View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Scaling up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports within School Districts

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Scaling up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports within School Districts
Language: English
Authors: Angus Kittelman (ORCID 0000-0001-5904-3951), Robert H. Horner
Source: Behavioral Disorders. 2026 51(4):242-249.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: School Districts, Multi Tiered Systems of Support, Positive Behavior Supports, Program Implementation, Barriers, Evidence Based Practice, Decision Making, Sequential Approach
DOI: 10.1177/01987429251407679
ISSN: 0198-7429
2163-5307
Abstract: Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tiers 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tiers 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 20260101
Accession Number: EJ1511828
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFjY6jslVJrn-5suLBYnP0AAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJgvZiSI6oYEzQGMiQIBEICBm7Asna8FujRRiqrNynADyz13zmPZ8XglRTOlw7qD9-N9WxN01_ODD-715Ev-ZW3lkPIVnBFukq66gaEOuyVK7raoBbM3tuHGUqLazguDk5AWVGIYRrd8CvNvMjsq2xgd_OC2fci1WBpK8494DphIbHhV6UeAa743FCzUmoLXDcWibZOSIJwZmh_124QkkClkYKHPnzICSj4f2oqr
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0195272693;bhd01aug.26;2026Jul14.05:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0195272693-1">Scaling Up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports Within School Districts </title> <p>Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tiers 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tiers 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.</p> <p>Keywords: PBIS; positive behavioral interventions and supports; systems; Tier 2; Tier 3</p> <p>Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is an evidence-based framework that provides students with three tiers of support: Tier 1 (universal for all), Tier 2 (targeted for students at-risk), and Tier 3 (intensive for students with significant individualized needs). Over one quarter of U.S. public schools are currently implementing PBIS ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]). Much of the success at scaling up PBIS has focused on the implementation of Tier 1 that includes (a) defining, teaching, acknowledging school-wide behavioral expectations, (b) developing proactive systems for responding to behavioral errors, (c) establishing a school-wide leadership team, (d) implementing classroom behavior support strategies, and (e) installing data systems for teams to conduct data-based decision-making ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref3">41</reflink>]). Although the evidence for broad and effective implementation of Tier 1 is compelling ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]), there is less evidence demonstrating that Tiers 2 and 3 are being implemented with the same level of fidelity and scale within school districts ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]). Improving fidelity and scale of Tiers 2 and 3 interventions is critically important for serving students with or at risk for behavioral disorders, because these students are ones most likely to benefit from more intensive interventions ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this paper, we use the term "scaling up" when referring to intentional efforts made to expand the number of schools implementing the PBIS Tiers (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) within districts. Within the field of implementation science, "scaling up" is commonly used when referring to expanding the delivery of evidence-based practices to intended populations ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]). Therefore, we use the term "scale up" when referring to actions that occur at the district level (e.g., scaling up Tier 2 across schools in the district) and "implementation" when referring to actions at the school level (e.g., implementing Tier 2 interventions with fidelity and at capacity within schools). Our main premise is that schools have largely been successful at scaling up Tier 1 within districts without significant resources and organizational shifts from districts (e.g., reallocation of personnel, changes in funding, investment in data systems). However, due to the complexity of Tiers 2 and 3 interventions and resources needed for implementation, we posit that most schools will need district support to implement the advanced Tiers with fidelity and effectiveness. We further argue that district systems are important for scaling up Tiers 2 and Tier 3 practices across schools within a district/region. In the following sections we (a) describe how Tier 1 has been successfully scaled up in school districts, (b) identify barriers to implementing Tiers 2 and 3, and (c) offer specific recommendations for how district leadership teams can enhance the scale up of PBIS across all three tiers.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-2">Successful Scale Up of Tier 1</hd> <p>The effectiveness of Tier 1 for improving student outcomes has been replicated across multiple randomized controlled trials ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>]). Furthermore, over the last decade, numerous implementation studies have shown that Tier 1 can be implemented with fidelity, scaled up within school districts, and sustained over time ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref16">41</reflink>]). Research indicates that Tier 1 can be implemented well within schools and scaled up across districts without the addition of major resources ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref17">44</reflink>]) and is likely to sustain for significant time periods ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref18">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>]). In short, implementing Tier 1 is possible and fits within existing systems used in schools.</p> <p>Tier 1 is easier to implement than Tiers 2 or 3, because the core features of Tier 1 (e.g., defining, teaching, monitoring and acknowledging positive behavioral expectations) are well defined ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>]), measurable ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]), and fit the organizational structure already available in most schools and districts. Implementation of Tier 1 core features are also used widely in part because they can be adapted to fit local social, cultural, and organizational norms (e.g., large versus small schools, rural versus urban schools, homogeneous versus diverse schools; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]). Experience demonstrates that Tier 1 can be implemented with high fidelity using few additional resources and minimal shifts to district and school organizational variables (e.g., adjustments to school and district policies, allocation of personnel, teaming practices, data systems; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-3">Barriers to Implementing Tiers 2 and 3</hd> <p>Unlike Tier 1, implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 involve a continuum of behavioral, academic, and social interventions centered around assessment, intervention design, implementation, and on-going adaptation ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]). As intensity of support increases, so does the level of individualization in intervention planning, complexity of intervention procedures, and sophistication of progress monitoring ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]). The logic for support at Tiers 2 and 3 is that students with or at risk for behavioral disorders will benefit from targeted and efficient Tier 2 interventions (e.g., Check-In/Check-Out [CICO], social-emotional-learning small groups, adult/peer mentoring; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]) and students with more intensive needs will require more individualized and comprehensive Tier 3 interventions (e.g., function-based behavior support plans, wraparound services, individualized counseling; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). Given the increased complexity and intensity of these Tiers 2 and 3 interventions, the resources required for implementation are greater (e.g., personnel, materials, data systems, space; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref35">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unfortunately, research over the last decade has shown that schools struggle to implement Tiers 2 and 3 systems and interventions with adequate fidelity and are often unable to support the percentages of students needing these interventions ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>] used the Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]) to examine fidelity patterns at Tiers 1, 2, and 3 in 8,640 U.S. schools. A Tier 1 TFI score of 70% is considered implementing with adequate implementation fidelity ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). On average, schools were implementing Tier 1 at 74%, Tier 2 at 69%, and Tier 3 at 62% fidelity. Key Tier 2 organizational systems implemented with the lowest fidelity included Tier 2 teams collecting and reviewing fidelity data and conducting annual evaluations of Tier 2 systems. And, Tier 3 organizational systems implemented with the lowest fidelity included providing professional development to school personnel implementing Tier 3 interventions and implementation of Tier 3 data systems ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Relatedly, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>] examined fidelity patterns from over 11,000 schools. The authors also found scores on the TFI to be lower at Tier 2 (69% – 81%) and Tier 3 (62%–75%), compared to Tier 1 (83%–84%), even after schools had been implementing PBIS for five or more years. Schools struggling with implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 practices are also likely to stumble with implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 organizational systems (e.g., teaming, data, personnel). For example, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref44">43</reflink>] surveyed over 700 schools implementing PBIS during the 2018–2019 school year to identify interventions and teaming structures being implemented. Although a majority were implementing a Tier 1 behavior support team (<emph>n</emph> = 544), fewer were implementing Tier 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 241), Tier 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 124), or combined Tiers 2 and 3 behavior support teams (<emph>n</emph> = 152).</p> <p>Related to school capacity to support students on practices at Tiers 2 and 3, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>] examined implementation patterns of 261 schools implementing CICO, the most implemented Tier 2 behavior intervention in schools ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref46">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref47">48</reflink>]). The authors found that schools were only supporting approximately 3% of their student population. However, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>] conducted a large-scale evaluation of CICO in 441 schools and found that when schools were implementing Tiers 1 and 2 with adequate fidelity (e.g., > 70%), they were supporting approximately 11.7% of students on CICO. Yet when schools were not implementing Tiers 1 and 2 with fidelity, they supported only 6.6% of their students. Taken together, research indicates that although systems and practices at Tiers 2 and 3 are effective (Tier 2 [[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]] and Tier 3 [[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref52">55</reflink>]]), schools encounter significant barriers implementing Tiers 2 and 3 practices than they do with Tier 1.</p> <p>Numerous barriers have been identified that impact implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 within schools ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref55">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]). Many of these barriers are consistent across Tiers 2 and 3. For example, commonly reported barriers impacting implementation of Tier 2 interventions include school personnel implementing only part of a multicomponent intervention, limited time for implementation, competing priorities (e.g., academic testing, managing other student behavior concerns), inadequate resources for implementation (e.g., funding), lack of administrator or personnel support ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref58">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]). Similarly, related to Tier 3 interventions, frequently reported barriers included inconsistent implementation from school personnel (e.g., failing to implement specific components of the behavior support plan), inadequate resources for implementation, insufficient professional development, behavior support plans that are not technically adequate (e.g., not function-based), and limited or no time for progress monitoring of the behavior support plans ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref60">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a field, researchers and professionals have under-emphasized the organizational requirements and systems needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions with fidelity. The early research at Tiers 2 and 3 has rightly focused on examining the effectiveness of these interventions at reducing problem behaviors and enhancing prosocial behaviors for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref62">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref63">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref64">55</reflink>]). Researchers now have that documentation, therefore, the focus for future efforts needs to be on how to implement these advanced practices and systems to adequately support the percentages of students at risk or have behavioral disorders. Implementing a Tier 2 (e.g., CICO) or Tier 3 intervention (e.g., a function-based assessment and intervention), involves more than agreeing to identify, assign, and support students. Effort at Tiers 2 and 3 requires organizational adjustments to the schools. Although Tier 1 typically requires no new personnel, new skills, or new roles, Tiers 2 and 3 bring distinct shifts in how schools are often organized. These efforts include: (a) school personnel with behavioral training, (b) teaming systems that allow staff to meet and problem solve, (c) coordination of assessment, intervention, and adaptation of interventions, (d) administrative support, and (e) data systems that allow accurate and timely access to the data needed for functional decision making ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>]). Implementing Tiers 2 and 3 by introducing the interventions without the organizational systems needed to support those interventions to be effective both hinders initial implementation and scalability.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-4">Future Directions for Scaling Up Tiers 2 and 3</hd> <p>An important feature of PBIS implementation is the critical role of the district leadership team ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]). Although outcomes for students (e.g., social behavior, academic success, graduation) drive PBIS, and while the whole-school is the unit of analysis ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]), the district (or regional) team has the mission, resources, and talent needed to implement and sustain PBIS ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref69">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref70">40</reflink>]). Only at the district level do staff have the authority to make the policies, provide the data systems, and manage the staffing and personnel development requirements needed for implementation of Tiers 2 and 3. At least six critical actions of district leadership teams are needed to implement Tiers 2 and 3 within schools and have them scaled up within the district: (a) focus first on getting Tier 1 behavior support systems in place; (b) use lessons learned from implementation science for early exploration and installation of Tiers 2 and 3 (e.g., assess buy-in, develop functional school-level teams, etc.); (c) recruit, hire and support personnel with knowledge in behavior support; (d) invest in data systems and training on data-based decision making; (e) select evidence-based practices; and (f) leverage implementation efforts from initial piloting, to documenting feasibility and impact, to adaption, and to scaling district-wide ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref72">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-5">Install Tier 1 Behavior Support Systems First</hd> <p>As discussed earlier, installation of Tier 1 behavior systems in schools is more doable and the logical first step in implementation of PBIS. The rationale behind installing Tier 1 behavior support systems prior to the advanced systems is that (a) providing universal and preventative behavior supports for all students will reduce the number of students needing more intensive supports, (b) seeing the positive effects of Tier 1 practices on student outcomes increases school leader and personnel buy-in for future and more time and resource-intensive implementation efforts, and (c) Tier 1 behavior support systems (e.g., data systems for monitoring school-wide patterns [e.g., attendance rates]) are foundational for the installation of more complex Tiers 2 and 3 systems (e.g., data systems for progress monitoring fidelity of individual student Tier 3 interventions; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref73">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]). For example, using a large longitudinal study of over 776 schools, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref75">31</reflink>] demonstrated that schools that implemented Tier 1 with high implementation fidelity had significantly higher Tiers 2 and 3 implementation fidelity scores during their first year of implementation at the advanced tiers. Many state PBIS leadership teams create readiness guidelines for determining when Tier 1 behavior systems are in place and when it is time to begin providing training at the advanced tiers (e.g., Tier 1 school team trained, implementing at Tier 1 implementation fidelity for 1 to 2 years; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>]). Once these Tier 1 behavior systems are in place, school teams will have the foundation to launch advanced tiers.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-6">Early Exploration and Installation of Advanced Behavior Systems</hd> <p>One of the primary tenets of implementation science is to implement new interventions and systems following a "stages of implementation framework" ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref79">50</reflink>]). This approach argues that successful implementation of interventions should move through a series of four stages: Exploration, Installation, Initial Implementation, and Full Implementation ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>]). Prior to introducing new programs, the stages logic recommends engaging in exploration and installation to (a) assess fit between the needs of schools and the interventions being selected (Exploration stage), and (b) acquire the resources (e.g., funding), personnel, and organizational systems needed for successful implementation. Far too often in education, implementers invest in elaborate and expensive efforts to train or prepare personnel before establishing consensus that training is needed and/or establishing the organizational systems (e.g., policies, teaming structures, professional development, data systems) needed to use newly learned initiatives effectively.</p> <p>Using a stage-based implementation plan is of special relevance for Tiers 2 and 3 interventions. These targeted and individualized support systems require investment in personnel to do assessment, investment in building teams and teaming structures, investment in data and decision systems that assess both fidelity of implementation and student outcomes, and in development of policies that prioritize students and families with more intense needs. It can be a mistake to assume that because a school faculty agreed to implement Tier 1 they have agreed to (and understand) Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. We recommend that prior to launching implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 efforts, a school team works with their district to conduct formal exploration of the level and type of need for Tier 2 and Tier 3 assistance. Once that need is defined, they can spend time installing the teaming structures, administrative support, and data systems needed to make practices at Tier 2 and Tier 3 doable and effective. Strategies and resources for working with schools and districts to conduct exploration and installation are well defined by the National Implementation Research Network (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-7">Recruit, Hire, and Support Personnel With Behavioral Expertise</hd> <p>A necessary component for any success in schools is access to highly skilled teachers, related services personnel, and administrators. Teachers are important, but implementers should not load Tier 2 and Tier 3 initiatives on the backs of teachers, expecting them to become highly skilled behavior support experts. Effective Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports should allow teachers to do more teaching and rely on related services personnel and administrators to provide specialized assistance that helps students to be successfully engaged. Effective implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, such as CICO ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref82">20</reflink>]), First Step to Success ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref83">54</reflink>]), Check and Connect ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref84">51</reflink>]), functional behavioral assessment ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref85">45</reflink>]) or Wrap Around ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]), require personnel with knowledge of behavioral theory, intervention technology, and school organization.</p> <p>District-level coaching for new Tiers 2 and 3 interventions is often a key to high-fidelity implementation and scaling ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref88">52</reflink>]). Initial professional development efforts may come from many sources, but high-fidelity implementation of these trained skills often depends on access to on-site coaching from knowledgeable professionals. Providing this support at scale is typically the role of district coaches who are skilled in both the theory and practical procedures needed for effective Tiers 2 and 3 implementation ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref89">10</reflink>]). Conducting a functional behavioral assessment and using the information to guide the design of a behavior support plan can be complex. Collecting, summarizing, and interpreting data that are used to guide Tiers 2 and 3 supports is critical to the efficient allocation of resources, and while this process can become fluent over time, the initial cycles often benefit from active coaching. A central element to the successful implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 interventions is investment in developing and supporting district coaches ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 interventions requires effective behavior support teams. School behavior support teams composed of individuals with technical knowledge of behavioral practices, knowledge about the student and family, and contextual knowledge of the setting are best positioned to design efficient and effective Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]). Schools often rely on personnel within school psychology, counseling, or social work roles to have the advanced training in core behavior support competencies to lead and support implementation of these interventions ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref92">43</reflink>]). These leaders provide professional development to faculty and coordinate implementation efforts, including structuring team meetings, assessment, support plan design, implementation of support plans, coordination with families, and on-going data monitoring. The key message is that while not all personnel in a school need advanced behavior support training, at least some members need the more technical skills to ensure that behavioral supports are delivered as intended and with the cultural and organizational adjustments essential for success. Resources outlining the professional skills needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions are available through the national technical assistance Center on PBIS (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-8">Invest in Data Systems That Facilitate Effective Decision-Making</hd> <p>Behavior interventions at Tiers 2 and 3 require access to data for student screening and decision making ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref94">8</reflink>]). Data on attendance, academic performance, and social behavior are used to identify students at risk for failure. These data are also used to guide the design of behavioral interventions and to determine whether these interventions are being implemented as intended. To implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions without an adequate data system is to deliver these supports without the precision needed for success. Examples of the varied roles data may play in implementing Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports include: (a) the use of office discipline referral data to identify a student needing Tier 2 or Tier 3 supports, (b) functional behavioral assessment data indicating that a student's acting out behavior is maintained by peer attention and only likely to occur in uncontrolled peer contexts, (c) "daily progress record" data from documenting that a student is doing well in all classes except Period 4, where additional support may be needed, (d) data on the fidelity with which Tier 2 interventions are being implemented that guide the design of action plans to improve adoption of the Tier 2 interventions, and (e) district capacity data demonstrating where district investment may be best applied to improve behavioral outcomes. The main message is that data are information needed to guide decisions about what, where, when, and how to provide behavior support that will be most effective and efficient.</p> <p>During the past decade significant advances have occurred in improving the ease and efficiency of data collection and use in schools (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref95">37</reflink>]). These advances are expanding with new technologies and with improved sensitivity to how data may best guide identification of students for intervention and decision-making at the district, school, classroom, and student levels. Due to these advances and the importance of data collection and use, we posit that implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions without attention, commitment, and implementation of data systems to monitor both the outcomes of students and the fidelity of support implementation is counterproductive.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-9">Select Evidence-Based Interventions</hd> <p>A strength of PBIS is the focus on "core features" rather than specific practices ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref96">21</reflink>]). The PBIS framework does not stipulate one approach but recognizes that schools of different sizes and social contexts may use alternative paths to establish the core features. At Tier 1, these core features of behavior support focus on building a school-wide social culture (e.g., defining and teaching a small set of social expectations, building a formal system for acknowledging students for positive behavior, arranging consequences for problem behavior that are instructional). At Tier 2, the core features include being highly efficient, providing extra instruction to students on behavioral expectations, increasing the frequency and specificity of feedback to students about their behavior, and focusing on the self-regulation skills that will allow students to be more independent ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref97">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref98">35</reflink>]). An array of interventions are available that meet these criteria (e.g., CICO, choice contracting, brief skills instruction; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref99">43</reflink>]) and schools should select the intervention, or parts of an intervention, that best fit their culture and context. Finally, at Tier 3, the core features often involve conducting a functional behavioral assessment to define the pattern of a behavioral challenge and then developing an individualized behavior support plan of support that fits students' needs. Schools and districts face a daunting challenge when moving from a commitment to address Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs to the decision about which approach or program best matches their situation.</p> <p>Traditionally, the PBIS framework has recommended that when selecting which program or approach to implement, teams (a) retain those practices that are working, (b) select new ones that involve the smallest change and will result in the largest benefit for students, (c) invest only in practices and programs that have documented effectiveness, and (d) never implement new practices or programs without eliminating unnecessary or duplicated ones to ensure that there is adequate time and effort to implement the new ones with high fidelity ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref100">22</reflink>]). A key component of this approach is the requirement that any new program or approach must be effective at improving student behavior and able to be implemented with fidelity in typical school contexts. Empirical demonstrations in peer-reviewed outlets provide an essential component of this process.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-10">Leverage Initial Efforts to Build District-Wide Implementation</hd> <p>Implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 behavior supports is more likely to be effective and sustained if multiple schools use similar programs within a district ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref101">41</reflink>]). We emphasized earlier that the district (or region) is the unit within educational systems that is best positioned to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. A key component of this process is leveraging the success of early implementing schools to guide implementation across other schools in a district or region ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]). Early implementers demonstrate the feasibility, costs, and effectiveness of Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices, but they also emphasize the need for the organizational systems that make implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions easier and more successful. The likelihood of the effectiveness and durability of Tiers 2 and 3 interventions will increase as (a) districts develop personnel with knowledge and skills in those practices, (b) establishes the professional development capacity to sustain initial efforts, and (c) builds fluency using data systems and decision-making systems to support adaptation and continuous improvement of the practices to improve their fit with the local context.</p> <hd id="AN0195272693-11">Summary</hd> <p>Tier 1 has been widely and successfully scaled up across states and districts, making one of the most widely implemented innovations in U.S. schools over the last two decades. However, states and districts have not had the same level of documented success in scaling up Tiers 2 and 3 ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref103">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref105">30</reflink>]), which are specifically designed to support students with or at risk for behavioral disorders. Unlike Tier 1, the successful implementation and scale up of Tiers 2 and 3 requires districts to install organizational systems to support these schools (e.g., policies, data systems, recruit, hiring, and supporting personnel with behavioral expertise; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this article, we provide recommendations to district (or regional) leaderships focused on scaling up the advanced tiers. First, the focus should be on getting Tier 1 in place and scaled across the district. This provides a preventative level of support to all students, evidence of the effectiveness at Tier 1, and foundational Tier 1 organizational systems (e.g., data systems) that can be leveraged for the advanced tiers. Once Tier 1 is in place, the second recommendation is that district leadership teams should avoid the temptation to go directly to the Initial Implementation stage (selecting practices and providing training to school staff) of Tiers 2 and 3. Instead, teams should do the necessary work in the Exploration (e.g., assess needs, resources) and Installation stages needed to support these Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices.</p> <p>Third, during the Installation stage, districts need to recruit, hire and support personnel with behavior expertise (e.g., behavior specialists) who can support schools in implementing practices at Tiers 2 and 3. Fourth, leadership teams need to invest in data systems (or adapt Tier 1 systems) and provide training to support their use in monitoring the implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 practices. Fifth, once these organizational systems are in place, district leadership teams should select evidence-based practices at Tiers 2 and 3 that are targeting a need (e.g., address bullying, improve attendance). And sixth, leadership teams then need to pilot these practices and leverage their initial success (e.g., positive effects on student outcomes, feasible to implement) to support district scale up. In sum, district leadership teams are critical for providing school teams with the knowledge (e.g., principles of implementation science), authority (e.g., selection of evidence-based practices), resources (e.g., investment in data systems), and expertise (e.g., hiring of district personnel with knowledge of behavior support) to overcome barriers to implementing Tiers 2 and 3. We hope that this paper provides district and school leadership teams and researchers with actional steps and recommendations for implementing and successfully scaling the advanced tiers across school districts.</p> <ref id="AN0195272693-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aarons G. A., Sklar M., Mustanski B., Benbow N., Brown C. H. (2017). "Scaling-out" evidence-based interventions to new populations or new health care delivery systems. Implementation Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0640-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Algozzine R. F., Barrett S., Eber L., George H., Horner R. H., Lewis T. J., Putnam R. F., Swain-Bradway J., McIntosh K., Sugai G. (2014). SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">http://www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bambara L., Nonnemacher S., Kern L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708330878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref91" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benazzi L., Horner R. H., Good R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref81" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blasé K., Van Dyke M., Fixsen D. (2013). Stages of implementation analysis: Where are we?University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bradshaw C. P., Mitchell M. M., Leaf P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bruhn A. L., Lane K. L., Hirsch S. E. (2014). A review of tier 2 interventions conducted within multitiered models of behavioral prevention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613476092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref65" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bruhn A. L., Wehby J. H., Hasselbring T. S. (2020). Data-based decision making for social behavior: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(2), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719876098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref86" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bruns E. J., Walker J. S. (2011). Research on the wraparound process: Intervention components and implementation supports. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 709–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9534-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center on PBIS. (2022). Tier 3 District-Level Systems Guide. Center on PBIS. University of Oregon. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaparro E. A., Kittelman A., McDaniel S. C., Peshak George H., VanLone J., So S. (2022). Examining rural school implementation of positive behavioral supports across tiers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 41(3), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705221097114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coffey J. H., Horner R. H. (2012). The sustainability of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conley K., Kittelman A., Massar M., McIntosh K. (2018). What are patterns and predictors of CICO participation in U.S. Schools?OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fixsen D. L., Blase K. A., Van Dyke V. (2019). Implementation practice and science. Active Implementation Research Network.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fixsen D. L., Naoom S. F., Blase K., Friedman R. M., Wallace F. (2005). Implementation research: Synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flannery K. B., Kato M. M., Kittelman A., McIntosh K., Triplett D. (2020). A tier 1 intervention to increase ninth grade engagement and success: Results from a randomized controlled trial. School Psychology, 35(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman S. G., Olin S. S., Hoagwood K. E., Crowe M., Saka N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers' views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-008-9002-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George H. P., Cox K. E., Minch D., Sandomierski T. (2018). District practices associated with successful SWPBIS implementation. Behavioral Disorders, 43(3), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917753612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawken L. S., Bundock K., Barrett C. A., Eber L., Breen K., Phillips D. (2015). Large-scale implementation of Check-In, Check-Out: A descriptive study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 30(4), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573515601005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawken L. S., Crone D. A., Bundock K., Horner R. H. (2020). Responding to problem behavior in schools. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R. H., Kittelman A. (2021). Advancing the large-scale implementation of applied behavior analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 30(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00049-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R. H., Sugai G. (2015). School-wide 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R. H., Sugai G., Smolkowski K., Eber L., Nakasato J., Todd A. W., Esperanza J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709332067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R. H., Ward C. S., Fixsen D. L., Sugai G., McIntosh K., Putnam R., Little H. D. (2019). Resource leveraging to achieve large-scale implementation of effective educational practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718783754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce B., Showers B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4–10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kincaid D., Childs K., George H. (2010, March). School-wide Benchmarks of Quality (Revised). OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">http://www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kincaid D., Horner R. (2017). Changing systems to scale up an evidence-based educational intervention. Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 11(3–4), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2017.1376383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittelman A., Eliason B., Dickey C. R., McIntosh K. (2018). How are schools using the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI)?OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. https://<ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittelman A., McIntosh K., Hoselton R. (2019). Adoption of PBIS within school districts. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittelman A., McIntosh K., Mercer S. H., Evanovich L., Gulbrandson K., Nantais M., Norton J., Way G., Izzard S., Nese R. N. T. (2022). When do schools receive tier 2 and 3 PBIS training?Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittelman A., Mercer S. H., McIntosh K., Hoselton R. (2022). Optimal timing for launching installation of tier 2 and 3 systems of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24(3), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300721996084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittelman A., Strickland-Cohen M. K., Conley K. M., Horner R. H. (2024). Allocating resources for tier 2 and 3 implementation within positive behavioral interventions and supports. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 57(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221125889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane K. L., Kalberg J. R., Shepcaro J. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based interventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langley A. K., Nadeem E., Kataoka S. H., Stein B. D., Jaycox L. H. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School Mental Health, 2(3), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9038-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis T. J., McIntosh K., Simonsen B., Mitchell B. S., Hatton H. L. (2017). Schoolwide systems of positive behavior support: Implications for students at risk and with emotional/behavioral disorders. AERA Open, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417711428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathews S., McIntosh K., Frank J. L., May S. L. (2014). Critical features predicting sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May S. L., Ard W. I., Todd A. W., Horner R. H., Glasgow A., Sugai G., Sprague J. R. (2013). School-Wide Information System. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. <ulink href="http://www.pbisapps.org">http://www.pbisapps.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh K., Girvan E. J., Fairbanks Falcon S., McDaniel S. C., Smolkowski K., Bastable E., Santiago-Rosario M. R., Izzard S., Austin S. C., Nese R. N. T., Baldy T. S. (2021). Equity-focused PBIS approach reduces racial inequities in school discipline: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology, 36(6), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh K., Goodman S. (2016). Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh K., Kittelman A., Morris K., Peshak George H., Simonsen B., Lewis T. J. (2021). Support for district change and improvement. In McLeskey J., Spooner F., Algozzine B., Waldron N. L. (Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive elementary schools (2nd ed., pp. 415–336). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh K., Mercer S. H., Nese R. N. T., Strickland-Cohen M. K., Kittelman A., Hoselton R., Horner R. H. (2018). Factors predicting sustained implementation of a universal behavior support framework. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18776975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer S. H., McIntosh K., Hoselton R. (2017). Comparability of fidelity measures for assessing tier I school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nese R. N. T., Kittelman A., Strickland-Cohen M. K., McIntosh K. (2023). Examining teaming and tier 2 and 3 practices within a PBIS framework. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 25(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211051090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nese R. N. T., Nese J. F. T., McIntosh K., Mercer S. H., Kittelman A. (2018). Predicting latency of reaching adequate implementation of tier I schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718783755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill R. E., Horner R. H., Albin R. W., Sprague J. R., Storey K., Newton J. S. (1997). Functional assessment for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park E-Y., Blair K-S. C. (2020). Check-in/Check-out implementation in schools: A meta-analysis of group design studies. Education and Treatment of Children, 43(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00030-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson R. E., Kokina A. A., Moore D. W. (2020). Barriers to implementing behavior Intervention plans: Results of a statewide survey. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(3), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720908013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez B. J., Loman S. L., Borgmeier C. (2016). Tier 2 interventions in positive behavior support: A survey of school implementation. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(2), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1025354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruiz M. I., Smith T. N., Naquin G. M., Morgan-D'atrio C., Dellinger A. B. (2013). Assessing the implementation fidelity of check-in check-out behavioral interventions in elementary and middle schools. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2012.755667</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana L., Chamberlain P., Wang W., Hendricks Brown C. (2012). Predicting program start-up using the stages of implementation measure. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(6), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0363-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair M. F., Christenson S. L., Thurlow M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402905071004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai G., Horner R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Horn N., McKenna M. K., Rodriguez B. J., Minnis E., Ingram K., Childers S. (2024, May). Strengthening tier 2/tier 3 systems & practices through the use of a district behavior interventionist role. Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker H. M., Seeley J. R., Small J., Severson H. H., Graham B. A., Feil E. G., Loretta S., Golly A. M., Forness S. R. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of the First Step to Success early intervention: Demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse, urban school district. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(4), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660934164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker V. L., Chung Y.-C., Bonnet L. K. (2018). Function-based intervention in inclusive school settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(4), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717718350</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0195272693-13"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Angus Kittelman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-3951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Angus Kittelman and Robert H. Horner</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1511828
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Scaling up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports within School Districts
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Angus+Kittelman%22">Angus Kittelman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5904-3951">0000-0001-5904-3951</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robert+H%2E+Horner%22">Robert H. Horner</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Behavioral+Disorders%22"><i>Behavioral Disorders</i></searchLink>. 2026 51(4):242-249.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multi+Tiered+Systems+of+Support%22">Multi Tiered Systems of Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Behavior+Supports%22">Positive Behavior Supports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sequential+Approach%22">Sequential Approach</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/01987429251407679
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0198-7429<br />2163-5307
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tiers 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tiers 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 20260101
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1511828
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1511828
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/01987429251407679
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 242
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multi Tiered Systems of Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Behavior Supports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sequential Approach
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Scaling up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports within School Districts
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Angus Kittelman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robert H. Horner
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0198-7429
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5307
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Behavioral Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1