Schools are required to conduct functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and use p

ositive behavior support with students who are identified as disabled and are at
risk for expulsion, alternative school placement, or more than 10 days of suspe
nsion. Even though FBA is required under limited circumstances it is good profes
sional practice to use a problem-solving approach to managing problem behaviors
in the school setting (Crone & Horner 2003).[1]
The use of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) in schools is widespre
ad (Sugai & Horner, 2002).[2] The program offers a primary, secondary, and terti
ary level of intervention.[3] A basic tenet of the PBIS approach includes identi
fying students in one of three categories based on risk for behavior problems. O
nce identified, students receive services in one of three categories: primary, s
econdary, or tertiary. To help practitioners with differences in interventions u
sed at each of the levels the professional literature refers to a three-tiered (
levels) model (Stewart, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Benner, 2005; Sugai, Spra
gue, Horner & Walker, 2000;[4] Tobin & Sugai, 2005; Walker et al., 1996.)[5] Int
erventions are specifically developed for each of these levels with the goal of
reducing the risk for academic or social failure. These interventions may be beh
avioral and or academic interventions incorporating scientifically proven forms
of instruction such as direct instruction.[6] The interventions become more focu
sed and complex as one examines the strategies used at each level.[7]
Primary prevention strategies focus on interventions used on a school-wide basis
for all students (Sugai & Horner, 2002).[2] This level of prevention is conside
red "primary" because all students are exposed in the same way, and at the same
level, to the intervention. The primary prevention level is the largest by numbe
r. Approximately 80 85% of students who are not at risk for behavior problems resp
ond in a positive manner to this prevention level.[8] Primary prevention strateg
ies include, but are not limited to, using effective teaching practices and curr
icula, explicitly teaching behavior that is acceptable within the school environ
ment, focusing on ecological arrangement and systems within the school, consiste
nt use of precorrection procedures, using active supervision of common areas, an
d creating reinforcement systems that are used on a school-wide basis (Lewis, Su
gai, & Colvin, 1998;[9] Martella & Nelson, 2003;[10] Nelson, Crabtree, MarchandMartella & Martella, 1998;[11] Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002.[12])
Secondary prevention strategies involve students (i.e., 10 15% of the school popul
ation) who do not respond to the primary prevention strategies and are at risk f
or academic failure or behavior problems but are not in need of individual suppo
rt (Nelson, et al., 2002).[full citation needed] Interventions at the secondary
level often are delivered in small groups to maximize time and effort and should
be developed with the unique needs of the students within the group. Examples o
f these interventions include social support such as social skills training (e.g
., explicit instruction in skill-deficit areas, friendship clubs, check in/check
out, role playing) or academic support (i.e., use of research-validated interve
ntion programs and tutoring). Additionally, secondary programs could include beh
avioral support approaches (e.g., simple Functional Behavioral Assessments [FBA]
, precorrection, self-management training). Even with the heightened support wit
hin secondary level interventions, some students (1 7%) will need the additional a
ssistance at the tertiary level (Walker et al., 1996).[5]
Tertiary prevention programs focus on students who display persistent patterns o
f disciplinary problems (Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, & Currin, 2002).[13] Ter
tiary-level programs are also called intensive or individualized interventions a
nd are the most comprehensive and complex.[7] The interventions within this leve
l are strength-based in that the complexity and intensity of the intervention pl
ans directly reflect the complexity and intensity of the behaviors.[14] Students
within the tertiary level continue involvement in primary and secondary interve
ntion programs and receive additional support as well. These supports could incl
ude use of full FBA, de-escalation training for the student, heightened use of n

atural supports (e.g., family members, friends of the student), and development
of a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP).