Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership - Page 52

50 ate student behaviors and the creation of safe classroom environments that are more conducive to learning for all students. Additional benefits in a reduction in disruptive student behavior include, but are not limited to, increased instructional time for teachers and students, increased op- portunity for academic student success, and adult and peer social acceptance (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Walker, Ramsay, Gresham, n.d.). Specifically, the current study revealed links between campuses with full school-wide implementation and no implementation. Generally, campuses implement TBSI in year-long phases, beginning with common area implemen - tation in year one and progressing to full implementation in year two. Common area interventions are small-group ef - forts created to reduce the number of current cases of prob- lem behavior in specific areas of the campus used by more than one classroom of students at any given time (Trussell, 2008). Colvin, Sugai, Good, and Lee (1997) suggested mis - behavior in school common areas accounts for approximate- ly one-half of all problem behaviors in many schools. Full implementation campuses have established behavioral sup- ports for the entire school system including both classroom and non-classroom environments (OSEP, 2002). Full imple- mentation campuses have systems in place designed to ad- dress the behavioral needs of as many students as possible in an efficient manner, which in turn frees up resources for students who need the most behavioral support for success (OSEP, 2002). Statistical significance was established only for the number of non-aggressive discipline referrals between full implementation and no implementation campuses. No statistical significance was detected between other types of referrals and combinations of implementation (i.e. full and common, or common and none). Possible explanations may include lack of staff buy-in, teacher misconceptions, failed attempts to implement other discipline programs, and lack of parent and family involvement, (Cregor, 2008, Durand & Rost, 2005; Markey, Markey, Quant, Santelli, & Turnbull, 2002; Samuels, 2013; Swain-Bradway, Swoszowski, Boden, & Sprague, 2013). Texas educators interested in adopting and implement- ing a comprehensive system of TBSI within their campus or district need to attend to several key issues in order to achieve buy-in from vital stakeholders. For example, prior to presenting a system of TBSI to staff, an action plan will need to contain several critical components: 1) a strong core leadership team, 2) a collective vision shared by all staff, 3) a strong sense of shared responsibility for all students by all staff, 4) local demonstrations of successful TBIS campuses, and 5) sufficient support and materials. While the evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness for TBSI is growing, future research should be directed toward: 1) factors that influence the adoption of evidence-based prac - tices, 2) establishment and sustainability of durable systems of TBSI, 3) identification and selection of specific interven - tions for the students who are unaffected by traditional and Kevin S. Hood, Ed.D.