students. For instance, Langston remarked, “PBIS is also in charge of like these
rewards and—and that is definitely—it's something that adds a positive element to the school,”
but Ruby noted that, though the reward system being used at her school was working for some
students, students receiving SPED services would become upset because of not being rewarded
115

with “gotcha” tickets or being able to attend award ceremonies. Ruby also shared that PBIS’s
focus on the use of extrinsic motivators did not align with her, and some of her colleagues’,
beliefs about motivation:
[T]he other thing that is a huge issue is the idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation
and a lot of us a lot of—a lot of the teachers struggle with rewarding—like kids all the
time because I guess that's another personal issue with that—like some teachers will just
not do TOPS tickets, because they expect them to just be good all the time without being
rewarded—And that's like a personal thing—I do struggle with that intrinsic versus
extrinsic things because I do have kids that are very much extrinsically motivated
versus—like they want to get something—like a prize and they’re not really thinking
about how—the purpose.
Maya and Rosa also both expressed either their personal or their colleagues’ philosophical
differences with PBIS’s emphasis on the use of extrinsic rewards. Maya specifically said, “I
struggle with the reward system” and went on to explain about her belief in the greater
effectiveness of intrinsic motivation. Rosa explicitly lamented, “I think the emphasis on PBIS is
way too often on paying students for their ‘good behaviors.’” She then further added, “that
philosophy of PBIS as, like, reward the good behaviors, very focused on carrots doesn't really
jive with my personal philosophy as an educator.”
Perceptions of Loss of Effectiveness of Extrinsic Rewards. Besides a difference in
perspectives regarding the value of using extrinsic rewards, interviewed teachers also noted that
the reward systems at their school lost effectiveness with older students. For example, Martin
explained that when he would offer his older students a ticket to acknowledge an appropriate
choice they made, they would sometimes refuse it despite the prospect of exchanging the tickets
116

for tangible rewards. Ruby’s observation at her school about older students’ responses to her
school’s extrinsic reward system echoed Martin’s explanation:
I think for my younger kids—my kindergarten kids like as far as the TOPS tickets, I think
it works for them—the other thing—it doesn't really work well with my older kids
because they're not interested in the TOPS store. They're like—so, it almost becomes
like—at a certain age that it becomes not cool to them.
Finally, an additional concern that surfaced about the use of extrinsic rewards that had teachers
questioning its effectiveness was brought up by Billie and Rosa. Both teachers noted that the
students primarily being rewarded at their schools were those who exhibited behaviors that
conformed to dominant culture norms and that their CLD students’ cultural behaviors were not
rewarded. Billie commented about her growing knowledge about the cultural behaviors of her
CLD students:
I think like the kids who get the most tickets, are the kids who already subscribe to that
mainstream culture, you know, they're the ones that are already going to be quiet and
raise their hand and you know they're the ones that get rewarded more and then it just
seems like there's that—that gap there that I don't like. It can be very discouraging for
kids that don't fit that mainstream culture because they're not getting as many rewards.
Rosa’s comments about PBIS rewards were similar to Billie’s. She opined, “I think students are
disproportionately rewarded for traditional school behaviors that they come into the building
with,” and elaborated that she felt a hierarchical system had formed at her school whereby
students who exhibit cultural behaviors are not rewarded for them.
117

Willingness to Interrogate Biases
Teachers’ Supportive Beliefs. Survey and interview data showed that the majority of
teachers indicated that examining their thinking for implicit biases about their CLD students was
important. Out of 179 respondents, 117 (65.36%) strongly agreed this was important and 58
(32.4%) agreed that examining their thinking for biases was important. Only four (2.23%)
disagreed with this. One respondent commented, “I need to continue to evaluate my own biases
and know where they are coming from so I can then present my instruction in an effective
manner.” Seven of the nine teachers who were interviewed spoke to the importance of examining
their thinking for biases. Exemplify this was Rosa’s response to a follow-up question about the
importance of examining her thoughts about her CLD for biases. Rosa indicated her strong belief
in needing to check her thinking for bias by saying, “Constantly interrogate myself. Constantly.”
Perceptions About Colleagues’ Beliefs. Data from the survey indicated that most of the
respondents agreed their colleagues believed in the importance of examining their biases about
their CLD students, as well. Of the teachers who were surveyed, 82.27% indicated they strongly
agreed (25.03%) or agreed (61.24%) that teachers at their school believe it is important to
examine their biases. In contrast, only 31 (17.51%) of respondents disagreed that their colleagues
believe it is important to examine their thinking for implicit biases and just two (1.13%) strongly
disagreed with this.
Interestingly, the survey and interview data revealed some apparent contradictions
between the respondents’ perceptions of their own willingness to examine their thinking for
biases and their perceptions of their colleagues’ willingness to do so. For instance, although
65.36% (117) of teachers indicated that they strongly agree it is important to examine their biases
about their CLD students, this dropped to only 15.82% (28) of teachers strongly agreeing that
118

they believe teachers at their schools think it is important to do so. Moreover, whereas only
2.23% (4) of the teachers indicated that they disagreed with examining their thinking for implicit
biases, this number increased when indicating respondents’ perceptions of their colleagues. As
noted, 17.51% (31 disagreed) and 1.13% (two strongly disagreed) felt that they worked with
teachers who did not think it was important thus showing about a 15-point difference. The
variance between teachers’ perceptions of their own willingness to examine their biases and their
perception of their colleagues’ willingness is detailed in Table 3.

Table 3
Willingness to Examine Biases
Survey Item Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
n % n % n % n %
It is important for teachers to
regularly examine their implicit
biases about their culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD)
students.
117 65.36 58 32.40 4 2.23 0 0.00
Teachers at my school believe it is
important to examine their biases
about their culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD)
students.
28 15.82 116 65.54 31 17.51 2 1.13

Note: This table indicates the number and percentage of respondents who responded to each
survey item regarding biases about culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students.

119

This concern about their colleagues’ ability to identify their own implicit biases is
reflected in this comment by one of the survey respondents in response to a question about
challenges with meeting the needs of CLD students. The teacher commented, “Knowing that my
students will not encounter implicit bias in other classes or with other staff in the building,” and
in response to this same question, another teacher commented about the need for having “more
honest conversations about biases.” This sentiment was evident in comments made by the
teachers who were interviewed, too. For example, Rosa explained, “[T]here's resistance to the
idea of implicit bias. And there's a lot of white fragility. So that is a big hurdle that's getting in
the way, as well.” In responding to a follow-up question about monitoring implicit or
unconscious biases, Maya also addressed the challenge of teachers examining their biases at her
school by commenting, “Yeah, I think it's coming. For sure, for sure. I mean, everybody has
implicit bias. I think that um—I think it's going to be sticky with our staff of trying to help
people understand.”
Growing Belief in Aligning PBIS With Cultural Responsiveness
Comments shared by several of the interviewed teachers revealed a burgeoning belief by
some teachers that PBIS would be more effective if it were implemented in alignment with
cultural responsiveness. Seven out of the nine teachers specifically mentioned the need for PBIS
to be implemented culturally responsively, that their school’s leadership was either already
considering the need to align their school’s PBIS framework with culturally responsive
principles, or their school had already started the process of figuring out how to do so. For
example, Maya shared that staff stress had increased at her school because of increases in
challenging behaviors described as “situationally inappropriate” despite her school having a
significant reduction in ODRs. In explaining why she thought this was the case, Maya opined, “I
120

think it's expressly because we're not aligning PBIS with CLR.” Ruby similarly indicated this
growing belief in the need for PBIS to be implemented culturally responsively. She commented,
“I think we're noticing the gaps in PBIS and starting to go more like seeing where CLR can like
kind of boost that up a little bit.”
Ruby, Harriet, and Kamala commented that at their schools, the belief in the need for
aligning PBIS with CLR had already resulted in an effort to figure out how to do so. Ruby
explained that teachers and administrators at her school had already begun the process of using a
“CLR lens” to examine their school-wide PBIS behavior matrix for cultural alignment. Harriet
shared that, prior to school closures due to the COVID pandemic, an effort had begun to connect
PBIS and CLR. She commented, “I just started connecting with my two building representatives
from PBIS. And we were just about to collaborate for ways to bring PBIS and CLR together at
staff meetings, instead of doing two separate things.” Kamala echoed Harriet in her observation,
“You know, we have all this talk about our PBIS people and the CLR people coming together
and figuring out, you know how this is linked together and what can we do.”
In contrast to these three teachers, Rosa noted that no efforts had yet been put towards
implementing PBIS with the core principle of cultural responsiveness, but she shared her belief
that it must be done so. Rosa stated, “There's discussion about, like, having classroom
management champions or bringing PBIS people into the work. I'd like to see that happen.” Of
the two remaining interviewees, one did not explicitly name a belief in implementing PBIS
culturally responsively, but Langston implied this by commenting that systemic changes needed
to be made to PBIS for it to adequately address persistent racial disparities in discipline at his
school.
121

Self-Efficacy Beliefs
General Teaching Efficacy
General teaching efficacy (GTE) refers to a generalized belief by teachers that they can
have a significant influence on students and on student outcomes. Moreover, teacher’s beliefs
that, not only could they impact student outcomes, but they are the most critical factor in
affecting student outcomes is necessary for teachers to implement PBIS with cultural
responsiveness. Results of the survey revealed that most of the responding teachers appear to
have high GTE by indicating they believed that teachers have the strongest influence over
students’ behavior in the classroom. Out of 177 respondents to a survey question related to GTE,
54 (30.51%) strongly agreed and 93 (52.54%) agreed that teachers were the strongest influence.
Only 29 (16.38%) disagreed and just one (0.56%) strongly disagreed that teachers have a major
impact on the behavior of students.
Interestingly, though, out of 175 responses to an open-ended survey item regarding what
teachers find most challenging about working with their CLD students, 31 (17.71%) teachers’
comments appeared to indicate lower levels of GTE. These comments appeared to suggest that
these teachers attributed the primary influence on students’ behaviors in the classroom as a factor
other than themselves. For example, about half (16) of the comments related to parenting and
home life issues having more influence student success than teachers themselves. Exemplifying
this belief that teachers are not as critical as external influences such as quality of parenting, one
respondent commented, “Some have inherited their parents [sic] way of thinking and come to
school with a chip on their shoulder.” Another teacher seemed to also indicate that parents and
the students’ attitudes were more impactful than teachers themselves by commenting, “Some of
lack of respect of students and the parents do not care to help me.” Other respondents’ comments
122

seemed to indicate lower GTE by sharing that they felt failures of their school’s administration,
rather than their own abilities, were a major cause of behavioral challenges with CLD students.
For instance, one teacher commented in relation to struggling with supporting CLD students that
the “Principal needs to be supportive and consistent.” Another teacher similarly located
difficulties with CLD students outside of the realm of teachers’ influence by commenting, “We
need improved systems to deal with behavior from the ground up, in the classroom and into how
administration deals with behavior as well.”
Self-Efficacy for Cultural Responsiveness
Data gathered from the survey of teachers indicated that the respondents were somewhat
confident in their ability to be culturally responsive (see Figure 5). When responding to a
question item asking teachers to rate their level of confidence (on a scale of one to ten with ten
being the highest level of confidence) regarding their ability to recognize student behaviors that
are culturally based, out of 177 respondents the mean self-rating was 6.78. With a mean self-
rating of 6.98, respondents indicated being a bit more confident in their ability to distinguish
between culturally based behaviors and universally unacceptable behaviors. Regarding their
confidence in using instructional practices that are effective with CLD students, the mean
confidence rating by responding teachers was 6.77. Lastly, the mean self-rating by teachers in
relation to their confidence for managing the behavior of students from culturally diverse
backgrounds was 7.0.

123

Figure 5
Responses to Items Regarding Level of Confidence

Note: Based on a scale of 1–10 (1 being ‘not certain I can do it’ to 10 being ‘very certain I can do
it’).

Summary
The second research question for this study focused on what motivational factors were
influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. Findings from the
quantitative and qualitative data revealed that teachers had espoused beliefs about the
effectiveness of positive and proactive discipline, yet they also reported having colleagues who
believed in punitive practices. Another theme from the data revealed that teachers had
0 10 0 10
Recognize and identify student behaviors
that are culturally based
Distinguish between culturally based
behaviors and universally unacceptable
behaviors
6.78
6.98
Use instructional practices that are
effective with culturally and linguistically
diverse (CLD) students
Manage the behavior of students from
culturally diverse backgrounds
6.77 7
0 10 0 10
124

ambivalent feelings about the PBIS’s effectiveness in creating safe and welcoming school
environments for all students, as well as reducing the need for office disciplinary referrals. The
data also seemed to indicate that teachers had contradictory beliefs about the core Tier 1 PBIS
practice of using extrinsic rewards to motivate students to behave appropriately. Next, although
the findings indicated that most teachers personally believe in the need to interrogate their biases,
the findings also revealed that teachers did not believe as strongly that their colleagues were
willing to examine their biases. This study also revealed that apparently teachers’ belief in the
need for aligning PBIS with cultural responsiveness was increasing. Lastly, in relation to self-
efficacy, results of the study seemed to indicate that teachers had mixed levels of belief that they
were the most significant factor in influencing student outcomes (i.e., general teaching efficacy),
as well as having a moderate level of personal teaching efficacy for being culturally responsive.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: What are the organizational factors influencing
teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their school’s student
population? In addition to knowledge and motivation influences, organizational factors also
affect the implementation of PBIS with contextual and cultural fit. Among the different
organizational influences identified in this study are training and professional development
(TPD) opportunities, leadership support, a supportive organizational culture, diverse and
inclusive PBIS teams, and the use of evidence-based decision making (EBDM). The following
section will delineate quantitative and qualitative findings related to these organizational factors.

125

Training and Professional Development (TPD)
TPD in PBIS
Survey Results. Though most of the teachers who responded to the survey and those
who were interviewed reported receiving TPD in PBIS provided by their district or school, this
TPD was not consistent nor thorough. In response to a survey item regarding being provided
some type of TPD training by the school district, 210 out of 227 (92.51%) indicated they had
received TPD in PBIS and only 17 (7.49%) indicated they had not. Survey respondents also
indicated that they received an average of 6.23 TPDs in PBIS either by the district or by staff
members at their school site. Several respondents commented to an open-ended item that the
initial TPDs provided by the district had been provided years ago and that most TPDs they have
been provided were done by school-site level staff. Moreover, they described these school-site
TPDs happening on late start days wherein they were short in duration (20–30 minutes in
length).
Interview Results. Data from interviews echoed these survey findings. Of the nine
teachers who were interviewed, six reported they had been provided TPD in PBIS by the district
or their school and three shared that they had never received formal training. Langston, Rosa,
and Kamala were the three teachers who commented that they had never been provided formal
TPD in PBIS. Rosa explained, “I joined my building after PBIS had been initially implemented.”
After being asked a follow-up question, she then elaborated, “I have been teaching in the
afternoon school district for eight years and I have never actively been trained in PBIS.” When
Kamala, who was a fairly recent hire to the district, was asked to explain what PBIS is, she
responded, “So, first I want to tell you that I never got any formal—formal training on PBIS.”
Langston communicated that PBIS had started before he began working in the district, and
126

therefore, his TPD has been informed. When asked about TPD in PBIS he had received, he
responded, “Um—nothing formal. It's been a lot of—we have experts in the building and those
experts are in charge of teaching us.” He then added, “The program started up before I got to the
district. So, there's a chance that when they first initiated it, they may have done it then. But I
mean, I've been here for 10 years and I haven't been through a day or half day or anything.” One
teacher, Martin, vaguely recalled receiving an initial full TPD by the district years back as part of
a new teacher training, and Harriet shared that she was given information about PBIS as part of a
summer training substitute teachers were required to attend. Martin and Harriet, as well as five of
the other interviewed teachers reported that any substantive TPD in PBIS they have received has
been done by staff at their school-sites, typically during what are called “late start” days where
school starts later so teachers can have TPD sessions in the morning. Maya was the only
interviewed teacher who described receiving a more robust school-site TPD in PBIS for her
school’s teachers:
So, there's like a PBIS rollout every, every fall in or in—in August in the— those teacher
preparation days there's always like a couple hours for PBIS roll-out. Our—our coaches
do a really good job of onboarding new staff to the building every year with kind of a
separate like—Let's, let's go through the kind of PBIS 101 at another time so that you can
get what you need.
She went on to add that at her school’s monthly meetings there is usually sharing of information
related to PBIS and that late start days are sometimes used for TPD in PBIS.
TPD in Cultural Responsiveness
Survey Results. In contrast to the high number of teachers who indicated that they have
received some type of formal TPD in PBIS, far less teachers reported they have received formal
127

TPD in cultural responsiveness. Figure 6 shows how teachers responded to a question item that
asked, “Which of the following areas have you been provided training and professional
development (TPD) in by your school district or school? Choose all that apply.” According to the
data, 26.35% indicated that they had received TPD in effective instructional practices for CLD
students, 26.18% reported they had been provided TPD in effective classroom management
practices for CLD students, 25.13% said they had received TPD in understanding the cultural
behaviors of CLD students, 21.82% indicated they had received TPD in examining their implicit
biases about CLD students, and 0.52% reported they had not received any of the previously
listed TPDs. In responding to a survey item asking what support they need their school or district
to provide them so that they could best meet the needs of their CLD students, 34 of 175 (19.43
%) comments related to needing more TPD in cultural responsiveness.

Figure 6
Survey Responses Regarding Areas of Culturally Responsive TPDs Provided

Note: Percentage of survey respondents who indicated receiving TPD.
128

Interview Results. Though many of the respondents to the survey indicated having
received very little TPD in cultural and linguistic responsiveness (CLR), eight of the interviewed
teachers indicated that they had received much TPD in cultural responsiveness. One teacher,
Kamala, did not explicitly state that she had received TPD in cultural responsiveness, but she
mentioned CLR multiple times throughout her interview thus indicating a familiarity with it. Six
of the teachers described attending district-wide TPD sessions on CLR led by an external
consultant and also described attending an optional summer training session that followed up on
the district-wide training. Ida admitted she and her colleague did not know what they were
signing up for but found the training valuable. Six of the teachers mentioned this same optional
follow-up training and described themselves, and others who attended, as “CLR Champions.”
Ruby explained what a “CLR Champion” was when she was asked:
Oh, so that's what they call us as—So, the champion, as in the “verb” as in we're going to
champion you and support you along the way, so like I tell that as we're kind of
supporting our school with—like giving them opportunities in staff meetings to practice
the CLR protocols or learn the CLR protocols through practice. And then we're also
giving them opportunities to kind of grow their mindset with a CLR focus and have those
courageous conversations about culture.
Rosa shared that as a “CLR Champion” she and the other “CLR Champions” received more TPD
in CLR than other teachers in the district. She commented, “Well, I'm one of the building
‘champions’ liaisons at my school, so I have been offered a disproportionately excellent amount
of training opportunities in CLR.” Four of the mentioned attending an extra CLR four-day
institute that occurred during the summer where they were able to further expand their
129

understanding of CLR. Lastly, three of the teachers reported receiving TPD in CLR in the form
of coaching.
Concerns About How TPDs Are Executed
Too Many Initiatives. Whether it was TPD in PBIS, CLR, or another topic, many
teachers expressed that the way their district leadership executes TPD, in general, has a negative
impact on their ability to implement new learning. One concern that was indicated in both the
survey results and interview data was the stance that the district has too many initiatives for
teachers to focus on getting good at any one initiative. For example, out of 193 comments to an
open-ended question about what, if any, obstacles exist in their school district that hinder the
implementation of new learning from TPDs, 34 (17.62%) commented that a major obstacle is too
many initiatives. One survey respondent commented about conflicting district initiatives:
The district has initiatives that are standards based, but then backs away from that for
another initiative. There are conflicting initiatives that do not align with one another or
mesh well in the way the district implements them or instructs staff to implement or carry
them out (example: grades, PBIS, CLR).
This sentiment was evident in this respondent’s comment, “We never settle on one thing. It is
always whatever is new and ‘shiny.’ Never learn more or reinforce any previous concepts.” In
interviews, three of the teachers addressed this same concern. Langston explained about his
concerns about too many initiatives:
Just one thing that I haven’t mentioned that is not again—PBIS specific, but—our district
tends to start lots of initiatives and it, you know, it’s usually championed by one person
downtown. They think it’s a great idea. And we start it and then we receive training we
130

set up committees and it tends—these initiatives kind of fizzle out after a couple years
and then it’s replaced by another shiny new initiative.
Maya’s comments mirrored Langston’s as she expressed concern for her new principal’s efforts
to lead her school being made harder because of there being too many initiatives that come
through her district and each one becomes “a drop in the bucket.”
Not Enough Time. Data from the survey indicated teachers’ viewpoint that their
leadership does not provide enough time for them to effectively implement learning from TPDs.
They also directly linked this to having too many initiatives vying for their attention. In response
to three different open-ended questions, 99 comments specifically named not having enough
time to process and practice new learning from TPDs before having to attend TPDs for newer
district initiatives. For example, one respondent commented, “Time. We already have so much
on our plate with more being added and nothing taken off. There just isn’t time in my day.”
Another teacher commented on the survey, “No time to develop these new skills to incorporate
them into lessons.” Of the 99 comments related to time being concern, 13 respondents
specifically commented about needing more time to plan to implement new learning. One
respondent said, “We can be given a lot of information at once and are told to implement it but
are not given time plan for the implementation.”
Structure and Timing. Teachers also expressed concerns about how the structure and
timing of district TPDs also negatively impacts their ability to implement new learning. For
example, the district’s use of summer TPDs and “late start” morning TPDs were noted as making
it difficult for teachers to have time to process, plan, and practice the new learning they received.
One teacher commented on the survey about the “late-starts”:
131

Our current ‘late start’ structure for staff development usually gives an hour-long
presentation of new learning ideas and then we have less than an hour to plan how we
will implement that new learning before our second presentation of new learning for a
content area.
Another survey respondent addressed how summer TPDs made it difficult to directly transfer
learning into their instructional context:
Often TPDs are done at the very end of the year/summer or the very beginning. This can
make understanding and implementing difficult; either because we are not with students
(end of the year/summer) or students are coming, and this is mashed in with a range of
TPD (zero time to process).
In addition to concerns about the timing of when TPDs are conducted, teachers also shared
concerns about the expectation of mastery of the content despite not having enough time and
district follow-through. One teacher shared this concern about being held accountable for
implementation of new learning by commenting, “When it is expected without proper direction
or guidance.” Another teacher, in describing the struggles of being a teacher who must travel
between multiple schools, explained the difficulty of attending “sit and get” TPDs then being
expected to implement the information. In discussing these obstacles to the implementation of
new learning from TPDs, Langston noted that teachers in his district were weary of new
initiatives because of their lived experiences of there being too many initiatives, not enough time
to transfer learning into practice, and lack of district sustaining of initiatives after the first couple
of years:
I still think there’s a lot of trepidation or caution when teachers deal with our district’s
initiatives because there’s—there’s a general sense that we’re starting this one, you know,
132

and if I invest myself in this and change the way I teach or change the way I interact with
students—um—are you going to tell me in two years that I’m going to have to change
again because that one wasn’t the right one. This is the right way to do it now. And so, I
think there’s that sense definitely is very, very alive in our district, and I think reasonably
so. I think that’s reasonable reaction to how these types of initiatives have been rolled
out.
Summing up these collective concerns how TPDs are executed by the district, one teacher
commented on the survey, “TPD is not presented in an effective manner. TPD is not ongoing and
embedded into daily practices. TPD is repetitive with little to no new info being presented.”
Ongoing Support for PBIS and Cultural Responsiveness
Ongoing Support for PBIS. Teachers reported receiving ongoing support, albeit
independent from one another, in two key areas based upon district-wide initiatives – PBIS and
cultural responsiveness. As with the findings about TPD, teachers reported that the quality and
consistency of ongoing support provided by the district for PBIS varied from teacher to teacher.
In response to a question item regarding whether teachers received ongoing support in PBIS, the
majority did indicate affirmatively. Of 193 respondents, 164 (84.97%) acknowledged that they
received ongoing support in PBIS in some form and only 11 (5.7%) indicated they received no
ongoing support.
Teachers who were interviewed also acknowledged being provided ongoing support for
PBIS. All nine teachers spoke about some type of PBIS team or committee at their school-site
that supported teachers with PBIS implementation. For example, several teachers reported that
they would be given lessons to teach or have additional information about PBIS periodically
shared with them to sustain their work with PBIS. Billie explained how PBIS coaches at her
133

school would “give like a 20 to 30 minute like chunk of that maybe three or four times a year
where they go through different PBIS related things and kind of as a refresher or little PD
sessions here and there.” Martin described how his school’s PBIS subcommittee members who
provide teachers with “teach to’s” which are essentially mini-lessons designed to address
particular ways for teachers to respond to challenging student behaviors in a positive way aligned
to PBIS. Harriet explained how, being a new teacher to her school site, PBIS committee
members approached her at the beginning of the year, worked with her on what she needed to do
to implement PBIS, and offered her ongoing support. Furthermore, as a teacher who works at
multiple school-sites, Harriet explained that each school she worked at had a “small PBIS
community” that supported teachers. The only teacher to report not receiving any ongoing
support in PBIS was Kamala. Though she shared that she knew her school had a PBIS team and
who were members on it, she reported that, as a new teacher to the school, no one offered her
any support in PBIS. Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Kamala also shared that she was
never provided any type of TPD in PBIS by the district or her school. Finally, besides ongoing
support provided by school-site personnel, Langston and Billie reported that there were central
district staff who also provide ongoing support for PBIS. Billie specifically described how, as a
member of her school’s PBIS team, she would attend monthly PBIS meetings with district
personnel who would provide her and the other PBIS “coaches” additional information regarding
PBIS. She explained that it would then be the coaches’ job to disseminate the information back
at their school-sites.
Ongoing Support for Cultural Responsiveness. Regarding ongoing support for cultural
all nine teachers who were interviewed reported that not only did they receive ongoing support
for cultural responsiveness, but that they also supplied the ongoing support for teachers at their
134

schools. As previously explained, the MSD leadership identified teachers to serve as “CLR
Champions” to help propel their CLR initiative. These teachers received additional TPD
opportunities in cultural responsiveness that their colleagues did not receive. For example, Maya,
Langston, Harriet, and Ida specifically mentioned receiving one-on-one coaching from an
external CLR coach. Four of the interviewed teachers shared that their district paid for them to
attend a summer institute on cultural responsiveness to support their ongoing learning and
capacity as “CLR Champions.” Eight of the teachers also specifically named receiving ongoing
support in cultural responsiveness from a central district entity called the Achievement
Community Equity (ACE) committee which was headed up by two district upper leadership
staff. Teachers described that they would have meetings with the ACE committee and receive
informational emails from them, but they varied on how supportive they felt the ACE committee
had been to them. Harriet spoke highly of the ACE committee and their support. She
commented, “[We] have fabulous people in our district too, that constantly like tried to connect
with all the coaches.” Ida also acknowledged this support in cultural responsiveness from the
ACE committee while lamenting that she was not receiving any from her own school:
I would say at this point, I don't feel like I've had a ton of extra guidance—the ACEs
committee and they check in with us and they talk to us and send us different things. So, I
really feel like from that perspective I do. Um, but from within my school, there hasn't
been a lot of guidance.
Billie identified receiving support from the ACE committee, as well, but shared that the support
was not “super individualized” and primarily was generic messages about what “CLR
Champions” such as herself “should be thinking about or doing.” Lastly, two of the teachers,
Rosa and Harriet described asynchronous learning modules that their district provided them
135

access to support their continuous learning about cultural responsiveness. Whereas Harriet
described using the modules for her own learning, Rosa spoke about using the asynchronous
modules to help teachers and staff at her school continue to learn about cultural responsiveness
but by using the modules to inform synchronous TPD sessions instead.
Best Meeting the Needs of CLD Students. In responding to an open-ended survey item,
survey respondents also shared needs in relation to ongoing support for best meeting the needs of
their CLD students. Of the 175 comments that were provided, 35 (20.0%) specified the need for
more TPD in culturally and linguistically responsive practices and 15 (8.57%) identified needing
resources. For example, one teacher commented about needing “practical instructional practice
ideas that are culturally responsive, educational staff development and coaching to implant CLR
practices.” Another respondent also opined about the need for more TPD in cultural
responsiveness, as well as associated implicit bias training. The respondent shared, “We should
receive more training in implicit biases, culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
strategies (as opposed to just classroom management) and take time to truly consider if our
district is on a path to inclusive instruction.” Regarding receiving support in cultural
responsiveness, a respondent simply commented that “any sort of consistent training” was
needed. This comment suggested that teachers had received TPD in best strategies for working
with CLD students but that such TPD has not been consistent.
Need for Models of Cultural Responsiveness. Besides TPD, the need for seeing models
of implementation of cultural responsiveness practices was also mentioned. One teacher
commented about the need for “time to observe and interview teachers who are fluent in CLR
practices to see a wide variety of implementation practices,” while another teacher expressed that
school leaders should model CLR strategies. This teacher commented, “leadership be able to
136

model equitable practices and CLR mindset practices, not just encouraging teachers to do it.”
Another teacher also expressed the need for modeling of CLR practices by leadership and more:
I need administrators (school & district) to be looking for those practices in their
evaluations, modeling CLR practices on their own meetings/sessions/communications
and having those continuous improvement conversations with educators so teachers know
CLR is ESSENTIAL work.
Lastly, one commenter had a request for a practice resource to help with implementing CLR to
better meet the needs of CLD students. The respondent commented, “It would be great to get
some SHORT documents with a summary of common culturally-based differences in various
student populations in our district.”
Supportive Leadership
Supportive district and school-site leadership is a crucial organizational influence on
whether teachers implement PBIS in a way that is in full alignment with the core principle of
cultural responsiveness. The following section will present findings related to leadership support
of new learning from TPDs, equity as a priority, and the support of equitable and just
disciplinary practices. Overall, quantitative and qualitative data revealed a range of perceptions
regarding levels of leadership support.
Leadership Support for New Learning
Survey Results. Generally speaking, teachers felt that leadership supports their
application of new learning garnered from TPDs. In response to a survey item about whether
teachers felt that their school-site leadership, such as the principal, encourages their
implementation of new knowledge and skills, 78 out of 203 (38.42%) respondents indicated that
they strongly agreed with this statement and 113 (55.67%) indicated that they agreed that their
137

school-site leadership supports them. Only 11 of the respondents (5.42%) disagreed and just one
(0.49%) teacher strongly disagreed. In response to an open-ended survey item, one teacher
provided a positive comment about leadership support by stating, “They support me the best they
can.” Another also shared feeling well-supported in applying new learning. The teacher shared,
“So far, I haven’t seen any obstacles. When implementing a new program, there is always a
building coach that is available to answer questions, model, and etc.”
Responding to the same question, some teachers expressed an opposite perspective. One
respondent indicated that leaders not holding teachers accountable to implementing new learning
from TPD was an issue. This teacher shared, “There is no check in system. Meaning, we trained,
we are advised, but there is no point of follow through. Teachers that do not follow such
implementations are often the ones rewarded.” Another respondent commented about how
contradictory leadership dictates served as an obstacle to the application of new learning:
District and school expectations of how and what we are supposed to teach prevents me
from trying new things. We often receive training at our school telling us there has been
something added to our curriculum, or that we need to teach subject matter in a certain
format.
Another comment to this open-ended survey question also addressed issues with school-site
leadership support for new learning. The respondent commented, “I need less management and
direction and more trust, openness, and time to implement what I learned.” Lastly, one teacher
named a personal experience of overt resistance to new learning by school-site leadership. The
respondent commented, “I have experienced admin approving PD requests, then after the teacher
completes the PD, the admin will strongly suggest the teacher does not use the program that they
just spent days learning.”
138

Interview Results. Of the nine teachers who were interviewed, five spoke to having
principals who were supportive of the application of new learning. Interestingly, four of those
five teachers shared that they had a new principal, and that this new administrator was more open
than the previous one, particularly when it came to implementing new knowledge and skills from
TPDs in CLR. Billie spoke highly of her principal and explained, “She's definitely involved and
checks in on us and wants to know how things are going.” Harriet and Kamala also spoke about
having new principals who they felt were more supportive of their efforts to implement and share
their learning about CLR than their previous principal was. Harriet commented about her
principal being encouraging:
Our principal—was very open to that—he will—it was new for him to—so he was really
open to that. He will offer us time to do it. Like, he will encourage us to, like use, time at
staff meetings to introduce whatever we think appropriate for the school.
Though the majority of teachers indicated having principals who supported the implementation
of new learning, some teachers shared concerns. For example, Langston asserted that school-site
leadership support is there but that it varies from building to building. Ida explained that her
school has a new principal who is a first time principal and so she is currently still trying to
figure out how to be a school-site leader.
Leadership Support of Equity
Feeling of Support for Equity. Most of the teachers surveyed and interviewed felt that
equity is consistently communicated as a priority in the district, but some teachers indicated that
this commitment was only at a surface level and not a deep commitment. Out of 177 respondents
to a survey item regarding their impression that equity was a district priority, 46 (25.99%)
strongly agreed and 108 (61.02%) agreed that MSD consistently communicated that equity was a
139

district-wide priority. Twenty-two respondents (12.43%) disagreed and one teacher (0.56%)
strongly disagreed about equity being consistently communicated as priority in their district.
Eight of the nine teachers interviewed noted that equity was a priority in the district, as well.
Billie, for instance, shared that she felt that leadership emphasized the importance of addressing
issues of equity, particularly in relation to CLD students. She explained, “I would say they're
genuinely trying to address those issues. I don't know how much time and effort they're focusing
on them, but you know definitely seems to be at the forefront.” In relation to equity as a priority
by leadership, Martin shared, “I think it is supported and communicated,” but he also shared that
“there's been a lot of talk and not a lot of action” and that “it's kind of been a slow process.”
Ruby related she felt that, though the district and her school had much still to do in terms of
equity, the focus on equity was authentic:
I think we're—we're a work in progress. Like, I think I'm—like I feel like the desire is
there. I know, and it's a good—it's a good desire, like we want to be better. We just don't
always see our own gaps.
Lastly, Harriet’s perception of the district’s focus on equity was optimistic as she equated the
district’s prioritization of CLR as exemplifying the importance of equity.
Contradictory Perceptions of Leadership Support for Equity. Although many
teachers did indicate they felt that leadership, at both the district and school-site level,
communicated equity as a priority, several teachers also expressed that they questioned how
authentically and deeply committed leadership really was to equity. For example, Langston
acknowledged that the district communicates equity as a priority, particularly in its support of
initiatives such as CLR, but he also shared that he felt the effort was shallow because of a lack of
willingness to address systemic racism and a focus on just reducing the number of ODRs of CLD
140

students without changing the systems that produce inequities. Rosa’s impressions were similar
to Langston’s. She opined, “I think the focus is there. I don't think the actualization of that focus
is apparent yet because I think, if that's truly the focus, it should be the focus in every single
effort.” Ida explained her perception about leadership’s prioritization of equity from the school-
site level. About her previous principal, she explained, “It's not something I see very often. Um,
so like my last principal, I feel like it wasn't something I saw from her.” In responses to an open-
ended survey item about what teachers need from their leadership to best meet the needs of CLD
students, one teacher commented, “Seeing that the district’s commitment to equity is real and
meaningful and not just cursory,” and another teacher stated that leadership needs to “be able to
model equitable practices and CLR mindset and practices, not just encouraging teachers to do it.”
Supportive Organizational Culture
Another key organizational factor that influences teachers’ implementation of PBIS
adapted to the culture and context of their school is the nature of their school’s organizational
culture. This section will specifically address findings related to the presence of a collaborative
work culture, teachers’ mindsets regarding their CLD different students, and teachers’ support
for culturally responsive teaching. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed variances in how
supportive organizational cultures were across schools for each of these identified aspects.
Survey Results
Besides having school-site leadership that supports the application of new learning
gained from attendance at TPDs, teachers also need to work with colleagues who support each
other’s application of new knowledge. Findings from the mixed methods used indicated that
teachers had varied feelings regarding working in collaborative culture at their schools.
According to survey results, the majority of teachers felt that their colleagues were supportive of
141

their professional growth and development. 208 teachers responded to a question item about their
level of agreement regarding having a collaborative work environment. 76 (36.54%) indicated
that they strongly agreed and 118 (56.73%) agreed that they had colleagues who supported their
professional growth and development. Only 14 (6.73%) disagreed and no respondents strongly
disagreed with this.
Although most teachers surveyed indicated a positive work culture, a few commented
about working at a school where they did not feel supported. In responding to an open-ended
item about obstacles that hinder implementation of new learning gained from TPDs, 26 teachers
commented that nothing served as an obstacle, but 13 teachers commented about lack of staff
buy-in or collegial support for their learning. For example, one respondent wrote, “This is my
first year at this school. I had an experience of helpfulness and at the same time I had total
avoidance in another.” Another teacher expressed difficulties with having an equal voice:
Being heard is often a challenge. Even though we have PLC’s and bring leadership folk
to the table, someone else’s needs and questions can at times take a back seat to someone
else’s needs; squeaky wheel gets the grease.
One teacher addressed having unsupportive colleagues and connected to having too many
competing priorities. The respondent commented, “I work with a small school with adults who
are set in their ways. They are overwhelmed with required tasks related to curriculum and
instruction. Communication improvement and opportunities for staff collaboration related to
other areas, such as SEL, etc., is often overlooked or pushed to the back.” One respondent simply
wrote, “Old School teachers,” thus suggesting that long-time teachers who are deeply invested in
older, “traditional” pedagogies contribute to an unsupportive work culture. Finally, one teacher
expressed how lack of agreement amongst colleagues on the implementation of new learning
142

stops implementation from even occurring. The respondent commented, “Not everyone agrees
on implementation. Therefore, most of the time nothing new is implemented.”
Interview Results
In contrast to most survey respondents agreeing that their schools had collaborative work
cultures, only three of the interviewed teachers strongly felt that their colleagues supported one
another’s professional growth and development. Maya described her work environment as a “big
family.” She also explained that she felt that her colleagues really cared for and supported each
other, and this was important so that they could have “…those sticky conversations and those
courageous conversations because we do love and care for each other and presume positive
intentions.” Billie also noted the collegiality of her work culture, particularly in comparison to
her previous schools:
I love working here. I think we have a really—there's just a positive attitude here that I
didn't have. I used to work at a different school—I never really realized how negative
that other school was until I came here, and I saw like whoa, like, you know, um, there's
just kind of this camaraderie, like, you know, we're all in this together and figuring it
out. One of our little mottos is, you know, “Sometimes we laugh, so we don't cry when
things get tough.” So, yeah, there's just a really good support system here that I really
enjoy. It's like I feel there's definitely a growth mindset, so to speak.
Ida, on the other hand, did not feel supported much by her colleagues at her school, but she
shared she was actually supported by teachers from another school-site. In describing trying to
implement her new learning about CLR at her school-site, Ida explained, “So at first, I feel like
me and Sojourner were kind of like left out on this island and since then we have had some
people reach out to us about wanting to join the committee.” Rosa shared that her colleagues are
143

typically supportive of each other’s learning, but they have been resistant to specifically
supporting learning about implicit biases as they relate to the cultural behaviors of CLD students.
Langston, Martin, and Ruby described feeling supported in smaller work groups such as sub-
committees but noted that the smaller teams did not necessarily work together collaboratively as
part of the whole-school culture. Martin shared that, though “there's so many groups and they all
have their little slices, and they all have their like traditional ways of going about things” and that
“maybe too many rigid structures in the way of flexible thinking,” he felt that the school culture
was shifting and that “there's a lot of people that are—that want to do the work and do
collaborate.”
PBIS Leadership Teams
A final organization factor that influences teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
be culturally responsive is if each school has a diverse and inclusive PBIS leadership team made
up of student, parent, community member, and teacher representatives, as well as an
administrator and representatives for additional school-site staff. The focus of this section will be
on relaying findings related to the presence of PBIS teams, how diverse and inclusive these
teams are, and the PBIS teams’ use of discipline evidence to guide decision making. A mixture
of quantitative and qualitative data revealed that most teachers knew their schools had a PBIS
leadership team, but they were not diverse and inclusive teams. Also, the data indicated that,
though discipline data was collected and analyzed at each school, the process and used of data to
inform decision making was not consistent across schools.
Lack of Diverse and Inclusive PBIS Leadership Teams
Awareness of a School-Site PBIS Leadership Team. The majority of teachers
surveyed, and all the teachers interviewed, reported that their school had some sort of PBIS
144

leadership team, but many teachers could not consistently identify who comprised their school’s
PBIS leadership team. 189 teachers responded to a survey item regarding whether their
individual schools had a PBIS leadership team. Out of these teachers, 179 (94.71%) indicated
that their school has a PBIS leadership team, no teachers indicated their school did not have a
team, and just 10 (5.29%) indicated that they did not know whether their school had a PBIS
leadership team. All nine teachers who were interviewed confirmed that their school has some
type of PBIS team, but they were not all able to identify who served on their school’s team. Four
of nine were able to readily describe the composition of their school’s PBIS leadership team. For
example, Billie clearly explained about her school’s team:
So, we have two teachers per grade level at our building. The one of them is on the PBIS
team and the other one with them on the CSIP team. So, I'm the one of the third-grade
teachers that is on the PBIS team. So, we've got about—in all then—like seven classroom
teachers than one per grade level. Then there's also a couple specialist reps and special ed
reps and then our principal and our dean—our guidance counselor. I think that’s it.
Though sharing that their schools had a PBIS leadership team, four of the interviewed teachers
were unsure who made up their school’s teams. For instance, when Langston was asked a
follow-up question about who was on his school’s PBIS leadership team, he replied, “I mean, I
know a few people. But I don't know like I couldn't list, other than three. I know who are on it.
But otherwise, I don't know who’s on it.” Martin shared that his school had a PBIS sub-
committee that fell under his school’s Continuous School Improvement Process (CSIP)
committee, but he could not name who was on the team, so he accessed the names by doing a
search on his computer. Though Kamala affirmed her school had a PBIS leadership team, she
was unclear on who was on the team. She explained, “I don't know what their titles are—there's
145

the one that trained my colleague when she first came on PBIS and another one that I know of. I
feel like some are called like classroom management somethings. I don't know.”
Lack of Awareness About Diversity and Inclusivity. Most teachers did not know
whether their school’s PBIS leadership teams were diverse and inclusive of students, parents,
and community members, particularly from historically underrepresented groups. When asked if
parents and community members representative of their school’s CLD students were regularly
involved in their school’s PBIS leadership team, only 21 out of 185 (11.35%) respondents said
“yes,” 67 (36.22%) said “no,” and a slight majority, 97 (52.43%) indicated that they did not
know. Teachers also responded to a survey item regarding whether parents and community
members representative of their CLD students were included in the development of their
respective school’s PBIS framework, more than half of the teachers, 108 out of 186 (58.06%)
respondents, indicated that they didn’t know. Only 33 (17.74%) of the teachers indicated that
parents and community members were involved and 45 (24.19%) indicated that parents and
community members of CLD students were not involved.
When interviewed teachers were asked about diverse parent and community member
involvement on their school’s PBIS leadership teams, eight of the nine teachers reported that no
parents, community members, or even students were on their school’s team. Again, Kamala was
an outlier because she shared that she was uncertain of who was on her school’s team overall.
Six of the teachers were certain in their responses indicating no parent and community member
involvement, but Harriet and Ruby’s responses indicated they were less certain. For example,
when Harriet was asked a follow-up question about whether any parents, students, or community
members were involved in her school’s PBIS committee, she responded, “As far as I know, no.”
146

Ruby’s response was similar to Harriet’s. She responded to the same follow-up question by
saying, “I don’t believe so, but I’m not 100%.”
PBIS Leadership Teams’ Use of Evidence-based Decision Making (EBDM)
A core component of the PBIS framework is the collection and analysis of discipline data
to identify trends and signs of disparities. The evidence is then to be used to guide decision
making regarding systemic changes and behavioral interventions. Data gathered from the surveys
and interviews revealed various teachers’ perspectives regarding the gathering and analysis of
discipline data, sharing of the data, and how the data is used to inform decision making at
individual schools and district-wide. The following section will describe these findings.
Collection and Examination of Discipline Data. The collection, examination, and
disaggregation of data by demographic subgroups appears to be a regular practice at the schools
in which the surveyed and interviewed teachers work. In response to a survey item inquiring
whether PBIS teams at each teacher’s school regularly examines discipline data, 161 out of 184
(87.5%) teachers responded affirmatively, only two (1.09%) teachers indicated that data was not
regularly examined, and 21 (11.41%) were not sure. Data from the interviews revealed similar
results as the survey items. All nine teachers interviewed commented that discipline data,
particularly regarding office disciplinary referrals (ODRs), was regularly examined. Five
teachers mentioned that discipline data is examined monthly at their school-sites and two
teachers, Maya and Langston, specifically shared that their school’s PBIS team performed “data
digs” in the summer to identify trends and patterns in the discipline data. For example, Maya
explained, “We noticed when we were doing a data dig this summer that by far the most referrals
that are happening are happening out on the playground.” Harriet shared that at her school
147

discipline data is examined then compared to district-wide data. Ruby explained that discipline
data is examined monthly at her school by its CSIP committee.
Sharing of Discipline Data. The sharing of discipline data with teachers and staff
appeared to be a regular practice at the schools of survey and interview respondents. Out of 182
teachers who responded to a survey item regarding the sharing of discipline data, 19 (10.44%)
strongly agreed and 102 (56.04%) agreed that discipline data was regularly shared with teachers
at their school. 53 (29.12%) disagreed and eight (4.4%) strongly disagreed with this statement.
six out of nine of the interviewed teachers reported that discipline data is shared with them and
their colleagues either by a team at their respective schools (e.g., PBIS leadership team, CSIP
committee, or data subgroup) or by the district. Six out of the nine teachers who were
interviewed related that discipline data, primarily (ODRs), was shared with their colleagues and
them monthly either from a school-site team (e.g., PBIS leadership team, CSIP committee, or
data subgroup) or by the district. For example, Harriet shared, “I know that every month at staff
meetings, there is a time set where the PBIS community present data or like school-wide award
for the whole school.” Langston explained that at his school discipline data is typically shared
via a monthly email and that he has seen data shared at a periodic staff meeting called the
“conversation café.” Lastly, Rosa shared that discipline data is sent to teachers via email, like as
Langston described, but on a quarterly basis.
Disaggregation of Discipline Data. The disaggregation of data by demographic
subgroups (e.g., race, sex, SPED status, grade level) did not appear to be a consistent practice at
the schools of the survey and interview respondents. In response to a survey item asking teachers
to indicate whether discipline data is disaggregated at their schools, 126 out of 184 (68.48%)
indicated that it was, only six (3.26%) said that it was not, and 52 (28.26%) of respondents
148

indicated that they did not know. When interviewed teachers were asked this same question, the
data revealed similar results to the survey. Just over half (55.56%), or five out of the nine
teachers, shared that discipline data was disaggregated by different subgroups. Langston
explained what he understood about data disaggregation at his school:
I know they're consistently monitoring things like the number of ODRs and what ODRs
are in and they will keep track of, you know, subgroups of things and how they are—you
know, you know, whether it's a black student group or girls versus boys and all that kind
of thing.
Rosa, Maya, and Harriet all echoed Langston by mentioning how data is disaggregated by
race/ethnicity, gender, and SPED status at their schools. Billie, Ida, Ruby, and Maya explained
that discipline data, rather than being disaggregated by demographic subgroups, was typically
reported by location of incidents or by the type of behavioral infraction. In response to a follow-
up question by Billie about not being provided data disaggregated by demographic subgroups:
[T]he only thing that we hear at our monthly meetings, they'll do like a report out to the
whole group, but they typically break it down into what the ODRs were for. So, were
they disrespectful or were they unsafe behavior? Were they, you know? That's how they
break it out when they share it out to us.
Ruby shared that her school looked at data by location, such as the playground, or the severity of
the behavior (e.g., minor infractions versus major infractions). Maya also explained that
discipline data at her school had been typically looked at by location and types of behavioral
problems, but she also said that her school’s new dean and principal had begun shifting the focus
to looking at ODR data by demographic subgroups to identify disparities.
149

Discipline Data Used for EBDM. According to the teachers who were surveyed and
interviewed, evidence from the analysis of discipline data disaggregated by demographic
subgroups to inform decision making regarding inequities in discipline patterns is not a
consistent practice in their schools. Of 182 teachers who responded to the survey item about this,
96 (52.75%) said that discipline data was used at their schools to inform decision making. Just 19
(10.44%) indicated that disciple data was not used to inform decision making, but 67 (36.81%)
indicated that they did not know whether this was the case at their respective schools. As with
the survey respondents, those teachers who were interviewed were split on whether
disaggregated discipline data was used by leadership to inform decisions. Seven out of nine
teachers noted that at their schools’ findings of ODR data, in particular, seemed to be used to
inform actions such as interventions, but some reported that it was not necessarily to address
demographic disparities. For example, Maya, Billie, Martin, Rosa, and Harriet explained that
district staff or school-site PBIS leadership team members would send review lessons to teachers
(e.g., “teach to’s” or “cool tools”) that targeted specific problematic behaviors that were showing
up as trends in discipline data. In describing how discipline data used to be used before her
school got a new principal and dean, Maya explained that it primarily focused on location and
types of behavioral issues:
Let's talk about transitions or let's talk about—you know, let's—let's identify some of the
friction points and try to provide some support there. So, our—our coaches do a really
good job of trying to say like, “What do you need?” Okay, we're seeing that where we're
having a lot of ODRs happened in the cracks. So, let's talk about how we can tighten up
our transitions, so that those are going more smoothly, because we know that—there's
certain parts of the day where—where we're having trouble or whatever.
150

Billie explained that at her school, not only was location and type of behavior used for decision
making on what to do, but her school also used discipline data about the time of day of ODRs to
identify trends in problematic behavior. She continued explaining that the trends were used to
determine what interventions to try out to help reduce the ODRs and change those identified
trends. In her school’s case, she gave the specific example of her school’s PBIS leadership team
coming up with “the Golden Ticket” to give out on their “late start” Wednesdays because that
was a day their data showed an uptick in ODRs. In a follow-up question asking whether evidence
about discipline disparities of demographic subgroup was used at her school for decision making
as well, Billie shared that she knew boys, in general, and African American boys, specifically,
had the highest number of ODRs, but she shared that she was not aware of any specific actions
that were taken to address these disparities based on the information.
Disaggregated Discipline Data Used for Addressing Disparities. Three teachers—Maya,
Martin, and Ruby—were the only interviewees who shared that they saw disaggregated
discipline data being used at their schools to inform decisions about disparities. Martin
conjectured the district’s focus on training teachers in CLR was made because of the
overrepresentation of African American students in ODRs:
I think it actually played a big part in why our school district chose to go forward with
culturally and linguistically responsive practices training and development, because we
use that data—I think it was the achievement—Achievement Community Equity (ACE)
committee. And—and that committee had been formed and they were looking at like
district-wide data for, like, “Who are students that need our help the most,” “Who is
getting written up? What are they getting written up for? And then what’s uh—What
151

should we do as a district going forward? We should do CLR.” That was sort of—that
maybe is the biggest decision-making thing that happened with the PBIS data.
Ruby also shared how racial disparities evidenced in the ODR data led district leadership to
mandate a district-wide CSIP goal. She cited the goal as saying, “OSS suspension incidents for
Black/African American students. Reduce the number of ODRs for physical aggression overall,
including those for African American students by 20%.”
Pessimism Regarding How Discipline Data Is Used. Lastly, Langston, Rosa, and
Kamala expressed pessimistic perspectives about how they perceived discipline data was being
used in relation to decision making. Rosa shared about how data was used to influence decision
making at her school:
I don't know. And I—nothing has been communicated to me to use the data as a point of
justification for any PD trainings or directional shifts in approach in the building. The—
the data that’s sent us is just—here's the data for the month of whatever, here's the data
for Quarter One—and there's—there's not any explicitly tied to initiatives or efforts.
Unlike Rosa, Langston shared that he felt data was used to inform decision making, but he
asserted that what he has observed in manipulation of the data to support decisions that were
already made. For instance, in addressing actions taken to address discipline data showing that
Black students have more ODRs than any other group, he remarked about his impression about
how data was used:
I think that in our district decisions get made, and then data is used to support the
decisions rather than the other way around. I don't—I don't see a lot of what I—my
understanding of, you know, using information to make decisions is to—honestly looking
at it and then adjusting strategies and behavior. I see administrators with goals and then
152

selectively using the data to support what they want to do, and they can do that through
how they asked the questions on whatever they're gathering is—or I see—I see it a little
bit there. You know that they take pride in saying they're data driven, but I think it's—
it's—I think it's much more like it's always been that way. It's just kind of dressed in
fancy data clothes, but it's still the same as it's always been.
Finally, Kamala essentially echoed Langston’s perspective saying she took “so little credence” in
the discipline data and decisions made from them because of personally observing
underreporting of disciplinary incidents to artificially keep ODR numbers down rather than
figuring out how to intervene.
Summary
To summarize, the purpose of Research Question 3 was to identify organizational factors
which appeared to have an influence on MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to
have cultural and contextual fit with their respective schools. Findings from this study revealed
several organizational influences on MSD’s teachers’ implementing PBIS in this way. One major
finding were issues in relation to training and professional development (TPD) provided to the
teachers by the district in PBIS and cultural responsiveness. Themes focused on inconsistent
receipt of TPD and concerns about how the district executes its TPDs. For example, teachers felt
that there were too many competing initiatives and that they are not consistently provided
enough time to process and practice new learning from TPDs.
Another key finding was concerns about the consistency of ongoing support of teachers
in PBIS and cultural responsiveness. Whereas ongoing support for PBIS appeared to be fairly
robust, continuous support for cultural responsiveness appeared not to be as consistent.
Regarding leadership and collegial support for the application of new learning, findings from this
153

indicated that MSD’s teachers felt mixed about this, as well. Some teachers indicated having
strong support from their principals and teachers at their schools, whereas other teachers reported
the opposite. A final organization influence on teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the
culture and context of their school that emerged from the data, was the presence of school-site
PBIS leadership teams, their composition, and their use of disaggregated discipline data for
evidence-based decision making (EBDM). Findings of the study revealed that schools have PBIS
leadership teams, but they may not be diverse and inclusive nor are they consistently using
disaggregated discipline data for EBDM.
Summary
The focus of this convergent mixed methods study was to examine knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS
adapted to context and culture of each school’s student population. Surveys were used to collect
quantitative data and interviews were used to gather qualitative data from PK–8 teachers in the
Midwest School District (MSD) who work at schools that implement the PBIS framework.
Several key findings, in alignment with the conceptual framework for this study, about
knowledge factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS emerged from
the data. Teachers in MSD have the basic procedural knowledge about PBIS, but they varied in
their conceptual knowledge about PBIS. In terms of having factual knowledge about the cultural
behaviors of culturally and linguistically different (CLD) students, teachers were not consistently
sufficient. This insufficiency was related to the varying levels of factual and procedural
knowledge about culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and culturally responsive classroom
management (CRCM) possessed by MSD’s teachers. Teachers shared they employ
metacognitive knowledge about their cultural biases, but they also shared that they did not feel
154

their colleagues did so. Lastly, the study revealed mixed levels of awareness about racial
disparities in exclusionary discipline.
The mixture of quantitative and qualitative data gathered in the student also revealed
several themes related to motivation factors that influence MSD’s teachers’ implementation of
PBIS with the core principle of cultural responsiveness. One theme that emerged was that,
though many teachers indicated a belief in effectiveness of a positive and proactive approach to
school discipline, many noted having colleagues who still used punitive practices despite being
at schools that implement PBIS. Connected to this contradictory support for positive and
proactive practices, the data revealed that teachers had mixed beliefs in the effectiveness of PBIS
itself. A core practice of PBIS is the use of extrinsic rewards to promote positive behavior and
results of this study showed that teachers held contrasting beliefs about the effectiveness and
appropriateness of using extrinsic rewards. Another finding of this study was that a majority of
teachers indicated that they believed examining their thinking for implicit biases about CLD
students was important. Despite this majority perspective, some teachers did not feel that
colleagues believed as strongly in the importance of interrogating their thinking for biases. The
belief that PBIS needs to be implemented with culturally responsiveness to be more effective for
CLD students was another theme that emerged from the mixed methods data. In regard to self-
efficacy, results of this study show that most of the responding teachers believe that teachers are
the strongest influence over students’ behavior in the classroom and teachers were somewhat
confident in their ability to be culturally responsive.
Lastly, data collected from the survey and interviews revealed different organizational
factors that have an influence on MSD’s teacher’s execution of a culturally responsive form of
PBIS at their respective schools. First, though most teachers have received TPD in PBIS, they
155

reported that this TPD was not consistent or thorough for all teachers and even far less teachers
indicated receiving TPD in cultural and linguistic responsiveness (CLR). Another theme that
emerged was the feeling by many teachers that the way in which their district executed various
TPDs negatively impacted their ability to implement any new learning they gained from
attending them. Teachers also shared that ongoing support for both PBIS and CLR greatly varied
between school-sites. In general, most teachers, but not all, felt that the application of new
knowledge from TPDs was supported by their school-site leaders, but they had mixed feelings on
how supportive their colleagues were. Another finding related to leadership was that most
teachers felt that equity was consistently communicated as a priority, but some also felt it was
not a very deep commitment to equity.
The presence of a diverse and inclusive PBIS leadership team at each school is necessary
for PBIS to be considered to be implemented culturally responsively. According to study data, all
teachers indicated their schools had some type of PBIS leadership team, but most indicated that
either parents and community members representative of CLD students were not included or that
they did not if they were. PBIS teams are supposed to collect, analyze, and make decisions from
evidence based on discipline data disaggregated by demographic subgroups. The study data
showed that teachers had varied perspectives on whether this was the case or not at their schools.

156

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) factors influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and context
of each school, or in other words, culturally responsively. The data collected from convergent
mixed methods was then used to determine what KMO factors either help or hinder teachers in a
large mid-Western school district, MSD, from doing so. Chapter One discussed the context of
the problem, the problem-of-practice, the purpose, and importance of this study, as well as the
theoretical framework and methodology used. Chapter Two provided a comprehensive literature
review that addressed trends in school discipline policies and practices, the disproportionate
discipline of Black students and its concomitant negative effects, various approaches used to
mitigate racial disparities in discipline, and the PBIS framework. This chapter also delineated
KMO factors necessary for implementation of PBIS aligned with the core principle of cultural
responsiveness (i.e., CR-PBIS). Chapter Three focused on the methodology that was used to
collect both quantitative and qualitative data that was presented in Chapter Four of this study.
This chapter, Chapter Five, will now focus on the findings as related to the data that was
collected and analyzed. Furthermore, based on these findings, specific recommendations for
addressing the KMO factors influencing MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS with cultural
and contextual fit will be delineated. Lastly, an implementation and evaluation plan will be
described, as well as limitations and delimitations and recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
This section discusses the findings as reported in Chapter Four which included the data
collected from teachers’ responses to a 38-item survey and qualitative interviews of nine
teachers. Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model was used as the framework for this study and the
157

findings discussed herein are aligned with the KMO framework, as well as the literature
presented in Chapter Two. Knowledge findings will be discussed first and centered on
Krathwohl’s (2002) four dimensions of knowledge as related to PBIS and cultural
responsiveness. Following this, the findings regarding motivational influences in relation to
teachers’ beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs will be analyzed. Lastly, this section will provide a
discussion of the findings revealing the influence of organizational factors on MSD’s teachers’
implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.
Knowledge Findings
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that, along with motivation, knowledge systems are the
“most vital facilitators or inhibitors of work performance” (p. 43). In alignment with this
assertion, findings of this study, as shown in Table 4, indicated how different knowledge
influences were both facilitating and inhibiting MSD’s teachers’ ability to implement PBIS with
cultural and contextual fit. Specifically, these knowledge findings indicated what assets and
needs MSD’s teachers had in terms of the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002) necessary for the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.
These particular knowledge findings, per this study’s first research question, will be discussed in
this section.

158

Table 4
Knowledge Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the Implementation of PBIS Adapted to the
Culture and Context of Each School
Knowledge Influence Assets Needs
Conceptual Knowledge about PBIS x
Procedural Knowledge about PBIS x
Factual and Procedural Knowledge about CRT/CLR x
Factual and Procedural Knowledge about CRCM x
Metacognitive Knowledge about Cultural Biases x
Awareness of Racial Disparities in Exclusionary Discipline x

Note: This table shows what types of knowledge are assets or needs related to the culturally
responsive implementation of PBIS.

Survey and interview questions designed to reveal whether MSD’s teachers possessed the
factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge essential to the implementation of
PBIS with cultural and contextual fit revealed that some of MSD’s teachers did have some
aspects of this requisite knowledge, but the data also revealed gaps in knowledge. In relation to
having fundamental knowledge about PBIS, most of the teachers apparently have the procedural
and conceptual knowledge required to implement PBIS. For example, teachers could explain
how to create behavior matrices and teach the school-wide expected behaviors (both core PBIS
Tier 1 practices). Although teachers did not consistently explain that PBIS is a “framework for
improving and integrating all of the data, systems, and practices affecting student outcomes”
159

(OSEP Technical Assistance Center on PBIS, 2019, para. 1), they did seem to have enough
conceptual understanding of PBIS being more than simply a behavioral strategy. Thus, MSD’s
teachers procedural and conceptual knowledge about PBIS would seem to be an asset necessary
for them to be able to implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.
Besides having foundational knowledge about PBIS, teachers must have knowledge
about cultural responsiveness to implement PBIS adapted to the culture and context of individual
schools. According to the findings of this study, MSD’s teachers only have minimal factual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge in two critical domains of cultural responsiveness –
culturally responsive instructional practices and culturally responsive classroom management.
Effective instructional practices are a Tier 1 requirement in PBIS, and research has shown that
culturally responsive teaching is critical to PBIS being implemented culturally responsively
(Allen, 2016; Cramer & Bennet, 2015; Parsons, 2017). Findings of the study revealed that
MSD’s teachers (except for some of the teachers referred to as CLR Champions) are not
consistently able to identify culturally responsive teaching practices, and hence, know how to use
them. Furthermore, the findings revealed another need as MSD’s teachers only have a minimal
understanding of culturally responsive classroom management and how to execute it.
Findings of this study also indicated needs in three other aspects of cultural
responsiveness – metacognitive knowledge about cultural biases, factual knowledge about
cultural behaviors, and awareness of racial disparities in exclusionary discipline. Although data
from the study showed some teachers regularly interrogate their thinking for biases, other data
was contradictory. For instance, only about half of the respondents indicated that they believed
that teachers’ biases resulted in cultural misunderstandings which were the cause of racial
disparities in exclusionary discipline at their schools despite research consistently showing
160

teachers’ biased appraisals of culturally based behaviors being a major factor in disproportionate
discipline. Moreover, the ability to recognize biases about CLD students requires factual
knowledge about cultural behaviors of CLD students and it was clear from the data that this is a
need of MSD’s teachers. Lastly, a significant emergent finding was the inconsistent awareness of
racial disparities in exclusionary discipline in the first place. Despite publicly available discipline
data that shows racial disparities and a district-wide goal to reduce the percentage of ODRs of its
Black students, study data indicated that MSD’s teachers lack this critical awareness.
Motivation Findings
The second research question for this study focused on identifying motivation factors that
influence MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. The
following section describes the motivation findings related to MSD’s teachers’ beliefs about
positive and proactive disciplinary practices, PBIS’s effectiveness, the causes of racial disparities
in discipline, and the necessity for cultural responsiveness. Findings related to the motivation
aspect of teachers’ self-efficacy will also be discussed in terms of how they may either help or
hinder MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS in a culturally responsive way. Table 5 shows
how these various motivational influences either support or prevent the implementation of PBIS
adapted to the culture and context of each school.

161

Table 5
Motivation Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the Implementation of PBIS Adapted to the
Culture and Context of Each School
Motivation Influence Assets Needs
Teachers’ Beliefs about Positive and Proactive Practices x x
Teachers’ Beliefs in PBIS’s Effectiveness x x
Teachers’ Beliefs about the Effectiveness of Extrinsic Rewards x x
Teachers’ Beliefs about Interrogating Their Biases x x
Teachers’ Belief in Cultural Responsiveness x
General Teaching Efficacy (GTE) x
Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) for Cultural Responsiveness x

Note: This table shows what types of motivation factors are assets or needs related to the
culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.

Findings from this study revealed that teachers’ beliefs varied widely regarding elements
critical to the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS. Hence, teachers’ beliefs were in
some cases assets and, in other cases, they represented clear needs to be addressed. For instance,
although the collected data appeared to indicate that most of MSD’s teachers believe in positive
and proactive disciplinary practices, the data also revealed that the teachers did not strongly
believe in them and that some teachers actually believe that punitive practices are better. Because
PBIS is predicated on the discipline philosophy that positive and proactive practices are more
162

effective than punitive and reactive ones in getting students to exhibit desired behaviors, this
tepid support indicates a motivational concern that must be addressed.
Considering this variance in support of a positive and proactive disciplinary approach,
findings regarding teachers’ contrasting beliefs about PBIS’s effectiveness appear particularly
relevant. Data from the study revealed that teachers did not strongly believe, and even had doubt,
in the ability of PBIS to achieve its two primary aims – to create safe and welcoming schools for
all students; and reduce the need for exclusionary discipline such as office disciplinary referrals.
This doubt is related, in part, to teachers’ contrasting beliefs about the use of extrinsic rewards,
as well. Despite the use of extrinsic rewards being a core Tier 1 practice, it was clear from the
data that MSD’s teachers had strong reservations about the effectiveness and appropriateness of
extrinsically rewarding students for desired behaviors. Although this appears to be a need in
relation to culturally responsively implementing PBIS, it may actually be an asset as the use of
extrinsic rewards to promote positive behavior is not considered to be culturally responsive
(Kozleski, 2012).
To implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, it is crucial that teachers believe in
the essentialness of cultural responsiveness. Findings from the study showed teachers’ beliefs
that could be considered an asset, but the data also revealed needs. For instance, teachers
indicated they strongly believed that culturally responsive practices were best for meeting the
needs of their CLD students, yet teachers seemed to also have conflicting beliefs about the need
to constantly interrogate their thinking for biases about their CLD students. To be a culturally
responsive educator requires this willingness, therefore, it is critical that this inconsistency is
addressed if MSD’s teachers are to be able to implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.
163

Findings from this study appeared to show that MSD’s teachers had varying, but mostly
strong, levels of general teaching efficacy and moderate levels of personal teaching efficacy for
cultural responsiveness. In terms of believing that they, as teachers, have the greatest impact on
students’ behaviors in the classroom, most MSD’s teachers indicated possessing general teaching
efficacy with only a few not considering teachers as the most influential factor in students’
outcomes. Thus, this appears to be an asset which can be leveraged to implement PBIS culturally
responsively. Contrastingly, MSD’s teachers appear only to have moderate levels of personal
teaching efficacy for culturally responsive instructional and classroom management practices;
therefore, this is clearly an important need to be addressed.
Organizational Findings
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge and motivation factors are the “most
vital facilitators or inhibitors” (p.43) to achieving organizational goals, yet they also emphasized
that organizational factors “can make it easier or more difficult” (p. 43) for organizations to get
to achieve their desired results. This section discusses the findings related to the third research
question that guided this study which focused on organizational factors that influence MSD’s
teachers’ implementation of PBIS in a culturally responsive way. Table 6 exhibits the following
influences and whether they were either assets or needs – training and professional development
(TPD), ongoing support for PBIS and cultural responsiveness, supportive school-site leadership,
supportive organizational culture, as well school-site PBIS teams and their use of evidence-based
decision making (EBDM).

164

Table 6
Organizational Influences That Are Assets or Needs in the Implementation of PBIS Adapted to
the Culture and Context of Each School
Organizational Influence Assets Needs
Training and Professional Development (TPD) in PBIS x x
TPD in Cultural Responsiveness x x
How TPDs are Executed x
Ongoing Support for PBIS and Cultural Responsiveness x x
Support by School-site Administrators for New Learning x x
Leadership Support for Equity x x
Supportive Organizational Culture for New Learning x
Diverse and Inclusive School-Site PBIS Leadership Teams x
Use of Evidence-based Decision Making x x

Note: This table shows what types of organizational factors are assets or needs related to the
culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.

When districts initiate change efforts, leadership must provide training and professional
development (TPD) to teachers so that they have the knowledge required to implement the
changes. According to findings from this study, most of the teachers indicated that they received
TPD in PBIS, but they also shared that it was mostly school-site-based and not provided by the
district despite PBIS having been in place for a decade. Most teachers could not recall receiving
such TPD. The exception to this were teachers who explained that they received one short TPD
165

session in PBIS as part of new teacher orientation. This would appear to help to explain why
most teachers have procedural knowledge about PBIS but not deep conceptual knowledge.
Furthermore, the minimal TPD in cultural responsiveness provided by the district is directly
related to the gaps in teachers’ various forms of knowledge related cultural responsiveness.
Although a few of MSD’s teachers (i.e., the CLR Champions) have received extensive TPD in
cultural responsiveness, they are only a very small percentage of MSD’s teachers. Issues with
how MSD’s leadership executes TPDs aligned to the district’s change initiatives were indicated
by teachers as impacting their ability to implement new knowledge, as well. Thus, these TPD
issues need to be addressed by district leadership, and the TPD assets need to be leveraged, if
MSD’s teachers are to be able to implement PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their
respective schools.
Ongoing support structures, supportive leadership, and a collegial work culture are other
organizational influences identified as being both assets and needs in relation to the
implementation of PBIS with cultural responsiveness. According to findings from this study,
whereas the district has robust structures in place to support teachers in PBIS, similar structures
are not yet consistently in place for supporting teachers in cultural responsiveness and aligning
PBIS with cultural responsiveness. Furthermore, the findings suggest that teachers do not
consistently have leadership that supports the implementation of new knowledge nor consistently
communicates support and a value for equity which is integral to culturally responsive PBIS.
Teachers also indicated mixed perceptions about how supportive their colleagues were regarding
the application of new knowledge.
A final organizational factor that appears to be impacting MSD’s teachers’
implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit is the lack of diverse and inclusive
166

stakeholder representation on school-site PBIS leadership teams. For PBIS to be authentically
culturally responsive, PBIS teams must include student, parent, and community member
representatives, particularly from historically marginalized communities. Therefore, this clearly
indicates a major need that must be addressed. Additionally, culturally responsive PBIS requires
the regular collection and evaluation of discipline data disaggregated by demographic subgroups
to identify racial disparities to inform decisions made to address these disparities. Findings from
this study clearly indicate that this is not yet a consistent organization practice, and thus, must
also be addressed.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study have revealed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that are helping or hindering MSD’s teachers from implementing PBIS in a way that it is
adapted to the culture and context of their respective schools (i.e., culturally responsively).
Specific knowledge findings centered on fundamental knowledge about PBIS, knowledge and
cultural responsiveness, and awareness of racial disparities in exclusionary discipline. The
findings about motivational factors included MSD’s teachers’ beliefs about positive and
proactive practices, the effectiveness of PBIS, the use of extrinsic rewards, the need to
interrogate biases, the need for cultural responsiveness, and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Lastly, the organizational findings revealed assets and barriers to MSD’s implementation of
PBIS culturally responsively related to TPD in PBIS, TPD in cultural responsiveness, execution
of TPDs, ongoing support for PBIS and cultural responsiveness, leadership support,
organizational culture, diverse and inclusive PBIS leadership teams, and the use of EBDM.
Based on these findings, specific recommendations for practice for addressing these various
KMO influences will be described.
167

Recommendation 1: Provide Comprehensive Training and Professional Development
(TPD) in Cultural Responsiveness to All Teachers
As reported in the Chapter 4 and in the findings section above, data collected from the
survey and interviews revealed that MSD’s teachers did not consistently have the factual and
procedural knowledge about cultural responsiveness and culturally responsive classroom
management (CRCM) necessary for the implementation of PBIS culturally responsively.
Moreover, MSD’s teachers do not consistently have metacognitive knowledge about their
potential cultural biases and even awareness of racial disparities in exclusionary discipline in
their schools. The primary reason for this gap in knowledge is MSD has only provided a
relatively small number of its teachers access to robust TPD in cultural responsiveness.
Therefore, to address these knowledge and organizational needs, MSD must provide
comprehensive TPD in cultural responsiveness to all its teachers.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that people will need improvement of their knowledge
and skills necessary for achieving specific organizational goals under two conditions – they do
not know how to achieve the goal and when “future challenges will require novel problem
solving” (p. 58). Regarding the first condition, Clark and Estes (2008) noted that individuals
would need information, job aids, and training to provide them the knowledge and skills to do
their jobs in service of attaining organizational goals. MSD, as part of its overarching equity
goal, has the narrower goal of mitigating the persistent overrepresentation of its Black students in
exclusionary discipline in their schools. Also, as reported by some of the interviewed teachers,
MSD has mandated the specific objective that all its schools reduce ODRs of their Black
students by at least 20%. To accomplish this, MSD’s teachers must have the factual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge about cultural responsiveness necessary for PBIS to be
168

implemented in a culturally responsive way. Therefore, MSD’s leadership must provide its
teachers the information, job aids, and training to do so.
Supplying Needed Information
According to Clark and Estes (2008), sometimes people only need salient information if
they do not need support in successfully applying that information to their role. In the case of
MSD’s teachers, some may just need to be made aware that their Black students are persistently
overrepresented in exclusionary discipline and informed that their school’s PBIS framework
needs to be implemented culturally responsively to help mitigate these disparities. Therefore,
MSD’s leadership must put organizational structures in place that facilitate the regular
provisioning of teachers with necessary information related to cultural responsiveness. Although,
just providing this information will be sufficient for some teachers, this study’s findings revealed
that most of MSD’s teachers will need more than just information.
Providing Education in Cultural Responsiveness
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that, besides information, people need to be provided
education about the “conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills” (p.59)
necessary for effectively managing “novel and unexpected challenges and problems” (p. 59), as
well as training on how to apply the knowledge. Therefore, MSD must provide TPD to all its
teachers so that they have the conceptual knowledge about cultural responsiveness, factual
knowledge about culturally responsive teaching practices, and the procedural knowledge about
how to implement culturally responsive teaching practices. Moreover, MSD’s teachers must also
be provided TPD that builds their factual and procedural knowledge regarding culturally
responsive classroom management (CRCM) practices, as well as their metacognitive knowledge
about implicit biases they may hold about their CLD students. Table 7 summarizes the various
169

key elements of cultural responsiveness that MSD should provide to its teachers if they are to be
able to implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.

Table 7
Requisite Knowledge Regarding Cultural Responsiveness
Culturally Responsive
Knowledge Element
Krathwohl’s (2002)
Knowledge Dimension
Supporting Reference
Teachers need to know what
cultural responsiveness is
and why it is necessary.

Factual and Conceptual Hollie (2012)
Teachers need to know about
the cultural behaviors of
their CLD students and how
they differ from universally
unacceptable behaviors.

Factual Allen & Steed (2016)
Hollie (2012)
Leverson et al. (2019)
Parsons (2017)
Teachers need to know
culturally responsive
teaching practices and how
to implement them.

Factual and Conceptual Allen & Steed (2016)
Cramer & Bennet (2015)
Hammond (2015)
Hollie (2012)
Parsons (2017)
Teachers need to know
CRCM practices and how to
implement them.

Factual and Conceptual Cramer & Bennett (2015)
Hollie (2012)
Weinstein et al. (2004)
Teachers need to know their
implicit biases about their
CLD students.
Metacognitive Allen & Steed (2016)
Kourea & Owens (2016)
Leverson et al. (2019)

Note: This table describes the different elements of cultural responsiveness, the knowledge
dimension each aligns to, and supporting references from the literature.

170

Giving Teachers Job Aids
In addition to being provided information, training, and education, MSD should also
develop organizational processes that regularly provide MSD’s teachers job aids to help them
teach and manage their students in a culturally responsive way. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), job aids are “self-help information employees can use on the job to perform a task” (p.
58). For example, MSD should provide its teachers with a resource that delineates cultural
behaviors of their CLD students and differentiates them from universally unacceptable behaviors
so that teachers can better recognize them (Hollie, 2012; Leverson et al., 2019). Another job aid
that MSD teachers should be provided to help them better be culturally responsive is a resource
for monitoring their thinking for implicit biases. Hollie (2012), for instance, recommended a
three-step process for doing this that could be supplied in a job aid form. The three steps of this
process are (1) check your filter, (2) question your belief system, and (3) listen to your deficit
monitor. Checking your filter involves examining where your beliefs about CLD students come
from and how they were developed. Questioning your belief system involves interrogating those
beliefs for inaccuracies and biases. Lastly, listening to your deficit monitor involves acting on
your brain’s warnings that you may be having deficit or negatively biased thoughts about your
CLD students. To help its teachers teach in a culturally responsive manner, MSD should also
provide a resource that lists various culturally responsive instructional practices and how to
execute them. This is particularly critical because the use of effective instructional strategies is a
key Tier 1 practice in PBIS (OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2019). Additionally, MSD’s
teachers should be provided lesson planning templates that include elements of cultural and
linguistic responsiveness along with worked examples of culturally responsive lesson plans.
171

Addressing Motivation Issues
Besides providing its teachers with the knowledge and skills in cultural responsiveness
necessary for implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit, within the TPD provided in
cultural responsiveness, MSD must also be sure to address motivation issues related to teachers’
willingness to address biases they may hold about their CLD students, as well as self-efficacy
concerns. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that people might have the skill necessary to achieve a
goal, but they might not necessarily have the will to do so. As the findings revealed, MSD’s
teachers had conflicting beliefs about the need to interrogate their thinking for biases about their
CLD students which is critical for being culturally responsive (Allen & Steed, 2016; Siwatu et
al., 2015). Therefore, MSD’s leaders need to be aware of these biases (Bensimon, 2005; Chavez
et al., 2008) and ensure that TPDs in cultural responsiveness include helping MSD’s teachers
understand how having implicit biases is a normal function of the human brain, how human
beings come to have implicit biases, why constantly examining our thinking for biases is
important, and include developing teachers’ confidence in their ability to effectively interrogate
their thinking for biases. Furthermore, MSD should provide TPDs in cultural responsiveness that
address both its teachers’ mixed levels of general teaching efficacy (GTE) and moderate levels of
personal teaching efficacy (PTE) for culturally responsive instructional and classroom
management practices. MSD’s teachers must feel confident that teachers, in general, can have a
significant impact on their CLD students’ outcomes (Allen & White-Smith, 2014; Banks &
Obiakor, 2015; Cramer & Bennett, 2015) and they must also feel confident in their own ability to
manage their students in a culturally responsive way (Siwatu et al., 2015).
172

Recommendation 2: Make Changes to Organizational Processes and Policies to Enhance
Transfer of New Learning from TPDs
According to findings from this study, many of MSD’s teachers shared frustrations and
concerns with how MSD’s leadership executes the various TPDs it provides aligned to different
district initiatives. Whether it was TPD in cultural responsiveness, PBIS, or other topics, teachers
indicated that they felt they were not provided enough time to process and practice what they
learned before being expected to implement it with fidelity. Moreover, they attributed this to the
timing of the TPDs and conflicting messages from leadership about priorities that forced them to
constantly change focus on new learning from one district initiative to another. Clark and Estes
(2008) emphasized that leadership must “be alert and remove perceived organizational barriers to
goal achievement” (p. 93), otherwise, motivation for achieving those goals may be diminished
even if people had confidence in themselves or their colleagues with whom they work together to
accomplish the goals. Therefore, MSD’s leadership must address these organizational barriers to
transfer of the new learning necessary for the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS.
Give Teachers Sufficient Time for Learning Transfer
To maximize transfer of learning from TPDs on cultural responsiveness, MSD’s
leadership must provide its teachers more time to process and practice what they learn from
TPDs before holding them accountable to implementation with fidelity. Abdal-Haqq (1996)
noted that lack of time was the most often cited barrier to implementing new learning by
teachers. Many of MSD’s teachers specifically described not being provided enough time to
process the information before being expected to implement it in the instructional contexts, as
well as not enough time to plan with their colleagues on how to apply the new learning. This,
too, mirrors the research which has shown that “teachers need time to understand new concepts,
173

learn new skills, develop new attitudes, research, discuss, reflect, assess, try new approaches and
integrate them into their own practice” (Abdal-Haqq, 1996, p. 2). Therefore, district officials
must implement the following changes to how it executes its TPDs to provide teachers the
necessary time to enhance the likelihood of transfer.
Rethink When and How TPDs Are Implemented. MSD must revisit when and how it
delivers its TPDs as teachers have indicated that this impacts their ability to process what they
learn and implement it in the classroom. Saks and Belcourt (2006) found that 40% of employees,
in general, often fail to implement learning from training they attend. In the public-school
education context, research has shown that most TPDs attended by teachers fail to result in
transfer to their instructional context, and hence have no positive impact on student outcomes
(Kraft et al., 2016; New Teacher Project, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Therefore,
MSD’s leadership needs to provide its TPDs at alternative times to the mid-summer sessions and
“late start” days its teachers have indicated as being problematic or change what is taught during
those specific times. Cheng (2016) and McDonald (2014) both asserted that trainers need to
infuse knowledge about what enhances transfer and be intentional in planning for it; thus, this
includes the purposeful selection of optimal times for delivering TPDs. For instance, training in
skill-based knowledge (e.g., culturally responsive instructional methods) should occur in
temporal proximity to when teachers can practice the skills in their instructional contexts with
students (e.g., during the “late start” days or pupil free days during the school year), whereas
more conceptual knowledge may be provided during more distal time periods (e.g., during mid-
summer TPDs), thus providing teachers more time to process new ideas and integrate them into
their existing belief systems about education. Lastly, regardless of whether TPDs take place in
the summer, during “late start” days, or on dedicated pupil free days, MSD’s leadership must
174

provide time for teachers to reflect on their learning. TPDs must either have time embedded
within them or leaders must provide time in close temporal proximity to TPDs so that teachers
can reflect on their practices and the relationship of new learning to their practices (Abdal-Haqq,
1996; Cutler & Nisonoff Ruopp, 1993; Rucker, 2018). Moreover, reflection is required if
teachers are to develop expertise in the execution of new knowledge (Ferry & Ross-Gordon,
1998).
Align Initiatives and Communicate the Alignment. Many of MSD’s teachers
commented on not having enough time to deeply learn the knowledge they are exposed to during
TPDs due to being forced to manage different, apparently disconnected, district initiatives all
positioned as priorities. To give teachers the time necessary to enhance learning transfer, MSD’s
leadership must coordinate its initiatives to ensure they are all aligned to its overall district goals.
For example, MSD has set equitable outcomes for all its students as a district-wide goal,
therefore, MSD’s leadership must align each of its initiatives (e.g., cultural responsiveness,
PBIS, English Language Development, and social emotional learning) to this overarching goal.
By doing so, teachers will be simultaneously processing and practicing new learning from
coordinated initiatives rather than being pulled in seemingly unrelated directions.
Yet, this is not enough. MSD’s leadership also needs to clearly and consistently
communicate how the various initiatives are interconnected and serve the same broad district-
wide goals so MSD’s teachers can see how the different TPDs they receive relate to one another
and to the overarching goals. Lewis (2011) emphasized leadership’s role in meaning making in
terms of strategically communicating organizational change. She argued that leaders need to
manage conflicts between various stakeholders’ goals, such as MSD’s differing initiatives, to
foster a climate supportive of implementation of new initiatives, and thus, new learning gained
175

from TPDs aligned to these initiatives. Clark and Estes (2008) echoed this by emphasizing the
need for the structures and processes of an organization (e.g., initiatives and TPDs) to be aligned
to organizational goals and for consistent and candid communication regarding the
organization’s plans, as well as progress towards achieving them. By MSD’s leadership clearly
and consistently articulating how the various initiatives all serve the same intended outcomes,
teachers should no longer perceive organizational barriers that impact their time to process and
practice new learning.
Foster Positive Work Environments to Enhance Learning Transfer
Lastly, if MSD’s teachers are to be able to apply their new learning from TPDs,
particularly TPDs in cultural responsiveness which is necessary for implementation of PBIS with
cultural and contextual fit, MSD’s leadership must also address organizational culture issues that
impact work environments conducive to learning transfer. Findings from this study revealed
teachers’ varied perceptions of leadership and colleague support for the application of new
learning. This is particularly salient as research has shown that transfer is limited when teachers
do not feel supported by their leadership or colleagues (Bell & Gilbert, 1994). Moreover,
individuals may even resist applying new knowledge and skills, despite feeling confident in
them, if they do not feel their organization will support their new learning (Chiaburu & Lindsay).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), negative impacts on motivation, such as these, should be
addressed through the creation of “positive emotional environments for individuals and teams at
work” (p. 94). Therefore, it is imperative that MSD’s leaders, both central office and school-site
administrators, foster collaborative and collegial work environments if they want to increase the
likelihood of MSD’s teachers implementing what they learned from TPDs in their various
176

instructional contexts (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Brooks, 2009; Durksen et al., 2017; Hargreaves,
2009; The New Teacher Project, 2015).
Recommendation 3: Create New Organizational Processes and Change Existing Processes
to Support the Adaption of PBIS for Cultural and Contextual Fit
Even if teachers have received comprehensive TPD in cultural responsiveness and
organizational barriers to learning transfer have been addressed, teachers may still not be able to
implement PBIS with culturally responsiveness because they do not know how to do so.
Findings from this study indicated that this is the case with MSD’s teachers. Therefore, to
address this need, MSD’s leadership needs to institute new organizational processes that
facilitate the adaptation of PBIS for cultural and contextual fit. These new processes should
focus on key stakeholders by providing them explicit guidance on how to align PBIS with
cultural responsiveness.
Focus on Key Stakeholders
A significant finding that emerged from the data was a growing belief by some of MSD’s
educators about the need for adapting PBIS to have cultural and contextual fit. Therefore, MSD’s
leadership should leverage this burgeoning interest and belief of its teachers and provide training
and resources in how to implement PBIS in alignment with culturally responsive principles.
Those who should receive this focused support should be the stakeholders directly responsible
for sharing knowledge about PBIS and facilitating PBIS at their respective schools (i.e., school-
site PBIS leadership teams), as well as the teachers who are responsible for sharing knowledge
about cultural responsiveness (i.e., CLR Champions). These individuals are existing human
resources MSD has in place that are best positioned for transforming how PBIS is executed. That
being said, though these stakeholders have the requisite knowledge about PBIS and essential
177

knowledge about cultural responsiveness, they need to learn how to align PBIS and cultural
responsiveness.
Teach How to Align PBIS With Cultural Responsiveness
MSD’s PBIS leadership team members and CLR Champions need the knowledge of how
to adapt their PBIS framework to their school’s culture and context, therefore, MSD’s leadership
must create new organizational processes for them to acquire this essential knowledge. Hollie
and Russell (2021) explained that for educators to be able to implement PBIS in alignment with
culturally responsiveness they must first have foundational knowledge about cultural
responsiveness as has been previously delineated. Additionally, Hollie and Russell asserted that
MSD’s PBIS leadership team members and CLR Champions must be made aware of how and
why PBIS was not inherently culturally responsive in its inception, but then shown how to align
PBIS systems and practices at each support tier support to have cultural and contextual fit. For
example, PBIS leadership team members and CLR coaches must learn that school-wide
behavioral expectations selected for a school, a requisite Tier 1 practice, must be culturally
aligned with the values and belief systems of their CLD students so that they do not just reflect
cultural values and beliefs systems of the dominant culture (Allen & Steed, 2016). Another
critical alignment of PBIS and cultural responsiveness that educators must learn about is the need
for replacing PBIS’s practice of using extrinsic rewards, which in inherently not congruent with
how diverse cultures encourage expected behaviors, with culturally responsive methods like
modeling and storytelling (Kozleski, 2012).
Reform PBIS Leadership Teams to Be Diverse and Inclusive
An existing organizational process that requires transformation if PBIS is to be
implemented culturally responsively is the need for diverse and inclusive stakeholder
178

representation on each individual school’s PBIS leadership team (Allen & Steed, 2016; Bal,
2018; McIntosh et al., 2014). Findings from this study revealed that many teachers did not know
if students, parents, and community members, particularly from historically marginalized groups,
were represented on their school’s PBIS leadership team. Moreover, only about a quarter of
surveyed teachers (28.75%) indicated they were taught this in PBIS TPDs. Therefore, it is
critical that processes are put in place to both educate about the need for students, parents, and
community members to be included on school-site PBIS leadership teams, and also teach how to
authentically include them (Bal, 2018). This diverse and inclusive stakeholder representation is
essential for ensuring that the school-wide behavioral expectations, procedures for encouraging
desired behaviors, identification of what behaviors are considered unacceptable, and procedures
for discouraging unacceptable behaviors that are core Tier 1 practices of PBIS are culturally
congruent (McGoey et al., 2016; McIntosh et al., 2014). Finally, putting in processes for key
stakeholders to know about the need for having diverse and inclusive stakeholder representation
and how to get it is not sufficient. Processes also need to be put in place to ensure that existing
school-site PBIS leadership team members are also willing to recruit diverse stakeholders and
authentically include them in decision making. This is particularly salient as Quarles and Butler
(2018) have shown that parents with more social status (e.g., more affluence) tend to be included
and listened to more than those parents with less social status (e.g., lower socio-economic
levels).
Ensure That PBIS Leadership Teams Disaggregate Discipline Data for EBDM
A core practice of PBIS is the collection and evaluation of discipline data to be used to
guide decisions and determine the effectiveness of student supports and interventions (OSEP
Technical Assistance Center, 2019). Therefore, MSD’s leadership needs to put in organizational
179

processes for their school-sites’ diverse and inclusive culturally responsive PBIS leadership
teams (i.e., CR-PBIS teams) to regularly disaggregate exclusionary discipline data by
demographic subgroups to look for signs of racial disparities. This need is supported by the
findings from this study which revealed varying perceptions about whether discipline data is
already regularly disaggregated by demographic subgroups to identify patterns of
overrepresentation. Moreover, the findings showed that though discipline data is used to inform
decision making, it is not consistently used for EBDM regarding racial disparities revealed in the
data. Thus, CR-PBIS teams must be provided processes that focus on collecting and analyzing
disaggregated discipline data to look for signs of biased teachers’ judgments that contribute to
differential selection of students for ODRs (Allen & Steed, 2016; Parsons 2017) to inform
decisions regarding how best to address these potential biases.
Recommendation 4: Provide Training/Retraining to All Teachers in CR-PBIS
The successful implementation of PBIS in a culturally responsive way requires that
teachers previously trained in PBIS get retrained in PBIS adapted to have cultural and contextual
fit, as well as new teachers receiving comprehensive TPD in culturally responsive PBIS. Hence,
MSD’s leadership must carry out revised district-wide TPD to provide teachers with the
knowledge and skills necessary to implement PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. Moreover,
critical conflicting belief systems must also be addressed lest they negatively impact motivation
for implementing PBIS culturally responsively. Three crucial beliefs where MSD’s teachers
differ that must be addressed are (1) conflicting beliefs about positive and proactive practices, (2)
contrasting beliefs about PBIS’s effectiveness, and (3) differing beliefs about the use of extrinsic
rewards.
180

Addressing Conflicting Beliefs in Positive and Proactive Practices
PBIS is founded on the paradigm that positive and proactive practices comprise the most
effective and developmentally appropriate approach to discipline as opposed to punitive and
reactive practices inherent in damaging zero-tolerance policies (Skiba & Losen, 2015; Whitford
et al., 2016). Culturally responsive PBIS (CR-PBIS) is also based on this same fundamental
belief, therefore, it is essential that MSD’s leadership addresses its teachers’ varying support for
positive and proactive practices identified in the data that was collected for this study. Neither
PBIS nor CR-PBIS can be successful in creating and maintaining safe, welcoming, and equitable
school environments when teachers are not unanimously, or nearly unanimously, committed to
positive and proactive methods of discipline as opposed to punitive and reactive ones. PBIS,
itself, requires at least 80% buy-in from teachers and staff if it is successfully implemented
(Bradshaw et al., 2008). Therefore, after PBIS leadership team members and the CLR
Champions have received comprehensive TPD on how to implement PBIS with cultural and
contextual fit, all teachers will need to be retrained, and new teachers trained, in CR-PBIS.
Within these TPDs, teachers’ belief systems regarding positive versus punitive and proactive
versus reactive practices will need to be directly addressed, otherwise, they will continue work
against the aims of CR-PBIS. Chiaburu and Lindsay (2008) noted that teachers might feel
efficacious about their ability to do something, but they might not be willing to do it. Thus, this
lack of motivation for using positive and proactive practices must be considered in the re-
trainings if transfer of new learning about CR-PBIS is to occur.
Addressing Contrasting Beliefs About PBIS’s Effectiveness
Findings from this study also revealed that MSD’s teachers have contrasting beliefs about
PBIS’s effectiveness in making schools safer and more welcoming for all students, as well as in
181

reducing the need for ODRs. As previously noted, these contrary beliefs are also directly
connected to the divergent views about positive and proactive practices being optimal. Research
consistently shows that organizational effectiveness improves when there are open lines of
communication between leadership and those whom they lead (Walters et al., 2003; Pincus,
2006). Therefore, in its CR-PBIS retraining (and new training for new teachers) and district-wide
communications, MSD’s leadership must openly address these disparate perspectives by being
willing to hear from teachers about what they feel is not effective about PBIS and incorporate
this feedback into their TPDs. Moreover, by doing so, MSD’s leadership will foster positive
working relationships with its teachers, who are a key stakeholder constituency in the district,
that will support its overall equity goals (Conger, 1991; Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011).
Addressing Differing Beliefs About the Use of Extrinsic Rewards
Training and retraining in TPDs about PBIS that incorporate how to adapt PBIS for
cultural and contextual fit must also address MSD’s teachers’ differing beliefs about the
effectiveness of the use of extrinsic rewards. It was clear in the collected data that, whereas some
teachers support the use of extrinsic rewards as a means to encourage desired behaviors, others
have decried the way extrinsic rewards have been misused or have little effect on older students.
The use of extrinsic rewards is a core Tier 1 practice of PBIS (OSEP Technical Assistance
Center on PBIS (2019), but it is not in alignment with culturally based ways of encouraging
appropriate behavior inherent in the cultures of many CLD students (Kozleski, 2012). Moreover,
Kohn (1993) has posited that extrinsic rewards, in general, are ineffective and can even hinder
promoting positive behaviors by students. Thus, TPDs in CR-PBIS must include open dialogue
regarding these varying perspectives before teachers are expected to adopt culturally congruent
methods of encouraging expected behaviors.
182

Recommendation 5: Provide Ongoing Support in Cultural Responsiveness and Culturally
Responsive PBIS (CR-PBIS)
In making an analogy about KMO factors that influence performance, Clark and Estes
(2008) remarked that organizational assets and barriers are like the “current road conditions that
can make it easier or more difficult to get to your intended destination” (p. 43). Because MSD’s
intended destination is to mitigate its persistent overrepresentation of its Black students in
exclusionary discipline, teachers must be able to implement PBIS with the core principle of
culturally responsiveness. Therefore, MSD must respond to the current organizational assets and
needs by implementing a new organizational process that provides teachers, after they have been
provided initial comprehensive TPD in cultural responsiveness and retraining in PBIS
implemented with cultural and contextual fit these areas, with ongoing support in both. MSD is
well-positioned to leverage existing assets to do this.
Findings of this study revealed that MSD has a solid ongoing support structure for PBIS,
but as yet, does not have such robust continuous support for cultural responsiveness. MSD does,
though, have its central office Achievement Community Equity (ACE) committee and CLR
Champions who can be leveraged to provide an ongoing support structure for cultural
responsiveness that parallels the structure in place for PBIS. As with PBIS processes that have
been institutionalized over the past decade in MSD, the ACE committee and CLR Champions
can be capitalized on to create a similar organizational asset that can be used to provide its
teachers, as well as other personnel, with ongoing support in both cultural responsiveness and
how to implement PBIS culturally responsively. This is particularly critical because teachers’
knowledge and motivation are being changed, and therefore, work processes need to be adapted
as well to align with these changes (Clark and Estes, 2008).
183

Horner, Sugai, and Anderson (2010) emphasized that how PBIS was to be sustained is a
critical element in its implementation, thus this can be extended to the need for addressing how
the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS is to be sustained, as well. Once members of
the school-site PBIS leadership teams, central office PBIS staff, CLR Champions, and ACE
committee members have acquired the knowledge necessary for implementing PBIS with
cultural and contextual fit, they should be positioned as district and school-site resources to
support CR-PBIS. As revealed in the interviews that school-site PBIS leadership team members
attend monthly TPDs to constantly update their knowledge about PBIS, so should the CLR
Champions receive similar monthly TPD opportunities to continuously enhance their knowledge
about cultural responsiveness and PBIS implemented culturally responsively. Furthermore,
MSD’s CLR Champions should be integrated into school-site PBIS leadership teams to help
facilitate the implementation of PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.
It is also critical that the district-level administrators that oversee district-wide PBIS
implementation coordinate with the ACE committee members to ensure a unified message about
the need for implementing PBIS in a culturally responsive way to mitigate racial disparities in
exclusionary discipline and create schools that are welcoming to all students, especially those
from CLD backgrounds who have been historically marginalized. This is particularly salient
because doing so involves a major change process that significantly impacts teachers, and
therefore, leadership must have and consistently communicate a clear vision and goals (Clark
and Estes, 2008). Data from this study indicated that the coordination of these key stakeholders
may already have started, but it was also evident that MSD’s teachers were not uniformly certain
about this shift in their district, primarily because of how the COVID-19 pandemic greatly
affected typical operations.
184

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Description of the Program
The change initiative is getting MSD’s teachers to implement a culturally responsive
PBIS. The purpose of this change of initiative is to mitigate racial disparities in exclusionary
discipline that persist in MSD despite their implementation of PBIS. This initiative ultimately
serves MSD’s student groups who are most often overrepresented in exclusionary discipline –
Black students. It was created because the findings of this study clearly indicated that
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors were both helping and hindering MSD’s
teachers from implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. MSD already has in place a
larger equity initiative aimed at addressing long-standing racial inequities in the district
manifested in lower academic performance for its Black students and the disproportionate rates
of exclusionary discipline experienced by its Black students. Organizationally, MSD has a
publicly espoused vision, mission, and goals targeted at creating schools where all students are
successful and have equitable experiences. Moreover, they have put into place policies and
procedures to support this vision. Socially, MSD is in a predominantly White mid-Western area
that was historically a “sundown town” and has a history of anti-Black racism. It also has a
growing immigrant population made up of southeast Asians and refugees from African nations to
which the predominant White community is struggling to adjust. Politically, MSD is affected by
the larger political and social justice movements currently impacting our country.
Goals of the Program
Rather than identifying S.M.A.R.T. goals for this program, the evolution of Duran’s
(1981) original concept to the current iteration of S.M.A.R.T.E.R. goals are to be applied. As
with Duran’s original model, the ‘s’ still stands for ‘specific,’ the ‘m’ still represents
185

‘measurable,” the ‘a’ still means ‘attainable’ or ‘achievable,’ and the ‘t’ still is ‘timely,’ but what
is different are what ‘r’ stands for and the addition of the ‘e’ and extra ‘r’ at the end. ‘R,’ in
Duran’s original model stood for ‘realistic,’ but this is currently perceived as redundant to
‘achievable,’ so it has been replaced with the concept of ‘relevant’ to reflect the need for goals to
be connected to the organization’s overall mission and its stakeholders’ needs and interests
(Quantum Workplace, n.d.). The added ‘e’ means ‘evaluate’ and it refers to the need to
continuously collect formative data about progress towards a goal, whereas the additional ‘r’
stands for ‘readjust’ or ‘revise’ and speaks to making changes, if necessary, to the approach at
achieving a goal or to the goal itself. Therefore, these are the S.M.A.R.T.E.R. goals for this
initiative:
1. Within one to three years, 100% of MSD’s teachers will have received TPD in cultural
responsiveness.
2. Within one to three years, 100% of MSD’s school-site PBIS leadership team members
and CLR coaches will have received TPD on how to align PBIS with cultural
responsiveness.
3. Within one to three years, 100% of MSD’s school-site PBIS leadership teams will have
diverse representation inclusive of students, parents, and community members, especially
from historically marginalized groups.
4. Within one to three years, MSD’s schools will see a 50% reduction in overrepresentation
of its Black students in exclusionary discipline.
5. Within four to six years, 100% of MSD’s schools will be consistently using PBIS
frameworks that have been adapted to have cultural and contextual fit.
186

6. Within four to six years, MSD’s schools will see a 75% reduction in overrepresentation
of its Black students in exclusionary discipline.
7. Within seven to ten years, MSD’s will have no discernable racial disparities in
exclusionary discipline.
Approach to Evaluation
The approach used for evaluation is the Kellogg Foundation’s (2004) Logic Model. This
approach is being utilized for this context because (1) MSD is a client of the Culturally
Responsive Teaching Center so this model will be a recommendation to them; and (2) the Logic
Model aligns well with the KMO conceptual framework that was used to guide this study.
According to the Kellogg Foundation (2004), the Logic Model is a “systematic and visual way to
present and share your understanding of the relationships among the resources you have to
operate your program, the activities you plan, and the changes or results you hope to achieve” (p.
1). It involves five core components – resources/inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact.
A Logic Model is read from left to right using a series of ‘if…then’ statements and its purpose is
to provide a roadmap to stakeholders to help them understand how the change program connects
intended results with organizational needs. There are three different Logic Model approaches –
Theory Approach Models, Outcomes Approach Models, and Activities Approach Models
(Kellogg Foundation, 2004). For the purpose of this change program, the Outcomes Approach
Logic Model will be used because it helps to elucidate the “relationships between specific
program activities and their outcomes” (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p. 11).
Overview of the Evaluation Plan
A critical problem facing MSD is the persistent overrepresentation of their Black students
in exclusionary discipline despite the implementation of PBIS with fidelity. To help mitigate
187

these disparities, MSD needs to shift from its current form of PBIS to implementing PBIS in a
way that is adapted to the culture and context of each school (i.e., culturally responsively). PBIS
implemented with culturally responsiveness has been demonstrated at being effective in closing
racial gaps in discipline (Eber et al., 2010; McGoey et al., 2016; McIntosh et al., 2014). The
following evaluation plan is based on identified KMO inputs or resources identified in this study
as either assets or barriers to MSD’s teachers implementing PBIS in a culturally responsive way.
These inputs were then used to identify specific activities (e.g., processes) to address these
inputs. Outputs, or the “direct results of program activities” (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p. 8)
were next identified. These all were aligned with the short- and long-term outcomes and impacts
that were first identified before the logic model inputs, activities, and outputs were determined.
Figure 7 presents a visual representation of the outcomes approach logic model used to frame
this evaluation plan. Evaluation data will be collected via mixed methods with quantitative data
coming from surveys and exclusionary discipline data (e.g., disaggregated ODRs).

188

Figure 7
Outcomes Approach Logic Model

Note: This figure uses the outcomes approach version of the Kellogg Foundation’s (2004) Logic
Model used to frame the evaluation plan used with the implementation plan.
189

Evaluation Methodology
To collect data about output, outcomes, and impact, it is recommended that MSD use a
mixed method approach whereby they gather quantitative information through surveys and
disaggregated discipline data reports, and MSD should collect qualitative data through
interviews. This data should be collected from a sampling of various stakeholder groups such as
students, parents, teachers, and school-site administrators at the school-site level for individual
school reports, as well as being aggregated at the district-level for wholistic report. Of particular
importance would be gathering data about the experiences and perspectives of CLD students and
their families, especially Black students, as they have been most negatively impacted by
persistent racial disparities in exclusion discipline in the Midwest School District. In determining
what schools to gather data from, MSD should first focus on its schools implementing PBIS and
undergoing the shift to PBIS’s implementation adapted to be culturally responsive. Data should
be collected at regular time intervals over the scope of this change initiative. Formative data
should be collected during and immediately after TPDs in cultural responsiveness and CR-PBIS,
quarterly throughout the schoolyear, and annually.
Based on the Outcomes Approach Logic Model used to frame the evaluation plan, there
are two primary focus areas for evaluation – outcomes and context. First, MSD must evaluate if
it has sufficient teachers buy-in to shift to implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit.
Research has shown that with the standard PBIS, at least 80% buy-in is required to begin
implementing PBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Kincaid et al., 2007). Therefore, MSD’s leadership
at both the district and school-site level must gauge the level of motivational readiness before
enacting the implementation plan. If the requisite buy-in is indicated in the data, then, to evaluate
whether teachers are implementing what they learned from TPDs about CR-PBIS, an
190

implementation fidelity instrument aligned with culturally responsiveness should be used. This
instrument should also be used to evaluate the context focus area questions related to what the
expectations for teacher implementation should be, as well as whether school-site PBIS
leadership teams are diverse and inclusive. Regarding measuring the impact of TPD on school
climate and equity, disaggregated discipline data stored in some form of computerized school-
wide information system (SWIS) and student and parent school climate satisfaction surveys
should be used to determine indicators of outcomes related to mitigating racial disparities in
exclusionary discipline.
For measuring the contextual element of whether teachers feel the TPDs they received
are helpful, training satisfaction surveys should be used. Tracking documents, such as attendance
sheets, should be used to document which teachers have received the necessary TPD.
Implementation fidelity checklists and teacher evaluations, particularly using a rubric with
culturally responsive elements embedded, should be used to gauge teachers’ capacity for
implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. The fidelity checklists, along with parent
satisfaction surveys, can be used to measure whether individual schools have diverse and
inclusive stakeholder representation. Lastly, sustainability of CR-PBIS is critical. Bradshaw et al.
(2008) noted that the standard PBIS framework needs about three to five years of
implementation to establish sustainability, whereas Sugai and Horner (2002) emphasized that
staff capacity impacts PBIS’s sustainability. Therefore, MSD must use culturally responsive
PBIS implementation fidelity checklists and sustainability plan to constantly evaluate if KMO
factors are in place to maintain CR-PBIS as an institutional norm. Table 8 identifies questions,
indicators, and necessary technical assistance aligned to each focus area.

191

Table 8
Logic Model–Focus Area Questions, Indicators, and Technical Assistance Needed

Focus Area Question Indicators Technical Assistance
Needed
Outcomes:
Effectiveness,
Magnitude, and
Satisfaction
Have enough teachers
bought into CR-PBIS
to begin
implementing it?
Teacher Surveys Survey aligned to
gauge teacher buy-in

Are teachers
implementing what
they learned from
TPDs about CR-
PBIS?
Implementation
Fidelity Checklists
Culturally responsive
version of a PBIS
implementation
fidelity checklist

Is PBIS implemented
culturally responsive
thus making my
school safer and more
welcoming for all
students by reducing
the need for
exclusionary
discipline?
Disaggregated
Discipline Data

Student and Parent
School Climate
Satisfaction Surveys
Computerized
discipline data
collection systems
that allow for the
disaggregation of
data by demographic
subgroups

Are teachers
treating students
fairly in the way
they are making
disciplinary
decisions, especially
across racial/ethnic
differences?
Student and Parent
School Climate
Satisfaction Surveys
Survey aligned to the
fundamental
principles of cultural
responsiveness
Context:
Relationships and
Capacity
Do teachers feel that
the TPDs are being
helpful?
Training Satisfaction
Surveys
Sample valid and
reliable surveys from
other TPDs that
measured teachers’
reactions

Are teachers
attending TPDs
about cultural
responsiveness and
CR-PBIS?
Tracking Documents
(i.e., Sign-in Sheets,
Spreadsheets, or
Databases)
Computerized
information system to
track TPD attendance
192

What expectations
should there be of
teachers in terms of
implementing new
learning from
TPDs?
Implementation
Fidelity Checklists

Teacher Evaluation
Culturally responsive
version of a PBIS
implementation
fidelity checklist
Will students and
parents be
authentically
involved in our
school’s CR-PBIS
leadership team?
Implementation
Fidelity Checklists
Culturally responsive
version of a PBIS
implementation
fidelity checklist
Can CR-PBIS be
sustained over time?
Implementation
Fidelity Checklists
Culturally responsive
version of a PBIS
implementation
fidelity checklist

Note: Key questions, indicators, and necessary technical assistance are listed for each focus area
of the logic model for the evaluation plan.

Data Analysis and Use of Evaluation Findings
The data analysis procedures that will be conducted will involve the various evaluation
indicators described in the previous section. Data collected from culturally responsive PBIS
implementation fidelity instruments, disaggregated discipline data, and student and parent school
climate satisfaction surveys will be analyzed and compared to determine how effective MSD’s
change initiative focused on transitioning the implementation of PBIS with cultural and
contextual fit is in mitigating racial disparities in exclusionary discipline while fostering safe and
welcoming school environments for all students. Four primary stakeholder groups have been
identified as the intended audience for analysis of data and the use of the evaluation findings –
students and parents, teachers, school-site leadership, and district leadership. The intended use of
the findings from the data is to support evidence-based decision making (EBDM) specifically
193

targeted at achieving the desired results (i.e., outputs, outcomes, and impact) of this change
initiative. Table 9 summarizes the evaluation focus areas, intended audiences, key questions the
various audiences may have, and how the information will be used.

Table 9
Logic Model – Evaluation Plan

Evaluation Focus
Area
Audience Question (i.e.,
context)
Use (i.e.,
implementation)
Outcomes:
Effectiveness,
Magnitude, and
Satisfaction
District Leadership Are teachers
implementing what
they learned from
TPDs about
culturally responsive
PBIS?
Decisions about what
may need to be
changed to enhance
transfer

Is the
implementation of
PBIS culturally
responsively
resulting in a closing
of the racial
discipline gap?
Decisions about
whether to continue
funding TPD or
interventions at
school-site levels
that may be
necessary to
facilitate
implementation

What percentage of
teachers have bought
into CR-PBIS at each
school-site?
Decisions about
how to support
necessary teacher
motivation and buy-
in

Teachers Did the TPDs in
culturally responsive
PBIS help me to
better meet the
needs of my CLD
students?
Decisions about the
effectiveness of TPDs

Is PBIS
implemented with
Decisions about using
CR-PBIS
194

culturally
responsiveness
making my school
safer and more
welcoming to all
students by reducing
the need for
exclusionary
discipline?

School-site
Leadership
What percentage of
teachers have bought
into CR-PBIS at each
school-site?
Decisions about
how to support
necessary teacher
motivation and buy-
in

Are teachers
implementing what
they learned from
TPDs about
culturally responsive
PBIS?
Decisions about what
may need to be
changed to enhance
transfer

Is PBIS
implemented with
culturally
responsiveness
making my school
safer and more
welcoming to all
students by reducing
the need for
exclusionary
discipline?
Decisions about using
CR-PBIS

Students and Parents Are teachers treating
students fairly in the
way they are making
disciplinary
decisions, especially
across racial/ethnic
differences?
Student and Parent
School Climate
Satisfaction Surveys

Are teachers using a
positive rather than a
punitive approach to
discipline that helps
students rather than
hurts them?
Student and Parent
School Climate
Satisfaction Surveys
195

Context:
Relationships and
Capacity
District Leadership How will all
teachers get trained
in CR-PBIS?
Implementation Plan

Do teachers feel that
the TPDs are being
helpful?
Training
Satisfaction Surveys

How many teachers
have received TPD?
Accountability Plan

How is CR-PBIS
being sustained at
each school-site?
Sustainability Plan

Teachers How will we be
provided ongoing
support in
developing our
capacity for being
culturally
responsive?
Implementation Plan

Will we be held
accountable for
implementing what
we learn from TPDs,
and if so, will we be
afforded enough
time to process and
practice what we
learned before being
held accountable?
Accountability

School-site
Leadership
What expectations
should there be of
teachers in terms of
implementing new
learning from TPDs?
Accountability

How will ongoing
support be provided
for developing our
capacity for being
culturally
responsive?
Implementation Plan

How will we be
supported in
sustaining CR-
PBIS?
Sustainability Plan
196

Students and Parents Will teachers be
expected to
implement PBIS in a
culturally responsive
way?
Accountability

Will students and
parents be
authentically
involved in our
school’s CR-PBIS
leadership team?
Implementation Plan

Note: The audience, key questions, and uses for each question are listed for both evaluation
focus areas of the evaluation plan.

Conclusion
The Program Logic Model, or change theory, used for implementation and evaluation
planning of this change initiative effectively aligns with the KMO conceptual framework used in
this study. The findings from this study informed the KMO resources or inputs that determined
the activities necessary for addressing the assets and barriers to MSD’s teachers’ implementation
of PBIS adapted to the culture and context of their respective schools. The intended results (i.e.,
outputs, outcomes, and impact) were determined first and the activities were aligned to
achievement of these results. The use of the logic model approach helps to make it clear to
decision makers why the suggested program, or implementation plan, is essential for investing in
by presenting “an organized approach to capturing, documenting, and disseminating program
results (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p. 6). Results of the evaluation plan will be provided to
central district leadership and key stakeholders who will then disseminate the information to
various stakeholder groups. Lastly, the execution of the recommendations for implementation
197

and evaluation are critical if MSD is to achieve its goals of equitable experiences for all its
students.
Limitations and Delimitations
Theofanidis and Fountouki (2018) defined limitations as any potential weakness of a
study outside of a researcher's control. Based on this definition, this study has several key
limitations. One potential weakness was the effect of social desirability. Robinson and Leonard
(2019) explained that social desirability – the desire to look good to the researcher – is an
inherent problem with surveys. Therefore, it is possible that respondents responded to specific
items in ways not authentic to how they actually felt, but rather in ways to minimize negative
perceptions of them. Another possible limitation of this study could be the impact of survey
fatigue. Leonard and Robinson (2019) explained that survey fatigue involves respondents losing
interest and tiring of completing a survey and has become more common because of the increase
in use of surveys. This is particularly salient with teachers who are often asked to complete
surveys for various programs and initiatives. Moreover, the survey was administered during the
COVID-19 pandemic and teachers were highly impacted by having to adjust to teaching online.
Therefore, survey fatigue may have affected survey responses and the subsequent quality of the
data collected.
Another potential limitation of this study was the use of purposive sampling for selecting
teachers to be interviewed. Two inherent issues with doing so were that some of the participants
were not able to provide some of the information required to answer the research questions and
interviewing teachers who had worldviews so aligned to the researcher that they provided biased
information. A final possible limitation of this mixed methods study was its generalizability.
Though care was taken to provide rich, thick descriptions to provide the reader with a vivid
198

picture of the survey context, because the study was conducted at elementary and middle schools
in one Midwest school district, the findings may not transfer to other contexts.
Delimitations are limitations within the researcher’s control (e.g., goal, methods, and
choice of the population) and used to narrow the scope of a particular study (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2018). For this study, one delimitation was the specific aim of the study. This study
focused on racial disproportionality in exclusionary discipline impacting Black students in
schools in MSD, not implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit. This study did not
examine other forms of disproportionality in exclusionary discipline, such as against other ethnic
groups, by sex, or by special education status. Another related delimitation was the particular
location and population chosen for the study. The researcher was narrowly focused on gathering
information from teachers in elementary and middle schools in MSD. Teachers at high schools,
district schools not implementing PBIS, and other school personnel (e.g., district leadership,
principals, and counselors) were not included in the study, and therefore their perspectives did
not add to the data. Furthermore, one specific school district was chosen solely due to the
researcher’s access to it. A final delimitation was the researcher's choice to use a convergent
mixed methods research design. As aforementioned, this approach has inherent delimitations, yet
the researcher chose this design cognizant of these associated weaknesses.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on identifying knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS adapted to the culture and contextual of their
respective schools to determine what assets and barriers exist to implementing PBIS in this way.
The study exclusively focused on just teachers who work at elementary and middle schools’
implementing PBIS in MSD; therefore, future research could expand beyond just teachers and
199

get the perspectives of other stakeholder groups such as students, parents, support staff, and
administrators. Future research could also go beyond just schools implementing PBIS and
examine non-implementing elementary, middle, and high schools to gauge what KMO factors
may help or hinder their teachers’ capacity for implementing culturally responsive PBIS.
Although this study addressed some motivation factors that could influence the culturally
responsive implementation of PBIS, future research could benefit from looking at other
motivation constructs. For instance, the three major indices of motivation – active choice,
persistence, and mental effort – could be more deeply studied to see how they affect teachers’
desire to implement PBIS with culturally responsiveness. Future studies could also more closely
look at how teachers’ willingness, or lack thereof, to interrogate their biases about their CLD
students impacts PBIS being implemented culturally responsively. Furthermore, Clark and Estes
(2008) noted that there are elements of work environments that can destroy work motivation.
Findings from this study revealed issues such as inconsistent collegial and school-site leadership
support for new learning that impacted MSD’s teachers’ implementation of PBIS with cultural
and contextual fit. So, future research could more narrowly focus on how cultural elements of
teachers’ work environments can either help or hinder teachers’ implementation of PBIS in a
culturally responsive way.
Lastly, another recommendation for future research could involve addressing ecological
factors that may impact teachers’ knowledge and motivation. Bronfenbrenner (1979), through his
Ecological Systems Theory, discussed the influence of various systems on an individual – the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. For example, MSD’s
teachers worked at school-sites with varying levels of student and teacher diversity. Therefore,
the direct influence of this type of microsystem factor could be examined for its significance.
200

Additionally, exosystem and chronosystem influences regarding prevailing community histories
could be studied to see their impacts on teachers’ biases regarding CLD students. For example,
MSD is a former sundown town that has a history of anti-Black racism and is currently
struggling with xenophobic community responses to increasing diversity from refugee immigrant
groups. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the macrosystem involves attitudes and ideologies
of the larger societal culture, therefore, social and cultural values as the macrosystem level
regarding race and disciplinary approaches could be examined to see how they influence MSD’s
teachers’ belief systems, as well. In sum, future studies could focus on seeing how these various
systems directly and indirectly affect teachers’ beliefs about why racial disparities in
exclusionary discipline exist, their motivation for being culturally responsive, perspectives about
positive versus punitive approaches to discipline, or what prior knowledge they have about
cultural differences.
Conclusion
Racial disparities in exclusionary discipline, particularly impacting Black students, have
been a persistent problem in U.S. public schools since discipline data started being collected in
the late 1960s and first reported in the 1970s. The PBIS framework held promise for mitigating
the disproportionate representation of Black students in all forms of exclusionary discipline (e.g.,
ODRs, suspensions, and referrals to law enforcement), but has not consistently been proven able
to achieve this noble aim. Yet, research has shown that the racial discipline gap can be closed
when PBIS is implemented adapted to the culture and context of a school (i.e., culturally
responsively). MSD is a large mid-Western school district who has been implementing PBIS
with fidelity for a decade, yet MSD’s Black students are still suspended four times more than its
White students. The purpose of this study was to discover what knowledge, motivation, and
201

organizational (KMO) factors were influencing teachers’ implementation of PBIS with culturally
responsiveness in MSD to determine what assets and barriers exist to doing so. Findings from
this study revealed various KMO factors that were either helping or hindering MSD’s teachers in
implementing PBIS in this way. Assets that MSD has in place are some teachers (i.e., the CLR
Champions) who have more developed knowledge about cultural responsiveness and can help
disseminate that knowledge, the central office ACE committee that is focused on supporting
equity in the district, an existing infrastructure for PBIS, and a burgeoning motivation by
teachers to align PBIS with cultural responsiveness. Some barriers to the implementation of
PBIS with cultural and contextual fit are the need for more TPD in cultural responsiveness, the
need for TPD in how to align PBIS with cultural responsiveness, and inconsistent beliefs by
MSD’s teachers about the effectiveness of PBIS.
Currently, PBIS is used in a quarter of all public schools in the U.S. making it the mostly
widely utilized discipline framework (OSEP Technical Assistance Center, 2019). Moreover,
according to the National Center for Education Statistics (2017), 52% of the students attending
U.S. public schools were identified as non-White in the fall of 2017 and this percentage is
predicted to steadily increase with projections of non-White students comprising student
enrollment growing to 56%. This is particularly salient as the research has consistently shown
that PBIS must be implemented in a way that is culturally aligned to the student body to be
effective at mitigating racial disparities in discipline, as well as creating safe and welcoming
school environments for all students, regardless of their ethnic or racial background. Moreover,
projections by the NCES (2017) indicated that Black students will continue to comprise around
15% of students enrolled in U.S. public schools with little to no change, yet Black students
continue to be the single group most consistently overrepresented in exclusionary discipline.
202

Therefore, the findings of this study could be useful for the numerous other districts with schools
implementing PBIS and experiencing racial disparities in ODRs, suspensions, and expulsions.
Leadership in other districts could also determine what KMO factors can either help or hinder
them in implementing PBIS with cultural and contextual fit and use this information to transform
the way their teachers implement PBIS so that it is culturally responsive. By doing so, districts
and schools could possibly finally offset decades of racial inequities in discipline that have
disproportionately impacted Black students.

203

References
Abdal-Haqq, I. & ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (1996). Making
Time for Teacher Professional Development. [S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED400259
Allen, R. & Steed, E. A. (2016). Culturally responsive pyramid model practices:
Program-wide positive behavior support for young children. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 36(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416651164
Allen, Q. & White-Smith, K. A. (2014).” Just as bad as prisons”: The challenge of dismantling
the school-to-prison pipeline through teacher and community education. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 47(4), 445–460.
Allman, K. L. & Slate, J. R. (2011). School discipline in public education: A brief review of
current practices. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(2), 1–8.
Andrews, S. P., Taylor, P. B., Martin, E. P., & Slate, J. R. (1998). Evaluation of an alternative
discipline program. The High School Journal, 81(4), 209–217.
Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., &
Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to
suspension in school discipline outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 379–
386.
Bal, A. (2015, December). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports.
WCER Working Paper No. 2015-9. https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-
papers/Working_Paper_No_2015_09.pdf
Bal, A. (2016). From intervention to innovation: A cultural-historical approach to the
racialization of school discipline. Interchange, 47, 409–427.
204

Bal, A. (2018). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports: A
process-oriented framework for systemic transformation. Review of Education, Pedagogy,
and Cultural Studies, 40(2), 144–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2017.1417579
Bal, A. Afacan, K., & Cakir, H. I. (2018). Culturally responsive school discipline: Implementing
Learning Lab at a high school for systemic transformation. American Educational
Research Journal, 55(5), 1007–1050. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218768796
Balonon-Rosen, P. (2016). Want to address teachers’ unconscious biases? First, talk about race.
https://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/2016/06/20/teacher-implicit-racial-bias/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Beers, S. R. & De Bellis, M. D. (2002). Neuropsychological function in children with
maltreatment-related posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(3),
483–486.
Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social
development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(5), 483–497.
Betters-Bubon, J. Brunner, T., & Kansteiner, A. (2016). Success for all? The role of the school
counselor in creating and sustaining culturally responsive positive behavior interventions
and supports programs. The Professional Counselor, 6(3), 263–277.
Blake, J. J., Butler, B. R., Lewis, C. W., & Darensbourg, A. (2011). Unmasking the inequitable
discipline experiences of urban Black girls: Implications for urban educational
stakeholders. Urban Rev, 43, 90–106.
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B.,
205

Hicks, K. J., Kasper, B. B., Culos, C., Sailor, W. & Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide
application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 131–145.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
Bottiani. J. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Gregory, A. (2018) Nudging the gap: Introduction to the
special issue “Closing in Discipline Disproportionality.” School Psychology Review, 47(2),
109–117.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148.
Bradshaw, C., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of
school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools:
Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 1–26.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Brooks, L.A. (2009). Learning and transfer in a complex professional development setting: a
cross-case analysis of the perceptions and practices of science teachers. (Doctoral
dissertation). ProQuest Information & Learning, 2010. (AAI3370666)
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected
students: A new approach to healing and growth in the classroom. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, (85)1, 3–9.
206

Caldarella, P., Shatzer, R. H., Gray, K. M., Young, K. R., & Young, E. L. (2011). The effects of
school-wide positive behavior support on middle school climate and student outcomes.
RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 35(4), 1–14.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.
Cheng, E. W. L. (2016). Maintaining the transfer of in-service teachers’ training in the
workplace. Educational Psychology, 36(3), 444–460.
Chiaburu, D. S. & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and
instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International, 11(2),
199–206.
Clark, R. (2019). Guest lecture from Dr. Richard Clark: Introduction to gap analysis [Recorded
Lecture]. 2SC. https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=154911
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 5(1), 31–45.
Cramer, E. D. & Bennett, K.D. (2015). Implementing culturally responsive behavior
interventions and supports in middle school classrooms. Middle School Journal, 46(3), 18–
24.
Crenshaw, K. W., Ocen, P., & Nanda, J. (2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced and
underprotected. African American Policy Forum. https://44bbdc6e-01a4-4a9a-88bc-
731c6524888e.filesusr.com/ugd/b77e03_e92d6e80f7034f30bf843ea7068f52d6.pdf
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
207

methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cutler, B. & Nisonoff Ruopp, F. (1993). Buying time for teachers’ professional development.
The Professional Teacher, 50(6), 34–37.
Dancy II, T. E. (2014). (Un)doing hegemony in education: Disrupting school-to-prison pipelines
for black males. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 476–493.
Denning, S. (2005). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative (Vol. 269). Jossey-Bass.
DePrince, A. P., Weinzierl, K. M., & Coms, M. D. (2007). Executive function
performance and trauma exposure in a community of sample children. Childhood Abuse
and Neglect, 33, 353–361.
Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy
environments and response to trauma in schools (HEARTS): a whole-school, multi-level,
prevention and intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive
schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 163–176.
Downey, D. B. & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’
classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267–282.
Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to
a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 67, 53–66.
Eber, L., Upreti, G. & Rose, J. (2010). Addressing ethnic disproportionality in school
discipline through positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS). Illinois Principals
Association Building Leadership - A Practitioners Bulletin, 17(8), 1–11.
Evans, R. (2005). A special section on the achievement gap--reframing the achievement gap. Phi
208

Delta Kappan, 86(8), 582. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62146140?accountid=14749
Fallon, L. M., O’Keeffe, B. V, and Sugai, G. (2012). Consideration of culture and context in
school-wide positive behavior support: A review of the literature. Journal of Positive
Behavioral Interventions, 14(4), 209–219.
Farinde, A. A. & Allen, A. (2013). Cultural dissonance: Exploring the relationship between
White female teachers’ perception and urban Black female students’ disciplinary
infractions. The National Journal of Urban Education & Practice, 7(2), 142–155.
Ferry, N. M. & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön’s epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48(2), 98–112.
Fowler, D. (2011). School discipline feeds the "pipeline to prison". Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 14–
19.
Georgia Department of Education. (2018). Georgia’s Strategic Plan for PBIS: 2014-2024.
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Documents/PBIS/2014-15/GaDOE%20PBIS%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf
Gibbons, K. (2019, September 17). Five research must-reads for inclusive education leaders.
Minnesota Association of School Administrators Leaders Forum.
https://mnasanews.org/2019/09/17/five-research-must-reads-for-inclusive-education-
leaders/
Gibson, S. & Demba, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Goodman-Scott, E., Hays, D. G., & Cholewa, B. E. (2018). “It takes a village”: A case study of
209

positive behavioral interventions and supports implementation in an exemplary urban
middle school. Urban Review, 50(1), 97–122.
Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and
the school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281–335.
Government Accountability Office (2018). Discipline disparities for Black students, boys, and
students with disabilities. United States Government Accountability Office.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-258.pdf
Grace, J. E. & Nelson, S. L. (2019). “Trying’ to survive”: Black male students’ understanding of
the role of race and racism in the school-to-prison pipeline. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 18(4), 664–680.
Greflund, S., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., & May, S. L. (2014). Examining disproportionality in
school discipline for Aboriginal students in schools implementing PBIS. Canadian Journal
of School Psychology, 29(3), 213–235.
Gregory, A. Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2014). The promise of restorative practices
to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353.
Gregory, A. & Mosley, P. M. (2004). The discipline gap: Teachers’ views on the over-
representation of African American students in the discipline system. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 30, 18–30.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin.
Hanover Research. (2013, November). Equitable discipline through positive interventions and
supports. https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Equitable-Discipline-through-Positive-
Behavioral-Interventions-and-Supports.pdf
210

Hargreaves, A. (2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity:
An introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 89–100.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
Himmelstein, K. E. W. & Bruckner, H. (2011). Criminal-justice and school sanctions against
nonheterosexual youth: A national longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2306
Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning – classroom
practices for student success, grades K–12. Shell Education.
Hollie, S. & Russell, D. (2021). Supporting the underserved: How to make PBIS culturally
responsive. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Solution Tree.
Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics (2017). Racial/ethnic
enrollment in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cge.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics (2019, February).
Indicator 17: High school status dropout rates.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_RDC.asp
Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics (2020). District directory
information (2019–2020 school year).
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=5500390
Johnson, A.D., Anhalt, K., & Cowan, R. J. (2017). Culturally responsive school-wide positive
interventions and supports: A practical approach to addressing disproportionality with
African-American students. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1–12.
Johnson, M. E. (2018). The effects of traumatic experiences on academic relationships
211

and expectations in justice-involved children. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 240–249.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22102
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Kaufman, J. S., Jaser, S. S., Vaughan, E. L., Reynolds, J. S., Di Donato, J., Bernard, S. N., &
Hernandez-Brereton, M. (2010). Patterns in office referral data by grade, Race/Ethnicity,
and gender. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(1), 44–54.
Kellogg Foundation (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and
action: Logic model development guide. Kellogg Foundation.
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/LogicModel.pdf
Kelm, J. L. & McIntosh, K. (2011). Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher
self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 137–147.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise,
and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin Co.
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional
development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405.
Kourea, L., Lo, Y., & Owens, T. L. (2016). Using parental input from Black families to increase
cultural responsiveness for teaching SWPBS expectations. Behavioral Disorders, 41(4),
226–240.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and
achievement: A meta-analysis of causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4),
547–588.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
212

41(4), 212–218.
Larson, K. E., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Rosenberg, M. S., & Day-Vines, N. L. (2018).
Examining how proactive management and culturally responsive teaching relate to student
behavior: implications for measurement and practice. School Psychology Review, 47(2),
153–166.
Larson, S., Chapman, S., Spetz, J., & Brindis, C. D. (2017). Chronic childhood trauma,
mental health, academic achievement, and school-based health center mental health
services. Journal of School Health, (87)9, 675–686.
Leverson, M., Smith, K., McIntosh, K., Rose, J., & Pinkleman, S. (2019, May). PBIS cultural
responsiveness field guide: Resources for trainers and coaches. OSEP Technical Assistance
Center.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons.
Losen, D., Hodson, C., Keith II, M. A., Morrsion, K, & Beltway, S. (2015, February 23). Are we
closing the school discipline gap. The Civil Rights Project.
https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-
remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/are-we-closing-the-school-discipline-
gap/AreWeClosingTheSchoolDisciplineGap_FINAL221.pdf
Losen, D. J. & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of school and off track: The overuse of suspensions in
American middle and high schools. The Civil Rights Project.
Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm
shift: C & A C & A. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 15–24.
Mandinach, E. B. & Schildkamp (2020). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in
213

education: An exploration of literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842
Marusak, H. A., Martin, K. R., Etkin, A., & Thomason, M. E. (2015). Childhood trauma
exposure disrupts the automatic regulation of emotional processing.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 40, 1250–1258.
McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative
Practices in schools make a difference? Educational Review, 30(4), 405–417.
McDonald, L. (2011). Transfer of training in teacher PD: A process-outcome orientation.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1885–1894.
McDonald, L. (2014). Transfer of the learning: Teacher professional development. The
European Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(4), 1569–1584.
McGoey, K. E., Munro, A. B., McCobin, A., & Miller, A. (2016). Implementation of culturally
relevant school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Forum: Research in
Practice, 10(2), 134–141.
McIntosh, K., Barnes, A., Eliason, B., & Morris, K. (2014). Using discipline data within
SWPBIS to identify and address disproportionality: A guide for school teams. OSEP
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
https://www.pbis.org
McIntosh, K., Moniz, C., Craft, C. B., Golby, R., & Steinwand-Deschambeault, T.
(2014). Implementing school-wide positive behavioural interventions and supports to better
meet the needs of indigenous students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(3),
236–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514542217
Meiners, E. (2011). Ending the school-to-prison pipeline/building abolition futures. Urban
214

Revolution, 43(4), 547–565.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. D. (2012). The effect of leadership for positive behavior intervention and equity
Available from ERIC. (1651851899; ED547599).
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1651851899?accountid=14749
Monroe, C. R. (2005). Why are the “bad boys” always Black? Causes of disproportionality in
school discipline and recommendations for change. Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(1), 45–50.
Morris, E. W. & Perry, B. L. (2017). Girls behaving badly? Race, gender, and subjective
evaluation in the discipline of African American girls. American Sociological
Association, 90(2), 127–148.
Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of Black girls in schools. The New Press.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z. & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school
discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science Quarterly,
90(4), 1003–1018.
Nishioka, V., Shigeoka, S., & Lolich, E. (2017). School discipline data indicators: A guide for
districts in schools. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
http://ie.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Noltemeyer, A., & Mcloughlin, C. S. (2010). Patterns of exclusionary discipline by school
typology, ethnicity, and their interaction. Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 27–40.
215

Noltemeyer, A., Petrasek, M., Stine, K., Palmer, K., Meehan, C., & Jordan, E. (2018). Evaluating
and celebrating PBIS success: Development and implementation of Ohio's PBIS
recognition system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 34(3), 215–241.
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (October
2015). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Implementation Blueprint:
Part 1 – Foundations of Supporting Information. University of Oregon.
https://www.pbis.org
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2019).
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports [Website]. https://www.pbis.org
Overstreet, S. & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: Introduction to the special
issue. School Mental Health, 8, 1–6.
Parks, C., Wallace, B. C., Emdin, C. & Levy, I. P. (2016). An examination of gendered violence
and school push-out directed against urban Black girls/adolescents: Illustrative data,
cases and a call to action. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 15(3),
210–219.
Parsons, F. M. (2016). The integration of positive behavioral interventions and supports and
cultural responsiveness: Closing the distance gap by moving toward culturally responsive
schools (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (10157927)
Parsons, F. (2017). An intervention for the intervention: Integrating positive behavioral
interventions and supports culturally responsive practices. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin,
83(3), 52–57.
Payne, A. A. & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on
restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(3), 539–564.
216

Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting sample and administering surveys (part 2 of 3). (REL 2016-160). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Perry, D.L. & Daniels, M.L. (2016). Implementing trauma-informed practices in the
school setting: a pilot study. School Mental Health, 8(1), 177–188.
Plumb, J. L., Bush, K. A., & Kersevich, S. E. (2016). Trauma-sensitive schools: An
evidence-based approach. School Social Work Journal, (40)2, 37–60.
Quarles, B. & Butler, A. (2018). Toward a multivocal research agenda on school gentrification:
A critical review of current literature. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(4), 450–464.
Rafa, A. (2019, January). Policy analysis: The status of discipline in state policy. Education
Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Status-of-School-
Discipline-in-State-Policy.pdf
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., and Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavioral
support in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39–50.
Ritter, G. W. (2018). Reviewing the progress of school discipline reform. Peabody Journal of
Education, 93(2), 133–138.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement.
Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65.
Ross, S. W. & Horner, R. H. (2007). Teacher outcomes of school-wide positive behavior
support. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3(6), 1–13.
217

Rucker, K. (2018). The six flaws of “traditional” professional development. Getting Smart.
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/02/the-six-flaws-of-traditional-professional-
development/
Saks, A. M. & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and transfer of training
in organizations. Human Resources Management, 45(4), 629–648.
Samuels, C. A. (2013, August 27). Tensions accompany growth of PBIS discipline model.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/08/28/2pbis_ep.h33.html
Santrock, J. W. (2014). Essentials of lifespan development (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schlainski, I., Teicher, M. H., Carolus, A. M., & Rockstroh, B. (2017). Defining the
impact of childhood adversities on cognitive deficits in psychosis: An exploratory
analysis. Schizophrenia Research, (192), 351–356.
Schott Foundation for Public Education (n.d.). Opportunity Gap - Talking Points.
http://schottfoundation.org/issues/opportunity-gap/talking-points
Scott, D. (2017). Developing the prison to school pipeline: A paradigmatic shift in educational
possibilities during an age of mass incarceration. The Journal of Correctional Education,
68(3), 41–52.
Simmons-Reed, E. A. & Cartledge, G. (2014). School discipline disproportionality: Culturally
competent interventions for African American males. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 95–109.
Siwatu, K. O., Putman, S. M., Starker-Glass, T. V., & Lewis, C. W. (2015). The culturally
responsive classroom management self-efficacy scale: Development and initial validation.
Urban Education, 52(7), 862–888.
Skiba, R. J. & Losen, D. J. (2015). From reaction to prevention: Turning the page on school
218

discipline. American Educator, 39(4), 4–11.
Song, S. T. & Swearer, S. M. (2016). The cart before the horse: The challenge and promise of
restorative justice consultation in schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 26(4), 313–324.
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive
behavior supports. Child & Family Therapy, 24(1-2), 23–50.
Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Fallon, L.M. (2012). A contextual consideration of culture
and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
14(3), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711426334
The Leadership Conference Education Fund. (2018, March). School discipline guidance and
students’ civil rights. http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/education/School-Discipline-Policy-
Brief.pdf
TNTP. (2015, August 4). The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth about Our Quest for Teacher
Development. https://tntp.org/publications/view/the-mirage-confronting-the-truth-about-
our-quest-for-teacher-development
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The Disproportionate discipline of African-American learners:
Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 381–391.
Townsend Walker, B.L. (2020). “Loud, proud, and love a crowd”: Black girls and
school discipline practices. Middle School Journal, 51(2), 12–18.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, Anita W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teacher and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. Humanizing research:
Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities, 223–248.
219

Tyre, A.D. & Feuerborn, L.L. (2017). The minority report: The concerns of staff opposed to
schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in their schools. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 145–172.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2019). Beyond suspensions examining school discipline
policies and connections to the school-to-prison pipeline for students of color with
disabilities (42 U.S.C 1975a). https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/07-23-Beyond-
Suspensions.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) Supportive School Discipline Initiative.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/appendix-3-overview.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Teacher Professional and Career Development.
https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/teacher-professional-and-career-development
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2018). 2015–16 Civil Rights Data
Collection School: Data Snapshot (School Discipline).
https://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2018). 2015–16 Civil Rights Data
Collection School Climate and Safety.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-safety.pdf
The Leadership Conference Education Fund. (March 2018). School discipline guidance and
students’ civil rights. http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/education/School-Discipline-Policy-
Brief.pdf
Vincent, C., Horner, R., & May, S. (2009). What are the patterns of office discipline
220

referrals across grade levels? https://assets-global.website-
files.com/5d3725188825e071f1670246/5d8a990237029231c9915c42_ODR%20Across%
20Grade%20Levels.pdf
Vincent, C. G., Randall, C., Cartledge, G., Tobin, T. J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2011). Toward a
conceptual integration of cultural responsiveness and schoolwide positive behavior
support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 219–229.
Vincent, C. G., Sprague, J. R., Pavel, M., Tobin, T. J., & Gau, J.M. (2013). Effectiveness
of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in reducing racially inequitable
disciplinary exclusion.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5696b96abfe8737934cc521c/t/56acd5c71f40397fbfd
478a4/1454167496270/Vincent.pdf
Vincent, C. G. & Tobin, T. J. (2011). The relationship between implementation of School-Wide
Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) and disciplinary exclusion of students from various
ethnic backgrounds with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 19(4), 217–232.
Wald, J. & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New
Directions for Youth Development, 99 (Fall), 9–15.
Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices.
https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A Working Paper.
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with
221

teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8),
469–479.
Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally
responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25–38.
Whitford, D. K., Katsiyannis, A., & Counts, J. (2016). Discriminatory discipline: Trends and
issues. NASSP Bulletin, 100(2), 117–135.
Wilkenson, D. (n.d.). What’s the difference between data and evidence? Evidence-based
practice. https://www.oxford-review.com/data-v-evidence/

222

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Most of the survey questions below are Likert-type items using a 4-point response scale
with no midpoint (e.g., strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree). A few items
include a “do not know” response option. Lastly, several items are open-ended questions
intended to gather deeper and more detailed information than the survey questions allow
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
1. What grade level or subject(s) do you teach? Choose all that apply.
2. My school uses the PBIS approach to school discipline. (RQ 3; organizational: policies
and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
3. My school or district has provided me training and professional development in PBIS.
(RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
4. How many training and professional development sessions in PBIS have you participated
in that were provided by your school or district? (RQ 3; organizational: policies and
procedures)
5. Teachers at my school collaborate with one another to support each other’s professional
growth and development. (RQ 3; organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
223

o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
6. My school-site leadership encourages teachers’ implementation of new knowledge and
skills acquired from training and professional development. (RQ 3; organizational:
culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
7. Are there any obstacles in your school or district to implementing new learning from
training and professional development? (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures,
culture)
8. My school or district provides ongoing support in PBIS. (RQ 3; organizational: policies
and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
9. Teachers at my school feel PBIS has been effective at creating and maintaining a safe and
welcoming environment. (RQ 3; organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
224

10. Teachers at my school feel PBIS has been effective in reducing the need for exclusionary
disciplinary practices such as office disciplinary referrals and suspensions. (RQ 3;
organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
11. Teachers at my school believe a positive and proactive approach to school discipline is
the most effective disciplinary approach for creating a safe learning environment. (RQ 2;
motivation: value)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
12. My school has a PBIS leadership team. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
13. Parents and community members representative of my school’s culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students were included in the development of my school's
PBIS framework. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
225

o Don’t Know
14. Parents and community members representative of my school’s culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students are regularly involved in my school's PBIS
leadership team. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
15. When my school's PBIS framework was being developed, alignment with the cultural
values of students from the different cultural groups in my school was taken into
consideration. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
16. My school’s PBIS leadership team regularly examines discipline data. (RQ 3;
organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
17. At my school, discipline data is disaggregated by demographic subgroups (e.g., race, sex,
SPED status, grade level, etc.) (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
226

18. At my school, evidence from the analysis of disaggregated discipline data is used to
inform decision-making regarding addressing inequities in disciplinary patterns (i.e., if
the discipline evidence is showing signs of disproportionality for a demographic sub-
group, my school's PBIS leadership team addresses it). (RQ 3; organizational: policies
and procedures)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
19. At my school, some demographic subgroups (e.g., boys, students with special needs, etc.)
are referred to the office for disciplinary reasons more often than other subgroups. (RQ 3;
organizational: culture)
o Yes
o No
o Don’t Know
20. At your school, which demographic subgroup is referred to the office for disciplinary
reasons more often than others? (RQ 3; organizational: culture)
21. At my school, discipline data is regularly shared with teachers to help us be more
equitable in our disciplinary practices. (RQ 3: organizational: policies and procedures)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
227

22. Which of the following areas have you been provided training and professional
development in by your school district or school? (RQ 3; organizational: policies and
procedures)
o Effective Instructional Practices for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
Students
o Effective Classroom Management Practices for Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse (CLD) Students
o Understanding Cultural Behaviors of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
Students
o Examining Implicit Biases about Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
Students
23. At PBIS training and professional developments, I was made aware that: Check all that
apply.
o Parents and community members should be authentic participants in the
development and implementation of PBIS. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and
procedures)
o My schools' shared behavioral expectations should be aligned with the cultural
values of students from different cultural groups. (RQ 3; organizational: policies
and procedures)
o Discipline data needs to be regularly disaggregated and analyzed to catch and
mitigate inequitable disciplinary practices. (RQ 2; motivation: value)
24. It is important for teachers to regularly examine their implicit biases about their culturally
and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. (RQ 2: motivation: value)
228

o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
25. Teachers at my school are encouraged by leadership to examine our thinking for implicit
biases about their culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. (RQ 3;
organizational; culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
26. Teachers at my school believe it is important to examine their biases about their
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. (RQ 3; organizational; culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
27. I can confidently recognize and identify student behaviors that are culturally based. (RQ
2; motivation: self-efficacy)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
229

28. I can confidently distinguish between culturally based behaviors and universally
unacceptable behaviors. (RQ 2; motivation: self-efficacy)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
29. At my school, misunderstandings about cultural behaviors have led to students from
some demographic subgroups receiving exclusionary discipline more than others. (RQ 3;
organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
30. I am confident in my ability to use instructional practices that are effective with culturally
and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. (RQ 2; motivation: self-efficacy)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
31. I am confident in my ability to manage the behavior of students from culturally diverse
backgrounds. (RQ 2; motivation: value)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
230

o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
32. Using culturally responsive teaching practices is essential for the learning and
engagement of students from diverse cultural backgrounds. (RQ 2; motivation: value)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
33. Teachers have the strongest influence over students' behavior in the classroom. (RQ 2;
motivation: value)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
34. Effective classroom management requires building rapport, positive relationships, and
mutual respect with all students. (RQ 2: motivation: value)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
35. Equity is consistently communicated by district leadership as a priority in our school
district. (RQ 3; organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
231

o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
36. Equitable and just disciplinary practices are a priority at my school. (RQ 3;
organizational: culture)
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
37. What do you find most challenging, if anything, about working with your students who
are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds? (RQ 2; motivation: self-
efficacy)
38. What support, if any, do you still need from your school or district to best meet the needs
of your students who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds? (RQ 3;
organization: policies and procedures)

232

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Hello, ________. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As you are
aware, I am currently a doctoral student at USC, and I appreciate your taking the time to allow
me to conduct this interview with you. My study is focused on learning from teachers the ways
they are implementing PBIS, culturally responsive strategies, and any challenges to
implementation. Your knowledge, experiences, and perspective will be extremely valuable to
this study. As we proceed through the interview process, I will be taking key notes to help me
recall what you share with me, but I would also like to record your interview. I will be the only
one to listen to this interview, have access to it, and your name will not be linked to it in any
manner. The purpose of recording the interview is to permit me to review what we discuss and
ensure that I accurately capture your knowledge, thoughts, and perspectives. That being said, are
you okay with me recording this interview?
I would like to record the interview in two different ways: First, I would like to record using
Zoom’s built-in recording feature. I can do video with audio recording or audio recording only.
The second way I would like to record is to use my iPhone as a backup just in case my primary
method of recording fails for some reason.
• Are you comfortable with me recording through Zoom? If so, would you prefer audio
only or is video with audio recording acceptable?
• Are you comfortable with me using my iPhone for back-up recording?
Thank you. I would like to begin by asking you some questions about PBIS at your school.

233

1. If you had to explain to a parent about PBIS, what would you say? (RQ 1;
knowledge: factual, conceptual)
2. Please describe the training and professional development (TPD) you have been provided
in implementing PBIS. (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
a. Who provided the training and professional development (TPD)?
b. How long were the sessions?
c. How many TPD sessions did you receive?
3. Besides this training and professional development, what types of on-going support for
PBIS implementation are you being provided? (RQ 3; organizational: policies and
procedures, culture)
4. What are your schools' shared behavioral expectations? (RQ 1; knowledge: factual,
procedural)
a. How do you know these are your school’s shared behavioral expectations?
b. How do you teach them to your students?
c. How do you reinforce them?
5. Reflect upon a recent disciplinary issue with a student or students. Walk me through how
you managed the issue? (RQ 1; knowledge: factual, procedural)
a. Is this typical of how you respond to behavioral issues most of the time?
b. How might you respond differently under other circumstances?
c. If your Tier 1/Universal supports are not working with a student or students, what
do you do next? (RQ 1; knowledge: factual, procedural)
6. Does your school have a PBIS leadership team? If so, please describe its composition.
(RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
234

a. In what ways, if any, have parents and community members been involved in your
school’s PBIS?
b. Did they have a role in developing your school’s PBIS framework?
c. Are they actively involved in implementation of PBIS?
d. Is their equitable representation from diverse cultural backgrounds?
7. How does your school-site PBIS leadership team analyze discipline data? (RQ 3;
organizational: policies and practices)
a. Is it done regularly? If so, how often?
b. Is it disaggregated by demographic subgroups of students?
c. Is it shared with teachers?
d. What has the data revealed? Are any demographic subgroups of students
overrepresented in the data?
e. How is the data used? Does it influence decision making?
8. How effective has PBIS been in facilitating the creation and maintenance of a safe and
welcoming environment for all students at your school? (RQ 3; organizational, culture)
a. Why do you think this is the case?
9. At your school, how effective has PBIS been at reducing the need for exclusionary
discipline practices such as office disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and expulsions?
(RQ 3; organizational, culture)
a. Why do you think this is the case?
b. Are there any groups of students for whom PBIS has not been effective in
reducing the need for exclusionary discipline?
10. How supportive of PBIS are teachers at your school? (RQ 3; organizational; culture)
235

a. Why do you think this is the case?
11. Is there anything else about PBIS and your school that you would like to share before we
move on? (RQ 1-3)
Now I am going to shift from questions specifically about PBIS to ask questions related to
working with students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. For the purposes of this
interview, culturally and linguistically diverse refers to non-White students. Do you have any
questions before we proceed?
12. What, if any, training and professional development (TPD) have you been provided in
instructional and management strategies that are effective with culturally and
linguistically diverse students? (RQ 3; organizational: policies and procedures)
a. What are some examples of different instructional strategies you learned? (RQ 1;
knowledge: factual)
b. Please describe how you have used different instructional strategies you learned
to increase engagement and learning with your culturally and linguistically
diverse students. (RQ 1; knowledge: procedural)
13. In your training and professional development, did you receive information about cultural
behaviors of culturally and linguistically diverse students? (RQ 3; organizational: policies
and procedures)
a. What did you learn about how the cultural behaviors of your culturally and
linguistically diverse students differ from your cultural behaviors? (RQ 1;
knowledge: factual)
b. What did you learn about how cultural behaviors differ from universally
unacceptable behaviors? (RQ 1; knowledge: factual)
236

c. Were you explained why it is important to use different instructional strategies
with your culturally and linguistically diverse students? If so, what were you told?
(RQ 1; knowledge: conceptual)
14. How do you monitor your thinking for implicit biases about your culturally and
linguistically diverse students? (RQ 1; knowledge: metacognitive)
How would you respond to the following scenario: an African American student continually
talks with her peers during an assignment that is supposed to be silent and independent? (RQ 1;
knowledge: procedural)
15. Was your training and professional development in instructional and management
strategies that are effective with culturally and linguistically diverse students followed up
with ongoing support? If so, what type of on-going support for effectively working with
culturally and linguistically diverse students are you being provided? (RQ 3;
organizational: policies and procedures, culture)
16. How are you continuing to develop what you learned about effective ways for teaching
and managing culturally and linguistically diverse students? (RQ 2; motivation: self-
efficacy)
17. As part of your development in applying the knowledge and skills you acquire from
training and professional developments, how do you collaborate with your colleagues to
help one another’s growth? (RQ 3; organizational: culture)
18. Lastly, how focused do you feel your school and district leadership are on addressing
issues of equity, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse students? (RQ 3;
organizational: policies and procedures)
237

19. That brings us to the end of the interview. Is there anything else you would like to share
that I may have missed asking about? (RQ 1-3)
Thank you so much for your time today and your willingness to participate in this interview.
Appendix B: Demographics

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

PBIS and equity for African American students with and without disabilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

Asset Metadata

Creator Russell, Daniel George, Jr. (author)

Core Title KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-05

Publication Date 05/10/2021

Defense Date 04/16/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African American,Black,culturally responsive,exclusionary discipline,inequities,OAI-PMH Harvest,overrepresentation,PBIS

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Rosenthal-Dieken, Jane (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email dgrussel@usc.edu,drussell88@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720058

Unique identifier UC112720058

Identifier etd-RussellDan-9624.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-RussellDan-9624

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Russell, Daniel George, Jr.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20210512-wayne-usctheses-batch-837-shoaf (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu