- Read the following sections of “Using Teacher-Written Praise Notes to Promote a Positive Environment in a Middle School”: the Abstract, Introduction, Participants and Setting, Procedure, Measures (paragraph 1 only), Data Analysis (paragraph 1 only), Results (paragraph 1 only), and Discussion (paragraphs 1 and 2 only). see attachments
- APA style
- This assignment requires that at least four additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.
In an essay (500 words), use the scenario presented above to answer the following questions:
- What statistical test was used in “Using Teacher-Written Praise Notes to Promote a Positive Environment in a Middle School?”
- Did the authors use the correct statistical test? In other words, what was their rationale for using this test (i.e., were the variables discrete or continuous and was the test appropriate for this type of data?)
- What was the research question? How did the statistical test address and answer the research question?
- How did the authors interpret the results of this study?
Read the following sections of “Using Teacher-Written Praise Notes to Promote a Positive Environment in a Middle School”: the Abstract, Introduction, Participants and Setting, Procedure, Measures (par
Using Teacher-Written Praise Notes to Promote a Positive Environment in a Middle School Julie A. Peterson Nelson, Benjamin J. Young, Ellie L. Young, and Gregory Cox ABSTRACT: Teachers in 1 middle school learned about the positive effects of writing praise notes to students, which is 1 component of a positive behavior support. The authors intended for this pro- cedure to promote a positive school environment and reinforce the appropriate use of social skills. Also, the authors instructed the teachers to use a direct instruction model to teach social skills lessons during 1st-period classes and praise students when they effectively demonstrated these skills. The authors analyzed the data to determine whether students receiving praise notes were less likely to receive an office discipline referral (ODR). The data revealed a significant negative correlation between the number of praise notes and number of ODRs that students received, indicat- ing that as praise notes increased, the rate of ODRs decreased. The authors provide several hypotheses for this relation. KEYWORDS: positive behavior support, praise, schoolwide inter- vention, teacher-written praise EFFECTIVE SCHOOLWIDE MANAGEMENT of disrup- tive behaviors is an ongoing national concern (Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Scott, 2001; Turnbull et al., 2002). School vio- lence, discipline, and safety have been among the top con- cerns for U.S. educators (American Federation of Teachers, 1995–1996; Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1995, 2005). When addressing students with problem behaviors, many schools continue to rely on puni- tive strategies (e.g., office or administrative disciplinary interventions, suspensions, expulsions) that do little to cre- ate a safe and positive educational environment (Lewis & Garrison-Harrell, 1999). These types of interventions tend to be reactionary rather than preventive and proactive. In addition, these types of responses do little to teach new behaviors or to increase the likelihood that positive replacement behaviors would be used in the future (Knoff, 2003). Punitive disciplinary measures can certainly be one approach to behavior management, but if punishment is the only approach used, student behaviors are unlikely to change over the long term. When administrators and other school adults intentionally seek opportunities to build and strengthen adult–youth relationships, they may actually be decreasing the likelihood that students will act out in the future (Young, Black, Marchant, Mitchem, & West, 2000). To meet educational goals, educators must do more than merely prevent antisocial behaviors; they must increase proso- cial behaviors (Winette & Winkler, 1972). Unfortunately, schools in the United States continue to encourage punish- ment for problem behaviors (Noguera, 2003), which, in the absence of a positive schoolwide system of support, has been associated with increased aggression, vandalism, tardiness, truancy, and dropouts (Mayer & Sulzer-Azeroff, 1991). Other researchers have suggested that reinforcing positive behaviors rather than punishing inappropriate behaviors is an effective behavior-management system (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Hence, creating a positive school environment requires emphasizing preventive and positive measures rather than punitive procedures (Mitchem, Young, & West, 2000). Research has empirically shown that one effective positive behavior-management strategy is teacher praise (Lewis & Bullock, 2004). Other research has identified a functional relation between teacher praise and student behavior. Spe- cifically, when teachers praise appropriate behavior, dis- ruptive behavior decreases (Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968). Further research has shown that praise deliv- ered appropriately increases students’ on-task behavior (Ferguson & Houghton, 1992), classroom motivation (Thomas, 1991), and academic success (Sutherland & 119 This study was funded in part by U.S. Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H324C030124. Benjamin J. Young and Ellie L. Young contributed equally to this article. Address correspondence to Julie A. Peterson Nelson, Psychol- ogy Department, 1030 SWKT Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, [email protected] Copyright © 2010 Heldref Publications 120 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2 Wehby, 2001). In addition, praise has been widely recom- mended as effective in providing encouragement to the student, building self-esteem, and promoting closer rela- tionships between teachers and students (Brophy, 1981). Teacher praise appears to have several meaningful out- comes that contribute to increased positive behaviors. How- ever, few researchers have explored the use of written praise, especially as it relates to students’ use of social skills. In addition, the connection between written praise and a decrease in negative behaviors that lead to office disciplinary action has not been explored, especially among early adolescent youth. Hence, this article addresses how a specific positive behavioral intervention (i.e., written teacher praise) can be a useful strategy for junior high or middle school teachers and administrators to improve the school climate, possibly influencing problem behaviors and lowering rates of office disciplinary referrals (ODRs). Positive Behavior Support (PBS) PBS has been widely adopted to create positive behav- ioral expectations, teach appropriate behaviors, and man- age problem behaviors (Scott, 2001), and its use for affecting students’ behaviors and school climate is well documented (Sugai, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker et al., 1996). PBS is a team-based system designed to facilitate student success by using evidence-based inter- ventions and preventive strategies at a schoolwide, class- room, or individual level. The PBS model creates positive behavioral expectations for students, makes these positive expectations explicit, and communicates them widely. For example, students recognize and can articulate the expecta- tion that, while at school, they must behave in a respectful, safe, and caring way. This positive expectation is empha- sized in schoolwide efforts rather than on the behaviors that students should not do. The behaviors are explicitly taught through direct instruction of social skills (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). Direct instruction of social skills teaches students the behavioral expectations of the school community. Just as a student could be expected to successfully complete a long division math problem only after specific and directed instruction in long division, students who have had direct instruction in social skills are more likely to enact those skills, thereby meeting the expectations of the adults in the school. When the student displays the newly learned social skill, peers and adults should respond positively, thereby reinforcing the desirable behavior (Gresham, 1998; Lewis, Chard, & Scott, 1994; Lewis & Sugai, 1996; Lipsey, 1991; Mayer, 1995; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Sugai & Lewis, 1996; Walker et al., 1996). Teacher praise should be coupled with social skills training to reinforce such skills by specifically praising the students for their positive behavior, thus increasing the possibility of the students’ using the skill in the future. Understanding how written praise notes may influence disruptive behav- iors, as measured by ODR, would add to the understanding of effective components of the PBS model. ODR ODRs have historically been used as an index of student behavior for guiding and developing schoolwide programs and interventions (Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Sugai, Sprague, Homer, & Walker, 2000; Tobin & Sugai, 1999; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996, 2000). The following three purposes for using ODR data have been identified: (a) as a guide in the development or selection of specific environmentally appropriate interventions (e.g., if a sig- nificant number of ODRs are being written for disruptive lunchroom behavior, interventions need to focus on teach- ing positive behaviors in the lunchroom), (b) as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, and (c) as a screening procedure to identify students who may benefit from targeted interventions (Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, & Currin, 2002). ODR data continue to have practical and empirical uses. On a practical level, ODRs are used to manage and monitor students with problematic behaviors. These data are easily obtained and monitored in most schools. ODRs can also be used to consider progress toward solving situational concerns (e.g., disruptive lunchroom behav- ior). On an empirical level, ODRs have been related to poor student outcomes such as school failure and juvenile delinquency (Shinn, Ramsey, Walker, Stieber, & O’Neill, 1987; Sprague et al., 2001; Tobin & Sugai, 1999; Walker, Shinn, O’Neill, & Ramsey, 1987; Walker & Stieber, 1998; Walker, Stieber, Ramsey, & O’Neill, 1990). However, other research has indicated that ODR data for individual students have been much less predictive of poor outcomes than teacher ratings or direct observation (Walker et al., 1990) and that a teacher’s use of such data may be influ- enced by a variety of variables such as classroom manage- ment, discipline policies, and teacher tolerance (Sugai et al., 2000; Wright & Dusek, 1998). Additional research has compared ODR data with teachers’ ratings on the Teacher Report Form (Auchenbach, 1991) and found that the use of ODR records failed to identify many students whom teachers rated as meeting borderline or clinical cut- off scores for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (Nelson et al., 2002). Although the use of ODR records is one way of mea- suring outcomes of schoolwide PBS interventions, these records measure negative and ineffective behaviors rather than positive replacement behaviors that are being taught and reinforced. Creating a way to measure the socially appropriate behaviors of youth as they demonstrate their mastery of social skills and other positive behaviors could Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 121 be a meaningful and important component of evaluating intervention outcomes. In addition, carefully reviewing praise note data (e.g., frequency, content, distribution) may be an alternative means of documenting progress toward PBS goals. Summary This descriptive research considered the use of praise notes to evaluate PBS-focused objectives. Specifically, we considered how instructing teachers about praise and then reinforcing teachers’ use of praise notes to students demonstrating competency with social skills would influ- ence ODRs. The use of written praise notes has not been adequately explored in the research literature, especially in the middle or junior high school setting. Method Participants and Setting Participants were 70 teachers (48 women, 22 men) and 1,809 sixth- and seventh-grade students (927 boys [51%], 882 girls [49%]; 86% Caucasian, 11% Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 1% Pacific Islander, African American, or Asian) at secondary schools in the western part of the United States. Approximately 39% of these students quali- fied for free or reduced-price lunch. This school was in the 3rd year of implementing a school- wide PBS model. A school planning committee—comprising school administration, selected teachers, and representatives from a local university—discussed concerns and devel- oped schoolwide goals. School faculty and staff members addressed these goals by providing social skills lessons, instructing students on expectations for their behavior, and agreeing to increase positive feedback to students. Procedure We instructed the teachers that during this study, which was conducted across 2 consecutive school years, they were to write praise notes to students whose behavior exempli- fied schoolwide PBS goals. At the beginning of the school year, as a part of a 2-day PBS training sequence, teachers were taught how to effectively praise students. Teachers were given blank praise notes with instructions on how to fill them out. Measures Praise notes were printed in triplicate on no-carbon- required paper. Students were given the original copy. Teachers turned in a copy for drawings and prizes; we used this copy for data analysis. Last, the third copy was given to parents during parent–teacher conferences. Praise note data (e.g., name of student, name of teacher, date, behav- ior for which the student was praised) were entered into a database. Fewer than 1% of notes were incomplete and therefore eliminated from the analyses. The names of students who had received praise notes were entered into a weekly drawing for a candy bar, and winners were recognized during morning announcements. Teachers were given neither incentives to write praise notes nor feedback regarding the notes they had written. During the first 7 months of the intervention, rates of notes writ- ten were somewhat low (0–2 praise notes per 100 students per day). To increase praise note rates, teachers were given reinforcements during the final 2 months of the school year and throughout the 9 months of the following school year. Teachers received gift certificates to local restaurants when they reached benchmark numbers of notes written (e.g., 25, 60, 100, 150). The requirements to earn gift certificates increased slightly during the 2nd year of the study because teachers exceeded goals from the previous year. The num- ber of praise notes written was reported to teachers, and praise notes were placed in a box for drawings for prizes during faculty meetings. Teachers were also given a list of students who had not received a praise note that year. Data Analysis We tracked students’ ODRs using a district-maintained database and collected teacher-written praise notes for the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 school years. Praise note and ODR data were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS statisti- cal analysis software (Version 15.0). The unit of analysis was number of praise notes written per day per 100 stu- dents. This measure allowed for all months to be compared equally despite differences in number of days per month. It was also consistent in the event of changes in student body size. The unit of analysis for ODRs was also number of ODRs written per 100 students per day. We used bivariate correlations to examine the relation between total praise notes written and number of ODRs for each month. In addition, data were analyzed separately for a subgroup of students who had received one or more ODRs to deter- mine whether students with ODRs received praise notes at the same rate as students without ODRs and to determine whether receiving praise notes influenced ODRs to students who had previously received one or more ODR. For these analyses, we divided the student body into two groups: (a) students who received at least one ODR during the study, and (b) students who did not receive any ODRs. Students who received praise were categorized similarly. Again, we used bivariate correlations to examine the relation between praise notes received and ODRs received among students in this subgroup. To test whether students who did not receive ODRs were praised more frequently than were students who received at least one ODR, we used a test for differ- ence between independent correlations. This procedure examines whether two correlations significantly differ. For 122 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2 this analysis, we converted each correlation coefficient into a Fischer’s z and ran a z test. Figure 1 shows the number of praise notes written per 100 students per day, and Figure 2 shows the number of ODRs written per day. Results Over the course of this 2-year study, 14,527 praise notes were written, and 2,143 ODRs were recorded (see Figures 1 and 2). There was a significant negative correlation between the total number of praise notes written to the student body and the number of ODRs for the student body (r .551, p .05), indicating that, as praise notes increased, ODR rates decreased. In addition, for the subgroup of students who received at least one ODR, there was a significant negative cor- relation between praise notes received and number of ODRs: As praise notes increased among students with at least one ODR, their rates of ODR decreased (r .553, p .05). Teachers wrote an average of 0.88 notes per day per 100 students during the first 7 months of the study. Praise notes written increased 672% to an average of 5.91 notes per day per 100 students for the remaining 2 months of the 1st year and the entire 9 months of the 2nd school year when incen- tives were given to teachers for writing praise notes. Further examination of the data revealed that 28.4% of all students received one or more ODRs during the study. Students with ODRs received 5.2 praise notes per day per 100 students, whereas students with no ODRs received 7.5 praise notes per day per 100 students. Although students with ODRs were praised slightly less than the rest of the student body, praise trends for students with ODRs were significantly correlated with praise trends for the rest of the student body, r .94, p .001. A test for difference between independent correlations indicated no statistical differences between praise trends for students with ODRs and praise trends for the rest of the student body, indicating that all stu- dents were praised at similar rates: z .02, p .05. Discussion The general aim of this study was to explore how teach- ers’ use of praise notes to students demonstrating compe- tency with social skills would influence ODRs. The results showed that praise notes and ODRs had a significant nega- tive correlation: As praise notes increased, rates of ODR decreased. Hence, the data provide some evidence that increasing teacher praise notes may have been influencing the decrease in ODRs. However, more closely controlled research is needed. As with any descriptive research, the results of this study should be considered as correlational—not causal—rela- tions. There are several variables that could have contrib- uted to a decrease in ODRs: Social skill instruction may have been a sufficient intervention to decrease ODRs. Also, ODRs may have decreased as administrators and teachers became more skilled in responding to behaviors that led to ODRs. It is also possible that in noticing and praising positive student behavior, teachers may have overlooked or become less focused on inappropriate behaviors. Although the cause of lower ODR rates cannot be determined by this descriptive study, it appears that teacher praise contingent upon the use of social skills had positive outcomes for stu- dents and for the overall school climate—reinforcing posi- tive behaviors and decreasing rates of ODR. Recommendations for Principals and Administrators We implemented this intervention to reach PBS goals and encourage the use of social skills. When several FIGURE 1. Average number of praise notes per day per 100 students, by month. Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 123 FIGURE 2. Average number of office disciplinary referrals per day for 100 students, by month. important strategies were in place, teachers’ use of praise notes increased. Teachers received specific and targeted instruction about praise at the beginning of the school year, including reminders that praise should be delivered sincerely and that praise notes should reinforce specific and directly communicated behavioral expectations. The effectiveness of praise notes would probably have more meaning and focus when integrated into a comprehensive PBS model. Toward the end of the school year, we reviewed the data with teachers and administrators, who were then encour- aged and reinforced for writing praise notes. Periodi- cally, teachers who had written praise notes had their names placed in a lottery for prizes to be given during faculty meetings. In addition, when teachers had written 25 praise notes, they were given a gift certificate to a local restaurant. Certificates to higher quality restaurants were given when the teacher had written 60, 100, and 150 praise notes. This monitoring and public reporting seems to have been vital to motivating and reinforcing teachers. Teachers were made aware of those students who had not yet received a praise note and were encouraged to watch for positive behaviors of students who had not been recognized. Some teachers expressed concerns that they were being encouraged to write notes to students with behavior prob- lems, whereas a few students with appropriate behaviors may have been overlooked. Other teachers opined that only exemplary students deserved the recognition. Additional training, combined with data, addressed these concerns and reminded teachers that the purpose of praise notes was to reinforce the use of social skills that were being taught weekly in the classrooms. Even students with behavior problems showed appropriate social skills at times, and it was appropriate to recognize their efforts. It is possible that the praise notes written to students with a history of behav- ior problems contributed to the decrease in the number of ODRs. Hence, encouraging teachers to recognize specific, positive behaviors of all students was an important compo- nent of this project. It was not until data on praise notes were summarized and feedback was given to teachers that they began to recognize and understand the effect of praise notes on student behavior and ODRs. Summarizing the data on praise notes took a fair amount of time and resources for counting notes, as did deter- mining those students who had or had not received them and monitoring which teachers had or had not been writing notes. However, it appears that these resources were appropriately spent because fewer ODRs were given, meaning that more students were in the classroom and receiving instruction. Processes for recording data were funded as part of a major research project; however, in schools without such funding, teachers could assign students or parent volunteers to assist or make data gathering and analysis a project for mathematics or statistics courses or service-learning classes if the information was not considered confidential. In addition, teachers need to be informed that the number of praise notes they write would become public information in the school. Depending on fac- tors such as administrators’ style or school culture, identifying information about teachers’ rates of praise notes written may need to remain confidential, although we found that providing intermittent feedback, which included specific data regarding the effectiveness of praise notes, increased teachers’ motiva- tion to praise students. Lessons Learned Teachers and administrators implementing praise notes as a schoolwide intervention can benefit from the lessons learned by following these recommendations: 124 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 2 1. Provide teachers with ongoing, specific instruction on effective praise. 1 Consistently encourage teachers to write praise notes; our intervention was discussed in faculty meetings, and teachers were reminded to deliver praise to students using the social skills that were being taught schoolwide. Teachers’ personal stories of how praise notes made a positive difference were shared in faculty meetings or in e-mails. 2. Give teachers specific feedback regarding the number of notes written and the names of students who had and had not received praise notes. This feedback increased teach- ers’ awareness of their progress toward a schoolwide goal and facilitated data-based decision making. 3. Review praise notes and ODR data with teachers to dem- onstrate the possible effect of written praise on student behavior and ODRs. 4. Most important, reinforce teachers for writing praise notes. When teachers had an opportunity to earn gift cer- tificates for praising students, the total number of praise notes written dramatically increased. 5. This intervention seemed to be most effective and eas- ily implemented as a component of an integrated PBS model designed to increase students’ social skill use. The combination of these strategies appeared to significantly influence rates of praise notes. Limitations and Future Research As with any descriptive research, the findings of this study are correlational, and causal relations should not be assumed. Several variables may have influenced the decrease in ODRs, such as teachers’ skills in responding to students’ inappropriate behavior, administrators’ skills at teaching more positive behaviors to students sent to the office for discipline purposes, and effects of reporting data to faculty. Moreover, teachers and administrators were making concentrated efforts to decrease rates of ODR by responding more positively to students as part of the PBS model. In addition, this post hoc analysis lacked a priori awareness of other confounding factors not controlled for or identified before or during the research that may have influenced the outcomes. The results of this study may have limited generaliz- ability to other schools. Administrators and teachers at this school were responsive to innovative methods implemented to achieve PBS goals. In addition, this school had limited ethnic diversity. These contextual factors should be consid- ered in future applications. Moreover, other PBS goals and objectives were being implemented at this school that could have influenced the results. Regardless of limitations, the findings of this study are encouraging. When teachers and administrators attended to positive behaviors, praising students for demonstrating social skills, students’ problem behaviors and, consequently, ODRs decreased. This approach—which emphasizes posi- tive and preventive measures rather than punitive and reac- tionary measures—appears to be beneficial in creating a more positive school environment. NOTE 1. One Web-based article that could be used to educate teachers and administrators about the steps for delivering praise is titled High Rates of Positive Responses, available from http://www.usu .edu/teachall/text/behavior/LRBIpdfs/Hrates.pdf . AUTHOR NOTES Julie A. Peterson Nelson is a visiting assistant professor in the psychology department at Brigham Young University. Her research interests include gender issues in social development, praise, and sexual harassment. Ellie L. Young is an associate professor and coordinator of the school psychology program at Brigham Young University. Her research interests include gen- der and educational issues, as well as working with youth with behavioral and emotional concerns. Benjamin J. Young is in mental health counseling and is a data and technology specialist at Brigham Young University’s Positive Behavior Support Initiative. His research interests include positive psychology, early interven- tion and screening, and technology in schools. Gregory Cox is a public school superintendent currently working in a school district on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. His research interests include the practical application of educational and behavioral research to ongoing student and school improvement. REFERENCES American Federation of Teachers. (1995–1996). Elements of an effective discipline strategy. American Educator, 19(4), 24–27. Auchenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher Report Form. Burlington: University of Vermont Press. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Education Research, 51, 5–32. Elam, S. J., Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1998). 28th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 80, 41–59. Ferguson, E., & Houghton, S. (1992). The effects of contingent teacher praise, as specified by Canter’s assertive discipline. Educational Studies, 18(1), 11–18. Gresham, F. M. (1998). Social skills training: Should we raze, remodel, or rebuild? Behavioral Disorders, 24, 19–25. Knoff, H. M. (2003). Character education vs. social skills training: Comparing constructs vs. behavior. Communiqué, 32(3), 39–40. Lewis, T. J., & Bullock, L. M. (2004). Scientifically supported practices in emotional and behavioral disorders: A proposed approach and brief review of current practices. Behavioral Dis- orders, 29, 247–259. Lewis, T. J., Chard, D., & Scott, T. (1994). Full inclusion and the education of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 277–293. Lewis, T. J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1999). Effective behav- ior support: Designing setting specific interventions. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 38–46. Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assess- ment based intervention to improve the pro-social behavior of a student in a general education setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 7–24. Vol. 54, No. 2 Peterson Nelson, Young, Young, & Cox 125 Lewis T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 24–47. Lipsey, M. W. (1991). The effect of treatment on juvenile delin- quents: Results from meta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 131–143). New York: Walter de Gruyter. Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 139–150. Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467–478. Mayer, G. R., & Sulzer-Azeroff, B. (1991). Interventions for vandalism. In G. Stoner, M. K. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 559–580). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Mitchem, K. J., Young, K. R., & West, R. P. (2000). Changing stu- dent, parent, and faculty perceptions: School is a positive place. Equalizing Learning Opportunities, 35, 248–262. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Reid, R. C., Epstein, M. H., & Currin, D. (2002). The convergent validity of office discipline referrals with the CBCL-TRF. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 181–197. Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory Into Practice, 42, 341–350. Peacock Hill Working Group. (1991). Problems and promises in special education and related services for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 299–313. Scott, T. M. (2001). A schoolwide example of positive behavioral sup- port. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 3(2), 88–94. Shinn, M. R., Ramsey, E., Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., & O’Neill, R. E. (1987). Antisocial behavior in school settings: Initial dif- ferences in an at-risk and normal population. Journal of Special Education, 21, 69–84. Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspensions: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295–315. Sprague, J. R., Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., Simonsen, B., Nishioka, V., & Wagner, L. (2001). Exploring the relationship between school discipline referrals and delinquency. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 197–206. Sugai, G. (1998). Postmodernism and emotional and behavioral disorders: Distraction or advancement. Behavior Disorders, 23, 171–177. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assump- tions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon conference monograph (Vol. 6, pp. 102–120). Eugene: University of Oregon. Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. (1996). Preferred and promising prac- tices for social skill instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(4), 1–16. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Homer, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline refer- rals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline intervention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–112. Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effect of self-evalu- ation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emo- tional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171. Thomas, J. (1991). You’re the greatest! A few well-chosen words can work wonders in positive behavior reinforcement. Princi- pal, 71, 32–33. Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Using sixth-grade school records to predict school violence, chronic discipline problems, and high school outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 40–53. Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1996). Patterns in middle school discipline records. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 82–94. Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (2000). Using discipline refer- rals to make decisions. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 106–117. Turnbull, A., Edmondson, H., Griggs, P., Wickham, D., Sailor, W, Freeman, R. et al. (2002). A blueprint for schoolwide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 68, 377–402. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The condition of educa- tion, 1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). The condition of educa- tion, 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Walker, H. M, Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behav- ior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Walker, H. M., Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D. et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing anti- social behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193–256. Walker, H. M., Shinn, M. R., O’Neill, R. E., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal assessment of the development of antisocial behavior in boys: Rationale, methodology, and first-year results. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 7–16, 27. Walker, H. M., & Stieber, S. (1998). Teacher ratings of social skills as longitudinal predictors of long-term arrest status in a sample of at-risk males. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 222–230. Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., Ramsey, E., & O’Neill, R. E. (1990). School behavioral profiles of arrested versus nonarrested ado- lescents. Exceptionality, 1, 249–265. Ward, J. (1976). Behavior modification in education: An overview and model for programme implementation. Bulletin of the Brit- ish Psychological Society, 29, 257–268. Winette, R. A., & Winkler, R. C. (1972). Current behavior modifi- cation in the classroom: Be still, be quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499–504. Wright, J. A., & Dusek, J. B. (1998). Research into practice: Compiling school base rates for disruptive behaviors from student disciplinary referral data. School Psychology Review, 27, 138–147. Young, K. R., Black, S., Marchant, M., Mitchem, K. J., & West, R. P. (2000, August). A teaching approach to discipline: An alter- native to punishment. Marriage and Families, 9–15.