EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN - Vol. 42, No. 2 - 2019 - Using Data to Support Educators’ Implementation of Positive Classroom Behavior Support (PCBS) Practices

Oct 15, 2026

Research emphasizes that students benefit when educators implement positive, proactive classroom behavior support (PCBS) practices such as structuring the classroom, teaching expected behaviors, and delivering engaging instruction. Educators also benefit when school leadership teams build supportive professional development systems including training, coaching, and performance feedback. Implementation remains complex and often occurs at rates below expectations. The article encourages educators and leadership teams to collect and use data to guide decisions, describing data types, a collection-use cycle, and practical examples of data-guided implementation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages25

Reading Time1 h 3 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Using data to guide decision-making

Types and purposes of data

Cycle for collecting and using data

Examples of data use in PCBS implementation

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 42, No. 2, 2019 Using Data to Support Educators’Implementation of Positive Classroom Behavior Support (PCBS) Practices Brandi Simonsen Jen Freeman University of Connecticut Jessica Swain-Bradway Northwest PBIS Network Heather Peshak George University of South Florida Robert Putnam May Institute Kathleen Lynne Lane University of Kansas Jeffrey Sprague University of Oregon Patti Hershfeldt Mid Atlantic PBIS Network Author Note: The development of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (H029D40055). Opinions expressed herein are the authors’ and do not reflect necessarily the position of the US Department of Education or the University of Connecticut, and such endorsements should not be inferred. Address correspondence to: Brandi Simonsen, Center for Behavioral Education and Research ([www.cber.org](www.cber.org)), Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Road Unit 3064, Charles B. Gentry Building, Storrs, [CT 06269-3064. E-mail: brandi.simonsen@uconn.edu](CT 06269-3064. E-mail: brandi.simonsen@uconn.edu) 266 SIMONSEN et al. Abstract Research suggests (a) students benefit when educators implement positive and proactive classroom behavior support practices (e.g., maximizing structure, teaching expected behaviors, delivering engaging instruction) and (b) educators benefit when school leadership teams invest in positive and proactive professional development support systems (e.g., training, coaching, performance feedback). Unfortunately, implementation is complex, and educatorsand school leadership teams implement key practices and systems at lower rates than desired. To increase the likelihood of successful implementation and desired outcomes, we encourage educators and leadership teams to collect and use data to guide decision-making. In this paper, we discuss the types and purposes of data to guide decision-making, describe a cycle for collecting and using data, and share examples of how individual educatorsand school leadership teams use data to guide implementation of practices to support students and systems to support educators. Keywords: data, evaluation, educators, teachers, classroom management, behavior support, data-based decision-making, professional development Decades ported of research have established an array of empirically supand proactive positive classroom behavior support (PCBS) practices that are associated with desired social behavior and academic outcomes (Brophy, 1988; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2003; Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP], 2015; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). For example, research suggests educators design their classroom to provide structure (e.g., Ahrentzen & Evans, 1984; Burgess & Fordyce, 1989; Susman, Huston-Stein, & Friedrich-Cofer, 1980), develop and explicitly teach routines and expectations (e.g., Greenwood, Hops, Delquadri, & Guild, 1974; Johnson, Stoner, & Green, 1996), prompt and pre-correct for desired behavior (e.g., Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997; Faul, Stepensky, & Simonsen, 2012; Sprague & Thomas, 1997), plan and deliver engaging instruction that includes high rates of opportunities to respond (e.g., Carnine, 1976; MacSuga-Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003), provide specific feedback (praise or corrections) contingent on students’ social behaviors and academic responses (e.g., Abramowitz, O’Leary, & Futtersak, 1988; Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000), and implement a continuum of consequences to acknowledge appropriate and discourage inappropriate behavior (e.g., Davies & Witte, 2000; Kehle, Bray, & Theodore, 2000; Yawkey, 1971). For additional information about core PCBS practices, see OSEP’s guide on Supporting and Responding to Student Behavior (OSEP, 2015). Despite clear evidence supporting these core PCBS practices

FAQs

What PCBS practices does the paper highlight as beneficial for students?

It highlights proactive practices such as maximizing classroom structure, teaching expected behaviors, and delivering engaging instruction with opportunities to respond and contingent feedback.

How do school leadership teams contribute according to the article?

Leadership teams are encouraged to invest in professional development support systems, including training, coaching, and performance feedback, to strengthen educator implementation.

Why does the paper recommend using data, and what does it cover?

Because implementation is complex and often below desired levels, the paper recommends collecting and using data to guide decisions. It covers data types and purposes, a data collection-use cycle, and examples of how teams apply data to support students and educators.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by mieayamfan