This study guide is a review companion drawn verbatim from the course. Course completion requires the full lessons, activities, and assessment.
Module 1 · Behavior is learned: foundations and Minnesota law
20 required minutes
Lesson 1.110 required minutes
Behavior is learned, communicative, and teachable
PELSB: positive behavior intervention strategies, conceptual foundation
Learning objectiveDescribe a recurring classroom behavior in observable terms, record its antecedents and consequences, and write a testable hypothesis about its function.
Key teaching points
Positive behavior intervention strategies rest on one working premise: social behavior is learned, and what is learned can be taught, practiced, and strengthened the same way academic skills are. The Center on PBIS practice guide for educators frames classroom behavior support as instruction inside a multi-tiered system: universal practices for all students, targeted practices for some, and intensive individualized...
The engine of this approach is function-based thinking. Behavior that repeats is working for the student in some way.
Function is investigated through structured observation, usually summarized as ABC: A ntecedent (what reliably happens right before), B ehavior (what the student observably does), and C onsequence (what happens right after that may maintain the behavior). The What Works Clearinghouse practice guide on reducing behavior problems makes this its first recommendation: identify the specifics of the problem behavior and...
Function-based thinking is applied learning science, and three of its technical terms repay precise definition because everyday usage blurs them. Reinforcement is any consequence that increases the future probability of the behavior it follows; it is defined by its effect, not by anyone's intention, which is why a scolding that reliably produces laughter and repetition is functioning as reinforcement no matter how...
A kindergartner screams and sweeps materials off the table during center transitions, roughly three times a week. The ABC record across six observations shows the antecedent is not transitions generally but transitions away from a preferred center before her structure is finished; the consequence is that an adult typically helps her rebuild it after calming, and twice she was allowed to stay.
A tenth grader delivers a running comic commentary during teacher-led instruction in one class period. The reflexive reading is attention-seeking, and it may be right, but the ABC record complicates it: the commentary clusters in the fifteen minutes after independent practice is assigned, the laughter is real but brief, and the reliable consequence is a multi-exchange argument with the teacher during which no...
Minnesota's Standards of Effective Practice make this stance a professional expectation, not a preference. Standard 2 requires teachers to understand and implement relationship-based, culturally affirming, and proactive approaches to behavior in order to improve student outcomes and reduce exclusionary practices.
Antecedent: The condition or event that reliably precedes the behavior: task type, transition, peer conflict, unstructured time, a specific demand.
Behavior: What the student observably says or does, described so two adults watching would record the same thing.
Consequence: What follows the behavior and may maintain it: attention, task removal, laughter, escape from the room.
Function hypothesis: A testable statement: when [antecedent], the student [behavior], in order to [obtain/escape]; supported by [evidence].
Applied activity
Choose one recurring, non-dangerous classroom behavior from your practice. Write an observable definition, record or reconstruct three ABC observations, and draft a one-sentence function hypothesis in the format above. Use no student-identifying information.
Artifact specification. A strong ABC artifact contains the observable definition, a three-row observation table (antecedent, behavior, consequence, plus a setting-event note where relevant), and the hypothesis sentence in the taught format. Quality criteria: (1) the definition would let two observers record the same events independently; (2) each consequence entry records what actually followed, including adult behavior, not what policy says should follow; (3) the hypothesis names obtain or escape (or defensibly both) and cites the pattern that supports it; (4) at least one rival function is named and the observation that would distinguish it is stated; (5) no interpretation words (defiant, lazy, attention-seeking) appear anywhere in the table.
Learning objectiveIdentify the Minnesota statutes that define PBIS, require nonexclusionary practices, limit dismissal in the early grades, and restrict restrictive procedures, and state one classroom implication of each.
Key teaching points
Positive behavior support in Minnesota is not only good practice; substantial parts of it are law. Minnesota Statutes section 122A.627 defines positive behavioral interventions and supports as an evidence-based framework for preventing problem behavior, providing instruction and support for positive and prosocial behaviors, and supporting social, emotional, and behavioral needs for all students.
The pupil discipline chapter reinforces the same direction. Minnesota Statutes section 121A.41, subdivision 12, defines nonexclusionary disciplinary policies and practices as alternatives to dismissing a pupil from school, explicitly including evidence-based positive behavior interventions and supports, social and emotional services, school-linked mental health services, counseling, social work services, academic...
The 2023 education amendments went further for young learners. Minnesota Statutes section 121A.425 protects full and equitable participation for students in prekindergarten programs through grade 3: dismissals of these students are prohibited except for removals of less than one school day, and expulsion or exclusion may occur only after nonexclusionary alternatives have been exhausted and only when there is an...
Read as a system, the Minnesota provisions form three concentric layers of protection, and understanding the architecture helps a teacher act correctly without memorizing every subdivision. The outer layer is definitional and preventive: section 122A.627 defines what schools are supposed to build, and section 122A.187 obligates every renewing Tier 3 and Tier 4 teacher to be prepared to build it, so that the...
A second grader has hit classmates twice this month during recess disputes. The principal asks the teacher to document "what we have tried" before the family meeting.
A ninth grader with no IEP has accumulated eight cumulative days of out-of-school suspension by January across three incidents. The mechanics of section 121A.45 now matter concretely: at the point removals exceed ten cumulative days in the year, the district must attempt a meeting with the student and family to assess whether mental health services are needed, so the tenth day is not simply another consequence; it...
Boundary note. Statutory summaries in this course are instructional orientation, not legal advice. District policies implement these statutes with local detail, and special education law adds further procedural protections.
Applied activity
Locate your district's student discipline policy (or your handbook's behavior section). Identify where nonexclusionary practices appear, note whether the policy reflects the preK-grade 3 dismissal limits, and write two specific implications for your own grade level and role.
Artifact specification. A strong policy alignment note identifies the policy document by title and section, quotes or closely paraphrases the nonexclusionary language found (or documents its absence), and maps each of the three statutory layers to a local counterpart. Quality criteria: (1) the note distinguishes what the statute requires from what local policy adds; (2) any gap between policy and statute is stated neutrally as a question for the administrator, not a legal conclusion; (3) both implications are role-specific actions ("before referring for X in my grade, I must first document Y"), not restatements; (4) the note identifies where the teacher's own documentation would live and who reads it; (5) the note names the statutory trigger most relevant to the teacher's grade band.
Learning objectiveTranslate broad expectations into positively stated, observable routine behaviors and plan explicit teaching with modeling, practice, and feedback.
Key teaching points
Tier 1 is the universal layer of the framework: practices delivered to all students, designed so that most students, 80% or more in well-implemented schools, experience behavioral success without anything further. [S21] The foundation of Tier 1 is a small set of expectations, three to five, stated positively, and, as Minnesota's statute specifies, reflecting the local community and its cultures. "Be respectful, be...
The working tool is a behavior matrix: expectations down one side, classroom routines across the top, and in each cell the two or three specific behaviors that count as meeting the expectation in that routine. A matrix converts adult assumptions into taught content.
Expectations are then taught the way any content is taught: tell, show, practice, feedback. An explicit behavior lesson names the skill and its rationale, models examples and near-nonexamples (the teacher, not a student, models the nonexample), rehearses in the real setting, and gives immediate specific feedback.
Plan for re-teaching, not just teaching. Expectations are re-taught after breaks, before novel events, and whenever data show a routine drifting.
Each specification in this lesson has a mechanism behind it. Three to five expectations, not ten, because the set must be memorable enough to be retrieved in the moment by students and, just as critically, by adults deciding whether behavior meets it; a list no one can recite governs nothing.
Morning arrival in a grade-one room is chaos until 8:20: backpacks abandoned, three students at the teacher's desk, two wanderers. The matrix row for arrival, under "be responsible," reads: hang backpack, move folder to the bin, begin the tray activity at your seat.
A high-school science teacher's friction point is device use during labs. The temptation is a phone war; the matrix approach is a taught routine.
Applied activity
Build a mini-matrix for one high-friction routine in your setting: your three to five expectations down the side, that single routine across the top, and observable behaviors in each cell. Then outline a five-minute explicit lesson for it: rationale, model, practice, feedback, and the precorrection you will use before the routine.
Artifact specification. A strong matrix-and-lesson artifact presents the completed matrix column and a lesson outline that a colleague could deliver from as written. Quality criteria: (1) every cell behavior is observable and countable, with no virtue words standing alone; (2) the rationale is one students would accept as serving them, not adult convenience; (3) the lesson includes an adult-modeled near-nonexample and a practice cycle in or simulating the real setting; (4) the precorrection is scripted word for word and timed to precede the friction moment; (5) the artifact notes one cell where cultural judgment was involved and how student or family input would inform it.
Acknowledge expected behavior specifically, credibly, and often
PELSB: positive behavior intervention strategies, Tier 1 acknowledgment systems
Learning objectiveDesign an acknowledgment system with behavior-specific feedback, a deliberately positive interaction ratio, and cultural and developmental fit.
Key teaching points
Teaching an expectation creates the skill; acknowledgment creates the habit. Minnesota's PBIS statute lists a consistent, staff-wide system for acknowledging students who display expected behavior as a required element of implementation, and the Center on PBIS educator guide identifies specific positive feedback as one of the highest-leverage practices available to a classroom teacher.
Ratio matters as much as quality. Classrooms drift toward attending to problem behavior because problem behavior demands attention, which, for attention-maintained behavior, is gasoline.
Acknowledgment systems beyond praise, such as points, tickets, or class celebrations, can add structure, and many Minnesota schoolwide systems use them. Design them with care.
A common objection deserves a direct answer: "Students should behave without rewards; this is bribery." A bribe is payment offered in advance to induce misconduct. Acknowledgment is feedback delivered after a taught skill, the same mechanism every profession uses, including the salary and the license renewal that brought you to this course.
Behavior-specific praise is among the most-studied classroom practices, and the shape of the evidence is worth knowing precisely. Royer and colleagues' systematic review of teacher-delivered behavior-specific praise applied formal quality standards to the literature and found consistent positive effects on student behavior across studies, while noting that the base rests heavily on single-case designs in which...
A grade-two teacher building the arrival routine from Lesson 2.1 plans her acknowledgment deliberately. Week one, dense and specific: she names the behavior for individual students at the door and the tray table ("folder in the bin before I even reminded; that is what responsible looks like"), aiming for most students to hear their own behavior named at least once daily.
An eleventh-grade English teacher knows public praise lands badly with several students, so the system is designed around delivery channels rather than volume: a quiet word at the desk during circulation, a one-line note on returned drafts naming a discussion behavior ("you built on Kiara's point before disagreeing; that moved the seminar"), and a deliberate practice of catching the two students with the most...
Specific: Names the observable behavior and links it to the taught expectation, so the feedback re-teaches.
Contingent: Follows the behavior it acknowledges, closely in time, so the connection is unmistakable.
Credible: Delivered in the teacher's genuine voice and calibrated to student age and preference; never sarcastic, never performative.
Equitable: Distributed across all students and monitored, because acknowledgment gaps track referral gaps.
Applied activity
Write five behavior-specific acknowledgment statements tied to cells of your Lesson 2.1 matrix, appropriate to your students' ages and cultures. Then describe one sustainable acknowledgment routine for your classroom, including how you will keep it specific, equitable, and gradually thinned, and how you will check your own positive-to-corrective ratio for one week.
Artifact specification. A strong acknowledgment design pairs the five statements with the matrix cells they serve and describes the routine's full life cycle. Quality criteria: (1) each statement names an observable behavior and its expectation link, and would survive being overheard by the student's peers without embarrassment; (2) at least one statement uses a private delivery channel, with the rationale stated; (3) the equity check is a concrete measurement (who received acknowledgment this week), not an intention; (4) the thinning plan states the fluency signal that triggers it and what maintains the behavior afterward; (5) the ratio check names the instrument, the week, and what result would prompt a change.
Primary sources: S5 · S10 · S13 · S14 · S26 · S27
Module 3 · Respond instructionally and de-escalate safely
25 required minutes
Lesson 3.112 required minutes
Respond to problem behavior with the least intrusive effective move
Learning objectiveSequence a continuum of instructional responses to problem behavior that preserves instruction, relationships, and the requirements of Minnesota's nonexclusionary discipline law.
Key teaching points
Even excellent Tier 1 systems do not eliminate problem behavior; they make it rarer and make responses easier. When problem behavior occurs, the goal of the response is to end the behavior, protect instructional time, and keep the student in the learning community, in that order of difficulty and importance.
Three disciplines keep the continuum working. First, protect the function analysis: sending a student into the hall for escape-maintained behavior pays the behavior its asking price and guarantees a repeat performance.
Consistency across days and across students is the fairness test students actually run. A continuum applied warmly to some students and coldly to others, or enforced on Monday and abandoned by Thursday, teaches students that consequences are about mood and identity rather than behavior.
First, the extinction burst: when a behavior that has reliably produced a payoff stops producing it, the behavior typically intensifies before it declines, as the student, quite rationally, tries harder with the strategy that has always worked. A teacher who begins planned ignoring of attention-maintained calling out should expect louder calling out for several days, and a teacher who does not expect it will...
Calling out during a grade-three read-aloud, hypothesized (from Lesson 1.1 work) as attention-maintained. The continuum in action across one week: the teacher precorrects before the read-aloud ("hands or talk-tickets for connections"), acknowledges two students by name for signaled contributions in the first three minutes (attention flows to the expected route), and planned-ignores the first call-outs while visibly...
A ninth grader mutters a profanity at his desk after a returned test and shoves the paper to the floor. The escalation-tempting response is public confrontation about respect.
Applied activity
Write your personal response continuum for one class period: at least five levels, each with the exact language you will use, matched to your matrix. Annotate two levels with the function trap they avoid (for example, why level three does not reward escape). State where documentation begins in your continuum and why.
Artifact specification. A strong continuum is a one-page instrument the author could tape inside a desk drawer and follow under stress. Quality criteria: (1) each level contains scripted language, delivery conditions (private/public, timing, take-up time), and the reset rule back to zero; (2) the two function-trap annotations name the function and trace exactly how the level avoids paying it; (3) one level anticipates an extinction burst and states the tolerance window and fallback; (4) the documentation point is justified by the statutory record it feeds, not habit; (5) the continuum contains at least three levels that are purely instructional (no consequence), reflecting where most behavior should resolve.
Primary sources: S7 · S8 · S10 · S14 · S17 · S26
Lesson 3.213 required minutes
De-escalation basics and Minnesota's bright legal lines
PELSB: positive behavior intervention strategies, de-escalation and lawful limits
Learning objectiveMatch adult responses to phases of the escalation cycle and state the restrictions Minnesota Statutes section 125A.0942 places on restrictive procedures.
Key teaching points
Escalated behavior follows a recognizable arc, often described as a cycle: calm, trigger, agitation, acceleration, peak, de-escalation, and recovery. The single most useful fact about the cycle is that adult influence is greatest at the beginning and smallest at the peak.
At peak, the priorities collapse to safety: move other students away, send for the designated support per your building's crisis procedure, keep your distance and your calm, and stop teaching the behavior lesson, because no one learns at peak. During de-escalation and recovery, resist the impulse to process immediately; a drained student agreeing to anything is not learning.
Minnesota law draws bright lines around what may ever happen at peak, and every licensed teacher needs to know them before a crisis. Minnesota Statutes section 125A.0942 governs restrictive procedures, meaning physical holding and seclusion.
Finally, connect de-escalation to function and to equity. Escalations cluster around predictable antecedents: transitions, task difficulty, public correction, unstructured time, and, in some cases, adult tone.
The phase model earns its place in a renewal course because it explains, rather than merely describes, why familiar adult moves fail at familiar moments. As physiological arousal climbs, the capacities a reasoned conversation depends on, working memory, language processing, perspective taking, degrade in roughly that order, which is why a student in acceleration can repeat an argument but cannot weigh one, and why a...
Phase identification is itself a data skill, and it repays the same observational precision as the ABC work of Lesson 1.1. Agitation signatures are idiosyncratic but stable: one student goes quiet and starts breaking pencil leads, another begins low-grade provocation of a neighbor, a third asks to sharpen a pencil three times in five minutes.
A second grader's escalations cluster after lunch on days with indoor recess. The two-column log shows the same on-ramp each time: he enters the room bumping chairs (trigger residue from the unstructured cafeteria), fails to start the silent-reading routine, begins flicking classmates' materials (agitation), argues when corrected publicly (acceleration), and twice this month has ended at peak, overturning his chair.
An eleventh grader with a strained school history escalates when returned work is accompanied by public comment. After one incident that ended with an administrator escort, the teacher rebuilds the routine around the cycle.
Applied activity
Reconstruct one escalated incident from your practice (de-identified). Map it to the phases of the cycle, identify the earliest phase at which a different adult move was available, script that move, and note which statutory limits of section 125A.0942 would govern if the incident had reached peak.
Artifact specification. A strong incident map reads like flight data, not like a grievance. Quality criteria: (1) every phase the incident passed through is identified with the observable evidence for it, including at least two precursor behaviors from the agitation phase; (2) the earliest-available alternative move is located in calm, trigger, or agitation, not later, and is scripted word for word with its delivery conditions; (3) the map names the function the escalation likely served and shows that the scripted move does not pay it; (4) the peak-phase statement of section 125A.0942 limits is accurate on all four bright lines (emergency only, trained listed personnel, ends when threat ends, prohibited forms); and (5) the map ends with one calm-phase system change, an antecedent adjustment or rehearsed script, that makes the recurrence less likely, since the test of incident analysis is the next incident. [S9, S35]
Primary sources: S7 · S9 · S10 · S14 · S26 · S35
Module 4 · Tier 2 and Tier 3: intensify support by function
25 required minutes
Lesson 4.112 required minutes
Tier 2: efficient targeted support for students who need more
Learning objectiveDescribe the defining features of Tier 2 support and design a daily check-in and feedback structure for a student needing more than Tier 1.
Key teaching points
When Tier 1 is implemented well and a student still struggles, the framework's answer is not a harsher consequence; it is more support. Tier 2 provides targeted intervention for the roughly 10-15% of students who need more than universal practices: extra instruction and rehearsal in behavioral and social-emotional skills, more structure and predictability, increased adult connection and supervision, more frequent...
The most widely implemented Tier 2 structure is a daily check-in and check-out cycle built around a point card carrying the school's existing expectations. The elements are simple and each one is doing measurable work.
Design details determine whether Tier 2 helps or humiliates. Entry should be triggered by transparent data rules (Lesson 5.1), not by exasperation, and framed to the student as support and membership, never as a public mark of deviance.
Classroom teachers are the daily engine of Tier 2, but not its sole owner. Minnesota's statutory framework assigns implementation, monitoring, and evaluation to collaborative teams, and fidelity instruments such as the Tiered Fidelity Inventory give teams a structured way to ask whether the intervention, not just the student, is performing.
Check-in/check-out is worth dissecting because each element maps to a mechanism this course has already taught, which is what makes the intervention teachable rather than magical. The morning check-in is precorrection plus noncontingent positive adult attention: the student receives connection before earning anything, which for attention-maintained behavior partially satisfies the function in advance and lowers the...
A third grader's referrals and classroom tallies show attention-maintained disruption across the day, and the team's data rule triggers Tier 2 entry. Day one looks like this.
A ninth grader with escape-maintained work refusal in two academic periods needs the same architecture with different contents and adolescent-proof packaging. Entry is framed privately as coaching, not surveillance: "This is the system athletes use, targets and film review." The card is electronic, a form on his phone that teachers tap, because a paper card carried between high school classes is a public mark he...
Fast access: Standardized and continuously available, so support starts within days of the data showing need.
Added structure: Predictable adult contact, precorrection, and clear daily goals layered onto the same Tier 1 expectations.
Amplified feedback: Ratings and behavior-specific acknowledgment at every natural transition, plus a family communication loop.
Data with decision rules: Daily points graphed against a goal, with predefined rules for fading, adjusting, or intensifying.
Applied activity
Design a daily check-in and feedback card for a de-identified student profile you construct: the expectations rated, the rating scale, check-in and check-out scripts, the family loop, the data goal, and one explicit decision rule each for fading and for intensifying. Note one adjustment you would make if the target behavior were escape-maintained.
Artifact specification. A strong design could be handed to a coordinator and run Monday. Quality criteria: (1) the card itself is drawn or fully specified: expectations in student-facing language, the rating scale defined at every value, and the rating blocks matched to the real schedule; (2) both scripts are word for word and under thirty seconds, and the check-in script contains a precorrection; (3) the family loop states what goes home, how often, and what the family is asked to do, in one sentence a tired parent can act on; (4) the fading rule and the intensifying rule each name a number, a duration, and a next step, and the intensifying rule routes through a fidelity check first; (5) the escape-maintained adjustment changes an antecedent or adds a break routine, not merely the reward menu; and (6) the design names its dignity safeguards: private hand-offs, no public point talk, and the student's own voice in choosing the mentor. [S10, S12, S28]
Tier 3: individualized, function-based support plans
PELSB: positive behavior intervention strategies, Tier 3 individualized support
Learning objectiveBuild a function-based support plan with prevention, teaching, reinforcement, and response components, and identify the general educator's role on the team.
Key teaching points
Tier 3 serves the small number of students, roughly 1-5%, for whom universal and targeted supports are not enough. Its defining feature is individualization built on a functional behavioral assessment (FBA): a structured process that defines the behavior operationally, gathers ABC and interview data across settings, and produces a function hypothesis precise enough to design against.
A competent function-based plan has four coordinated parts, and the coordination is the point. Prevent: change antecedents so the behavior is less necessary, adjusting task difficulty, providing choice, precorrecting, restructuring seating or transitions, or embedding the student's interests.
Note what a function-based plan quietly accomplishes for equity and legality. It replaces escalating punishments, which for escape-maintained behavior are often literal rewards, with an engineered route to success; it creates the documented nonexclusionary support that Minnesota law expects before any dismissal; and for preK-grade 3 students it operationalizes the written support plan and family collaboration that...
The general education teacher's role on a Tier 3 team is substantial: you hold the richest observational data, you implement most plan components, and your feedback on feasibility determines whether the plan survives contact with a real classroom. Bring precise ABC evidence, honestly report implementation (a plan delivered at half strength cannot be evaluated), and ask for the supports you need to implement well.
The design logic underneath every sound Tier 3 plan can be stated as a competition. The problem behavior and the replacement behavior are two routes to the same functional outcome, and the student, like every organism the behavioral literature has ever studied, will allocate behavior toward the route that pays better: more reliably, more quickly, and at lower effort.
A first grader's team completes an FBA after weeks of carpet-time elopement (the Lesson 6.1 pattern, worth studying twice). Hypothesis: during whole-group phonics drills, when called on or anticipating being called on, she leaves the carpet and hides under tables, and as a result escapes the task and receives one-to-one aide attention; the behavior functions to escape a task that current data show is two...
A tenth grader receiving special education services under an emotional-behavioral disability category escalates verbally in his co-taught English class: profanity aimed at the teacher, roughly twice a week, reliably producing removal to the hallway and a visit from the dean. The FBA, run through his IEP team because federal regulation requires the team to consider positive behavioral interventions and supports when...
Applied activity
Extend your Lesson 1.1 hypothesis into a four-part function-based plan: two prevention strategies, one taught replacement behavior serving the same function, a reinforcement plan for the replacement, and a response plan for recurrence. Confirm each part against the hypothesis and flag any element that would require team or special-education involvement.
Artifact specification. A strong plan wins the competition on paper before it is asked to win in the room. Quality criteria: (1) the hypothesis appears at the top in the full testable form, and every one of the four parts cites it explicitly; (2) the replacement behavior is costed against the problem behavior on effort, speed, and reliability of payoff, with a sentence defending each comparison; (3) the reinforcement plan states its week-one density and its thinning condition; (4) the response plan is checked, line by line, for any step that pays the hypothesized function, and the check is shown; (5) team and special-education triggers are flagged accurately, including the IEP-team obligation when behavior impedes learning and the section 125A.0942 boundaries on any safety component; and (6) the plan names its two-line progress data: the problem behavior and the replacement behavior, both counted. [S9, S10, S30, S32]
Module 5 · Use data and pursue equitable discipline
20 required minutes
Lesson 5.110 required minutes
Data-based decision making: from referrals to precise problem statements
PELSB: positive behavior intervention strategies, data systems
Learning objectiveUse office discipline referral patterns and classroom data to write a precision problem statement and apply explicit decision rules for intensifying or fading support.
Key teaching points
Minnesota's PBIS statute requires systems for using data-based decision making, and the framework supplies the method. The workhorse metric is the office discipline referral (ODR): a standardized record of a behavior event serious enough to involve the office, capturing what happened, where, when, who was involved, and the apparent motivation.
Raw data becomes actionable through the precision problem statement, which answers five questions at once: what behavior, where, when, who, and why (perceived function). "Behavior in the cafeteria is out of control" is a mood.
Decision rules convert monitoring into decisions. Effective teams define, in advance, what response to data will trigger what action: for example, a Tier 2 student averaging at or above goal for four consecutive weeks moves to a fading plan; below goal for two weeks triggers a fidelity check before any change (was the intervention actually delivered as designed?); below goal after a fidelity-verified adjustment...
Two cautions keep data humane. Data exists to route support, not to build a prosecution file; a graph should change what adults do next week, or it is decoration.
The case for predefined decision rules is not that teams lack judgment; it is that unaided judgment about behavior data is systematically biased in knowable directions. Vivid single incidents outweigh weeks of quiet improvement in memory; the most recent data point feels like the trend; and the adult who wanted the intervention sees response where the graph shows noise, while the adult who doubted it sees failure in...
A K-5 team pulls the standard big-five referral views for October: referrals per day per month, by problem behavior, by location, by time of day, and by student. The building graph looks calm until the location view shows the playground generating three times its September rate, the time view putting the spike at the 11:40 lunch recess, and the behavior view coding it as minor physical contact among second graders.
A ninth-grade team monitors one student's Tier 2 point-card percentages against the 80% goal: 84, 81, 77, 74 across four weeks. The exasperated reading is regression; the decision-rule reading is a two-week below-goal trigger, which routes first to a fidelity check.
Applied activity
Using real (de-identified) or constructed data from your setting, write one precision problem statement answering all five questions, then write the decision rules you would attach: the goal, the review interval, the fidelity check, and the predefined actions for adequate and inadequate response.
Artifact specification. A strong artifact would let a colleague who has never seen your data run your next review meeting. Quality criteria: (1) the precision statement answers all five questions in one or two sentences and contains at least one number; (2) the goal is stated as a measurable value with its data source named; (3) the review interval is a date rule, not "soon"; (4) the fidelity check names exactly what delivery evidence will be examined and who provides it; (5) the adequate-response and inadequate-response actions are both written in advance, and the inadequate branch routes through fidelity before intensification; and (6) the artifact notes one way the underlying data could reflect adult decision patterns rather than student behavior, with the disaggregation view you would use to check. [S12, S13, S25]
Learning objectiveExplain Minnesota's discipline disparity context, disaggregate behavior data, and design a neutralizing routine for one vulnerable decision point in your own practice.
Key teaching points
Minnesota's push toward nonexclusionary discipline is not abstract policy; it follows documented disparity. Beginning in 2017-2018, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigated dozens of districts and charter schools after finding that students of color and students with disabilities received a starkly disproportionate share of suspensions and expulsions relative to their share of enrollment, and it...
The research base identifies where disparity concentrates: not primarily in objective incidents such as weapons or violence, where definitions leave little room for judgment, but in subjective categories, defiance, disrespect, disruption, insubordination, where an adult must interpret ambiguous behavior in the moment. [S29] These interpretive moments are called vulnerable decision points, and they are most...
The teacher-level tool is the neutralizing routine: a brief, rehearsed self-instruction inserted between provocation and response, engineered to delay the decision out of the reactive moment. Examples: "Is this behavior on the matrix, or is this about my afternoon?"; "Delay and decide: I will address this privately in two minutes"; "Would I refer my easiest-relationship student for this exact behavior?" Pair the...
Equity work in this framework is not a separate initiative bolted onto PBIS; done honestly, it is the quality test of everything else in this course. Expectations that reflect community cultures (statutorily required language in Minnesota), acknowledgment distributed to every student, response continua that route students to support rather than to the hallway, function-based plans instead of escalating removals, and...
A renewal course owes teachers precision about what the disparity evidence does and does not establish. What it establishes is scale and location.
A kindergarten teacher, prompted by this course, runs a two-week self-audit: a simple tally of every correction and every acknowledgment, by student. The corrections column surprises her less than the acknowledgment column: two boys receive a third of the corrections, which she expected, but the same two boys appear almost nowhere in the acknowledgment tally, which she did not.
A high school's team disaggregates fall referrals and finds "defiance" referrals falling disproportionately on Black students, concentrated in the last period of the day and clustered among a handful of staff, a distribution matching the subjective-category research almost exactly. [S29] The response follows the five-point structure rather than a blame hunt. The data are presented to the full faculty as a system...
Applied activity
Identify one vulnerable decision point in your own practice: the behavior category, the conditions that make you reactive, and any pattern you suspect in who receives your corrections. Write a neutralizing routine for it, word for word, and one structural change (definition, continuum step, or audit) that supports it. This artifact may be kept private in tone but must be substantive.
Artifact specification. This artifact is a professional instrument, and privacy of tone does not lower the bar. Quality criteria: (1) the decision point is specified with the same precision as an ABC record: the behavior category, the time and conditions, and the states (rushed, publicly challenged, end of day) that make you reactive; (2) the suspected pattern is stated as a checkable claim, with the two-week tally you will run to check it, covering acknowledgments as well as corrections; (3) the neutralizing routine is short enough to execute in five seconds under load and is written word for word; (4) the structural change is one of the three named types and includes who else must agree to it; and (5) the artifact closes with the review date on which you will look at your own tally and revise the routine, because a routine that is never audited against data is a good intention, not an intervention. [S13, S29]
Case lab: function first, law always, dignity throughout
Integrated demonstration of the PBIS criterion
Learning objectiveAnalyze three behavior cases using function-based reasoning, the tiered framework, and Minnesota's statutory limits, without deficit assumptions.
Key teaching points
Case A: early grades, escape hypothesis, statutory limits. Jonah is a first grader who leaves the carpet area several times during whole-group literacy, crawling under tables and refusing to return.
Case B: subjective referrals and equity. Dariel, a seventh grader, has received five office referrals this quarter, all coded "disrespect" or "defiance," all from the same two class periods, none involving safety.
Case C: escalation and the bright lines. Amara, a tenth grader, escalated in class after a public correction about her phone: arguing, then shoving her desk, then standing over a classmate shouting.
For each case, use the eight-part decision record:
There may be more than one defensible answer. A high-quality response makes its assumptions visible, refuses to infer motive from identity, checks the adults' system before judging the student, and names when the information given is insufficient for a decision. [S10, S13]
Case A. The load-bearing observation is the discrimination in the antecedent data: elopement during letter-sound drills, rarely during read-alouds. Behavior that discriminates that cleanly between task types is broadcasting an escape function tied to specific task demands, and a strong record hypothesizes escape from phonological tasks that exceed current skill, then flags the confound the vignette plants: the aide...
Case B. The strongest evidence in the vignette is distributional: five referrals, two class periods, four teachers with no concerns. Behavior that is context-specific to that degree is, by definition, under contextual control, and a strong record says plainly that "Dariel is simply disrespectful" fails on the evidence because trait explanations predict cross-context consistency the data refute.
Case C. The escalation map should locate the first adult contribution precisely: a public correction about a phone, delivered to a tenth grader in front of peers, is a trigger-phase move that predictably purchased acceleration, and the teacher shouting back is co-escalation, the audience-fueled error Lesson 3.2 names. A strong record scripts the counterfactuals: a private, delayed correction at the trigger phase; at...
Applied activity
Complete the eight-part decision record for all three cases. Then compare them: one turns on early-grade statutory limits, one on subjective-referral equity analysis, and one on the escalation cycle and restrictive-procedure boundaries. Note one insight from each case that transfers to your own setting.
Artifact specification. Strong case records are judged against the calibration guidance above. Quality criteria: (1) all eight parts are completed for all three cases, with behavior definitions a camera could verify; (2) each function hypothesis is written in the full testable form and is consistent with the specific antecedent evidence the case supplies, including the Case A discrimination between task types and the Case B distribution across periods; (3) the legal analysis in each case cites the correct statute and states its operative rule accurately in the writer's own words; (4) at least one scripted adult response per case is written word for word; (5) each record names the additional data it would collect before a high-stakes decision; and (6) the three transfer insights are specific enough to act on within a month, naming the routine, the decision point, or the plan component in your own setting that will change. [S7, S9, S10, S13]
Capstone: build your classroom behavior support plan
Integrated demonstration of the PBIS criterion
Learning objectiveProduce a complete, implementable classroom behavior support plan demonstrating the statutory PBIS elements, function-based individualization, data use, legal compliance, and equity safeguards.
Key teaching points
The capstone is the course's professional-learning artifact: a classroom behavior support plan for your actual assignment, specific enough for a colleague to implement and for a PELSB reviewer to see the Positive Behavior Intervention Strategies criterion demonstrated. Remove all student-identifying information from every section.
The capstone is complete when every section is present, each section is consistent with the same function-based logic (no response step that pays a function the teaching step redirects), the legal constraints are stated accurately, and every individualized element includes evidence and a review plan. The self-check standard: could a substitute teacher run your Tier 1 tomorrow from sections 2 through 5 alone, and...
Applied activity
Complete the ten-section capstone. Self-score each section as demonstrated, partial, or missing, and revise any section not fully demonstrated before the assessment.
Answer all 20 scenario-based questions. The planned completion threshold is 80% (16 of 20). This reviewer copy shows feedback after submission; the deployed version must make the same threshold, scoring, feedback, and remediation rules consistent in the interface and server.
Question stems are listed for study purposes. Answer choices and keys are intentionally omitted.
A student repeatedly calls out during direct instruction, and the class laughs each time. Which is the most defensible first hypothesis?
Two students both refuse to start a writing task. Why might they need different interventions?
Which behavior description is written in usable, observable terms?
Under Minnesota Statutes section 122A.627, which set matches the required elements of PBIS implementation?
A kindergarten team asks whether a student who hit a peer yesterday can be suspended for three days. Under Minnesota Statutes section 121A.425, what is the accurate frame?
Which statement about Minnesota's nonexclusionary discipline requirement is correct?
What makes a behavior matrix more effective than a posted list of rules?
Which is the best example of behavior-specific praise?
Why is a deliberately high ratio of positive to corrective interactions an intervention rather than a nicety?
A student's off-task behavior is escape-maintained. Which teacher response most likely strengthens the problem behavior?
During the acceleration phase of escalation, which adult move fits the phase?
Which statement about Minnesota Statutes section 125A.0942 is accurate?
What primarily distinguishes Tier 2 support from Tier 3 support?
In a daily check-in/check-out cycle, what converts the point card from paperwork into intervention?
A function-based support plan teaches a replacement behavior. What must be true of that replacement?
Which is a complete precision problem statement?
A Tier 2 student's points fall below goal for two weeks. According to this course's decision logic, what comes first?
Discipline disparity research and Minnesota's enforcement experience indicate disparities concentrate most in which referral categories?
What is a neutralizing routine?
What is the correct submission status of this pilot course file?
Primary source register
Sources S1-S18 were checked July 24, 2026. Sources S19-S38 were added and individually verified the same day (live retrieval of agency, center, and regulatory pages; bibliographic verification of every journal article against its Crossref DOI record). Reconfirm current statutes, rules, forms, and agency guidance immediately before submission.
S2. Minn. Stat. §122A.187. Subdivision 4 requires renewal of a Tier 3 or Tier 4 license to include further preparation in using positive behavior interventions. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/122A.187
S3. Minn. R. 8710.7200. Clock hours must be actual instruction or planned professional development approved by the local relicensure committee; Tier 3 renewal requires 75 hours per three-year period, Tier 4 renewal 125 hours per five-year period. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/8710.7200/
S4. Minn. R. 8710.2000 - Standards of Effective Practice. Standard 2 requires relationship-based, culturally affirming, and proactive approaches to behavior that improve student outcomes and reduce exclusionary practices, and inclusive classroom community design. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/8710.2000/
S5. Minn. Stat. §122A.627 - Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Statutory definition of PBIS and its schoolwide elements: three to five positively stated expectations reflecting community cultures, staff-wide acknowledgment systems, supports for students not meeting expectations, data-based decision systems, a continuum of evidence-based interventions, and collaborative teams. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/122A.627
S6. Minn. Stat. §121A.41 - Definitions. Subdivision 12 defines nonexclusionary disciplinary policies and practices as alternatives to dismissal, explicitly including evidence-based positive behavior interventions and supports, mental health and counseling services, academic screening, and alternative education services. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.41
S7. Minn. Stat. §121A.425 - Full and Equitable Participation in Prekindergarten and Early Learning. Prohibits dismissal of preK-grade 3 pupils except removals under one school day; expulsion or exclusion only after nonexclusionary alternatives are exhausted and only for an ongoing serious safety threat; requires family collaboration, support plans, and referral pathways. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.425
S8. Minn. Stat. §121A.45 - Grounds for Dismissal. Nonexclusionary discipline must be attempted before dismissal except for immediate and substantial danger; districts must attempt a mental-health assessment meeting when removals exceed ten cumulative school days. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.45
S9. Minn. Stat. §125A.0942 - Standards for Restrictive Procedures. Restrictive procedures limited to emergencies and trained listed personnel, ending when the threat of harm ends, with continuous observation; prone restraint prohibited; seclusion prohibited birth through grade 3 effective September 1, 2024; documentation, parent notice, and oversight requirements. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/125A.0942
S11. Center on PBIS - Tiered Framework. Defines Tier 1 universal support for all students (successful for 80% or more when robust), Tier 2 targeted support for approximately 10-15%, and Tier 3 intensive individualized, function-based support for approximately 1-5%. https://www.pbis.org/pbis/tiered-framework
S12. Center on PBIS - SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory (Algozzine et al.). A valid, reliable measure of the extent to which schools apply core PBIS features across Tiers 1-3; used here as the model for checking the adults' implementation before judging student response. https://www.pbis.org/resource/tfi
S13. McIntosh, Girvan, Horner, Smolkowski, & Sugai (2018) - A 5-Point Intervention Approach for Enhancing Equity in School Discipline, Center on PBIS. Disaggregated discipline data, preventive culturally responsive multi-tiered frameworks, engaging instruction, equitable policy review, and strategies for interrupting implicit bias at vulnerable decision points. https://www.pbis.org/resource/a-5-point-intervention-approach-for-enhancing-equity-in-school-discipline
S14. Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse - Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom (NCEE 2008-012). Five recommendations: identify conditions that prompt and reinforce the behavior, modify the environment, teach and reinforce new skills, draw on colleagues and families, and assess schoolwide strategy needs. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/4
S15. Minnesota Department of Education - Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. MDE's state-initiated PBIS implementation project providing training, coaching, technical support, and evaluation to Minnesota districts and schools. https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/sped/pbis/
S16. Minnesota PBIS. The MDE-administered state PBIS infrastructure: cohort training, Summer Institute, regional support, and school recognition, funded through federal IDEA special education resources. https://pbismn.org/
S17. Minnesota Department of Education - Non-Exclusionary Discipline. MDE priorities and practice guidance for reducing exclusionary practices, including early-grade suspension limits, make-up work access, and discipline complaint processes. https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/edi/nonexclus/
S18. Minnesota Department of Human Rights - Suspension and Expulsion Disparities Findings. MDHR found disproportionate suspensions and expulsions of students of color and students with disabilities across Minnesota districts and reached agreements with districts and charter schools to reduce non-safety-related exclusionary discipline. Page title and findings confirmed via search listings; the state site blocks automated retrieval, so reviewers should verify the current text directly before filing. https://mn.gov/mdhr/news/?id=1061-328166
S19. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42 (8). Peer-reviewed synthesis of the experimental evidence base for schoolwide PBS as an established, effective practice. DOI 10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906
S20. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35 (2), 245-259. Foundational description of the SWPBS approach, its tiered continuum, and its implementation logic. DOI 10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989
S21. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11 (3), 133-144. Randomized controlled trial: SWPBS implemented with fidelity improved perceived school safety and was associated with improved outcomes in elementary schools. DOI 10.1177/1098300709332067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709332067
S22. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12 (3), 133-148. Group-randomized trial in 37 elementary schools: SWPBIS reduced office discipline referrals and suspensions. DOI 10.1177/1098300709334798. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798
S23. Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130 (5), e1136-e1145. Randomized controlled effectiveness trial: SWPBIS significantly reduced children’s behavior problems, concentration problems, and office discipline referrals. DOI 10.1542/peds.2012-0243. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243
S24. Lee, A., & Gage, N. A. (2020). Updating and expanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Psychology in the Schools, 57 (5), 783-804. Meta-analysis across 29 studies: SWPBIS is associated with reduced exclusionary discipline and improved outcomes. DOI 10.1002/pits.22336. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22336
S25. Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6 (3), 131-147. Validity evidence for using consistently recorded ODR data as an index of schoolwide behavior and intervention effect. DOI 10.1177/10983007040060030201. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060030201
S26. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351-380. Identifies 20 evidence-based classroom management practices, including explicitly taught expectations, precorrection, active supervision, high rates of specific praise, and a continuum of responses. DOI 10.1353/etc.0.0007. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007
S27. Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50 (5), 625-654. Systematic review concluding group contingency interventions meet evidence-based standards for challenging classroom behavior. DOI 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001
S28. Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12 (3), 225-240. Empirical evaluation of the check-in/check-out targeted intervention showing reduced problem behavior for students needing Tier 2 support. DOI 10.1023/A:1025512411930. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025512411930
S29. Girvan, E. J., Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Smolkowski, K. (2017). The relative contribution of subjective office referrals to racial disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Quarterly, 32 (3), 392-404. Empirical finding that racial disproportionality concentrates in subjective referral categories, the research base for vulnerable-decision-point work. DOI 10.1037/spq0000178. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000178
S30. IDEA regulation: 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(2)(i). For a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324/a/2/i
S31. U.S. Department of Education, OSEP - Positive, Proactive Approaches to Supporting Children with Disabilities: A Guide for Stakeholders (July 19, 2022). Federal guidance urging proactive, multi-tiered behavior support; reports that students with disabilities were 13.2% of enrollment but received 20.5% of in-school and 24.5% of out-of-school suspensions. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/guide-positive-proactive-approaches-to-supporting-children-with-disabilities/
S32. Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse - Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions (intervention report, December 2016). WWC review of 17 single-case design studies supporting FBA-based individualized interventions for students with or at risk for emotional disturbance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/1241
S33. U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018). K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities (GAO-18-258). National civil-rights data analysis documenting disproportionate discipline regardless of discipline type, school poverty level, or school type. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-258
S34. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. Meta-analysis of 190 studies: mean silent-reading rate for adults reading English non-fiction is approximately 238 words per minute, with lower rates for difficult text and reading for study; the empirical basis for this course’s clock-hour computation. DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
S35. IRIS Center, Vanderbilt University - Addressing Challenging Behaviors (Part 1, Elementary): Understanding the Acting-Out Cycle. Federally funded open module presenting the phase model of escalated behavior and phase-matched adult strategies for responding at each phase; the instructional basis for this course's escalation-cycle content. Live retrieval verified July 24, 2026. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/bi1/
S36. Gage, N. A., Scott, T., Hirn, R., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). The relationship between teachers' implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43 (2), 302-315. Multi-state observational study: teachers implementing higher rates of core classroom management practices (active supervision, opportunities to respond, specific feedback) had students with higher engagement and lower disruption. Verified against Crossref. DOI 10.1177/0198742917714809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917714809
S37. Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., Dunlap, K. D., & Ennis, R. P. (2019). A systematic review of teacher-delivered behavior-specific praise on K-12 student performance. Remedial and Special Education, 40 (2), 112-128. Systematic review applying formal quality standards to the behavior-specific praise literature; consistent positive effects, with an evidence base resting largely on single-case designs. Verified against Crossref. DOI 10.1177/0741932517751054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751054
S38. Cook, C. R., Fiat, A., Larson, M., Daikos, C., Slemrod, T., Holland, E. A., Thayer, A. J., & Renshaw, T. (2018). Positive greetings at the door: Evaluation of a low-cost, high-yield proactive classroom management strategy. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20 (3), 149-159. Randomized evaluation in middle school classrooms: a structured positive-greeting routine increased academic engaged time by approximately 20 percentage points and reduced disruptive behavior. Verified against Crossref. DOI 10.1177/1098300717753831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717753831
