Bosworth, Judkins (2014), Lydia Benitez

Summary:

“Tapping Into the Power of School Climate to Prevent Bullying: One Application of

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports” begins by pointing out issues with

bully reduction programs and what can be done to improve outcomes. The authors address a

major issue with bully reduction systems by suggesting that bullying is often looked upon as an

individual matter instead of as an issue with school environment. The link between aggressive

behavior in schools with high conflict versus the lack of aggression in schools that portray

harmony is a key component that supports a positive school climate as a crucial component to

reducing bullying. In the end, the concept was supported through the decreased rate of bullying

at Mountain Middle School after the implementation of a bully reduction program called School-

Wide Positive Behavior Intervention (SWPBIS). The set of systems utilized in this bully

reduction program aim to create a universal attitude throughout the school that gives a sense of

structure, support, and positive relationships through the application of operant conditioning,

controlled environmental conditions and behavior prediction.

Critical Reaction:

Overall, this system is effective because it works through preventative measures instead of

reactive measures. They use a public health approach of working to stop the spread of disease

instead of treating individual cases of sick patients. One of the tools that aided in their success

was using a natural human behavior, peer pressure, as a guide for a positive life style. In this

case, they use the students’ inclinations to mimic those around them to create a better

environment.
 Additionally, their technique of using behavior strategies to help children grow is key.

Children are often reprimanded for their wrong doing and then left with little clarity as to why

their actions were unacceptable or what they can do to change their behavior. In this case, they

do not reprimand children for not understanding their wrong doing, but rather help them

understand how they can grow out of inappropriate behaviors. It would have been nice to read

about specific behavioral strategies that were used. The article states that problem-students were

taught to “self-monitor the behavior and recognize themselves when they violated the

expectations.” This is a very open-ended statement and does not have clear implications as to

how they accomplished their goal. Presumably the clear expectations of “Be Safe, Be

Responsible, Be Respectful, Be Caring,” put in place to create a positive environment, were at

play to help all students self-monitor their behavior, but what individual attention was given to

students who continued to bully? As a whole, the strategy of using clear and applicable

definitions for a positive environment is key. Students can be quick to dismiss positive jargon as

adults being tacky. It is useful to couple the positive terminology with concrete actions. For

example, the practice of teachers modeling good behavior and having the children role play were

good tools to help the students connect positive ideology with positive action.

In light of this, it is important to make sure the adults in the school are all on-board with

the system. Their use of positive reinforcement through Mountain Bucks was a tool for

conditioning both adult and student behavior. They state that, when students were drawn for

front of the line passes, the adults who gave them the Mountain Bucks were also acknowledged.

This could serve as a motivation for adults to hand out mountain bucks (or it could deter teachers

who do not like recognition). The Mountain Bucks recognition is the only method mentioned to

describe how teachers were held accountable for upholding the positive school environment and
healthy teacher-student interaction. More effort could be placed into creating a way to motivate

more adults to adopt the system.

Relationship to Course Material:

SWPBIS related to course material because it is a system created to modify behavior.

More specifically, the use of operant conditioning through positive reinforcement (Mountain

Bucks) directly correlates to the material covered in chapter 3 of Human Learning. The

differentiation between authoritarian and authoritative discipline also touches on the concepts of

punishment covered within the course.

Future Research:

The case study for SWPBIS at Mountain Middle School was a good display that

incorporating human needs for structure, support and positive relationships is key to reducing

accounts of bullying. The argument would have been more convincing if this framework was

used in multiple schools. In the future, it would be useful to know the implications of this system

in schools with varying cultural (or sub-cultural) backgrounds. It would also be interesting to

follow the students through into adult hood and see if those who grew up in a SWPBIS

environment displayed kinder behavior as adults in environments that are not as intentional about

creating a positive environment. One component of the system that can be tested is if the

reduction in bullying was due to a true change in behavior or if it was due to a reduction in

opportunities. Intervention approaches were taken to change the environment so that students

would not feel the need to bully. They gave an example about un-crowding the hallways so that

students don’t shove each other. An experiment could be done where they add the old bully-

prone structures back in. If this correlates with an increase in bullying events, then this would

suggest there was no true change in behavior, just change in opportunity.