PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support) - is Promoting a “Woke” Agenda in Ohio Schools

ELIMINATING DIVERSITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF OHIO’S CHILDREN

Abstract

 Ohio Revised Code 3319.237 creates the Ohio PBIS program for all Ohio School Districts and was a product of HB318. While districts are required to opt-in to Ohio’s PBIS program, the law does not provide any penalty for non-compliance - effectively making PBIS optional. PBIS is a program that focuses on the psychological conditioning of students to follow their teacher’s instruction through immoral and deceptive teaching strategies.

While PBIS was adopted to reduce stress and achieve obedience for a conducive and safe education atmosphere - and to help eliminate the potential threat of mass shootings, there is scant evidence that PBIS reduces student stress or mass shootings. On the contrary, the toxic positivity culture that is pervasive in PBIS schools has shown the potential for great mental harm coming through this system of mental manipulation.

While some would argue there is a fine line between teaching and mental manipulation, teaching teachers to feign and fake praise upon students to get them to do what they want seems incredibly wrong for those with a moral compass. Additionally, the Ohio Department of Education has allowed its PBIS program to be an instrument used as a gateway for the indoctrination of woke culture.

Introduction

Discipline is an integral part of education, and it is essential to maintain a safe and secure learning environment for students.

In November of 2018, at the behest of Representatives Sarah LaTourette (R) and John Patterson (D) in a lame-duck session, the Ohio General Assembly passed HB318 into law to better protect children from school shootings. Within HB318 was the SAFE ACT that imposes PBIS on all Ohio Schools.

HB318 accomplishes:

• Clarifies that each public school must implement a PBIS framework and specifies the objectives and contents of the framework.

• Requires all teacher preparation programs to include PBIS instruction for students pursuing a license to teach in any of grades pre-K through 5.

• Requires each school district to provide professional development in PBIS to teachers and administrators.

• Requires each district's professional development committee to establish model courses and monitor a district's provision of professional development in PBIS.

• Includes as a nongraded measure on a district's or school's state report card a statement of whether it has implemented a PBIS framework.

The passage of Ohio House Bill 318 has sparked controversy with conservatives in the education community. It has been criticized for its potential to limit the diversity of management styles in school administration. This “spare the rod and spoil the child” mandated management style, conservatives contend, has resulted in less effective education for K-12 students, especially for students in inner-city schools. By law, HB318 only applies to K-3 teachers and teachers K-5 must learn the PBIS framework to get their license to teach in Ohio. Unfortunately, many school boards throughout Ohio are making the PBIS framework a requirement in K-6 and some in grades K-12.

Conservatives and liberals can both agree that disciplinary management styles have been effective in many schools, especially in inner-city schools, such as the success of Principal Joe Louis Clark at Eastside High School in Paterson, New Jersey. Clark implemented a strict disciplinary management style that included a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and violence, and he expelled over 300 students for various infractions. This approach was successful in turning around a school that had a reputation for being one of the worst in the state. Principal Clark’s exploits were the inspiration for the 1989 Morgan Freeman movie “Lean on Me,” where he carried a bat and a bullhorn throughout the school.

The requirement of HB318, for example, for a hearing before expulsion limits the ability of school administrators to employ a disciplinary approach because it allows the challenge of authority. This makes the disciplinary management style almost impossible to implement. Principals should be able to make expulsions in Ohio without a hearing. If a principal abuses their power, there should be recourse through the Ohio Court system.

In addition to hindering disciplinary management styles, the passage of House Bill 318 limits the diversity of management styles in general. Each school is unique, and the management style that works best for one school may not be effective for another. Allowing school administrators the flexibility to choose their own management styles can lead to better educational outcomes for students. The passage of HB318 also pre-supposes that no better style of the management of children will ever exist

By prohibiting the ability of school administrators to employ certain management styles, House Bill 318 limits the ability of schools to tailor their educational approach to the needs of their students. For example, a more disciplinary approach may be effective in a school with a high level of disruptive behavior, but may not be necessary for a school with a more well-behaved student population. By limiting the ability of school administrators to employ a variety of management styles, House Bill 318 is likely to result in less effective education for K-12 students.

Disciplinary Management Style

A disciplinary management style is a style of management chosen by conservatives and is based on the idea of setting clear rules and expectations for students and enforcing them consistently. This style emphasizes the importance of accountability and responsibility for one's actions, and it aims to create a safe and secure learning environment for all students. In this style, the focus is on preventing disruptive behavior and maintaining a positive learning environment. This approach can be successful, as seen in the case of Principal Joe Louis Clark.

Joe Louis Clark, also known as "Crazy Joe," was the principal of Eastside High School in Paterson, New Jersey, from 1982 to 1989. When Clark took over, the school was plagued by violence and drug use, and it had a reputation as one of the worst schools in the state. Clark implemented a strict disciplinary management style, which included metal detectors at the entrance, a dress code, and a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and violence. He also expelled over 300 students for various infractions. As a result, the school's graduation rate increased, and the number of violent incidents decreased.

Clark's success in turning around Eastside High School demonstrates the effectiveness of the disciplinary management style. By enforcing strict rules and expectations, Clark created a safe and secure learning environment for his students, and he made it clear that disruptive behavior would not be tolerated. This approach was effective in turning around a school that had a reputation for being one of the worst in the state.

PBIS Style

The Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) style is an alternative approach to discipline that focuses on providing racial equity, positive reinforcement, and support for students. Conservatives contend the PBIS approach is unrealistic and does not prepare children for the real world. PBIS is based on the idea that behavior can be shaped through positive reinforcement, and it seeks to create a positive school culture that promotes good behavior. This approach is designed to prevent and reduce problem behavior, and it has been adopted by many schools across the country. Unfortunately, schools under the PBIS model fall prey to toxic positivity, which causes undue stress and creates unequal rewards based on skin color.

PBIS involves the creation of clear expectations and rules for behavior, and it almost strictly focuses on positive reinforcement for good behavior. This approach includes a reward system for students who meet or exceed expectations and limited consequences for those who fail to meet them. Rewards and consequences in this system are not proportionate due to racial equity concerns. The goal of PBIS is to create a positive and supportive learning environment for all students, and it aims to prevent problem behavior before it occurs by using dubious methods of psychology to profile students and reinforce unrealistic expectations that psychologically condition the child to socially accept “Woke” propaganda.

While PBIS has been successfully integrated into many schools, it has also been criticized for being too lenient and failing to hold students accountable for their actions. The system also conveniently ignores problems it may create. Some argue that PBIS is too focused on positive reinforcement and does not provide enough consequences for negative behavior. PBIS has been the subject of investigation and allegations of creating more stress through its manipulative psychological conditioning. The PBIS approach has been found to be particularly ineffective in schools with high levels of disruptive behavior, and it may not be suitable for all students.

The success of the Disciplinary Management Style

The success of the disciplinary management style in turning around schools can be seen in the case of Joe Louis Clark and other successful disciplinarians. When implemented correctly, this style can be effective in creating a safe and secure learning environment and reducing disruptive behavior. This approach provides clear expectations and consequences for behavior, and it emphasizes the importance of accountability and responsibility for one's actions. The disciplinary management style can also help to promote a positive school culture as students learn to respect themselves and others.

In addition to Joe Louis Clark, other successful disciplinarians include Geoffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, and David Levin and Mike Feinberg, the co-founders of KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program)

Practical Considerations

It is far too easy for teachers to reward one student for a given behavior and not another student for the exact same behavior; this is common among teachers. This inconsistency and violation of expectations justifiably cause distrust, frustration, and anger.

Unfortunately, this type of asymmetrical reward is a feature, not a bug, of PBIS. PBIS uses asymmetrical reward as a motivational tool to the detriment of the students that struggle with their comportment. And we almost all know instinctively no one can identify and rebel against an unfair system as efficiently as a child. They know the system is unfair!

1. Rewards effectively punish people who believe they have deserved/earned a reward but did not receive one

2. Rewards change the nature of motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic, so students seek out motivation from adults rather than self-motivating

3. Rewarding young people for appropriate behavior fosters narcissism by causing kids to ask themselves, “If I do what you want me to do, what will you give me?”

4. Rewards for good behavior cause students to compete against each other for rewards and to be noticed. There is no way the teacher can see all rewardable behavior. The dark side of this flaw is that students start tattling on each other and bullying other students to gain favor and attention to increase rewards (again fostering antisocial and narcissistic behaviors). 

5. Rewarding praise is often used to motivate students. Given we are a very verbally communicative species, this is hazardous.

We are told that praise is always good. With respect to number five on the list, that is not entirely the case. We often use our “praise” and other nice words to accomplish our own ends, not to build up the student. This is not praise, it is manipulation. Children are intelligent enough to know this.

Here are the perils of toxic positivity and toxic praise:

1. Praise prompts a dependence on others for approval.

2. Praising youth can increase learned helplessness if young people rely on approval in lieu of their own motivation.

3. Praise can generate disappointment for those who don’t receive it when others do. Experts call this “punished by praise.”

4. When teachers tell students they are good because they know the right answer, young people can logically conclude that they are bad when they do not know the right answer. 

5. Young people grow to depend on praise—and may even demand it.

6. When praising behavior that adults want to encourage, the message is that poor behavior is the norm. Young people often live up to such expectations.

7. Praising youth often discourages creativity if the young become more concerned about pleasing others or conforming to adults’ expectations than on finding their own solutions to problems.

8. Praise can make some children fearful of not being able to live up to expectations.

9. When adults use praise as a technique for influencing young people to choose some desirable behavior, the youth often perceive their words as insincere.

10. When adults praise students every time they sit up straight, wait in line, listen, or engage in routine behaviors, they often start to experience the praise as silly or irrelevant.

11. Young people who become accustomed to receiving frequent praise come to interpret the absence of praise as a negative evaluation.

12. Praise given to one person, or even to a few, often is translated by the others as a negative evaluation of themselves.

13. Praising some children in front of their peers can be counterproductive if these youngsters experience the attention as embarrassing.

14. Praise given to have children feel better can prompt a loss of faith in themselves and become discouraged.

15. The practice of profusely praising low-performing students for trivial accomplishments can perpetuate their putting forth minimal effort.

16. Praise given to students for minimal performance can actually worsen, not improve, their functioning.

17. Students may doubt their own ability or lose confidence if they perceive that their performance does not warrant praise. This leads students to have thoughts such as, “The teacher must really think I’m hopeless if I’m praised for that!” or “How could the teacher think that was good?”

18. When a child is experiencing a problem, it is often accompanied by personal dissatisfaction. Praising here either goes “unheard,” as the child feels that the adult doesn’t really understand, or provokes an even stronger defense of the person’s low self-evaluation.

19. If the praise does not fit with the child’s self-image, it can invoke resentment as the youngster may perceive it as an attempt at manipulation.

20. When a person feels that the praise is not sincere but delivered to manipulate behaving in a certain way, it can undermine intrinsic motivation.

Praise and rewards can be dangerous when used to control or coerce behavior (psychological conditioning.) They can backfire in monumental and dangerous ways.

Is PBIS is Coercion?

Conservatives contend that PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support) is a form of coercion that undermines personal responsibility and internal motivation. While PBIS advocates may argue that it is a system that rewards positive behavior, the reality is that it is fundamentally flawed in its approach.

First, the use of tangible rewards and teacher praise to motivate "appropriate" behavior is manipulative and coercive. When teachers use statements like "If you do not stop misbehaving, you will not get any green tickets" or "I will have to erase one of your stars unless you get to work," they are using threats to coerce behavior. Such threats are not aimed at preventing harm but at the deprivation of something desirable - a textbook example of negative punishment as defined by ABA. When teachers use PBIS or classwide point systems as a method of controlling behavior, they are engaging in a response cost system that is nothing short of coercive.

Second, PBIS systems are punitive by design. They often involve predetermined fines or loss of points in classwide economy systems, the receipt of a red ticket or red dojo (the dojo classroom ecosystem helps to facilitate PBIS) that comes with a loss of privilege, filling out yellow or red think sheets attached to the student's home note, or trips to the office. All these measures are used on students who are still learning how to behave, and they create a stressful environment in which students are focused on obedience and compliance with rules rather than learning socioemotional skills.

Moreover, PBIS's focus on obedience and compliance with rules leads to an emphasis on rewards and competition rather than collaboration and internal motivation. The pressure to comply with the system creates anxiety and stress, particularly for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, refugees, and students still learning English. This creates a situation where students who are unable to handle the stress of the system are labeled as "bad" students, and their behavior is punished, rather than addressed through socioemotional well-being, anxiety reduction, or teaching prosocial behavior.

While PBIS may be effective when implemented correctly, it promotes external motivation and manipulative behavior that ignores the importance of personal responsibility and internal motivation. PBIS's reliance on rewards and competition undermines collaboration and internal motivation, creating a situation where students are anxious, stressed, and unable to cope. We must reject this flawed approach and focus on teaching personal responsibility and internal motivation to foster long-term success.

Non-Devotional Teaching of Biblical Principles in Public Schools as an alternative

Conservatives strongly believe that the non-devotional aspects of biblical principles should be taught in public school classrooms at a young age. Doing so provides a better and more disciplined education atmosphere than what psychological conditioning can provide, as well as prepares our youth for the challenges of the future.

Ultimately, the success of a school, whether Christian or public, depends on many factors, such as the quality of teachers, curriculum, resources, and support from the community. Biblical principles in a non-devotional context help to foster a superior conducive learning environment. In a State with a motto, “With God, all things are possible,” we should expect a non-devotional Biblically based alternative to be adopted.

Firstly, it is essential to note that the Bible contains a wealth of valuable life lessons that are relevant to people of all ages and beliefs. For example, the Ten Commandments provide a moral compass that is essential for living in a just society, and the parables of Jesus offer timeless insights into the human condition. By teaching these principles in a secular context, students can learn important values and character traits such as honesty, integrity, responsibility, and compassion.

Furthermore, biblical principles can be integrated into a wide range of academic subjects, such as history, literature, and social studies. For example, studying the Bible can provide a valuable cultural and historical context for understanding many of the great works of Western literature. Similarly, an understanding of the biblical concept of justice can help students better understand the history of the civil rights movements in the United States.

In addition to these academic benefits, teaching the non-devotional aspects of biblical principles in public schools can also foster a more disciplined and respectful learning environment. The Bible emphasizes the importance of respect for authority and submission to higher powers, as well as personal accountability and responsibility. These values can help instill a sense of discipline and order in the classroom and promote a culture of respect for teachers and fellow students.

Furthermore, biblical principles can help foster a sense of community and social responsibility. The Bible emphasizes the importance of helping others and working for the common good, and these values can help students develop a strong sense of social responsibility and civic duty. By teaching these principles in the classroom, we can help prepare our students to become responsible and engaged citizens who are committed to making a positive impact on their communities and the world.

Some may argue that teaching the non-devotional aspects of biblical principles in public schools violates the separation of church and state. However, it is essential to note that teaching these principles in a secular context is not the same as promoting a particular religion or faith. Rather, it is an effort to provide students with a comprehensive education that includes important moral and cultural lessons from a variety of sources, including the Bible.

Teaching the non-devotional aspects of biblical principles in public school classrooms at a young age provides a better and more disciplined education atmosphere. It allows students to learn important values and character traits, fosters a culture of respect and discipline in the classroom, and promotes social responsibility and civic engagement. By taking a balanced and secular approach to teaching these principles, we can provide our youth with the tools they need to succeed in the modern world, while also instilling in them a strong sense of moral and cultural values.

Recommendations

Ohio legislators need to allow diversity in management styles. HB318 snuffs out all current and future competing behavior management models. The recommendation is to repeal the SAFE Act that HB318 imposed. We believe the legislature can encourage the adoption of several behavioral management styles. Ohio legislators need to provide a set of goals to be achieved and let models be developed from those goals rather than trying to impose a one size fits all system on all Ohio schools.

Teach (overteach) all essential daily procedures for the classroom as well as the school. No process is too small to illustrate, and non-devotional Biblical principles can be part of this process. “Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” -and- “respect your elders,” for example, can be attached to classroom procedures of politeness and courtesy, and these procedures are constantly taught (overteach) until the students can do what is expected without having to think about it.

When the students know all the procedures associated with the school and classroom, they are more comfortable. They know where to go, how to talk, to whom (and when) they should speak, etc. This gets rid of a lot of the anxiety associated with the school, particularly in the lower grades when talking to adults can be terrifying.

Additionally, when a student neglects to, or forgets to, follow the procedure, this places the teacher in the role of, well, a teacher. This is different than when the teacher has to enforce a rule. In that situation, they are authority figures and an agent of punishment. For both intentional and unintentional errors in performing procedures, there is always practice and getting better at it.

Teachers should teach. Let’s give them permission and encouragement to teach rather than simply punish “naughty” kids.

Eliminate classroom economies, class dojo, clip-charts, behavior charts, and response cost charts:

For kindergarten and first grade, there is a certain amount of praise and reward that is necessary to develop self-motivation. However, as we move into higher and higher grades, the students no longer actually need this external input to guide them. Publicly displayed clip charts that use a color scale need to be gotten rid of (and preferably destroyed by fire). They do much more harm than good. And they are terribly biased against kids that have a hard time behaving in class.

Reduce teacher-administered praise and rewards to the absolute minimum necessary for the grade level

When kids are very young, they do need input from others to understand what expected and unexpected behaviors are. Once they know a particular response is appropriate, they do not need that input. So why do we still encourage teachers to give it? Are teachers really that happy that Johnny is quietly in his seat? Or is it a façade PBIS teachers put on to manipulate the child’s behavior?

When a child needs feedback, teachers should give it. But to reward and praise simply because teachers are supposed to is a problem. If teachers provide unnecessary feedback to students, they run the risk of making them less independent than they would be otherwise. If a student knows a behavior is expected, they are capable of self-reinforcing their behavior because they know they were doing a good job. If teachers do not let them figure this out for themselves and persist with external reinforcement, this intrinsic reinforcement will never happen.

All praise is for behavior and is stated in a way to help build student confidence, not to notify them the teacher is pleased.

This is actually a simple concept most all teachers get wrong. When we give positive feedback, we need to word it as, “Johnny, you just did a great job persevering during math” rather than as “Johnny, I appreciate you worked hard during math.” Teachers usually forget when they praise, it is not about them! It is about the student and their self-esteem.

To put it succinctly, praise by explaining how great the behavior was. DO NOT say, “I noticed that…” “I am happy that…” “I like that…” basically, just never use the word “I” while giving praise. Praise should be feedback, not manipulation.

We need to help students understand that they should feel a sense of pride and happiness for their accomplishments. Not that the student should worry about whether their behavior pleases the teacher or makes the teacher happy.

Whenever possible, students need to be provided with a choice, be it behavioral or academic.

Students, like adults, love being given choices, even when between two unpalatable options. Offer them multiple options or choices for how to handle problems. Let them do one worksheet before another. Let them change seats between the two options you are okay with. It builds confidence. Kids like choices. Just do not push them too far or start giving unpalatable choices, or the kids will shut down and fight receiving choices.

Lastly, despite all the above, some kids are going to explode. It is inevitable and should not be feared. If teachers know how to safely help a child de-escalate (or even help them get over their escalation and meltdowns), handling these situations can become just another part of the day for teachers. Ohio teachers should be taught how to manage and restrain an out-of-control student. Many Christian ministries and children's behavioral centers provide TCI (Therapeutic Crisis Intervention) training.

The Danger of Toxic Positivity

PBIS is an evidence-based framework that emphasizes positive reinforcement and praise to encourage positive behavior in students. However, there is growing concerned among conservatives about the dangers of what is known as "toxic positivity" in relation to PBIS. Toxic positivity refers to an excessive focus on positive thinking, which can lead to a denial of negative emotions and an avoidance of difficult conversations.

One of the dangers of toxic positivity in PBIS is that it can create a false sense of security and complacency among students. By focusing only on positive behavior and ignoring negative behavior, PBIS may inadvertently communicate to students that they can get away with anything as long as they are polite and well-behaved. This can lead to a lack of accountability and a sense of entitlement among students, which can be harmful in the long run.

Another danger of toxic positivity in PBIS is that it can undermine the importance of personal responsibility and self-discipline. By constantly praising students for positive behavior, PBIS may give the impression that good behavior is simply a matter of external rewards and incentives rather than an internal decision based on personal values and character. This can lead to a lack of self-awareness and a diminished sense of personal responsibility, which can be detrimental to students' long-term success in life.

Finally, conservatives are concerned that toxic positivity in PBIS can lead to a lack of resilience and an inability to cope with adversity. By denying the reality of negative emotions and experiences, PBIS may prevent students from developing the emotional and mental resilience necessary to overcome challenges and bounce back from setbacks. This can be particularly problematic in a world that is full of uncertainties and challenges, where resilience and adaptability are essential skills for success.

Equity and Inclusion front and center in PBIS

The importance placed on equity and inclusion in Ohio's PBIS system cannot be overstated. Equity does not mean equality in access to the resources, opportunities, and support students need to succeed, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or other personal characteristics. Achieving equity in Ohio’s PBIS system is part of promoting social justice and reducing perceived disparities imposed by privilege and systemic racism.

While we want all students to have access to high-quality educational opportunities, regardless of their background or circumstances, this can’t occur through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, Teaching the Concepts of CRT, and teaching of social justice. PBIS is a gateway for Ohio students to learn “Woke” ideology and prepare students to be obedient to the government and to be taught to be activists for racial division and hatred

Conclusions

Mandated PBIS programs are a danger to Ohio school children and are a gateway to “Woke” culture. We recommend repealing all Ohio PBIS mandates and dramatically reducing or eliminating the funding for PBIS programs. We feel that the PBIS program has the very real potential to push Ohio students down a path where they become most susceptible to a liberal mindset and to government messaging. PBIS promotes a safe space mindset and lacks a disciplinary component that many children yearn for.

We cannot build the next generation of critical thinkers for those that are reaching for social justice instead of reaching for the stars. PBIS is a coercive and very troubling mandated by-law program that psychologically conditions children through a program of rewards - not unlike an immoral Pavlov’s dog experiment with children. While we conceded that PBIS could have a legitimate space in education, the way that the Ohio Department of Education and its stakeholders have chosen to implement it is overtly detrimental and psychologically harmful to children.