Introduction

From Leah: In light of the recent email from David about the lengthened intro portion. I am going to insert more literature into my peice and try to weave the Lit review with the intro. We can decide to use it or not as a team but I would rather have it done in case we need it.

Here's a 1st draft from Andrew for the intro: Here is Andrew's and Leah's introduction ( and lit. list) put together. Suggestions and edits welcome: In the current climate of accountability, standards, and increased academic expectations for all students, school districts simply cannot be complacent when students undermine their own success through habitual disciplinary problems with repercussions ranging from office referrals to out of school suspensions. Urban districts, due to such factors as size, diversity, high poverty rates, and limited resources often find themselves even more impacted by the volume of such students. Unfortunately many districts habitually turn to these traditional methods for disciplining aberrant students, and equally alarming are the high rates at which minority students and special education students are punished in these ways. In an effort to alleviate these harmful patterns, several districts have turned to Positive Behavior Support (PBS) interventions to train students to make better decisions, expand an individual’s behavior repertoire, and minimize problem behavior. PBS initiatives also support teachers and administrators in counseling and guiding their students through these changes in outlook and approach to life. Although PBS was initially introduced as an intervention for students with disabilities (mandated by the reauthorized IDEA, 1997), Carr et al suggest that PBS “reflects a more general trend in the social sciences and education away from pathology-based models to a new positive model that stresses personal competence and environmental integrity (2002, p.2).” Although a variety of studies have examined PBS implementation in schools and achieved positive results (Muscott et al, 2008; Bohanon et al, 2006), the majority of studies occurred at the elementary school level and few occurred in major metropolitan centers. The Muscott study yielded positive results on a large scale in New Hampshire across school levels and with economically diverse populations, while the Bohanon study had similar results on a smaller scale, but with a more diverse population ethnically and racially. This proposal seeks to fine tune the efforts of prior researchers by isolating which PBS methods yield the greatest results for students in urban secondary schools and by providing further illumination of implementation procedures by following the recommendations of Muscott with regard to educating and training the faculty and administration. Further study of PBS is necessary in order to gain insight into the implementation process and gather information about best practices and programs for PBS. There is little evidence into the best practices for intervention programs which aim at reducing discipline problems and lowering suspensions especially at the secondary school level. As suggested by Bohanon et al. (2006) future studies should include planning and implementation efforts for individuals and groups at the secondary school level and an evaluation process that is long enough to focus on the sustainability of the PBS programs. It is clear that there has been a lack of focus on PBS and program impact at the secondary school level. In fact, **a recent review of the literature on school-wide interventions with primary-level efforts conducted in secondary schools identified 14 studies published between 1997 and 2005; these studies reported data on 63 schools ** (Lane et al., 2006). **Only one article reported the outcomes of a primary plan implemented at the high school level ** (Skiba & Peterson, 2003)**,** **whereas the remaining articles focused on middle or junior high schools. **   Urban schools need to be a focus and a priority for study. As stated in Atkins et al. (2002) “prevalence rates for children's disruptive behavior in urban, low-income communities are almost three times national estimates”. These “high risk” students at urban, low income schools often fall behind in traditional academic settings and with traditional discipline actions due to the lack of understanding of their home environments and risk factors. Christle et al., (2004) states that “ low socioeconomic status mitigates a host of related risks factors, which may include race (particularly Black and Hispanic), family structure (female headed households), physical health (undernourishment and frequent illness), and mental health (low cognitive ability and academic delay”. It remains obvious that interventions need to occur in order to serve students best within the realm of discipline.     Thus, we seek to identify the most effective models for implementing effective, sustainable PBS intervention programs in an urban secondary school setting. We aim to follow the advice of Bohanon et al. (2006) by creating three types of interventions and ensuring a lengthened process for evaluating these programs in order to illuminate the best programs for decreasing problem behavior, classroom discipline and school suspensions. The descriptors used in the literature search include the following words and phrases: The databases used for this proposal include the following: The Journals highlighted by the literature search include the following: > >
 * 1) Suspension
 * 2) Alternatives to suspension
 * 3) Positive Behavior support
 * 4) School Suspensions
 * 5) Urban schools and discipline
 * 6) Discipline
 * 7) Zero tolerance
 * 1) ERIC
 * 2) ProQuest Education Journals Database
 * 3) JSTOR
 * 4) Education Module Database
 * 5) Questia
 * 1) // Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions //
 * 2) // Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology //
 * 3) // Education & Treatment of Children //
 * 4) // School Psychology Review //