Funding Support for School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support Implementation and Scale-Up

Abstract

The process of selecting, implementing, and scaling-up evidence-based practices is a major focus and difficult accomplishment for states. Renewed commitment to improving student outcomes has led directly to the need for effective practices implemented at scale. The funding decisions made at state, regional, and district levels remain a key to large-scale implementation of effective practices. In this article, we summarize the funding decisions of nine states that implemented School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) across at least 500 schools or 30% of the schools in the state. A survey about funding sources, funding levels, and funding decisions was completed by the key implementers in each state, and a follow-up interview was used to clarify and confirm initial information. The results indicate that different states used different funding approaches, but in general, funding of SWPBIS was provided predominantly through special education sources and that initial demonstrations led to larger scale implementation when state policy makers developed creative procedures for using multiple funding sources within a unified implementation effort. Implications for funding the scaling of evidence-based practices are discussed.

Education policy implementation

“…Some frameworks are focused on public policy implementation more generally -such as Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jenkins-Smith et al, 2014 [29] ), while others focus on education policy implementation (Bell and Stevenson, 2015 [30] ; Haddad and Demsky, 1995 [31] ). Fullan's approach links implementation to the issue of educational change (2015 [21] ). But each adopts a specific perspective on implementation, which we analysed.…”

“…The political economy of reform looks at limited public budgets and resistance by interest groups, which policy makers must find a way to bypass in order to reform effectively. School change scholars suggest that unless teachers, school leaders and other actors in education understand and share the policy meaning, it is unlikely to get implemented (Fullan, 2015 [21] ).…”

“…Yet analysis suggests that the term may require taking into consideration a large variety of factors including the policy making process itself, in addition to context and the actual policy. Alternative terms from educationalists include "delivery" (Barber, 2008 [46] ), "enactment" (Bell and Stevenson, 2015 [30] ) "realisation" (Donaldson, 2015 [53] ) or educational change (Fullan, 2015 [21] ).…”

“…Fullan defines education policy implementation as "the process of putting into practice an idea, program, or set of activities and structures new to the people attempting or expected to change. The change may be externally imposed or voluntarily sought; explicitly defined in detail or developed and adapted incrementally through use; designed to be used uniformly or deliberately planned so that users can make modifications according to their perceptions of the needs of the situation" (Fullan, 2015 [21] ) Two features stand out from this definition. First, implementation is about changing schools and the education system "in the direction of some sought-after change" (Fullan, 2015 [21] ).…”

“…The nature of a policy solution, and the way it is formulated influence the "enactment" of a policy (Bell and Stevenson, 2015 [30] ). The core attributes of a policy, the issues that were not raised during its formulation phase carry over to the implementation phase and may alter it (Fullan, 2015 [21] ). Several factors linked to the policy itself should be considered in terms of how they influence and determine implementation.…”