University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

(USC Thesis Other)

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Reducing Suspensions Through Implementation of Schoolwide PBIS
by
Cristina Ridgeley Mones
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
December 2021

© Copyright by Cristina Ridgeley-Mones 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Cristina Ridgeley-Mones certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Darline Robles
Kathy Stowe
Courtney L. Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This field study applied knowledge, motivation, and organizational change theories to the
problem of implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)
to reduce student suspensions in the Santa Rosita Unified School District. The purpose of this
study was to examine the needs and assets among school site administrators and recommend
solutions so that they could better address suspensions and implement, with fidelity, SWPBIS.
Assistant principals and principals were selected for this study based on their roles in program
oversight and discipline. This study applied qualitative research methodology, through the
collection of interview data. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit study participants. The
analysis of interview data resulted in several findings related to knowledge and training needs,
attribution theory, expectancy value theory, and cultural models and settings. Knowledge,
motivation, and organizational recommendations were offered based on the findings to reduce
suspensions and support the implementation of SWPBIS within SRUSD.

v
Dedication
To my husband, Domingo, and my daughters, Seraphina and Aurora. Thank you for your
patience and support. Without you, completing this program and degree would not have been
possible.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my family, my husband, my daughters, my parents and siblings, thank you for all your
support as I worked to accomplish my goals. To Dr. Konrad Tuchscherer, the first professor who
told me I would earn my doctorate one day, thank you for believing in me back before I knew all
of my own potential. I will always remember your mentorship.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee, and especially to my
committee chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy. Your support throughout the process, from my first
semester to my final defense, was instrumental in allowing me to finish this program.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
School Discipline ................................................................................................................ 9
Disproportionate Suspension Rates .................................................................................. 14
Existing Strategies for Solving the Problem ..................................................................... 19
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors ....................................................... 25
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37
Research Setting and Researcher ...................................................................................... 37
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 38

viii
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 39
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 40
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 41
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 43
Knowledge Results ........................................................................................................... 45
Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 55
Organizational Factors ...................................................................................................... 63
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 72
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 84
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix A: Research Questions ................................................................................................. 96

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Framework for Increasing Equity in School Discipline 24
Table 2: Stakeholder Demographics 44

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic Relationships of Self-Regulated Learning, Evaluation, and
Academic Self-Efficacy 29
Figure 2: Gap Analysis 35

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The reduction of school suspensions is critical for equitable access to education. Research
has shown that exclusionary consequences for all student populations do not deter repeat
offenses and have little impact on deterring other students from suspendable behaviors
(Bowman-Perrott et al., 2013). Moreover, research clearly concludes that suspensions impact
specific student groups such as African Americans and Students with Disabilities at a
significantly higher rate, and these student populations are more likely to be excluded from the
classroom due to suspensions and expulsions. The term Students with Disabilities is defined in
Public Law 108-446 and in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(IDEA), and refers to any student who is in need of support through Special Education Services
(National Center for Special Education Research, 2021). As of 2017, the California State
Dashboard (an online tool supporting districts in identifying strengths and weaknesses in their
student groups), reported Santa Rosita School District suspended African American students
nearly twice as often (4.3%, an increase of .3% from 2016) as their white peers (suspension rate
of 2.2%), while Students with disabilities are suspended at a rate of 5% (CA Dashboard, 2021).
The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a tool for local educational agencies to
set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to meet those goals to improve student outcomes.
The 2018-2019 LCAP for Santa Rosita Unified School District states as part of Goal Three the
continued implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(SWPBIS) districtwide. This is a multi-tiered system that helps to reduce suspensions for all
students by clearly defining student learning and behavioral expectations. SWPBIS is defined as
a multitiered framework for behavioral support that consistently relies on data for the selection,
implementation, and progress monitoring of interventions across the three-tiered system (James

2
et al., 2019). The LCAP highlights the reduction of suspensions as a result of SWPBIS, from 7%
in 2012 to 3.3% in 2019. However, the suspension rate of specific student populations, including
Students with disabilities, remains elevated at 5.2% (consistent with the state average of
California).
On the national scale, suspensions are also disproportionate (Hoffman, 2014). As early as
the 1990s, Black students were suspended, on average, approximately 2.3 times more often than
White students, and in some districts at a rate of 22 times their White peers (Hoffman, 2014).
More recent studies from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) indicated that
racial disparities in school discipline have persisted and are arguably worse than previous
decades, with more than 3.3 million American students suspended and over 102,000 expelled
from school in 2006 (NCES, 2009). The racial/ethnic distribution of these suspensions and
expulsions reveals stark disparities: 15% of Black students, 6.8% of Hispanic students, 4.8% of
White students, and 2.7% of Asian students were suspended from school. Using the Parent and
Family Involvement in Education Survey in 1999, 2003, and 2007, the NCES (2012) estimated
that the percentage of Black public school high school students who had ever been suspended
rose from 37% in 1999 to 49% in 2007, compared to the slight decline in the rate for White
students, from 18.2% in 1999 to 17.7% in 2007.
This dissertation is focused on the reduction of student suspensions for all high school
student groups through the implementation with fidelity of schoolwide positive behavior and
intervention supports (SWPBIS), while paying special attention to the disproportionate effects of
suspension on marginalized populations.

3
Context and Background of the Problem
Santa Rosita Unified School District (SRUSD) is a large urban district in Southern
California with approximately 48,000 students. A low-income city within one of the wealthiest
counties in the state, the student population is over 96% Latino and 88% socioeconomically
disadvantaged. With an LCAP goal of “providing timely & responsive support to meet individual
needs in academic, behavioral and social-emotional learning,” SRUSD has stated it is a priority
to ensure all students’ needs are met while creating an environment where equitable outcomes
are possible (SRUSD LCAP, 2020). The district has highlighted its commitment to SWPBIS as a
preventative support in reducing suspensions and problematic behavior. SWPBIS serves as a
proactive tool in reducing student suspensions by creating a clear set of behavioral student
expectations, coupled with a reward system that reinforces positive student behavior.
As a way of acknowledging individual school SWPBIS achievements, California offers
state recognition based on self-reporting. California SWPBIS State Recognition is a multifaceted
process that includes implementation fidelity across the three tiers of SWPBIS implementation,
office discipline referral rates, CA school suspension dashboard color or documentation of a
downward trend in suspension rates, advanced tiers of intervention and progress monitoring,
academic outcomes, and evidence-based classroom practices. Of the 52 school sites within
SRUSD in 2019, 25 received the highest SWPBIS recognition level of Platinum. An additional
17 schools received Gold recognition, while ten received Silver recognition, or the lowest
recognition status (SRUSD.US).
Schoolwide implementation has not been reached at all sites within the district. The
district allows for individual sites to oversee their own implementation, which allows for some

4
sites to have fully implemented SWPBIS while others do not. Due to the lack of district-wide
implementation, students at various sites do not equally experience the benefits of SWPBIS.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to identify areas of need and growth among district high
schools to support their further implementation of SWPBIS to result in the reduction of student
suspensions for all high school students.
Per the 2019 LCAP of SRUSD, a commitment has been made to use positive behavior
interventions as a preventative way to reduce suspensions, but Students with disabilities and non-
White students continue to be suspended at rates higher than their peers (4.3 and 5%,
respectively) (CA Dashboard, 2019). With this in mind, the following research questions will
guide this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of school site administrators related to
implementing SWPBIS to reduce suspensions?
2. To what extent do SRUSD’s organizational culture, practices, and resources support or
hinder school site administrators from implementing SWPBIS and alternatives to
suspension?
Importance of the Study
This research focuses on the potential of SWPBIS implementation to reduce high school
suspensions. It is important to address this due to the impact that suspensions have on a student’s
ability to succeed in their educational goals. The evidence highlights that African American
students and Students with disabilities are suspended more often and suffer negative behavioral
outcomes that can affect their educational achievement and college and career readiness.
Suspensions lead to removal from classroom settings, which directly impacts a student’s ability

5
to learn (James et al., 2019). For example, Students with disabilities in SRUSD are on average
111.1 points below standard on the ELA portion of state testing (California School Dashboard,
SCUSD 2019), while the state average for similar students is 88 points below average. It is
important to address this issue because SRUSD has made a commitment to making public
education more equitable and must consider how increased suspensions for specific high school
student populations impact their educational outcomes.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework for this study will be Clarke and Estes’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors (KMO) model (2008). As stated by Clark and Estes, in
order to meet organizational goals, the necessary knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors must be present. The three main factors used in this framework to address performance
gaps are: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers.
Clarke and Estes (2008) is an appropriate framework for examining how to improve the
implementation of SWPBIS. The model offers a framework for examining administrators’
knowledge and skills related to SWPBIS implementation, school site motivation to increase
schoolwide PBIS, and organizational barriers that may be supporting or preventing SRUSD sites
from full implementation.
In order to understand how suspensions are implemented within SRUSD, the study will
utilize qualitative research consisting of interviews with school site administrators. The use of
qualitative research is best suited for this study due to the small sample size of 11 high school
administrators within SRUSD and their individual and varied experiences with SWPBIS
implementation as well as site enforcement of suspensions. SRUSD’s current high school
suspension rates and SWPBIS implementation will be assessed using interviews, content

6
analysis, and a summary of secondary data (i.e., CA state dashboard, LCAP 2019). The
researcher will evaluate and recommend possible solutions in an effective manner.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher will review limitations for this project. Limitations are defined as factors
beyond the scope of the researcher’s control that may affect the credibility of the study
(Creswell, 2014). Some of the limitations that may arise are the small sample size of ten potential
participants. Responses by these participants will be limited by the following factors: self-
reporting, level of experience, and knowledge of suspensions and schoolwide PBIS
implementation. Further limitations may include: the number of administrators willing to
participate, participant availability, need to use online interviewing rather than face-to-face, and
a limited data collection window.
Delimitations are defined as decisions the researcher makes that could affect the validity
of the study (Creswell, 2014). The number of participants interviewed, question types, number of
questions asked, and the use of the KMO model are all possible delimitations. The lack of
diversity amongst interviewees is also a possible delimitation, as the researcher’s focus was site-
based administrators. Therefore, the results of this study may not be as relevant to other
stakeholder groups. Additionally, this research is limited to the use of high school administrators
only.
Definition of Terms
• In-school suspension is the exclusion from attending classes while remaining on campus
(CDE, 2020).

7
• LCAP is an acronym for Local Control Accountability Plan, which determines how
school districts allocate and spend Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF (CDE,
2020).
• Major disciplinary offense is a policy violation severe enough to warrant an out-of-school
suspension sanction (weapons, drugs, assault).
• Mandated suspension is a suspension issued as required by state statute for a particular
offense (weapons, drugs, assault) (CDE, 2020).
• Minor disciplinary offense refers to a policy violation not considered severe enough to
warrant an out-of- school suspension sanction (skipping class, defiance) (CDE, 2020).
• Non-mandated suspension is a suspension issued for a particular offense that is not
required by state statute and is at the discretion of the school district (cutting class,
disrespect, defiance) (CDE, 2020).
• PBIS is the acronym for Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, a multi-tiered
system of support (Bradshaw, 2010).
• School suspension refers to the exclusion from school privileges, e.g., classroom
instruction, that may also include transportation services and offsite school-related
functions (sports, events, trips) (CDE, 2020).
• Students with disabilities refers to any student having an Individualized Education Plan
(IEP) or a 504 plan. These legal documents outline the accommodations that a particular
student will receive in order to support their disability (CDE, 2020.
• Suspension policy is a legal document authorizing school officials to issue suspensions to
students found in violation of specified codes of conduct (CDE, 2020).

8
• Suspension rate is the percentage of student suspensions issued compared to the entire
student body population (CA School Dashboard, California Department of Education,
2020).
• SWPBIS is an acronym for Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(Bradshaw, 2010).
• Zero Tolerance Policy refers to a pre-scripted outcome for a specifically outlined
behavior, where, regardless of first-time offense, a student will be suspended and
removed. Personal context and background information does not play any role in a Zero
Tolerance policy (Skiba, 2014).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides the reader with key
concepts and terminology most frequently used in discussions of high school suspensions and the
lack of consistent PBIS implementation to support the reduction of suspensions. Chapter Two
presents a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The topics
addressed include: the history of zero tolerance policies and their impact on suspension rates,
disproportionate application of suspensions, the impact of suspensions on student learning,
implementation of schoolwide PBIS and KMO model factors. Chapter Three details the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements, as well as methodology regarding
participant selection, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are
described and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for improving practices based
on data and literature as well as an implementation and evaluation plan.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
There exists a need for the equitable application of Positive Behavior and Intervention
Supports within the SRUSD school district to reduce high school student suspensions across all
student groups. The existing research has found that exclusionary consequences do not deter
repeat offenses and have little impact on deterring other students from suspendable behaviors.
Moreover, research clearly concludes that specific student groups such as African Americans and
Students with disabilities are significantly more likely to be excluded from the classroom due to
suspensions and expulsions. Therefore, it is imperative that this problem be redressed in a more
appropriate way to reduce suspensions for all high school student populations.
School Discipline
Along with the history of schooling comes the history of school discipline. A seismic
shift in how discipline was handled occurred in postwar decades, and there are a myriad of
assertions as to the reasons for the change. Prior to these changes, scholars and social
commentators alike claimed that teachers and school staff had the ability to act in the place of the
parents (in loco parentis) while disciplining students and building more personal and meaningful
relationships (Kafka, 2011). The most commonly asserted narrative as to the reason behind the
changes in the 1960s and 1970s was that the expansion of student rights supported by the Civil
Rights Act forced school systems to develop official rules and regulations to replace informal in
loco parentis traditions to uphold the legal rights of students (Kafka, 2011). There are some
traditionalists who write that these rulings were the most disastrous educational changes of the
20th century, along with the church-state court decisions and landmark Supreme Court cases
such as Tinker v. De Moines (Cornell Law Institute, 2021). This argument asserts these decisions

10
started what would be a decline in teacher-student relationships that were at the core of the
informal traditions that existed before (Weinig, 2000).
On the other hand, some scholars make the argument that these de jure rules were
institutionalized to protect the students from the use of abusive and arbitrary punishment (Kafka,
2011). These structured and legal rules helped to contribute to a formal and standardized
approach to discipline that was inflexible and highly punitive (Noguera, 1995; Sughrue, 2003).
More recent scholars have also brought into focus the history of racial tensions and student
aggression, crime, and violence of the 1960s and 1970s that, they argue, influenced school
discipline changes. During these times student behavior was characterized as insubordination,
and violence in schools was increasing. This led to schools desiring to establish more centralized
discipline rules and consequences when teachers were fearful of using traditional methods in
racialized urban settings (Duke, 1981; Noguera, 1995). School discipline during the 1980s
expanded the trend of more rules and harsher punishments preferred by educators, while little
empirical evidence existed to support it (Duke, 1981). Often overlooked, however, was the lack
of additional and required personnel to implement and enforce new rules and policies, making
for a taxed system and inconsistent enforcement (Duke, 1981;Noguera, 1995).
In direct response to several high profile acts of school violence in the 1990s, many
school districts implemented zero tolerance discipline policies. Zero tolerance policies are
defined as school or district policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishments
for specific offenses (Hoffman, 2014; Skiba, 2014). The term grew out of the U.S. Customs
Service anti-drug program, with the notion that some acts of student misconduct demand strict
and firm punishment without exception. This was made into federal policy in 1994 when
President Bill Clinton signed the Gun-Free Schools Act (Kafka, 2011).

11
Through this statute and its threat of withholding federal education dollars, Congress
required all states to create legislation that incorporated several main components, including the
expulsion of any student in possession of a gun (later changed to include any weapon) for one
calendar year, and referral to the criminal or juvenile system (Kafka, 2011; Skiba, 2014). Many
states and local school districts already had more expansive and/or more stringent zero tolerance
policies in place and while under the threat of losing federal dollars, others later established rules
and regulations that extended far beyond the requirements of GFSA (Kafka, 2011). The concept
was transferred to school discipline and applied to a list of offenses, including drugs and alcohol
possession, physical fighting and assaults, criminal damage of property, and/or multiple
violations in the same year (Hoffman, 2014; Kafka 2011).
“Preventing and Producing Violence: A Critical Analysis of Responses to School
Violence” by Pedro Noguera states that unlike academic and curricular foci of the past, violence
in schools became the persistent theme on the nation's educational agenda, with the highest
priority for reform and intervention during the early 1990s (Noguera, 1995). The oxymoron of
“fighting violence” is not lost on Noguera, nor is it unintentional in its application. The move to
zero tolerance stemmed from the prevailing wisdom of policy-makers and school officials who
argued schools must counter violence with force, through the creation of prison-like schools with
armed police officers and metal detectors that identify, apprehend, and exclude students who
have the potential to commit or recommit acts of violence (Noguera, 1995).
Application of Zero Tolerance in Schools
Zero tolerance policies assume at their core that strong enforcement can act as a deterrent
to other potentially disruptive students (Mendez et al., 2002; Skiba, 2014; Welch et al., 2018)
and are explicitly intended to limit teachers’ and principals’ individual discretion (Kafka, 2011).

12
The policies are supposed to prohibit educators from “tolerating” certain kinds of misconduct,
and they grant increasing disciplinary control to district supervisors. Through the removal of
disruptive students, the assumption is that harsh consequences will deter other students from
committing similar offenses and make the setting safer for the students who remain (APA, 2008;
Kafka, 2011). These policies are based on the same principle as “Broken Window Theory,”
which states that communities must react to even minor disruptions in the social order to “send a
message” that this type of behavior will not be tolerated (Skiba, 2014). And while the case has
continued to be made that zero tolerance policies have some positive effects, the research shows
that they have severe long-term social and economic negative consequences. More importantly,
zero tolerance policy implementation has led to the realization that increasing punishments has
unintended negative consequences for children, families, and communities (Skiba, 2014).
For example, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of students removed from
schools for disciplinary purposes (Achilles et al., 2018; Cruz et al., 2018; Skiba, 2014;). These
increases have directly impacted student achievement and high school dropout rates.
Additionally, the evidence suggests that the increase of juvenile justice system referrals is
connected. A 2010 report from Pennsylvania found that the number of referrals to juvenile
justice has tripled over a period of seven years, with a large proportion of these school arrests or
referrals being made for misdemeanor offenses or disorderly conduct (Skiba, 2014). Moreover,
under zero tolerance policies, students of color were suspended more frequently than their White
peers (Hoffman, 2014; Noguera, 1995). The widening of the discipline gap also occurred during
the expansion of these policies, as the data show that in schools where Black students account for
30–40% of the population, they account for over 80% of the suspensions (Hoffman, 2014).

13
Proponents of zero tolerance policies argue that through widespread use districts are more
consistent in their application. Supporters state that these policies are effective because they
create a unified approach, increasing equity through their mandated application (APA, 2008;
Kafka, 2011; Welch et al., 2018). The research shows, however, that districts vary widely in the
rates by which they suspend and expel students, and this variation appears to be due as much to
characteristics of schools and school personnel (e.g., disciplinary philosophy, quality of school
governance) as to the behavior or attitudes of students (APA, 2008; Raffaele Mendez, 2000). For
example, according to a 2002 study conducted in an urban school setting, principals with the
lowest suspension rates viewed district policy as a guide rather than a rigid document, while
using alternatives to suspension (Mukuria, 2002). The research also suggests principals in
schools with low suspension rates generally follow the district suspension policy, but often do so
with a contingency approach to discipline versus a “one size fits all” application of zero
tolerance. This supports the argument that there is variation in implementation, and how district
policies are perceived will directly impact the use and rate of suspensions (Mukuria, 2002).
Impact of Zero Tolerance
One of the most important questions to examine around zero tolerance is its effectiveness.
Three criteria should be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of school removal:
consistency of implementation, outcomes, and fairness of application across groups (Skiba,
2014). The assumption that with a policy like zero tolerance, there would be more consistent
application of suspensions and expulsions is not supported by the national data. The data suggest
instead that out-of-school suspension is used to respond to a very wide range of inappropriate or
unacceptable behaviors, from insubordination to physical fighting, and only a small number of

14
suspensions are in response to behaviors that threaten school safety and security (Mendez, 2002;
APA, 2008; Kafka, 2011; Skiba, 2014).
Aside from disproportionality, the implementation of inflexible and extremely punitive
measures has been found to have a negative impact on the healthy development of a child. As a
result, the research has found that children have been unable to build trusting relationships with
adults and lack the ability to develop positive attitudes toward justice and fairness (Kafka, 2011).
Supporters argue that zero tolerance is effective and has led to the reduction of school
violence in various parts of the country; however, this claim has been made without the data and
evidence to support it (Christle et al., 2004). Opponents assert that a review of the existing data
supports that school districts with strong zero tolerance policies are still less safe than schools
without them and that zero tolerance policies are only effective when they are one component of
a structured disciplinary program.
Disproportionate Suspension Rates
Racial Disparities
Extensive attention has been paid to the “achievement gap” between Black students and
White students; educators, policymakers, and researchers alike have focused on the ways in
which Black students are not excelling in education like their White peers. However, less
attention has been paid to the “discipline gap” and the disproportionate impact of zero tolerance
disciplinary policies on students of color and students with disabilities (Hoffman, 2012;
Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Skiba & Rausch, 2006), so much so that the federal government started
an investigation into racial disparities, including the harshness of punishment. Since the
implementation of zero tolerance policies, specific student groups have been more widely
affected than others.

15
In 2008, the American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force
reported that there is no evidence that implementation of zero tolerance policies in the late 1990s
and early 2000s improved school climate or school safety and “it may have exacerbated the
discipline gap between White students and students of color” (American Psychological
Association, 2008). Statistical data from the early 2000s underscores the disconcerting increase
in suspension and expulsion rates for Black students and students with disabilities, while the
rates for White students drop to a near all-time low (Cruz & Rodl, 2018; Hoffman, 2012).
Using the Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey in 1999, 2003, and 2007,
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) estimated the percentage of Black students
who had ever been expelled from school rose from 6.5% in 1999 to 10.3% in 2007, while the
rate for White students dropped from 1.8% in 1999 to 1.1% in 2007 (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2012, p. 38). This continued increase sits antithetical to some of the most
basic tenants of zero tolerance: “that the certainty and seriousness of punishment will have a
deterrent effect on students; that removing severely disruptive students will deter other students
from behaving in a similar manner; and that removing offenders will improve school climate”
(Hoffman, 2012, p. 72). The increase in suspensions and expulsions occurred surreptitiously to
the expansion of zero tolerance policies. Researchers have noted the way in which policy makers
attempt to implement new policies with goals of making incremental change, but through
decreases in subjectivity and colorblind policies fail to consider systematic and systemic racism
within the bureaucracy of education; what appears to be “neutral” policy that reduces school-
specific subjectivity can still be associated with racial inequalities (Casella, 2003).
Specifically addressing issues of racial disparity and zero tolerance, a 2013 study found a
significant increase in the exclusionary discipline of Black students at a mid-sized urban district

16
within a one-year period as zero tolerance policies were expanded. This increase, from 2.2% of
students before the policy change to 4.5%, resulted in the recommendation for expulsion of
approximately 70 more Black students per year than would have been expected had the policy
not been implemented (Hoffman, 2013). Moreover, while less than 25% of the students in the
district were Black, they represented over 75% of the increase in recommendations for
expulsion. It was thus concluded that “racial disparities in rates of recommendation for expulsion
are exacerbated under zero tolerance” (Hoffman, 2013, p. 88).
Zero Tolerance and Special Education
Students with disabilities are another subset of students who have been historically
overrepresented in school suspensions and other means of assertive discipline. While considering
school and student characteristics as a predictor of suspensions, researchers have found that
exclusionary discipline is applied disproportionately to students with disabilities relative to
students who do not have disabilities (Sullivan, 2014). From a research study conducted in 2000,
a statewide analysis in Indiana found that students with disabilities have a greater risk of
suspension than their peers without disabilities (Krezmien et al., 2006). Nationally, students with
disabilities represent approximately 11% of all school-age children, but nearly 20% of the
students who are suspended, and the rates are higher for students who are categorized as having
an emotional or behavioral disorder (Krezmien et al., 2006).
The correlation between being a student of color and the likelihood of being classified as
special education is also important to consider. From diagnosis of emotional disturbance to mild
mental retardation, Black students comprise nearly twice as many of the students in these
categories, while, for example, in Indiana public schools, they are less than 12% of the overall
student population (Skiba, 2014). When compared to White students, Black students are

17
overrepresented in the categories of mental retardation (MR), emotional disturbance (ED), and
multiple disabilities (Skiba, 2006). The data also states that Black students have slightly higher
rates of identification in autism spectrum disorders, are the most overrepresented group in special
education programs in nearly every state, and that disproportionate representation is most
pronounced in the areas of intellectual disability and emotional disturbance (Skiba, 2006).
Lastly, Black students are 2.88 times more likely than white American students to be labeled as
intellectually disabled and 1.92 times more likely to be identified as emotionally disturbed
(Skiba, 2006, p. 412). Closely related to these statistics is the fact that, as a result of these
classifications, Black students are overrepresented in more restrictive settings, and
underrepresented in general education settings (Skiba, 2014).
Based on the data from studies conducted from 2005 to the present, students with
disabilities are more likely to be suspended and may be overexposed to exclusionary discipline
despite the intended protections of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
(Sullivan et al., 2014). The implementation of IDEA in 1997 required states to monitor
disparities in long-term suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities as well as identify
policies, procedures, and practices that may contribute to disproportionate exclusion. However,
evidence suggests that disparate treatment still exists (Sullivan, 2014). More research is needed
to understand the underpinnings of these disproportionate rates, and more proactive behavioral
supports must exist in an attempt to disrupt these outcomes.
Published in 2007, Sociocultural Correlates of Disciplinary Exclusion Among Students
with Emotional, Behavioral, and Learning Disabilities in the SEELS National Dataset focused
on the higher likelihood of exclusion (HLE) for specific student populations, and the findings
were consistent with the prevailing research on the subject. Students with disabilities,

18
specifically three high-exclusion disability groups—emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD), other
health impairment (OHI) with a diagnosis of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
and learning disability (LD)—were more likely to be suspended than their peers in general
education, as well as African American students (Achilles et al., 2007).
In regards to race, the research states that African American students are suspended and
expelled two to three times more frequently than other groups, despite the lack of evidence that
these students demonstrate higher levels of disruptive behavior (Achilles, 2007). Specific to this
study, the authors looked at the suspension rates of students using data from the Special
Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS).
Efficacy of Suspensions and Expulsions
Suspensions are less effective for children with specific behavioral challenges and
problems, many of whom are categorized as special education (Chin et al., 2011). Moreover, the
data highlight that suspensions have been found ineffective in reducing problematic behaviors
and repeat behavioral offenses. Suspensions do very little to teach a child why they should
change their behavior. Pointing out that schools do not use or expect all students to be taught in a
“one size fits all” model, the application of suspensions for behavioral deficits highlights the
discontinuity of this widely accepted practice (Chin et al., 2011).
The research also shows that suspensions may be less effective for students with
particular needs and histories, and therefore argues that differentiated consequences should
support teaching behavior and discipline since children also have different backgrounds and
capacities in these areas (Proceedings: National Summit on Zero Tolerance, 2000). For example,
students with problems like aggression, hyperactivity, lack of social skills, and negative
experiences with school and academics are less likely to experience a positive behavioral change

19
with suspensions, and, therefore, schools should use a modified approach as they do for
academics (Chin et al, 2011).
Through the lens of the behaviorist and social-ecological theories of learning, all
behavior serves a function and has evolved as a direct result of the individual’s learning history,
coupled with experiences within their environment (Chin et al, 2011). Touching on behaviorist
theory and how stimuli and reinforcements can change and affect behavior in the classical
conditioning framework, the theorists argue that by pairing stimuli with certain reinforcements,
the positive outcome is more likely to be repeated in the future
Suspension and expulsion for students who are recurring offenders is not seen as a
punishment, but as a “school sanctioned holiday,” and due to the fact that many students with
behavioral issues are more likely to have negative academic experiences from the past, the idea
of being removed from school is considered favorably. This, coupled with the lack of established
research on positive outcomes of suspensions (American Psychological Association Zero
Tolerance Task Force, 2008) and the combination of repeat offenders’ suspendable behaviors,
suggests that, for many students, suspension does not have the desired impact. Therefore, it is
necessary to consider alternatives to suspension and expulsion (Proceedings: National Summit
on Zero Tolerance, 2000).
Existing Strategies for Solving the Problem
Two potential approaches are presented here to reduce suspensions—one based on
prevention, the other based on intervention. From the side of prevention comes supporting
students preemptively, so as to learn to control their own behaviors and emotions, reinforcing
positive behaviors with a reward system, and therefore reducing the amount of suspendable

20
behaviors. This prevention is known as Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (James et al., 2019).
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)
SWPBIS is based on behaviorist theory. The main components are as follows: (a)
universally adopted, consistently applied, and well-defined expectations of behavior; (b) staff
and students who are informed/trained on these expectations; (c) a reward system for students’
appropriate behaviors; and (d) additional intensive supports to address student needs in addition
to systematic universal, schoolwide procedures (Bradshaw et al., 2010). Simplified through the
implementation of clearly defined expectations and positive reinforcement of the desired student
behaviors, PBIS creates a culture of positive affirmation and contributes to the reduction of
negative behaviors that are suspendable. The research finds that schools have experienced
reductions in office disciplinary referrals and suspension rates compared to schools not
implementing PBIS (Chin et al, 2011).
PBIS: A Multi-Tiered Approach
SWPBIS is part of what is defined as a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). MTSS is
part of a data-driven, problem-solving framework to improve outcomes for all students. MTSS
relies on a continuum of evidence-based practices matched to student needs. PBIS is an example
of MTSS centered on social behavior (Horner & Sugai, 2015).
MTSS was developed as an overarching framework from the work conducted in public
health emphasizing three tiers of prevention. Schools then apply this model as a way to align to
academic, behavioral, social, and emotional support to improve education for all students
(Horner & Sugai, 2015). It is also important to note that the tiers are a reference to the levels of

21
support offered and not a reference to the students. Students receive Tier 3 supports; they are not
themselves Tier 3 students.
Tier 1 is Universal Prevention and serves as the foundation for behavior and academics.
Therefore, schools using SWPBIS would provide these universal supports to all students. And
for most students, the core program gives them what they need to be successful and to prevent
future problems (Horner & Sugai, 2015).
Tier 2 is Targeted Intervention and focuses on improving specific skill deficits within
students. Schools often provide Tier 2 supports to student groups with similar targeted needs.
Providing support to a group of students provides more opportunities for practice and feedback
while keeping the intervention maximally efficient (Chin et al., 2012).
An example of Tier 2 targeted intervention is a system called Check In/Check Out or
CICO. This intervention supports students with identified behavioral deficits (James et al., 2019).
Initially, an adult on campus begins the day with a positive check in. While students continue
moving from class to class, their teachers or other adults are responsible for continuing to check
in and see how their day is going. At the end of the day, the student checks out with a designated
adult and they are able to review the student’s daily success/areas for improvement. This process
provides for student reflection on the expected daily behaviors. Students may need some
assessment to identify whether they need this level of support and which skills to address. Tier 2
supports help students develop the skills they need to benefit core programs at the school (James
et al., 2012).
Lastly, Tier 3 supports are the most intensive supports that PBIS offers. Tier 3 supports
require the most resources due to the individualized approach of developing and carrying out
interventions (Bradshaw et al., 2009). At this level, schools typically rely on formal assessments

22
to determine a student’s need and to develop an individualized support plan. Student plans also
often include goals related to both academics as well as behavior support.
One such example of suspension reduction through SWPBIS is reviewed from a 2007
schoolwide peer mediation program in a diverse, suburban elementary school of 825 students.
The research found that during the 3-year longitudinal study, a reduction in both physical and
verbal conflict infractions was evident, which coincided with a significant decrease in out-of-
school suspensions. Moreover, suspensions were significantly lower during the three years of the
study (2.1%–2.9% of the student population) compared to the year preceding implementation
(9.6% of the student population).
Further supporting the use of SWPBIS is a research study conducted using longitudinal
data from 37 public elementary schools in Maryland. Through this research, the literature finds
schools trained in SWPBIS implemented the model with high fidelity and experienced
significant reductions in student suspensions and office discipline referrals. Schools trained in
SWPBIS reported a significant reduction in both the percentage of children with a major or
minor office discipline referral as well as for the overall rate of major and minor office discipline
referral events (Bradshaw et al., 2010). While the authors state that further research is needed—
for example, as of 2004, the reliability and validity of office discipline referral data as an
indicator of student behavior problems needed further research—the analysis offered very
promising effects on student outcomes.
This research highlights the significant reduction of office discipline referrals (ODR) in
schools trained in SWPBIS. The findings reflect that both the percentage of children with a
major or minor ODR event as well as for the overall rate of major and minor ODR events were
reduced (Bradshaw et al., 2010).

23
Regarding specific principles for implementing PBIS, Gregory et al. (2017) offer a
framework in a prevention and intervention action-based plan that addresses different levels of
school ecology, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, instructional, and systems levels (access
to behavioral supports and avenues for collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts).
Moreover, advantaged students may reap the benefits of less punitive discipline policies and,
therefore, it is necessary for culturally conscious implementation of their Framework’s 10
principles. In other words, educators need to explicitly consider issues of culture, race, gender,
power, and privilege in addressing inequality in schooling; otherwise, the impact will not be felt
by the populations it was created to serve (Gregory et al., 2017).
These principles are not exhaustive, but instead build off the existing empirical literature
that supports each of them. They aim to highlight how each practice relates specifically to issues
of disproportionality in school discipline for marginalized groups (Gregory et al., 2017).
Grouped within the interpersonal skill set, the beginning principles revolve around students and
their feelings of being part of and feeling accepted at their schools. Principle 1 focuses on
supportive relationships (Table 1) and cites a control trial of a 2-year coaching cycle for teachers
that contributed to less discipline referrals for African American students and other students of
color within those classrooms that received the teacher coaching. The implementation of these
culturally responsive practices addressed the growing body of evidence demonstrating that
Latino and Black students are less likely than White students to report feeling cared about by an
adult at school (Bottiani et al., 2014; Gregory et al., 2017). The significance of this ties directly
to a recent randomized field experiment demonstrating how respectful teacher interactions may
reduce negative disciplinary outcomes of marginalized students (Okonofua et al., 2016).

24
Table 1
Framework for Increasing Equity in School Discipline
Prevention Principle Action
Prevention 1. Supportive relationships Authentic connections are forged between
and among teachers and students.
2. Bias-aware classrooms
and respectful school
environments
Inclusive, positive classroom and school
environments are established in which
students feel fairly treated.
3. Academic rigor The potential of all students is promoted
through high expectations and high-level
learning opportunities.
4. Culturally relevant and
responsive teaching
Instruction reflects and is respectful of the
diversity of today’s classrooms and
schools.
5. Opportunities for
learning and correcting
behavior
Behavior is approached from a nonpunitive
mindset, and instructions proactively
strengthens student social skills, while
providing structured opportunities for
behavioral correction within the
classroom as necessary.
Intervention 6. Data-based inquiry for
equity
Data are used regularly to identify “hot
spots” of disciplinary conflict or
differential treatment of particular groups.
7. Problem-solving
approaches to discipline
Solutions aim to uncover sources of
behavior or teacher-student conflict and
address the identified needs.
8. Inclusion of student and
family voice on
conflicts’ causes and
solutions
Student and family voice are integrated into
policies, procedures, and practices
concerning school discipline.

25
Prevention Principle Action
9. Reintegration of students
after conflict or absence
Students are supported in reentering the
community of learners after conflict or
long-term absence has occurred.
Prevention and
intervention
10. Multi-tiered system of
supports
Schools use a tiered framework to match
increasing levels of intensity of support to
students’ differentiated needs.

Note: The numerical ordering of principles is not meant to suggest their relative importance.
From “Eliminating disparities in school discipline: A framework for intervention,” by Gregory,
A., Skiba, R., and Mediratta, K. 2017, Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 253–278,
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690499. Copyright 2017 by the American Educational
Research Association.

The foundational principles of the framework are starting points for important
consideration by all stakeholders involved in the realm of school discipline and who wish to shift
disciplinary outcomes into a more positive school climate. Schoolwide PBIS, coupled with
programs like Restorative Justice, as the authors point out, have provided solid recommendations
for future reform initiatives. Also noted, however, is that there exists insufficient empirical
evidence to indicate which combination of the ten principles of the framework should be
implemented together (Gregory et al., 2017).
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors
As outlined in Chapter One, this study is informed by the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
model. Clark and Estes (2009) suggest that performance is affected by various knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. This section outlines the knowledge and skills needed

26
by administrators to implement PBIS; motivational factors that influence administrator
performance and schoolwide implementation of PBIS; and organizational features that may
support or hinder these.
Knowledge Factors
Three different types of knowledge are necessary when working to accomplish a goal.
Declarative knowledge includes factual and conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge relates to
the basic elements of an area of study, specific terminology, for example. Conceptual knowledge
then builds on this foundation to connect them with larger systems in which they operate. Both
factual and conceptual knowledge are categorized as declarative or having a “what”
focus. Procedural knowledge, on the other hand, relates to the “how,” or how something
is done. This involves “methods of inquiry and criteria for using skills, algorithms,
techniques, and methods” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). Finally, metacognitive knowledge
centers on the “self,” which includes both the general knowledge of cognition and
“knowledge of one’s own cognition” (p. 214). This means that the individual is aware of
their own thinking and capable of adapting and applying what they know to various
situations.
Different types of knowledge matter when implementing schoolwide PBIS. Principals
need declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge in order to effectively implement
schoolwide PBIS. More importantly, declarative and procedural knowledge are not the same and
do not enable the same kind of performance (Ambrose et al. 2010). For example, an SRUSD
school principal could possess declarative knowledge and understand the facts and concepts
related to schoolwide implementation. However, this same principal may not have the procedural
knowledge needed to implement schoolwide within their school site or differentiate

27
implementation based on the specific needs of the school staff or other stakeholders. Moreover, a
principal could know the procedure or the steps to follow when implementing schoolwide PBIS,
but not fully understand why this particular intervention is being utilized or be able to articulate
the rationale. In this case, the principal may have adequate procedural knowledge, but lack the
declarative knowledge required to support SWPBIS after implementation.
Metacognition
Metacognition is defined as an “individual’s knowledge about their own cognitive
processes and their ability to control these processes by organizing, monitoring and modifying
them as a function of learning outcomes” (Clark, 1997, p. 20). In the case of SWPBIS
implementation, a school principal could apply these metacognitive skills to implementation by
recognizing the problem, defining it, and knowing who or which particular policies or
procedures are prohibiting successful implementation. For the various strategies that are part of
the multi-tiered system of SWPBIS, metacognitive knowledge would allow administrators to
think through the underlying factors, rationale, and steps needed to apply their declarative and
procedural knowledge.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation is defined as the ability of an individual to control their behavior through
a process of self-observation, judgment, and self-response (Bandura, 1986). In the context of this
research, schoolwide PBIS implementation for the reduction of suspensions ties directly to the
necessity of observation and judgement. If a practice has been established that is unsuccessful,
but continues to be used widespread within a setting, there is the assumption that little self-
observation and judgment have taken place, which therefore could be a reason for a lack of
change in behavior or practice.

28
Based on the Zimmerman model of self- regulation (Figure 1), the cycle involves
planning, monitoring, and reflective practices in order to establish efficiency (Brown et al.,
2016). When considering the implementation of schoolwide PBIS, this cycle could be used in
two specific ways: first, to evaluate the current process used and provide data to school
administrators on school suspensions, and second, after the implementation of schoolwide PBIS
to collect additional data for comparison of the two approaches.

29
Figure 1
Schematic Relationships of Self-Regulated Learning, Evaluation, and Academic Self-Efficacy.

Note: Constructs used in this study are shown in shaded ellipses. From “Student conceptions of
feedback: Impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement,” by Brown, G. T.
L., Peterson, E. R., and Yao, E., 2016, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 606–
629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126. Copyright 2016 by The British Psychological Society.

30
Motivational Factors
The following section focuses on motivational factors and the three main elements of
choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Purposeful attention paid to the
most relevant data and events relative to one’s goals are key components to maintaining
motivational success (Clark, 1997).
Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort
Choice refers to one’s personal and active intent to work toward and accomplish a goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In terms of reducing suspensions, the active choice for administrators
would be to work toward the goal of schoolwide PBIS implementation. This approach is
preventative as opposed to reactionary and would take significant effort on behalf of the school
site administrators to implement. This active choice therefore is imperative. Persistence is
defined as one’s ability to continue working toward their goal through time and challenges
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of SRUSD administrators, persistence would be the ability to
maintain focus on schoolwide implementation of PBIS through the challenges that will arise for
various reasons, including staff pushback, lack of staff buy-in, and logistical issues that could
appear. Lastly, mental effort is defined as having confidence and effort invested to accomplish
the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of SRUSD administrators, principals and assistant
principals must continue to work through implementation issues and stay focused on the overall
goal of suspension reduction. Moreover, they must believe in their ability to accomplish the goal
of schoolwide PBIS.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as the belief that an individual has in their own abilities, and it
directly impacts the goals they set for themselves (Bandura, 1977). Bandura writes that perceived

31
self-efficacy affects people's choice of activities, how much effort they exert, and how long they
persist in the face of obstacles and aversive situations (Bandura, 1977).
The implementation of schoolwide PBIS might be considered by some school
administrators to be a stressful change situation, therefore eliciting what Bandura calls emotional
arousal (Bandura, 1977). This arousal can directly impact one’s ability to maintain self-efficacy
and debilitate performance; therefore, Bandura writes, individuals are more likely to function
effectively when they are not met with a situation that makes them feel agitated and
uncomfortable (Bandura, 1977).
When considering the goal of schoolwide implementation of PBIS, administrators will
need to consider how they will respond to situations that elicit this type of emotional arousal and
how they will proceed should it arise. Due to the nature of working within a school site setting,
there are many factors that will impact the successful implementation of a program: teachers,
non-teaching staff, students, parents, etc. Therefore, it is imperative that administrators consider
how negative experiences along the path of implementation may be addressed.
Expectancy Value
Another significant component of this motivational technique as part of Expectancy
Value (Clark, 1997). Expectancy value theory (EVT) provides a model for explaining how
motivation increases when one expects to do well on a task and values that task. The amount of
effort one is willing to invest in a task is dependent on the individual’s answer to two specific
questions: essentially, “what’s in it for me” and “how difficult is it in terms of my own
experiences and capabilities?” The first question stems from the worker deciding what the worth
of a particular task may be. According to Clark (1997), worth may be considered internally (this
challenge will increase my technical knowledge/skills) or externally (my supervisor will be

32
watching for the outcome of this task; I need to do well). This connects directly with motivation
and will be addressed later.
With SWPBIS, EVT can relate to motivational factors that hinder principals and assistant
principals from full implementation. For example, a principal may dislike the time, effort,
process, or even logistical factors of implementing SWPBIS. As a result, that principal may opt
to complete other preferred or required tasks that they see as having more intrinsic value and
never start on the trajectory of a systematic schoolwide tiered intervention system. A principal
could also perceive the implementation of SWPBIS as unimportant. And since the monitoring of
SWPBIS data is low stakes, principals could see that there is no risk in avoiding the task.
Organizational Factors
Organizational factors are the final piece of the GAP analysis framework of Clark and
Estes (2008). These are defined as the barriers or assets within an organization that impact their
ability to operate or function, both in their current state and in relation to their organizational
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture and process deeply impact the success of
change initiatives that directly impact performance improvement.
Organizational Culture and Influences
Cultural models and cultural settings are two ways in which organizations are influenced
by culture. Cultural models are described as a collective way of thinking and behaving in a
group, like unspoken rules that help individuals within a group to better understand how their
organization functions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2002). These models can impact various
aspects of workplace politics such as accountability, staff attitudes, reactions to change
initiatives, conflict management, and even trust. Cultural settings, on the other hand, are more

33
definitive and include factors such as staff members, their tasks and duties, and procedures.
While different, cultural models and settings are closely together to influence an organization.
Cultural Settings: Resources, Time and Personnel
The ability to implement desired or necessary changes will also be dependent on the
availability of resources, time, and personnel. While change may be desired, how the
organization plans to cover the cost will directly affect any outcomes. Strategic planning is
necessary to ensure that funding allocated for the changes will cover the cost of materials and the
time spent working by staff. For SWPBIS, there will need to be the consideration of site- versus
district-driven funding and alignment with management’s involvement and commitment to
ensure a robust implementation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, professional development
will be necessary to update the skills and knowledge of the educators. By framing this process as
a way to also improve student learning, there is an opportunity to build buy-in and support the
large-scale cultural changes required so that administrators can get support for the work in
building staff capacity (Elmore, 2002).
Performance Goal Accountability
In order to reduce school suspensions through the implementation of schoolwide PBIS,
SRUSD needs accountability correlated to clear performance goals. As Clark and Estes state,
performance goals that are clearly defined and articulated are necessary for the creation of
motivational culture that fosters organizational trust (Clark & Estes, 2008). While maintaining
site autonomy and supporting site administrators to implement PBIS in a way that works for
them, SRUSD must support this process with a vision, district support, and the opportunity for
feedback so that sites that have been hesitant to implement PBIS feel as though they are
supported through the process.

34
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is constructed from the theoretical framework of
the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis, the researcher’s experience and knowledge in the field, and
existing theories and exploratory research. The Clark and Estes KMO model serves as the
foundation that grounds the research and helps the researcher understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps that exists within the organization. Figure 2 refers to the
conceptual framework for this study. Reduction of school suspensions through the
implementation of schoolwide PBIS are at the center of this study. As the figure shows, the
problem of practice is placed within the KMO model. The K factor refers to the knowledge and
skills of site administrators who oversee discipline, with specific attention paid to metacognitive
knowledge. The M factor relates to the motivation of site administrators to implement
schoolwide PBIS. As detailed in the literature review, M factors include active choice,
persistence, and mental effort, as well as self-efficacy and value. Lastly, O factors are
organizational features, procedures, processes, and barriers that influence how an organization
operates, including performance goal accountability. The Clark and Estes model serves as the
foundation for this research by focusing on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that help or hinder site administrators from fully implementing schoolwide PBIS in
SRUSD.

35
Figure 2
Gap Analysis

Note: From original work, Cristina Ridgeley-Mones

Conclusion
The use of school suspensions is a national problem that disproportionately impacts
specific student groups and does little to change student behavior (Gregory et al., 2017;
Hoffman, 2013; Horner & Sugai, 2015; Skiba, 2006). SWPBIS, however, has been shown to
reduce problem student behaviors and to help reduce suspensions by setting clear student

36
expectations and rewarding positive behavior. The goal of this study is to discover what gaps
exist within the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors of site administrators to fully
implement SWPBIS. An overview of the qualitative approach using the KMO framework (Clark
& Estes, 2008) is provided in Chapter Three.

37
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to present the research design for the study as well as the
methods for data collection and analysis. The problem of practice is focused on reducing school
suspensions through the implementation of schoolwide PBIS. The purpose of this study is to
examine the current assets and needs of high school administrators and recommend solutions so
that they can reduce their school suspensions through schoolwide PBIS. The analysis will focus
on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to the implementation of
schoolwide PBIS. The chapter will begin with an outline of the research questions driving this
study, the research design, the research setting, and the researcher.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of principal and assistant principals related to
implementing schoolwide PBIS in order to reduce school suspensions?
2. To what extent do SCUSD’s organizational culture, resources, and practices support or
hinder the administration’s implementation of schoolwide PBIS?
Research Setting and Researcher
This study occurred within the Santa Rosita Unified School District (SRUSD). Focusing
on secondary administrators who oversee discipline and/or SWPBIS at school sites, the
interviews took place virtually within the nine high schools of SRUSD.
Information about the researcher is relevant to this study. The researcher has been a
district employee for two years, working at one high school site as an administrator. The
researcher’s primary responsibilities lie outside of discipline, working in support of the main
discipline lead. This information is important to note, as the researcher does not directly

38
supervise any study participants, their employees, or contribute any information for evaluation or
review. The researcher is familiar with the discipline referral system, including suspensions and
expulsions.
In regards to the paradigm of the researcher, this inquiry was framed within pragmatism.
Pragmatism “reflects a pluralistic stress on understanding the world and how research questions
or problems can be resolved” (Morgan, 2007; Tashakori & Teddy, 2010). “Methodological
openness” is an emphasis and is used to address and respond to real-life challenges (Creswell,
2013). Through this paradigm, the researcher attempted to identify the best approach to
answering the research questions, while recognizing the many approaches, methods, and designs
that could be used (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
This study is also framed through the researcher’s positionality and perspective as a site
administrator who works at a school with increased suspension rates and without schoolwide
PBIS. In this role, the researcher has observed that suspension rates are disproportionate and
believes they are unlikely to reduce repetitive behaviors.
Data Sources
One method of data collection was used for this research. The method was interviews
with a site administrator from each of the district’s high schools. Interviews are an appropriate
data gathering tool to better understand the KMO factors that influence the suspension rates and
lack of schoolwide PBIS implementation. Purposeful sampling of 10 participants was used for
qualitative data collection. Merriam writes that when using a typical purposeful sampling
strategy, the researcher should highlight what is “typical, normal and average” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, through the selection process, “the researcher should ensure that the

39
site or participants selected are in no major way atypical, extreme, deviant or intensely unusual”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Criteria for the selection of participants included currently employed high school site
administrators who oversee or work directly with discipline and/or SWPBIS. Within SRUSD,
these responsibilities are assigned to assistant principals, thereby making them the best suited to
provide specific and specialized information around suspensions and schoolwide PBIS.
Instrumentation
This study used interviews as the primary instrument for data collection. The purpose of
interviewing is to allow the research to enter the participants’ perspective when the researcher
cannot observe the behavior, feelings, or how others interpret the world around them (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The semi-structured interview made use of an interview guide that includes a mix of
structured and unstructured interview questions. This format allowed the researcher more
flexibility in the wording of the questions, while maintaining a guided list of questions or issues
to be explored. Moreover, this structure allowed the researcher to respond to the situation at
hand, and the opportunity for the respondent to explore emerging world views or new ideas on
the topic.
Questions were asked from the interview protocol. The interview questions were aligned
with the research questions and a conceptual framework attempt to understand the participants’
experiences and practices based on their training and knowledge of the policies in place. This
approach allowed the individual experience and expertise of the site administrators to come
through, as each of the participants serves a diverse student population and has a unique

40
perspective on suspensions and schoolwide PBIS. Topics that may be unique to sites have the
opportunity to be explored within this semi-structured interview format.
The first research question is based on the knowledge and motivation factors of the KMO
model (Clark & Estes, 2008), while the second question is based on the organizational factors.
Therefore, the interview questions are designed to answer one or both of these research questions
while addressing a specific knowledge, motivation, or organizational concept that aligns with the
conceptual framework. For example, within the knowledge factors, the protocol serves to
understand the metacognition of site administrators around suspensions and schoolwide PBIS
implementation. Regarding motivation, there are questions focused on self-efficacy and the
beliefs of administrators related to their ability to implement schoolwide PBIS. Lastly, the
organizational factor of performance goal accountability is addressed through questions that ask
“in what ways does the district hold accountable school site for PBIS implementation?” All
protocols tie back to the specific KMO factors and concepts that have emerged within this
process.
Data Collection
The first step in data collection procedures as outlined in the Merriam and Tisdell text
(2016) is seeking permission. Permission must be obtained from the SRUSD district, as well as
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the completion of this study. All interviews were
conducted via online video conferencing due to current Covid restrictions. As Merriam and
Tisdell outline, the internet has changed the way in which interviews can be conducted, and with
the unforeseen challenges the pandemic of 2020 has created, the internet has allowed for this
research to continue using one-to-one synchronous interviewing. Additionally, the video

41
recording option allows the researchers to also capture transcription and video of the
respondents, which can be helpful for nonverbal cue review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interviews were conducted via online video conferencing and lasted less than one
hour, with the researcher beginning each call with a review of the intention of the interview, the
rights of the participant, reaffirming consent to participate, the use of the interview contents,
logistics, and the right to record the session (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the interview, the
researcher both recorded video as well as took notes on the protocol sheet. The recording of the
interview allows for future review, while the note-taking process supports the capture of
unspoken responses, or what Merriam & Tisdell refer to as “subtle factors” that are less obvious
but possibly as important through observation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview
recording and notes are stored on a password-protected server.
Validity and Reliability
To ensure qualitative research is valid and reliable, the researcher conducted the
investigation in an ethical manner. Trustworthiness was ensured through the presence of rigor in
carrying out the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To be considered rigorous for the sake of
qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell recognize these are contested terms), the study presented
insights and findings that held true for practitioners, readers, and other researchers (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To maximize trustworthiness and credibility of the data, a detailed description of
the data collection methodology, procedures and information about how the study decisions were
made was provided. Another method used to ensure credibility and trustworthiness was the use
of rich and thick description. Lastly, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained, the “researcher’s
assumptions, worldview, biases, theoretical orientation, and relationship to the study” were

42
critically reviewed and transparently disclosed as a means to increase credibility and
trustworthiness.
Ethics
One key ethical principle that applied to this study was beneficence. Ethically,
researchers should not cause harm and should maximize benefits (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At
the study’s onset, participants were provided with an informed consent document. Informed
consent helped participants understand the following: their participation was voluntary, their
conversations were confidential, and they could withdraw from participation at any point. This
study also followed all IRB guidelines by obtaining separate permission to record conversations
and secure data via a passcode. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

43
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among the Santa Rosita
Unified School District’s (SRUSD) site administrators and recommend solutions so that they
could better address high school suspension reductions through the successful implementation of
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). The Clark and Estes
(2008) KMO model served as the theoretical framework for this study by focusing on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to implementing, with fidelity,
schoolwide PBIS in all district high schools. This chapter begins by providing an overview of
participants followed by findings and influences related to this study. The following two research
questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of site administrators related to implementing
schoolwide PBIS in order to reduce school suspensions?
2. To what extent do SRUSD’s organizational culture, resources and practices support
or hinder the administration's implementation of schoolwide PBIS?
Participants
Nine SRUSD high school site administrators were interviewed for this study.
“Administrator” refers to either a school site principal or assistant principal. No two interviews
were conducted with administrators at the same school. Table 2 provides a general overview of
participants.

44
Table 2
Stakeholder Demographics
Administrator pseudonyms Job title Years of admin experience
Alexa Assistant Principal 5–0
Daniel Assistant Principal 5–10
Francisco Assistant Principal 10–20
Lauren Assistant Principal 10–20
Stacy Assistant Principal 5–10
Charles Principal 10–20
Dennis Principal 10–20
Steven Assistant Principal 10–20
Eleanor Assistant Principal 5–10

The first research question sought to identify the knowledge and motivation influences
related to SRUSD’s site administrators overseeing student discipline and schoolwide PBIS. The
information presented in this section followed the KMO model and conceptual framework
detailed in Chapter Two and was guided by the research methodology outlined in Chapter Three.
The conceptual framework identified three knowledge influences: declarative knowledge of
suspensions, patterns and causes; uses of suspensions; and procedural and conceptual knowledge
needed to implement SWPBIS as suspension prevention. Any additional insights on knowledge
were also highlighted and shared in this chapter. The conceptual framework also focused on two
motivation influences: self-efficacy and expectancy value theory (EVT). This section presents
the findings related to each of the knowledge and motivation influences.

45
Knowledge Results
This section reported on the knowledge of SRUSD’s administrators related to
implementing Schoolwide PBIS as a way to reduce high school suspensions. The literature
review and conceptual framework for this study pointed to two types of knowledge: declarative
(factual and conceptual) and procedural (Krathwohl, 2002). The three declarative knowledge
influences included: knowledge of suspension trends and patterns; knowledge of the causes and
uses of suspensions; and knowledge of Schoolwide PBIS as a way to reduce suspensions.
Overall, site administrators demonstrated knowledge about suspension laws and regulations, as
well as the autonomy to decide how suspensions are used; however, most lacked knowledge
about disaggregated suspension use and student demographics related to suspensions.
Knowledge around the use of Schoolwide PBIS to reduce suspensions was also missing. The
procedural knowledge influence, related to implementing tiered SWPBIS, was a prominent gap
and area of need among most administrators.
Knowledge of Suspensions
Administrators demonstrated foundational knowledge about suspensions, how they are
enforced, and where they have autonomy to make decisions about their enforcement. All
participants interviewed stated they use suspensions sparingly (as infrequently as possible).
Specific educational codes and laws were referenced in two of the interviews, while six of nine
respondents mentioned five offenses that lead to automatic suspensions, including physical
fighting, weapons, drug possession, possession of drugs with intent to distribute, and sexual
assault. Daniel, for example, said, “There are five major suspensions that you have to suspend
for and put up for expulsion, and those are mandated by educational code.” Francisco highlighted
that in instances aside from the big five, suspensions are “at the discretion of the administrator

46
and should be used as a time to cool off and reflect.” This sentiment was repeated by all
administrators who were interviewed.
Five respondents spoke directly to the changes they have witnessed over the years in
regards to the use of suspensions. Lauren stated, “The way we use suspensions now is totally
different than 15 years ago.” When asked to expand on this idea, Lauren shared, “When zero
tolerance came out, we were all about it. But that led to so many suspensions and no place to put
kids that we had to rethink how we used them and who really needed to be suspended. That's
where the principal’s decision making comes in.” Alexa also recalled the shift from zero
tolerance, sharing:
This city was one of the most dangerous in SoCal during the early 2000s, and the
district’s zero tolerance policies meant a lot of suspensions. I remember staff who now
talk about not suspending any kids; I remember when those same administrators were
suspending and expelling kids left and right. Times have changed. Now we want less
suspensions, and people are a lot more discretionary.
While these administrators noted the changes that have occurred, two themes emerged
about why suspensions were reduced. The first was publicity, with four administrators speaking
directly to the fact that “so many suspensions didn’t look good for the district.” The second
theme was the realization that zero tolerance did not work in deterring students from the
behaviors that led to suspensions. Stacy said:
We used to think all the kids would be scared to be suspended or expelled when they saw
their peers leaving. That never happened. And we were suspending kids and putting them
up for expulsion without getting any help. It was not a good time in the district.

47
This sentiment was shared by the other administrators who stated that suspension use has
changed over time; however, there remains a lack of consistency when it comes to clearly
defining when to use suspensions now. The de facto practice shared by all respondents is that the
administrator can decide when to enforce a suspension and at times some of the offenses are part
of a grey area. Alexa stated, “ If there is a student with drug paraphernalia on campus, that is an
automatic suspension. That is the way I have been taught to enforce suspensions.” This same
incident on another high school campus may result in a different outcome. Referring to drug use
and paraphernalia on campus, Dennis replied:
If a student is under the influence, I am not suspending them because what is that going
to do? They are getting high for a reason, and my job is to find out what. Suspending
them won’t fix that ... I have the autonomy to decide if I should suspend, or if I can offer
another support, like an alternative to suspension—drug rehab, drug abuse classes,
etcetera.
Like Dennis, other administrators indicated that they believe certain offenses to be at
their discretion when it comes to enforcement. One shared how she attempts to use alternatives
to suspension but lacks options.
We now have a new program that’s for drug abuse; it’s a referral system where we send
names to the counselor. This started right before Covid, and it seemed to work well. But I
know they had some turnover, and also now the rule is a kid needs to have been arrested,
either for drugs or another offense, but the student must have a record in order to qualify
to be part of the program. To me that is cutting off a huge portion of the kids who could
get the drug counseling help they need to avoid a record. I would rather have a kid in this

48
program than suspend them. But how much choice do I really have when I am given
these options?
The interview data suggested that administrators possessed general knowledge about
suspensions, and all administrators used discretionary practices similar to those outlined in the
literature review.
Knowledge of the Various Causes of Suspension
All administrators acknowledged that suspensions can be caused by a variety of factors
and that the reasons can vary from student to student. Of the respondents, six of nine mentioned
that in instances where they have discretion over whether to suspend or not, the student behavior
is not the only consideration. As previously stated, all respondents referred to five major offenses
(physical fighting, weapons, drug possession, possession of drugs with intent to distribute, and
sexual assault) that should lead to automatic suspensions. With this in mind, all administrators
detailed additional causes of suspension outside those five that were consistent with suspension
causes outlined in the literature review (Kafka, 2011; Skiba, 2014).
Classroom Environment
Of the respondents, five of nine of administrators mentioned specific instances around
classroom environment and student/teacher relationships when discussing suspensions. One such
example included the lack of clear classroom expectations that led to suspensions. Charles stated:
A review of our data showed that 91% of our referrals had to do with cell phones ... and
these teachers all lacked technology expectations; we had to create an agreement with
staff on what they would handle and what we (administrators) would handle.
Stacy noted that suspensions for classroom disruption were a normal occurrence at their
site within the district, and “the whole idea is to get kids out of the way, which means kids can

49
rack up suspensions indiscriminately.” The four administrators who did not provide causes of
suspension spoke in broad or general terms. Within the context of classroom environment came
the topic of student/teacher relationships and their influence on student behavioral outcomes.
Five respondents provided examples of students being suspended after a negative interaction
with a teacher. Daniel said, “The lack of a relationship or trust plays a clear role in
student/teacher interactions and can lead to a negative behavioral consequence for the student.”
Eleanor shared, “Sadly, teachers and staff sometimes forget these are kids who need to be taught
the right behaviors. And that takes time and relationship building. Being negative won’t work.”
Responses from five of administrators who identified one or more causes of suspension were
analyzed and were consistent with those outlined in the literature review as part of the
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS).
Student Drug Use
Six of nine respondents spoke about student drug use being one of the main causes of
suspension. The use of or selling of drugs on campus was detailed by all respondents who
provided details, adding that the sale of drugs on campus is one of the “big five.” Drug use by
students, however, remains a gray area.
One administrator, Dennis, estimated that “85% of my students who come in have drug
issues.” The necessity for removing students from school for drug use was also outlined by
multiple administrators. Steven stated that “if a student under the influence stays on campus, they
are a danger to themselves and/or others. Walking downstairs, tripping, hitting their head, these
are all concerns. They may need to go home, but that doesn’t mean I have to suspend.”
Of all the respondents, Dennis and Charles stated that a deep dive into what was driving
student drug use was a priority. While others spoke broadly about why drug use was a

50
suspendable offense, Dennis spoke specifically about understanding the why, stating, “They are
getting high for a reason, but they are coming to school, so they feel safe but we still need to find
out the reason.” Charles also stated, “If you take the time to dig deep, there’s usually something
that happens around sixth or seventh grade when the behavior starts to show and that’s when the
trauma has occurred.”
While the majority of respondents spoke about drug use being one of the major causes of
suspension, little information was referenced about drug use prevention or alternatives to drug
suspension, such as drug rehabilitation. Two respondents mentioned the program Project
Kinship, which is a Restorative Justice community-based program that works directly with the
school district to support the most at-risk populations. While Project Kinship does not provide
drug rehabilitation itself, they partner with other organizations as a resource and alternative to
suspension for drug use.
Knowledge of SWPBIS
As per the literature review, Schoolwide PBIS is defined as a multi-tiered framework
designed to prevent and respond to students’ behavior. The schoolwide, system-based approach
involves supports for students based on need and interventions driven by data. The three-tiered
system is structured to provide universal support in Tier 1, where all students in the building are
taught schoolwide expectations, have opportunities to practice meeting those expectations, and
receive positive reinforcement for meeting expectations. Onsite teams collect and analyze data
such as grades, office discipline referrals, schoolwide screeners, and attendance to determine
which students need additional targeted support (Tier 2) or intensive support (Tier 3) (Bradshaw
et al., 2010).

51
The results of the research indicate that knowledge of SWPBIS varies widely among
administrators. While all were knowledgeable about suspensions, two of nine articulated how
PBIS could mitigate suspensions at their school. For example, one administrator stated, “PBIS is
for the kids who already do what they are supposed to. It does nothing for the kids who get
suspended all the time.” In the same sentiment, another administrator shared that PBIS is not
connected to suspensions “because it is about silly points and stuff that only works with
elementary students.” The majority of respondents who had a negative perception of PBIS were
also those with the most years of experience in administration.
Two administrators shared that they use SWPBIS to reduce behaviors that lead to
suspensions. The first shared, “There is a direct relationship between reducing small behavioral
issues and reducing suspensions because one leads to the other.” The second administrator
stated:
It’s a system of prevention—when I build relationships with kids off the bat, then they
feel like I am someone they don’t want to disappoint, someone who cares about them.
And this helps avoid the situation of ‘kids who just don’t care’ because those are the ones
that get left behind and start to act out. If I spend my time getting to know them and
reinforcing the good behaviors, the number of negative behaviors drops. And so do my
suspensions.
Aside from these two administrators, however, additional knowledge was not shared
about how the use of SWPBIS leads to reductions in suspensions. This highlights a knowledge
gap that is a necessary area of growth for SRUSD.

52
Lack of a Universal Definition
While some administrators provided similar definitions to SWPBIS, no universal
definition of SWPBIS was established. Because there is no universal definition, administrators
often come to understand SWPBIS based on their length of service and personal experience as an
administrator. Of the nine respondents, the four with less than 10 years of experience in
administration defined SWPBIS in a manner most consistent with the definition shared in the
literature review. The remaining five administrators, all of whom had over 15 years of
experience, varied widely in their definitions. Francisco, who has been an administrator for 16
years, described Schoolwide PBIS as a “system that Pupil Support Services wants to shove down
your throat, without ever coming to your site to see how it can work,” and quickly moved on to
describe why the system does not work at their school site. Daniel described SWPBIS as “a way
to make up for the shortcomings of a student's upbringing and positive recognition for something
they should already be doing.”
Of the nine administrators interviewed, five included expectations in their definitions. As
part of Tier 1, these universal expectations were described as foundational to the success of the
program. Dennis explained the importance of these expectations being visible across the entire
school, through banners or posters, and how the teachers at his site had done a “really good job
of teaching behavioral expectations to all students.” Charles also shared how instrumental the
teachers had been in the implementation phase and how he supports this by using daily office
referral data to have conversations with specific teachers about their behavioral expectations.
Charles shared, “If Mr. Espinosa has the most referrals and is sending students to the office, I
will tell him about the data and ask what expectations he has in place for the students.” He went
on further to say that these discussions are coming from a place of support and that building

53
relationships and trust with teachers is a way to demonstrate the type of relationships building
that is necessary with the students.
Knowledge of Implementing a Tiered SWPBIS System for Suspension Reduction
Of the respondents, four referenced specific knowledge around implementation of the
tiered system. Those administrators who did not mention the tiers also did not discuss supports
that would be considered Tier 2 or Tier 3. The lack of conversation around how the tiers work to
support and prevent student suspension is consistent with the literature review and knowledge
factors that hinder implementation with fidelity.
Dennis defined SWPBIS as a “three-tiered system that requires full implementation in
order to work.” Alexa, however, described SWPBIS as a program that does not work at their site,
and stated they “do not feel as though those insisting on implementation know the needs of the
school sites” because the majority of them do not have implementation experience. The
sentiments shared by Alexa were consistent with four other respondents who shared that they do
not feel individual school needs are part of the PBIS implementation process. Stacy stated that
the focus begins at their site as the school year begins:
We know that teachers are the most influential and have the most opportunities to create
relationships with students, so PBIS works really well with managing discipline because
we want teachers to think about intervention strategies, positively reinforce good
behavior and to teach expectations and have other students model that.
Seven of nine administrators did not share specific knowledge on the use of Schoolwide
PBIS for suspension prevention. These seven respondents had general knowledge surrounding
suspensions and general knowledge around SWPBIS but did not share how SWPBIS is used to
prevent suspensions. Two administrators, Charles and Dennis, spoke in depth about the necessity

54
of using SWPBIS to establish a tiered response to student behavior, and the importance of
establishing behavioral expectations as a way to reduce suspensions. Dennis shared:
At my old site, the principal didn’t buy into PBIS; I mean he called it a program, but he
didn’t buy into it. When I got here, I was blown away by the effectiveness of the program
and its impact on school culture and student behavior. We use the program as a way to
make sure everyone is on the same page, everyone’s on board. Kids know what is
expected of them, and this reduces our behavioral issues.
Charles also shared his knowledge around the use of SWPBIS to reduce suspensions:
When I got here, it was out of control: kids throwing desks and jumping out of windows,
a stabbing across the street, attempted rape in the alley next to school. We just threw out
everything and restarted with PBIS. We created a curriculum based on it and a self-
contained class that all students take to learn our core values. Within the first four or five
months we started seeing a decline in suspendable behavior, a deep decline actually, and
attendance improved for the first time ever.
Of the remaining seven administrators, there was consistent procedural knowledge
around SWPBIS as a system for rewarding student behaviors. When sharing their experiences,
several administrators focused on their own philosophies around discipline and expectations.
Lauren stated, “in my generation ... there were expectations, doing the right thing was the
expectation, so you don’t get recognized for doing what you should be doing anyway.”
Combined with the lack of a universal definition, the lack of knowledge around the use of
SWPBIS as a preventative measure for student suspensions is consistent with the literature
review and challenges associated with successful implementation.

55
Summary of Research Question 1: Knowledge Findings
Research Question 1 asked: “What is the knowledge and motivation of site administrators
related to implementing schoolwide PBIS in order to reduce school suspensions?” The findings
suggested that SRUSD administrators demonstrated areas of strength and need in their
knowledge to implement SWPBIS to reduce suspensions. The knowledge section began by
examining awareness of Schoolwide PBIS and regulations, trends, and patterns around school
suspensions. While the vast majority of administrators had some knowledge around SWPBIS,
the lack of a universal definition and varying levels of knowledge around implementation
suggested the need for more knowledge in this area. The next influence related to knowledge was
the main causes of suspensions. Data pointed to extensive knowledge around suspendable
offenses, but more knowledge is needed to help administrators understand the connection
between SWPBIS implementation and suspension reduction. The third influence was knowledge
of implementation of a three-tiered system. Administrators who were not implementing a three-
tiered system had difficulty describing interventions for targeted populations that would be part
of Tier 2 and Tier 3. A commonality among those who did not discuss this knowledge was that
SWPBIS is a program that does not fit the needs of their school sites and lacks individuality.
Responses pointed to a lack of knowledge in the following two areas: how PBIS addresses site
specific needs and autonomy around PBIS. Administrators who have been in their positions the
longest shared less on SWPBIS and more knowledge is needed to support implementation.
Motivation
This next section analyzed the motivation that SRUSD’s administrators had related to
implementing SWPBIS. As detailed in the literature review, motivation pertained to active
choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Interview data revealed that 100%

56
of administrators had implemented some level of SWPBIS, suggesting that they were motivated
and made active choices. To provide a deeper analysis of participants’ responses and underlying
motivations, the KMO model and conceptual framework were used. These influences included
self-efficacy and expectancy value.
Self-Efficacy
The role of motivation for individuals implementing SWPBIS plays a major factor in the
potential success of the program. All participants interviewed shared how competing programs
and many site responsibilities made it hard to “get it all done,” as Francisco stated. As the
knowledge findings highlighted, challenges arose around specific declarative and procedural
knowledge for many administrators, and this directly impacted their motivation. As Eleanor
shared, “Administration has a school to manage, teachers to manage, and all of that distracts
from programs that the district wants implemented.” The lack of knowledge around
implementation has led to a lack of self-efficacy that was highlighted by six of nine respondents.
Stacy shared:
PD (professional development) is not enough; there needs to be a retreat or something, a
place where SWPBIS can be emulated and we can see what it should look like at our
sites, so I shouldn't just be going to a meeting and hearing about it. The lack of modeling
leads to not wanting to do more because we don’t know what it should be, what it could
be.
Lauren shared a similar sentiment when describing how SWPBIS is at her current site versus
how she experienced it at a previous site in the district. She said, “What fits the needs of students
at my current school is not the same as my last. But I haven’t been trained or prepared in any
new approaches to help my current population.” Lauren continued to share that she felt SWPBIS

57
would be more effective, and people would be more motivated to participate if they knew how to
ensure it was specific to their students and their needs. Lauren said, “Without staff buy-in, I can’t
make this work.” Eleanor also shared, “There is only so much I can do; if staff don’t get behind
these initiatives, I don’t know how I can make this happen.”
Dennis had a different experience when it came to motivation and self-efficacy. He
shared:
When I came to this school, I was blown away by what they had in place and how
effective the PBIS was here. It made me want to keep it going. If I had not seen it
working in the way it was, I would not have thought I had the ability to make it happen. I
also wouldn’t have been able to get others onboard if I hadn’t seen its success.
Dennis shared that his observation and support from the staff at the school made him feel as
though he could continue the program and be successful. Dennis spoke directly to what Stacy
shared about motivation and a tangible experience of success. Having the opportunity to see
SWPBIS and its established success motivated Dennis and Stacy to continue working with the
program. Dennis also shared how the school culture was positively impacted by SWPBIS and
how everyone is “onboard and buys in.” Stacy shared, “There are so many things we oversee that
it helps the most when we can see a program, we are supposed to implement in action being
successful. A model. Not just Professional Development, but a model.” Alexa stated:
PBIS was talked about but was not demonstrated. When I can see how it is supposed to
work, I can put it into place more easily at my site. It makes the work easier and makes
me at least feel like I kind of know what is supposed to be happening. Without that, I
don’t think I can make it happen.

58
Generally, motivation in regards to self-efficacy was tied directly to factors that were tied
to their own abilities and also outside factors they felt they could not control. When
administrators did not have the necessary knowledge of successful SWPBIS implementation,
they tended to share that they were less motivated and less confident in their ability to ensure
staff buy-in. And on the contrary, when administrators had knowledge of and/or experienced
successful SWPBIS implementation, they were motivated to continue the program, felt they
could be effective at implementation, and felt able to encourage staff to buy-in.
Expectancy Value Theory (EVT)
Expectancy Value Theory (EVT) was used to analyze administrators’ values for
implementing Schoolwide PBIS. EVT was detailed in this study’s conceptual framework and
literature review section. Motivation increases when one values a task and expects to do well on
that task (Clark, 1997). Regarding EVT, valuing SWPBIS interventions was a strength for
certain administrators, while others did not see value in the program. Motivation for performance
expectations was also a mixed result, as those with successful experiences were more motivated
to keep the progress going, while those with less favorable experiences lacked the same
motivation. Task value beliefs were broken down into the following four areas: intrinsic value,
attainment value, utility value and cost belief (Rosenzweig et al., 2019). Administrators’
responses were analyzed as they pertained to each of these four areas.
Of the respondents, six of nine shared that, while there may be some benefits of SWPBIS,
they did not feel the program offered enough benefit to implement schoolwide. Francisco said,
“Unless everyone is on board and doing the work, like the teachers and others who have constant
contact with the students, this becomes an administration headache and all falls on the admin.”
Lauren also shared similar feelings about how much value is really in the program. She said:

59
The kids who benefit the most from SWPBIS are the ones who already do what they are
supposed to. SWPBIS doesn’t have the same value for the whole student population and
then it's like, who is this really supposed to be for?
Dennis was one of three administrators who stated they had a positive experience with SWPBIS.
He shared that this is one of the most “crucial elements of school culture,” and their site spends
multiple weeks every new school year to ensure all students understand the behavioral
expectations. He also shared what he called the invaluable framework of SWPBIS:
Without SWPBIS we would have the same mediocre school culture of other sites. But
because I was taught how valuable this approach is from the beginning of my time as an
administrator, I know that its success stems from consistency and that is why we place so
much value on it.
Eleanor also shared, “PBIS makes kids feel like they are part of something, and they love being
rewarded for positive behavior. So, it’s positive all around.”
Intrinsic Value
Intrinsic value refers to the extent to which an individual enjoys completing a task or the
consequences of completing a task (Rosenzweig et al., 2019). Those who had success with
SWPBIS, four of five respondents, felt the process of implementing SWPBIS was worth the
work, confirming its intrinsic value. Those who did not feel the program was as beneficial, five
respondents, did not see the value of the implementation process outweighing the work of the
process, or other competing initiatives.
Stacy shared that SWPBIS “is one of many programs that require time and that is a
limited resource.” Her sentiment was shared by several other administrators who shared less
about individual joys associated with implementation and more about the consequences of not

60
completing the task. Francisco outlined the district requirements for implementation, and his
sentiments were shared by Lauren. Francisco stated, “We have been told to do XYZ by the
district, they say it's required, and they do little more than that to explain the why. Getting behind
something you don’t understand but that you’re told it will just be good? That's hard.” Lauren
said:
The district tells us we have to put programs in place, but the people who are telling us to
do that have never worked at sites, have never done this work, and they just assume we
don’t need to know anything about whatever they tell us to do. They do a poor job
ensuring that site administrators understand why changes are happening.
Lauren also shared that because programs are handed down and mandated, they come as a one
size fits all package, and that leaves administrators feeling as though there is no consideration for
their specific schools, their specific students, and their experiences. This in turn leads to a lower
enthusiasm for implementation and, as Lauren shared, can create reluctance and resentment.
Dennis and Steven shared about the high intrinsic value they place on SWPBIS after
multiple positive experiences with the program. Dennis said, “We are all on the same page as a
school, and that feels so nice to know that the buy-in is there, and people want to make sure this
program works and keeps working.” Steven also felt as though the support of SWPBIS was
across the board at his site, stating, “Without the staff valuing this program and the changes it
can create, we wouldn’t be able to have the success we have. They make it happen, they believe
in it, and they are the reasons we are successful.”
Attainment Value
Attainment value concerns the extent to which an individual finds a task to be personally
meaningful or important. In this instance, attainment value focused on the importance of

61
implementing SWPBIS. While at varying degrees of implementation, all administrators
unanimously talked about the importance of positive school culture, but not all administrators
shared the idea that SWPBIS was the necessary force behind it. They were all motivated by
increasing positive school culture and a student-centered approach, but some felt there were
other areas of focus that would bring about these changes. Of the respondents, four felt as though
SWPBIS was one of the most important factors related to reducing suspensions. Dennis and
Steven consistently shared how foundational SWPBIS is for their students and their schools.
They stated that it is where they focus their attention every new school year, and that without it
they would not have the suspension reduction they have had.
Many administrators however, shared how competing initiatives create the inability to
focus on certain programs. Lauren stated, “We always have something new coming at us, and if
we’re not experts in one thing, that thing gets left behind for other programs or initiatives that
people understand better.” This sentiment was shared by five respondents who placed lesser
importance on SWPBIS or failed to connect SWPBIS to suspension reduction. The lack of
consistency in the overall definition of SWPBIS and knowledge foundation of implementation
are consistent with the lack of attainment value placed on the program.
Utility Value
Utility value describes the extent to which an individual believes a task will be useful for
current or future goals. Utility value in this case related to the usefulness of SWPBIS
implementation and how administrators felt it connected to their future ambitions.
Administrators explained the utility value they placed on implementation of SWPBIS in order to
reduce student suspensions. Alexa shared the following example:

62
I think the district could have done a better job explaining how SWPBIS can reduce
suspensions, but that has been a focus of mine so that is why I spend so much time trying
to implement the program. Honest conversations around implementation and the data that
we have with referrals is a goal of mine. Some sites are more focused on this than others,
but all sites should be focused on how building positive school culture and SWPBIS can
reduce negative behaviors and student suspensions. We have a student population that
moves around a lot, consistency would be nice as kids change schools and move up. It
doesn’t exist yet, but it could if people really understand the value in this program.
Cost Benefit
Cost benefit described how the investment of time, effort, and energy benefited SWPBIS
implementation and at what cost. About half of the respondents felt as though the investment was
worth the cost. Steven stated, “It takes a lot of work to get everyone onboard, but it makes the
whole school a better place.” This sentiment was shared by administrators who felt that their
teams all saw the same benefit. Others, however, did not feel as though the effort and time
needed to implement SWPBIS was going to have any significant impact on their sites. Francisco
stated, “This is just something we were told to do, so we do it to the bare minimum and we do
other things we think work.” Alexa also shared that finding the right staff becomes a challenge
and makes the cost feel too great. She explained, “When you don’t have teachers or staff willing
to do the work, it falls on administrators who are pulled 100 different directions daily. To me, it’s
not worth the investment.”
Summary of Research Question 1: Motivation Findings
Research Question 1 asked: “What is the knowledge and motivation of site administrators
to implement Schoolwide PBIS?” The findings suggested that SRUSD administrators

63
demonstrated areas of strength and need in their motivation to implement SWPBIS. Self-efficacy
was the first motivational theory examined. Expectancy value theory (EVT) was the second
motivational influence. Not all administrators saw an equal value in SWPBIS, and the analysis
suggested a need for increased motivation related to performance expectations.
Administrators’ responses and motivation to implement SWPBIS were analyzed using
EVT. Motivation was found to increase when one valued a task and expected to do well on the
task. Of the participants, five spoke about how they saw value in SWPBIS and implementation,
which suggested that this was an area of strength for SRUSD. The analysis of task value was
broken down into the following four areas: intrinsic value or interest; attainment value or
importance; utility value or extrinsic; and cost belief or benefit (Wigfield et al., 2018). The gaps
in administrators’ responses surfaced when they described their thoughts around cost benefit and
utility value. Positive cost benefit expectations were expressed by four administrators, while the
remaining five had a negative perception, suggesting a need for increased motivation in these
areas.
Organizational Factors
The second research question sought to identify the organizational influences that
supported or hindered administrators in their implementation of SWPBIS. Similar to the
knowledge and motivational sections discussed under Research Question 1, the KMO model and
conceptual framework were used. The cultural model influences were related to performance
goal accountability and organizational resources. Administrators were generally knowledgeable
of their goals, but they needed help communicating them to stakeholders. Cultural setting
influences focused on the organizational practices of professional development and organization

64
More organizational support was needed for each of the cultural settings. This section details the
findings related to each of these organizational influences.
Cultural Model Influences
As discussed in the literature review, organizations like SRUSD can be influenced by
cultural models and settings. This section focuses on cultural models, a collective way of
thinking and acting in a group, such as attitudes and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). As detailed in the conceptual framework for this study, the models of performance goal
accountability and culture settings were analyzed as they related to organizational culture.
Performance Goal Accountability
Interviews determined that seven of nine administrators were able to articulate and
reference their district measure of SWPBIS implementation. The tiered fidelity index (TFI)
referenced by these administrators is performed at the end of the school year and asks
administrators to self-report on their implementation of SWPBIS. Through the review of various
documents, including meeting agendas and student referrals, Francisco shared, “This is
completed by our site coach and AP who oversee PBIS now, but I remember when no evidence
was needed to complete it. They just kind of asked you to recall.” Lauren also shared, “The TFI
is supposed to measure how well we implemented SWPBIS, but it requires little proof and no in-
person assessment.” Of the respondents who spoke about the district TFI, only two shared about
the way they measure their performance within their own school site. Charles spoke directly to
the way in which his site works annually to review and implement more supports based on
student needs.
When I first got here and saw things were not schoolwide and needed help, I broke it
down and we started step by step. Goal for the first year was just get Tier 1 universal

65
supports in place; build buy-in. End of that year we assessed, and said, ‘ok what’s
working and what do we need to improve.’ Then we moved to Tier 2. Now we have all
three tiers in place, and we measure how successful they are by reviewing data at the end
of the year. Did this intervention change behavior? Did kids move in and out? Did it
work like it was intended to? That’s how we measure within our own team, we don’t wait
on the district.
While four of the administrators who spoke of the district assessment also referenced
their own teamwork to measure success and goals, the other administrators spoke in passing
about the district measures. The remaining three respondents did not speak directly about the TFI
in the interview. As Laura and other administrators expressed, “Our goal pretty much aligns to
the district goal in regards to trying to implement SWPBIS. We do what we can to meet the
district goal.”
The results of the research indicated a lack of knowledge around the performance goals
surrounding SWPBIS implementation. Seven of nine administrators did not provide specific
knowledge of the process and did not share how they work to support meeting the district goals.
Additionally, of the nine administrators who were interviewed, one spoke about their own goals,
independent of the district, surrounding the schoolwide implementation of PBIS. This evidence
indicated that more support would be needed to assist site administrators in understanding the
value of SWPBIS for their sites, versus only working to meet required district goals.
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings, as detailed in the literature review and theoretical framework, were the
organizational practices that guided SRUSD staff in completing their duties.

66
As described by all site administrators, SWPBIS was introduced to sites through
professional development for school building leaders. Through that initial process, site
administrators were tasked with training their staff and implementing SWPBIS. While there is
currently an individual at the district office responsible for the overall PBIS program and
support, it was unclear from the interviews how long that position has existed and to what extent
that support has been utilized.
The cultural setting of individual school sites played a significant role in the ability of
administrators to implement SWPBIS. Of the respondents, seven shared that they felt there was a
lack of value to the program, for various reasons. Some shared that the way it was introduced
made them feel as though it was not very important. Others shared that the lack of autonomy in
the program made them feel like it would not benefit their campus and the community they
serve. Laura shared, “PBIS is one size fits all, and it doesn’t always fit. So, I’m not sure why
they keep forcing it on us.”
The sentiment of this statement is significant for two reasons. The first suggests that there
is a knowledge gap surrounding how SWPBIS is intended to work and be individualized for
sites. The second speaks to the culture around how sites responded to SWPBIS coming from the
district office as a directive and the way in which messaging was received. Six of nine
administrators shared that the way SWPBIS was introduced played a role in how sites received it
and resulted in resistance. One administrator shared:
They came in, told us what to do, and I’m sorry but I don’t trust half of what they say
because they have never even worked at a school site. They don’t know what it takes to
implement anything, and I’m not about to drop everything and do what they say when
they don’t know what they are talking about.

67
One of the most senior administrators in the group shared a very similar sentiment:
I have been around here for so long that I remember when the guys who say they love
this PBIS stuff the most, I remember when they couldn’t suspend enough kids. When
they were all about three strikes you’re out .... And I remember when PBIS started, and
how the district said this is what it is, now you need to do it. How am I supposed to feel
like I can get my staff behind me when I don’t even know the who, what, why of a
program? They did such a poor job introducing this, that I know it affected the buy-in
from staff and admin. You can’t treat people like that. When you don’t even know what
their daily needs and routines are, you can’t just come in, drop an idea off, and say do it.
That’s how you get resistance, that’s how you lose people. Could this be an amazing
program? Maybe, but nobody around here wants to find out when you shove things down
their throat.
Resistance to SWPBIS was shared by the seven administrators and was overwhelmingly
indicated as a direct factor in the implementation of SWPBIS. The reason for this resistance was
tied directly to how the change initiative was introduced, and the lack of autonomy that came
along with it. One administrator shared the following:
This program was passed off by the principal and shoved down people’s throats. That’s
why this staff has never been onboard. The principal who did that was hated by everyone.
Any time you even say PBIS, they just ignore you. And me, I don’t buy into it, it’s not
for high school and should stay in elementary school. So, I won’t be out there trying to
convince others to join. Just not gonna happen.
Cultural settings, as detailed in the literature review and theoretical framework, were the
organizational practices that guided SRUSD staff in completing their duties. This particular

68
section focuses on the organization practices of organizational resources that supported or
hindered administrators in their implementation of SWPBIS.
Organizational Resources
Organizational resources were another cultural setting influence identified in this study’s
conceptual framework that emerged during interviews. Administrators specifically pointed to the
following two organizational resources: a person dedicated to SWPBIS implementation and a
PBIS budget.
Onsite PBIS coach
Six of nine administrators indicated the need for a person dedicated to support PBIS and,
specifically, the implementation of SWPBIS for program success. One of the more challenging
pieces shared was that some sites have a PBIS coach, while others do not. For example, one
principal said, “I have no more money; I actually have less money than most of the other schools
because of my size, but I know how important this position is for the success of this school.”
Another administrator stated, “We have a wonderful coach who has a prep period to do this
work; she works with various teams and departments, and then teaches. Without her this would
not be possible.” For those who did not have a dedicated person for PBIS, the responses were
more about how there was no budgetary allocation for this role. “We hardly have enough people
to teach, I’m not going to take a prep period and give it up for a program that’s not even for our
population.” Additionally, one administrator stated, “We are short one administrator; I’m not
sure how we can do this program when we don’t have enough admin on campus. If I had a
person though, I would think it would have better luck.”

69
Overall, administrators felt the need for a designated person because of limited capacity
across the administration team and also to ensure there was a clear understanding of the
expectations for this role on campus.
Lack of SWPBIS Budget
All administrators interviewed shared that they do not have a budget to support SWPBIS.
Six of nine administrators stated that they use funding from their site and other donations or
grants to help fund the program, but there is no dedicated budget they are allotted to work with.
Overall, the lack of funding was discussed by five interviewees, and they stated that it
played a significant role in their ability to implement the program schoolwide. One administrator
shared:
They want us to be able to make something out of nothing; if this is so important, why
doesn’t it get a budget line? Why do I have no funding to make sure it’s done well? I
cannot stand the disconnect. This is so important, but we don’t give you any money to do
it? Tier 1 is for everyone, and we should be able to reinforce those positive behaviors
with rewards and because the district wants us to do this so badly, they should give us the
money to do it.
Francisco shared that he feels as though a centralized location to pick up all materials and
rewards for kids would eliminate the need for a site budget, but without it, there would be little
more progress than what his principal is able to purchase from his site budget. He stated:
I don’t necessarily need a budget; I just need money that I can use for this, or a place to
pick it up for free from the district warehouse. It’s the rewards, it’s the signs, it’s the little
things that are universal that cost money that we need. What I don’t understand is
insisting that we do something that they don’t help pay for.

70
Those administrators who shared less about the budget constraints did not have specific
insights into how the costs of SWPBIS were handled, saying consistently that “the principal
handles that.” Overall, the sentiment shared was that while the necessary funds for schoolwide
implementation of PBIS were small in comparison to other site programs, the lack of dedicated
funding created a question about the importance of the program, including one shared by a
veteran employee who stated, “If this program is so important to the district, why do they give us
no money to implement it?” This feeling was shared by three other administrators who felt as
though more consistent monetary support was needed to properly implement the program.
Summary of Research Question 2: Organizational Findings
Research Question 2 asked: “To what extent do SRUSD’s organizational culture,
resources, and practices support or hinder the administration's implementation of schoolwide
PBIS?” Overall, administrators were knowledgeable about the district expectations of SWPBIS
implementation and how they were to be measured, but they discussed the difficulties they
experienced. Administrators candidly shared the culture of resistance that had built up over years
of a top-down approach for SWPBIS implementation. The majority of administrators felt that the
district approach was responsible for the culture of resistance, thus complicating their ability to
garner support and help others see the value in the program. While four respondents shared that
they had a dedicated PBIS coach or took on the responsibilities themselves, the majority of
respondents did not know of a dedicated staff member who was responsible for implementation.
Moreover, the challenge was finding a person who has the time in their schedule and also a
budget that allows for this coach to be paid. All those interviewed stated that there was no
dedicated line item in the budget for SWPBIS. Depending on the site, however, funding was
allocated for either a coach, or rewards, or other incentives. Due to the inconsistent practice

71
across high schools, some sites have a dedicated coach who is paid through site funds and others
do not.

72
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter presents the findings and recommendations that resulted from this research
study. The problem of practice was reducing suspensions through the implementation of
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in the Santa Rosa Unified School
District. The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among high school site
administrators and recommend solutions so that they could better address implementation
practices and reduce school suspensions. The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model served as the
theoretical framework for this study by focusing on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors related to implementing SWPBIS among the nine district high schools. Purposeful
sampling was used to recruit one administrator from each school site, seven assistant principals,
and two principals in total, who were interviewed as a part of this study. This chapter has been
organized to present information as follows: summary of findings; implications for practice
(recommendations); future research; and conclusions.
Findings
Two research questions guided this study, and both focused on the implementation of
Schoolwide PBIS to reduce student suspensions. The first question examined the knowledge and
motivation of site administrators, while the second question investigated the organizational
features that hindered or supported administrators in their efforts. Findings have been positioned
into their respective knowledge, motivation, organizational sections, along with an additional
section dedicated to the limitations of this study.
Knowledge Findings
One hundred percent of administrators were able to define school suspensions as
presented in the literature (Hoffman, 2014; Skiba, 2014). While they did not reference

73
suspension rates at their school sites, they did address and share knowledge of specific laws
found in the literature review, such as education codes for student suspension. The data
suggested that administrators possessed general knowledge about suspensions, but they needed
more knowledge about their own suspension rates and the role of SWPBIS in reducing
suspensions.
The literature highlighted disproportionate suspension rates of students based on various
demographics and school policies, including race, special education status, and zero tolerance
policies (Hoffman, 2014). This data trend was also represented in the California School
Dashboard for Santa Rosa Unified School District (California School Dashboard, 2018).
However, 78% of participants were unable to identify any specific groups that were more
directly impacted by suspensions at their school sites. The remaining 22% of administrators
discussed trends with specific student populations as well as the history of how the district had
shifted from zero tolerance to its current procedures, suggesting a need for more knowledge in
this area.
Knowledge of a three-tiered PBIS, as highlighted in the literature review section, was
needed for administrators to implement PBIS schoolwide. While all respondents were able to
talk about various aspects of PBIS, and some spoke of universal supports, only 45% of
participants were able to relate their knowledge to the three-tiered SWPBIS intervention system
that currently existed at each of their school sites. This data suggested that more knowledge was
needed about how to implement a schoolwide intervention system, along with greater knowledge
about the actions and procedures. While administrators were generally able to express
knowledge about universal Tier 1 interventions and intensive Tier 3 interventions, positive
behavior reinforcement systems and behavioral intervention plans, respectively, only three

74
administrators provided knowledge about Tier 2 interventions, which further highlighted this
need.
Of the nine respondents, two administrators were able to demonstrate knowledge of the
processes and procedures needed to implement PBIS schoolwide, outlined in the literature
review section of this paper. The remaining 78% of respondents focused on barriers related to
schoolwide implementation. The results suggested that SRUSD administrators needed
knowledge about how to implement PBIS schoolwide, how to ensure all levels of the tiered
system were implemented, and knowledge of how to ensure continued program growth and
progress.
Motivation Findings
Interview data revealed that 100% of administrators had implemented some level of
PBIS, though not always schoolwide, still suggesting that they were motivated and had made
active choices. Only 33% of participants expressed positive attributions related to what
administrators could control through their own efforts and actions. The other 67% expressed
negative attributions focused on inability and external factors. These findings suggested a need
for increased motivation connecting effort to positive outcomes.
Expectancy value theory (EVT) was a second motivational theory used to analyze
administrators’ responses and motivation to implement SWPBIS. Of the participants, 33% spoke
of how they valued SWPBIS, which suggested that this was an area of growth for SRUSD. The
gaps in administrators’ needs emerged when they described how well they expected to do at
implementing these interventions. Positive performance expectations were expressed by the
same 33% of administrators, while the remaining 67% had a negative perception, suggesting a
need for increased motivation in this area.

75
Organizational Findings
Performance goal accountability and cultural resistance were two cultural models that
related to this study and were presented in the literature review. Forty-five percent of
administrators talked about meeting SRUSD’s goal of three-tiered SWPBIS in every school site
and the Tiered Fidelity Index, which measures their progress toward this goal. This group also
identified that a culture of resistance was created as a result of the manner in which SWPBIS was
introduced by the district, and the administrators interviewed felt this played a significant role in
the possibility of successful site implementation.
The literature also highlighted the important role cultural settings play in creating
organizational change (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001). A dedicated PBIS coach and dedicated
PBIS funding were two organizational practices that supported or hindered SRUSD
administrators in their implementation. The variation among school sites and their practices
suggested a need for review of best practices and support for those sites that have had less
success in both of these areas. Additionally, 67% of administrators shared that a lack of value for
SWPBIS was consistently hindering their own ability to implement SWPBIS. While they shared
various reasons for this, the cultural setting was consistent with the culture of resistance that they
spoke about in depth.
Organizational resources were outlined in the literature review and conceptual framework
and discussed during interviews. Fifty-five percent of administrators were unable to identify how
PBIS needs were funded, while only three of nine respondents were able to identify a dedicated
staff member for this work. All administrators shared that they are asked to provide the name of
a PBIS coach to the district office, but that position is rotating and depending on the year, it may
not be adequately filled. The majority of administrators identified the following two needs: a

76
dedicated person to support SWPBIS and dedicated funding. Of these two needs, three sites
shared that they have these in place, but the cost associated with them is covered by their own
site. Five administrators shared that they felt as though these costs should be allocated to them
from the district office, as this program is one that the district wants to see at all sites. Therefore,
the two primary organizational resources needed were a dedicated SWPBIS staff member and
dedicated funding for program implementation.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study pointed to implications for practice, or recommendations,
for SRUSD. While the implications for practice could potentially benefit other school districts,
they were intended to specifically address suspension reduction through SWPBIS
implementation in SRUSD. Recommendations resulted from the knowledge and motivation
needs of school site administrators to implement SWPBIS, along with the organizational features
that supported them in this work. Therefore, this section was organized by knowledge,
motivation, and organizational recommendations and based on the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
model.
Knowledge Recommendations
The literature review section and conceptual framework for this study highlighted the
knowledge that school site administrators needed to implement SWPBIS. All knowledge
influences related to declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
These knowledge influences included: knowledge of suspension trends and patterns; knowledge
of the causes and uses of suspensions; and knowledge of Schoolwide PBIS as a way to reduce
suspensions. These knowledge influences are directly related to the knowledge recommendations
presented in this section.

77
Provide PBIS Playbook to all school sites
Administrators need consistent, differentiated, and annualized training in how SWPBIS is
correlated with reducing negative behaviors and school suspensions. Six of nine of respondents
were unable to identify the relationship between SWPBIS and suspension reduction. Therefore,
the recommendation is that SRUSD can increase administrator knowledge related to suspension
reduction through SWPBIS, through the creation of a PBIS playbook.
The PBIS playbook will be a site-specific resource guide created by the district support
office in Pupil Support Services. These staff currently provide data on school suspensions as
well as offer support for PBIS implementation. At the beginning of each school year prior to
student return, administrators will be provided their PBIS playbook which will include: an
overview of the three-tiered program; its efficacy when implemented schoolwide; a review of the
past year’s suspension data for their sites; a listing of behaviors most often referred for
discipline; and site-specific tiered interventions based on their office referrals. This playbook
will be reviewed with all site administrators, as well as the site PBIS coach to actively address
areas of concern.
Through the support of district staff, school site administrators will be provided with
feasible steps to address the negative behaviors through tiered supports. While each site may
require differentiated support, the role of district staff should be to provide these site
administrators with detailed and specific action items as part of the playbook.
The focus of these data provided in the PBIS playbook will be site-specific suspension
and referral data and demographic trends in suspensions. The PBIS coach assigned to the school
will also provide an overview of the various tiered supports available for populations with
specific needs and ensure that administrators feel that the interventions established meet the

78
needs and goals of the school site. As behaviors change year to year, it is important that the staff
have an updated training to address changes. Different behaviors may require different
interventions and making this an annually updated resource is important. Therefore,
administrators need tangible tools to better understand the use of SWPBIS to reduce over-
reliance on suspensions, and the knowledge gap that was demonstrated can be addressed through
a PBIS playbook.
Administrators Need Differentiated Training on SWPBIS
Resistance to SWPBIS was a common theme that emerged with the most experienced
staff who felt SWPBIS was not introduced in a positive way. Their shared reluctance grew from
what they shared as a “poor rollout” of the SWPBIS program. Many administrators additionally
shared they lacked knowledge around how SWPBIS would benefit their schools as well as
autonomy to implement the program in a way best suited for their communities. Therefore, the
recommendation is for differentiated professional development that allows each staff member to
be met at their current level of understanding surrounding SWPBIS and its impact of student
suspension. Two of nine participants were able to identify how SWPBIS could reduce student
suspension. Data were not tracked to determine which participants could more specifically
identify the tiered supports of SWPBIS, but the majority of respondents did not address the issue.
It is important for administrators to understand how SWPBIS can reduce student suspensions
because of their authority related to implementation and enforcement. For example, SWPBIS and
universal tier 1 supports were outlined in the literature review and have been shown to reduce the
number of suspendable behaviors and greatly increase positive school culture, both of which are
goals of the district LCAP. (Chin et al, 2011; SRUSD LCAP, 2019). District personnel generally
provide training, but as seen in the interviews, the level of knowledge varied among

79
administrators. As a result, knowledgeable principals, such as Dennis and Charles, could be
utilized to help provide this training to other administrators so that they can have a differentiated
approach, and learn from their peers. As the research shows, regardless of knowledge of
SWPBIS, all administrators were motivated to use suspensions sparingly. Therefore, it is
necessary that the district works to strengthen this motivation by closing the knowledge gap.
Motivation Recommendations
Like knowledge recommendations, motivation recommendations also resulted from this
study. The literature review and conceptual framework pointed to the following two motivational
theories that could assist school site administrators in implementing SWPBIS for reducing
suspensions: self-efficacy and EVT. The recommendations were designed to increase motivation
based on each of these two theories.
SRUSD site administrators would benefit from an increase in self-efficacy. For SRUSD’s
administrators, positive and negative observations and experiences relating to SWPBIS
connected to whether or not they felt that they could effectively implement this system. The lack
of knowledge, as previously discussed, directly impacted the feelings of site administrators to be
successful. As presented in the findings section, 56% of administrators expressed negative
feelings related to their own abilities to implement SWPBIS. To directly increase site
administrators’ motivation, it is recommended that administrators have time dedicated for
workshops to review office referral and suspension data during the monthly district management
meetings. During this time, site administrators would have the opportunity to discuss with their
peers the various challenges or successes they are experiencing in regards to SWPBIS. As
Bandura writes, self-efficacy is increased when individuals feel they will have what it takes to be
successful, and in the face of adversity, the skills and knowledge to persist (Bandura, 1977).

80
Based on the interview findings, 66% of site administrators felt that the disconnect
between district administrators and site administrators was a factor that influenced their
motivation to implement SWPBIS. Consistently, it was shared that administrators who do not
work in schools, but who lead professional development, are disconnected from the daily
ongoings of school site administrators. Competing interests, lack of knowledge, and lack of time
were all influences shared that impacted self-efficacy. Therefore, it is recommended that these
meetings be focused on site administrators working together to increase motivation through
sharing their experiences and working with other site administrators who have a similar daily
experience.
Similar to self-efficacy, EVT could be used to increase expectancy outcomes for
SRUSD’s administrators. The two main components of EVT relate to how motivation increases
when one values a task and expects to do well on that task (Wigfield et al., 2018). As detailed in
the fourth chapter, 67% of administrators did not see the value of SWPBIS, while only 33% of
administrators expected to reach the desired outcome when implementing these interventions.
These respondents, however, did consistently share about a culture of resistance that grew as a
result of the way that SWPBIS was initially introduced to the school district over ten years ago.
SRUSD could increase expectancy among administrators by creating professional
learning communities where those who have been successful with SWPBIS implementation
could share their expertise with other site administrators. The most consistent sentiment shared
by site administrators interviewed was that district administrators are disconnected from the site
experience. The culture of resistance that flourished because of this top-down approach connects
to what site administrators expect out of SWPBIS. The expectancy value is low because the site
administrators do not believe that the district administrators who are requiring program

81
implementation have any actual experience doing the work. Therefore, it is recommended that
successful school site administrators lead the workshops so that those resistant to SWPBIS have
an opportunity to hear from their site peers. Additionally, increasing expectancy outcomes could
be tied to the knowledge recommendation to provide training and support for understanding the
relationships between SWPBIS and suspension reduction.
Organizational Recommendations
The literature review section and conceptual framework explained that organizations are
influenced by the two elements of culture models and cultural settings. The findings of this study
generated one cultural model recommendation related to increasing organizational support,
modeling and resources through a SWPBIS demonstration school: and lastly, one cultural setting
recommendation of a dedicated full-time district provided SWPBIS coach and budget at each
school site.
Creating a SWPBIS Demonstration School
SRUSD can improve organizational culture and outcomes by increasing support and
modeling of SWPBIS. As explained in both Chapter 4 and the findings section, six of nine
administrators expressed negative experiences and resistance to change that impacted their
knowledge and motivation to implement SWPBIS. One way to address the concern that site
administrators felt as though their supervisors were disconnected from the work associated with
SWPBIS implementation and practice would be the creation of a SWPBIS demonstration school.
Following the example of AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination)
demonstration schools, it is recommended that SRUSD work to create a district high school site
where SWPBIS is an exemplar of what all other district sites should be working to achieve.
AVID demonstration schools offer a schoolwide approach to college readiness, and show

82
evidence of student achievement schoolwide, a commitment to leadership and modeling AVID
best practices, teacher training and dedicated staff for successful implementation. This
schoolwide approach to implementation is the type of model that a PBIS demonstration school
would also need.
This demonstration school should be a place that site administrators and teaching staff
can visit and tour to observe how three-tiered SWPBIS looks in action, and one that offers
tangible examples of how to reach this level of PBIS rigor schoolwide. In order to be selected to
be a PBIS demonstration site, the school would have to submit evidence to the district office on
an annual basis that shows a history of Tier 1–3 interventions, a reduction in daily office
referrals, a reduction in student suspensions and teacher training information. Through this
process, district administrators would have the opportunity to experience implementation hands-
on, enabling them to speak from a different area of expertise and work to break down barriers
between themselves and site administrators.
District-Provided PBIS Coach and Budget
The findings of this study highlighted the need for a district provided SWPBIS coach and
budget. Currently, the district practice is for individual school sites to find a person who is
willing to take on the role of PBIS coach and spend one prep period per day in that role (at the
cost of the school). Unlike academic coaches for the school district, the PBIS coach is found and
funded by the school site and then sent to district training. Of the respondents, six of nine felt as
though a dedicated coach funded by the district was necessary for success, and the
recommendation therefore is for a dedicated position at each site for a district trained PBIS
coach.

83
Academic coaches are provided to district sites that are in need of extra subject support
based on data such as test scores and college preparedness (A–G completion). They are also paid
for by the district and not the school site. In a similar manner, the recommendation is that a
designated coach be sent to district sites that do not have PBIS implemented schoolwide. The
difference between the current practice and the recommendation is the full-time status of the
coach, the funding for this role, as well as how the coach is selected.
Based on the tiered fidelity index that is currently used for performance goal
accountability, the PBIS coach would be a funded full-time position that uses the data to move
forward with implementation based on the individualized school needs. The full-time status of
this coach would allow them to work on schoolwide systems as well as classroom support for
individual teachers.
As a goal outlined in the Local Control Accountability Plan (2021–22 LCAP Service
Codes, SRUSD), ensuring SWPBIS is in place in all district schools supports the
recommendation that a funded and dedicated coach should be assigned to every school site in the
district. As the site administrators shared, when the role of PBIS coach is to be filled by a staff
member who is also teaching, the availability of that job depends on the teaching schedule of
staff from year to year. To eliminate this issue, a dedicated coach who is trained by the district
and can lead SWPBIS implementation is needed. Training provided to district coaches would
focus on tiered supports, programs applicable to specific school sites based on daily office
referrals and working to ensure implementation with fidelity across the campus. The academic
coach model offers a starting point for how to support individual sites with district-wide goals of
SWPBIS and reducing suspensions for all students.

84
Future Research
This study resulted in findings to support SWPBIS implementation to support student
suspension in SRUSD and connected to a broader body of research related to the issue of
increased student suspensions throughout California’s K-12 public schools. As a result, future
research topics could increase understanding about how SWPBIS reduces suspensions and the
interventions that effectively improve student behavior. The following future research topic
offered for consideration included KMO factors related to teachers building positive
relationships with students and the connection to suspension reduction. Additionally, future
research that focuses more specifically on the marginalized communities within SRUSD is
needed.
Teacher Role in SWPBIS
While this study pointed to many factors that hinder or support SWPBIS implementation,
one of the recurring themes based on administrator interviews was the role of the teacher in
building positive relationships with students. Although many of the administrators did not refer
to this practice as PBIS, they discussed how the way students are treated daily by their teachers
impacts their behaviors. This study, however, was limited to site administrators and not teachers
in SRUSD. As a result, future research would study the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors of high school teachers throughout California in supporting the
implementation of SWPBIS to reduce suspensions. The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model
would again be appropriate for studying teachers in this regard.
Suspensions of Marginalized Groups
As highlighted in the literature review, disproportionate suspension outcomes for various
student groups continues to be an issue, nationwide and within SRUSD. This study focused on

85
the implementation of SWPBIS to reduce suspensions for all students; future research on how
special education and other underrepresented student populations are affected by suspensions
within the district is necessary.
The Role of District Support in Implementing Change at School Sites
The role of district leaders and the support that they provide to school sites would be an
area for future research both within SRUSD and throughout California’s public schools. This
research study examined site administrators and their implementation of SWPBIS. Within
SRUSD, certificated managers are also represented at district level, including executive
management personnel such as assistant superintendents and a designated superintendent. These
leaders also play a role in attendance. Examples of this include knowledge imparted through
training; motivation provided through evaluation, coaching, and feedback; and organizational
resources such as staff, budget and materials, which would all be allocated to principals and
assistant principals through district management. Additionally, within SRUSD, a system needs to
be in place to evaluate SWPBIS implementation.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among SRUSD’s site
administrators and recommend solutions so that they could better implement Schoolwide
Positive Behavior and Interventions and Supports to reduce high school student suspensions.
Numerous implications for practice related to KMO gaps were identified as follows:
● Provide administrators with training in how SWPBIS reduces suspensions
● Provide training led by site administrators with SWPBIS successes
● Provide high schools with a district funded PBIS coach
● Increase self-efficacy and expectancy outcomes for administrators

86
● Create a district SWPBIS demonstration school for modeling the desired outcomes.
Furthermore, the recommendation for future research included the role of teachers in building
positive relationships with students to help reduce suspensions.
While this study focused on high school site administrators, its true focus was on making
school a more equitable, successful, and enjoyable place for all students. SRUSD has a
responsibility to ensure that they are working as diligently toward their stated goals as they
expect students to be working toward graduation and future success. Through these
recommendations, the goal is to create a space where students all have the opportunity to succeed
at the highest level.

87
References
Achilles, G., McLaughlin, M., & Croninger, R. (2016). Sociocultural Correlates of Disciplinary
Exclusion Among Students with Emotional, Behavioral, and Learning Disabilities in the
SEELS National Dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 33–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150010401
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance
policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. The
American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.852
Aronson, Brittnay & Laughter, J. (2019). The theory and practice of culturally relevant
education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research,
86(1):163–206. https://doi:10.3102/0034654315582066
Bottiani, J., Bradshaw, C., & Mendelson, T. (2014). Promoting an equitable and supportive
school climate in high schools: The role of school organizational health and staff burnout.
Journal of School Psychology, 52(6), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.09.003
Bowman-Perrott, L., Benz, M., Hsu, H., Kwok, O., Eisterhold, L., & Zhang, D. (2013). Patterns
and predictors of disciplinary exclusion over time: An analysis of the SEELS National
Data Set. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611407501
Bradshaw, C., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K., & Leaf, P. (2008). Implementation of
schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools:
Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0025

88
Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798
Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Thornton, L., Leaf, P., & Bradshaw, C. (2009). Altering school climate
through schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports: findings from a
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the
Society for Prevention Research, 10(2), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-
0114-9
Brown, G. T., Peterson, E. R., & Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on

self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 86(4), 606–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126

California Department of Education https://www.cde.ca.gov
California School Dashboard https://www.caschooldashboard.org
Capatosto, K. (2015). School discipline policy: Updates, insights, and future directions [Policy
brief]. Kirwan Institute. http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/ki-
interventions2015-02.pdf
Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives.
Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872–892.
Chin, J., Dowdy, E., Jimerson, S., & Rime, W. (2012). Alternatives to suspensions: Rationale
and recommendations. Journal of School Violence: Designing School Contexts in
Support of Proactive Discipline: Applications to School Violence, 11(2), 156–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

89
Christie, C., Nelson C. M., & Jolivette. K. (2004). School characteristics related to the use of
suspension. Education & Treatment of Children, 27(4), 509–526.
Civil Rights Project. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-
discipline/the-unequal-impact-of-suspension-on-the-opportunity-to-learn-in-ca
Clark, R. (1997). Metacognition and human performance improvement originally published in
1988, PIQ 1.1. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(1), 20–33.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1997.tb00028.x
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Cruz, R., & Rodl, J. (2018). Crime and punishment: An examination of school context and
student characteristics that predict out-of-school suspension. (Report). Children and
Youth Services Review, 95, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.007
Daniel L. Duke. (1981). School discipline policy in the 1980s: A consideration of options,
illusions, and dreams. The Education Digest, 46(6), 6–20.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-betweenstandards-and-
achievement

90
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline.
(Report). The Future of Children, 27(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0006
Gregory, A., Skiba, R., & Mediratta, K. (2017). Eliminating disparities in school discipline: A
framework for intervention. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 253–278.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690499
Haft, W. (2000). More than zero: the cost of zero tolerance and the case for restorative justice in
schools. Denver University Law Review, 77(4).
Hoffman, S. (2014). Zero benefit: estimating the effect of zero tolerance discipline policies on
racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy, 28(1), 69–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812453999
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2015). Schoolwide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis
implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 80–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4
James, A., Noltemeyer, A., Ritchie, R., Palmer, K., & University, M. (2019). Longitudinal
disciplinary and achievement outcomes associated with school‐wide PBIS
implementation level. Psychology in the Schools, 56(9), 1512–1521.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22282
Kafka, Judith. (2011). The history of “zero tolerance” in American public schooling. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001962

91
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Losen, D.J. & Martin, K. (2018). The unequal impact of suspension on the opportunity to learn
in California: What the 2016–2017 rates tell us about progress. Civil Rights
Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, Center for Civil Rights Remedies.
Luiselli, J., Putnam, R., Handler, M., & Feinberg, A. (2010). Whole‐school positive behaviour
support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational
Psychology (Dorchester-on-Thames), 25(2–3), 183–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000301265
Martinez, A., Mcmahon, S., & Treger, S. (2016). Individual- and school-level predictors of
student office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
24(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426615588289
Mendez, L., Knoff, H., & Ferron, J. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school
suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse
school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10020
Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
Mukuria, G. (2002). Disciplinary challenges: How do principals address this dilemma? Urban
Education, 37(3), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/00485902037003007

92
National Summit on Zero Tolerance. (2000). National Summit on Zero Tolerance report:
Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school
discipline policies. (Washington, DC, June 15–16, 2000).
Noguera, P. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school
violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189–213.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.65.2.e4615g5374044q28
Okonofua, J., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic
discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 113(19), 5221–5226.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113
Onwuegbuzie, L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining
quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447
Petras, H., Buckley, J., Ialongo, N., Masyn, K., & Kellam, S. (2011). Who is most at risk for
school removal? A multilevel discrete-time survival analysis of individual- and context-
level influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 223–237.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021545
Raudenbush, S., & Willms, J. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational
Statistics, 20(4), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986020004307
Rocque, M. (n.d.). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American Journal
of Education, 116(4), 557–581. https://doi.org/10.1086/653629

93
Rosenbaum, J. (2020). Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school
suspension. Youth & Society, 52(4), 515–547.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17752208
SRUSD Local Control Accountability Plan goals, 2020. https://www.sausd.us/Page/41645
Skiba, R. (2013). Reaching a critical juncture for our kids: The need to reassess school-justice
practices. Family Court Review, 51(3), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12034
Skiba, Russell J . (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 22(4),
27–38.
Skiba, R., Chung, C., Trachok, M., Baker, T., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. (2014). Parsing
disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school
characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational
Research Journal, 51(4), 640–670. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214541670
Skiba, R., Horner, R., Chung, C., Rausch, M., May, S., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral:
A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school
discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/860230091/
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4),
317–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372
Skiba, R., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006).
Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities
across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200402

94
Sughrue, J. (2003). Zero Tolerance for children: Two wrongs do not make a right. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03251154
Sullivan, A., Klingbeil, D., & Van Norman, E. (2013). Beyond behavior: Multilevel analysis of
the influence of sociodemographics and school characteristics on students’ risk of
suspension. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 99–114.
Sullivan, A., Van Norman, E., & Klingbeil, D. (2014). Exclusionary discipline of students with
disabilities: Student and school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and
Special Education, 35(4), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513519825
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2016). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Tinker vs. Demoines https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503
Vincent, C., Sprague, J., & Tobin, T. (2012). Exclusionary discipline practices across students’
racial/ethnic backgrounds and disability status: Findings from the Pacific Northwest.
Education & Treatment of Children, 35(4), 585–601.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0025
Vincent, C., & Tobin, T. (2011). The relationship between implementation of schoolwide
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426610377329
Wasser, J. (1999). Note: Zeroing in on zero tolerance. Journal of Law & Politics, 15, 747–779.
Weinig, Kenneth M. . (2000). The 10 worst educational disasters of the 20th century: A
traditionalist’s list. Education Week, 19(40), 31–43.

95
Welsh, R., & Little, S. (2018). The school discipline dilemma: A comprehensive review of
disparities and alternative approaches. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 752–794.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791582
Yang, J., & Anyon, Y. (2016). Race and risk behaviors: The mediating role of school bonding.
Children and Youth Services Review, 69, 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.019

96
Appendix A: Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of principal and assistant principals related to
implementing schoolwide PBIS in order to reduce school suspensions?
2. To what extent do SRUSD’s organizational culture, resources, and practices support or
hinder the administration's implementation of schoolwide PBIS?
Protocol
1. Share with me your name, your role, and your relationship to site discipline?
2. Share with me what you know about school suspension rates at your school? (RQ1—
knowledge: declarative)
3. According to the district Data Wall, what percentage of students are suspended? (RQ1—
knowledge: declarative)
4. What student population is most directly affected by suspensions? (RQ1—knowledge:
declarative)
5. How often do you think about student suspension rates? What do you usually think about
them? (RQ1—knowledge: metacognitive)
6. Describe your school’s overall approach to discipline. To what degree would you say you
are using PBIS?
7. In your own words, how would you describe PBIS? How would you explain it to
someone who doesn’t know what it is? What about alternatives to suspension?
8. Describe what you think schoolwide PBIS would look like? (RQ1—knowledge;
procedural)

97
9. How should PBIS be implemented? What are the steps to implementation? How does it
take place exactly?
10. To what extent do you believe that schoolwide implementation of PBIS does or could
impact student suspension rates? (RQ1—motivation: value)
11. To what degree would you say you have implemented PBIS with fidelity at your school?
12. Tell me about the employees at your site that play a key role in the implementation of
schoolwide PBIS? (RQ1 & 2—knowledge: procedural; organizational: resources)
13. Overall, how confident are you in your ability to personally continue to implement PBIS?
(RQ1motivation: self-efficacy)
14. How confident are you in the ability of your school team to implement PBIS (RQ_—
motivation: self-efficacy)
15. What type of support have you received to date from the district to implement PBIS?
16. What additional resources or technical assistance might you need to implement PBIS?
(RQ2 organization: culture)
17. What are your own school’s goals with respect to PBIS? What about the district’s goals
for PBIS? How does the district hold sites accountable for their PBIS implementation?
(RQ2—organization: performance goal accountability)
18. How would you measure successful implementation of schoolwide PBIS? (RQ1—
knowledge; metacognitive)
19. In what way do you think other stakeholders, like parents and teachers, might support
schoolwide PBIS implementation? (RQ2—organization: resources)
20. What challenges have you encountered with implementing schoolwide PBIS? (RQ2—
organization; resources)

98
21. What additional supports would you need to implement schoolwide PBIS? (RQ2—
organization; resources)
22. Is there anything else you would like to add? (RQ1 & 2—KMO)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The implementation of a positive behavior intervention and support plan to reduce suspension rates in a school district

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study

PDF

All hands on deck! Collective impact for systemic change

PDF

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

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

The impact of culturally responsive teaching on the suspension rate of African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

E-commerce marketing strategies: targeting online consumer markets

Asset Metadata

Creator Mones, Cristina Ridgeley (author)

Core Title Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 09/21/2021

Defense Date 09/09/2021

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

Tag educational code,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,PBIS,Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,suspension rates,suspensions,SWPBIS

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney L. (committee chair), Robles, Darline (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email cmones@usc.edu,cristinarmones@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15921164

Unique identifier UC15921164

Legacy Identifier etd-MonesCrist-10085

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mones, Cristina Ridgeley

Type texts

Source 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