MTSS is a widely adopted and evidence-based educational framework that allows school staff to efficiently provide varying levels of support to students based on their individual needs. This system ensures that students receive the appropriate level of support in both academic learning and social/emotional/behavioral health. MTSS allows school and district teams to incorporate a variety of school and district systems that can support student behavior into a single framework that is highly responsive to student need.

A defining feature of MTSS is its three-tiered continuum of supports. As part of this approach, each school and district system in an MTSS framework:

• Provides universal (Tier 1) supports that all students access, including students with disabilities 
• Can be leveraged to respond to individual student needs with evidence-based practices that provide the student with targeted support (Tier 2) or intensive support (Tier 3)

MTSS neither excludes nor is exclusive to students with disabilities. The tiered framework addresses all student needs across all areas (academic, social, emotional, and behavioral). Services and accommodations in a student’s IEP or 504 Plan should supplement – not replace – the tiered support available to every student within an MTSS framework. A hallmark of strong implementation is that each student can access supports as soon as they are needed. Tier 1 supports should be provided to each and every student, including each student with a disability regardless of their placement. Similarly, Tier 3 supports should be available to students who need them, regardless of the student’s eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504.

In an MTSS framework, teams share the responsibility of making decisions and implementing supports. Decisions are driven by high-quality data, collected over time, from multiple sources. Teams engage families, students, and community partners to plan, implement, and improve services. Staff and community partners provide a continuum of supports to students through a tiered delivery system, starting with strong core instruction. Staff use evidence-based practices to accelerate student learning across all tiers. 

Districts that use MTSS to support students’ social, emotional, and behavioral well-being are typically able to prevent most interfering behaviors and achieve more positive outcomes than those that do not. This requires that districts approach their MTSS work with intention to proactively support the whole child and address student needs. Effective MTSS for the prevention of interfering behavior involves three elements:

• A Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Health (SEBH) framework 
• Organization of any additional school systems that support behavioral learning that can be embedded into MTSS tiers
• Aligning MTSS practices with the Washington Integrated Student Supports Protocol (WISSP), a coordinated set of steps and activities in the MTSS framework to support holistic, culturally responsive, and community-rooted supports for students and families

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Health (SEBH) Framework

A Social, Emotional, Behavioral Health (SEBH) support framework centers the whole student through an integrated, expanded, and preventative approach to student well-being. Rather than focusing on reacting to student behavior, this framework proactively addresses students’ overall social, emotional, and behavioral health while also responding to interfering behavior and other needs as they arise. SEBH work is also trauma-informed,³⁴  recognizing that trauma can affect any member of a school community, and supporting school and district staff to address traumatic stress by building protective factors that can promote healing and resilience. 

The SEBH framework embeds support across all MTSS tiers, organizing the school or district’s work in three critical areas:

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
• Instruction for Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
• School-Based Behavioral Health

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

PBIS promotes proactive, school-wide tiered strategies for fostering prosocial student behavior, enhancing well-being, and preventing exclusionary discipline practices. When implemented as part of the SEBH framework, PBIS connects students with the level of social, emotional, and behavioral support they need to succeed. PBIS is trauma-informed and can promote the development of several important protective factors for students, including supporting students in developing social connections, adopting a strengths-based approach that facilitates student resilience, and teaching key behaviors related to cognitive, social, and emotional learning.

Behavior support in PBIS is provided across three tiers of intensity and individualization. Decision making typically parallels the process outlined in Section 2: How Do Effective MTSS Teams Make Decisions Based on Data? All tiers must be designed in such a way that allows all students to be included. 

• Tier 1 (Universal Supports) includes preventive schoolwide teaching and reinforcement of behavioral expectations, provided equitably to all students. A robust Tier 1, implemented consistently, is an efficient use of school resources. Most students’ needs will be met by Tier 1 practices. However, when Tier 1 is insufficient or inconsistent, more students may have unmet needs and require the resources and support of a higher PBIS tier.
• Tier 2 (Targeted Supports) typically involves rapid, efficient, and minimally individualized behavior support provided to students who regularly engage in interfering behavior and who don’t respond to consistent implementation of Tier 1 supports. Students supported in Tier 2 must still participate in Tier 1 to the same extent as all other students.
• Tier 3 (Intensive Supports) are specialized behavior supports designed for an individual student whose needs were not fully met with Tier 2 intervention.³⁵  Typically, this tier includes completing a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and using the results to develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for the student. For guidance on these processes, refer to Section 4. Each student receiving Tier 3 support must still participate in Tier 1 to the same extent as all other students.

Use of PBIS benefits both students and staff. In schools where PBIS is implemented consistently and correctly, students are excluded from the classroom less frequently,³⁶  achieve better outcomes in terms of academics and behavior,³⁷  and are less likely to engage in substance use.³⁸  Teachers in schools that implement PBIS effectively are significantly more likely to feel effective and prepared to meet their students’ needs, and less likely to report feelings of burnout.³⁹, ⁴⁰

Instruction for Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)⁴¹  defines SEL as “the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.”

In January 2020, the SEL Advisory Committee developed and adopted Washington State’s SEL Standards, Benchmarks, and Indicators to provide a framework for identifying and encouraging growth in the following skill areas:

• Standard 1: Self-Awareness—Individual can identify their emotions, personal assets, areas for growth, and potential external resources and supports.
• Standard 2: Self-Management—Individual can regulate emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.
• Standard 3: Self-Efficacy—Individual can motivate themselves, persevere, and see themselves as capable
• Standard 4: Social Awareness—Individual can take the perspective of and empathize with others from diverse backgrounds and cultures.
• Standard 5: Social Management—Individual can make safe and constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions.
• Standard 6: Social Engagement—Individual can consider others and show a desire to contribute to the well-being of school and community.

Evidence strongly suggests that widespread integration of SEL strategies promotes healthier peer relationships, improved student well-being, and safer learning environments⁴² . When SEL is embedded across content areas, it provides students an opportunity to continuously learn about, practice, and grow in essential violence-prevention skills such as self-regulation and productive problem solving.

For further information on social emotional learning, please refer to:

• OSPI - Social Emotional Learning (SEL) 
• OSPI - SEL Implementation Guide
• OSPI - SEL Standards, Benchmarks and Indicators
• OSPI - Trauma-Informed SEL Practices
• Center on PBIS - Teaching Social-Emotional Competencies within a PBIS Framework

School-Based Behavioral Health 

Behavioral health encompasses mental health as well as psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing.⁴³  School-based behavioral health includes interventions that students receive to enhance social, emotional, and/or behavioral well-being. These services range from school-wide prevention efforts, curriculum and trainings, to individualized services. They include those provided on site, in a school-based health center, and/or in partnership with community based organizations. For children and youth, mental and behavioral health are directly related to to academic outcomes and physical health. 

School-based behavioral health involves early identification of mental health issues, access to counseling and psychological services, and fostering a school environment that supports mental health awareness. Student behavioral health is a growing and underserved area of need, and difficulties in this area can lead to interfering behavior.⁴⁴  Services can be efficiently incorporated into MTSS tiers as part of the SEBH framework. The Interconnected Systems Framework (ISF) can support schools and districts in this area to provide tiered supports: 

• Tier 1: Universal prevention, incorporating universal behavioral health screenings and support for school/home partnerships, trauma-informed training for school staff, other prevention activities, and integration with PBIS and SEL as part of overall SEBH support
• Tier 2: Targeted interventions, such as one-to-one or small-group interventions
• Tier 3: Supports for students in need of wraparound services

Additionally, school staff well-being is linked to student behavioral health and well-being. Districts and schools prioritizing SEBH should also take steps to ensure the well-being of their staff is actively considered and supported. For more, refer to “Supporting Educator Wellbeing” below.

For further information and resources on school-based behavioral health, see the following:

• OSPI Mental, Social, & Behavioral Health Resources
• Youth Suicide Prevention, Intervention, and Postvention
• Interconnected Systems Framework
• Center on PBIS: Mental Health/Social-Emotional Well-Being

Additional School and District Systems that Support Behavioral Learning

Schools and districts that use some or all of the SEBH framework in their MTSS work may also have additional systems that can be leveraged to support positive behavioral growth. The school and district systems below can be organized within MTSS work, support student SEBH well-being and prevention of interfering behavior, and can lead to a healthier school climate for students, families, and staff.

Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Practices

Culturally responsive and sustaining practices promote student equity by ensuring the school environment affirms, rather than disconnects, students of all races, ethnicities, languages, and cultures. It is asset based and aims to weave in the cultural practices, identities, and linguistic backgrounds of each student in a given classroom, building, school, or district. Culturally sustaining practices embrace and reflect the lived experiences of each student, and are a critical element of high-quality instruction in a safe and inclusive classroom environment. They also create a more welcoming environment for parents and other family members to participate as members of the school community. 

Culturally responsive and sustaining practices are directly related to equitable and student-centered behavior support. These practices allow classrooms and schools to authentically reflect students’ identities, strengths, and needs, which can result in less interfering behavior as students feel more connected, seen, and supported. In addition, these practices lead to more engaging core instruction as there are multiple entry points for students to engage in learning that taps into their lived experience. School and district staff must also be supported in their awareness and understanding of their own cultural and linguistic heritage, and how those experiences may unconsciously create expectations related to behavioral norms and values. 

For examples and nonexamples of culturally responsive and sustaining practices related to positive behavior support, refer to the PBIS Cultural Responsiveness Field Guide from the Center on PBIS.

For further information and resources on culturally responsive and sustaining practices, visit:

• Center on PBIS - Equitable Supports
• Center on PBIS - Video: Culturally Responsive Systems
• New York University, Metropolitan Center for Urban Education - Culturally Responsive Classroom Management Strategies
• Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) - Cultural Competency, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (CCDEI) Standards

Engaging and Effective Instruction

Washington State identified eight criteria areas for professional performance capabilities and development of certificated classroom teachers. Each of these areas provides guidance for how teachers can take a holistic approach for delivering engaging and effective instruction:

1. Expectations: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
2. Instruction: Demonstrating effective teaching practices
3. Differentiation: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs
4. Content Knowledge: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
5. Learning Environment: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment.
6. Assessment: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning
7. Families and Community: Communicating and collaborating with families and school community
8. Professional Practice: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning

Engaging and effective instruction is commonly considered the foundation for effective classroom management.⁴⁵  Recommended practices include providing accessible ways for students to learn and show their understanding, teaching important concepts in multiple ways, ensuring instructional pacing and opportunities to respond are well-timed for students, using a variety of student groupings and response strategies, and guiding instructional practices and supports with formative assessment. Practices should be grounded in strengths-based and culturally sustaining pedagogy, provide flexibility to anticipate and respond to student needs, and ensure multilingual learners and students with disabilities can access rigorous and grade-level content. For specific instructional and classroom management practices, see Section 3 of this manual.

For further information and resources on effective and engaging instructional practices, visit:

• OSPI - Menus of Best Practices & Strategies
• IRIS Center - Online Learning Modules and Case Studies
• Center on PBIS - Examples of Engaging Instruction to Increase Equity in Education

Family Engagement

Family engagement is defined in the Family Engagement Framework as “a full and equitable partnership among families, educators, providers, and communities to support learners’ development from birth through college and career. It is a collective responsibility that means doing with—not doing for—families.”  In this framework, principles of effective family engagement include:

• Recognizing the inherent strengths and belonging of each and every family and student
• Valuing families as experts in their children’s education
• Affirming the diversity of family types, including using a multi-generational lens and building cultural and linguistic competency
• Establishing strong and trusting relationships and two-way communication between families and school staff
• Sharing power and responsibility with families to co-design instruction and student support

Family engagement improves individual student outcomes in behavior, academics, school attendance, and participation in healthy activities.⁴⁶  For students with social, emotional, and/or behavioral needs, family engagement can enhance students’ sense of belonging at school and can ensure productive and trusting collaboration so each student receives the support they need. 

For further information and resources on family engagement, visit:

• OSPI - Family Engagement Guidance and Toolkit
• OSPI - Family Engagement Framework Workgroup
• OSPI - Parent and Family Engagement Guides and Resources (Title I, Part A)
• OSPI - School Leader Toolkit: Authentic Family and Community Engagement to Support Continuous Improvement

Inclusionary Practices and Outcomes 

Decades of research show that inclusion of students with disabilities (including those with extensive support needs) confers many academic, social, emotional, and behavioral benefits to all students, with and without disabilities.⁴⁷ ,⁴⁸  Inclusive education for students who receive special education services involves both access and learning in general education and the inclusive Individualized Education Program (IEP). All members of a student’s educational team, including the student and family, have a role to play in effective instruction and support in inclusive settings. 

Inclusionary practices require a team vision and expectation that each student can actively participate, belong, contribute, and learn in the school and larger community. This involves meaningful collaboration between special education teachers, general education teachers (including multilingual teachers), related service providers, families, and students. The result is a diverse, vibrant, and caring learning environment that embraces and celebrates the contributions of each to the whole. This benefits all students, including those without disabilities.

As school teams work to ensure that special education services in their schools and districts are inclusive, they should reflect on the following guiding questions:

1. Does each student with an IEP experience belonging as a member in their school and general education classroom(s)? 
2. Does each student with an IEP actively participate at school across the school day?
3. Is each student with an IEP learning the grade-level general education curriculum?

It is important for all students, including students with disabilities, to experience supportive and positive relationships with general education staff and feel belonging in their general education classroom communities. For the student with a disability who engages in interfering behaviors, that network of relationships can ensure the student feels safe and supported enough to try new behaviors, ask for help, and engage in learning.

Student interfering behaviors can occur as a result of unaddressed barriers the student experiences in their learning environment, instruction, access to communication, social opportunities, or other school activities. Students eligible for special education services should also be included in school and district MTSS and SEBH support work, which means they must have access to the Tier 1 supports that all students receive, and should also receive Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 supports if determined necessary by the MTSS team. For a student eligible for special education services who engages in interfering behavior, school teams should always consider whether the IEP is adequate and a good fit to ensure the student’s behavioral needs and other support needs are met. For more, refer to Section 5.

For further information and resources on inclusionary practices and outcomes, visit:

• OSPI - Comprehensive Inclusive Education
• OSPI - Extended Myths & Facts About Inclusionary Practices in Washington
• Inclusionary Practices Technical Assistance Network (IPTN)
• TIES Center - Positive Behavior Supports Overview

Restorative Practices

Restorative practices are commonly defined as a continuum of proactive and responsive strategies embedded within policies and processes that focus on preventing conflict through building and maintaining relationships and resolving conflict through repairing harm and restoring the impacted community. Deeply rooted in indigenous cultural practices, these approaches focus on developing respect, empathy, and accountability with the intention to change behavior, repair harm, and cultivate a culture of belonging.⁴⁹  

Preventative measures include ongoing culturally- and trauma-informed staff trainings on understanding underlying causes of student behavior, consistent integration of classroom-based procedures and routines that build community and establish a safe and supportive learning environment, and embedded opportunities for students to develop and practice SEL and problem-solving skills. Universal implementation of these preventative measures is essential for the success of conflict resolution strategies. Without these foundational relationships, practices, and shared-understandings, restorative circles, conversations, and conferences are less likely to be effective and can sometimes cause additional harm to relationships and communities. 

Research shows that a reliance on punitive disciplinary practices not only increases misbehavior but is disproportionately used to punish students with disabilities and students of color. By implementing classroom and building-wide restorative practices focused on a culture of community, proactively working to meet student needs, and training both students and staff in conflict resolution skills, schools have reported a decrease in referrals and disproportionate discipline data, and an improvement in overall student behavior and school climate.⁵⁰

For further information and resources on restorative practices, visit:

• International Institute for Restorative Practices
• OSPI - Behavior Menu of Best Practices and Strategies (pages 71–82)
• WestEd - The Toolkit Before the Toolkit: Centering Adaptive and Relational Elements of Restorative Practices for Implementation Success
• CASEL - Restorative Practices and SEL Alignment
• Rutgers University - 12 Indicators of Restorative Practices Implementation: Checklists for Administrators

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 

Recognizing the diversity of learners within each classroom, the research-based⁵¹  UDL framework provides a guide for how educators can design flexible learning environments and curricula within any content area to ensure all students can equitably and inclusively engage in challenging and meaningful learning. Neurodivergence⁵²  and other differences in student learning should not be viewed as deficits or exceptions to the “norm,” but rather as natural and expected human variations from one individual to another. School staff who use a UDL lens to embrace instead of stigmatize learner variability can engage in more productive and student-centered support, including positive behavior support when needed. 

The UDL Guidelines⁵³  provide suggestions for how educators can intentionally consider student access, support, and executive functioning by designing multiple means of:

• Engagement – with options for welcoming interests & identities, sustaining effort & persistence, and emotional capacity;
• Representation – with options for supporting perception, language & symbols, and building knowledge; and
• Action & Expression – with options for interaction, expression & communication, and strategy development.

UDL emphasizes that, by setting up the learning environment to anticipate learning style variabilities and proactively providing accommodations for identified needs and abilities, educators can more effectively remove common barriers for how their students access, process, and engage in learning. These practices align with and provide a helpful foundation for implementing other systems within this section such as inclusionary practices, SEL, and restorative practices. Preventative strategies that recognize and mitigate common instructional and learning-based stressors or activators enable more students to stay engaged, feel valued, and achieve UDL’s goal of developing learner agency.

Providing all students with multiple ways of communicating learning, emotions, preferences, needs, and distress is an important part of UDL. Since student interfering behavior is often a way to communicate a need, embedding universal communication supports⁵⁴  across school environments and activities is often effective at preventing interfering behavior. In addition, when adults provide all students with multiple ways to communicate and understand each other, they are more likely to be safe in the event of a crisis, medical emergency, or other unforeseen event.

Finally, increased educator awareness of neurodiversity can support building teams in universally designing school and classroom environments to be comfortable and accessible for all students. This can result in students having more pathways to access the tools and resources they need to learn and advocate for themselves when they need extra help, resulting in less interfering behavior in classrooms. Examples include:

• School and classroom expectations are designed intentionally to be anti-ableist 
• Spaces are organized without unnecessary clutter and distractions 
• Inviting and comfortable break spaces are provided in common areas and learning spaces
• Flexible seating and standing options are available in classrooms
• Students have regular opportunities for movement, attention breaks, and quiet time
• Healthy self-regulation behaviors (e.g., stimming, doodling, using fidget toys) are normalized and understood by school staff to enhance learning, attention, and/or comfort for some students
• Students are supported to learn organization skills using tools (e.g., checklists, homework folder, graphic organizer) modeled and taught by staff
• Students are able to exercise and express choices and preferences about how they learn and show what they know
• A variety of strategies to communicate requests, needs, and feelings are taught and made available to all students

For further information and resources on UDL, visit:

• CAST - The UDL Guidelines
• TIES Center - Design for Each and Every Learner: Universal Design for Learning Modules
• IRIS Center - Universal Design for Learning: Designing Learning Experiences That Engage and Challenge All Students

Aligning MTSS Practices with the Washington Integrated Students Supports Protocol (WISSP)

To support efforts in reducing restraint and eliminating isolation, schools can align their MTSS practices with the Washington Integrated Student Supports Protocol (WISSP) as established under RCW 28A.300.139. The WISSP provides an overarching approach that expands the MTSS efforts to include school and community needs and assets when planning, delivering and evaluating student services. This protocol provides a comprehensive, school-based approach that utilizes an MTSS framework to promote the success of all students by addressing both academic and nonacademic barriers to learning. By incorporating essential components such as needs assessments, resource mapping, community partnerships, integrated support coordination, and continuous data monitoring, schools can proactively identify and respond to student needs before behaviors escalate. Using the WISSP allows educators and administrators to create a supportive environment that prioritizes early intervention, reduces reliance on reactive measures like restraint and isolation, and fosters a safe, inclusive school climate for all students.

For further guidance on using the WISSP together with an MTSS framework to support the social, emotional, and behavioral health of all students, visit OSPI’s Learning Assistance Program (LAP) webpage and download the following resource documents from the sidebar:

• Washington Integrated Students Supports Protocol Implementation Guidance
• WISSP Implementation Template: School Level
• WISSP Implementation Template: District/LEA Level

---

³⁴ NCSSLE (n.d.). Trauma-sensitive schools training package.

³⁵ A student may also receive Tier 3 support immediately if determined necessary for safety or other factors.

³⁶ Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. 
³⁷ Luiselli, J. K, Putnam, R. F, Handler, M. W, & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198.

³⁸ Center on PBIS (2015). Do high schools implementing SWPBIS have lower rates of illegal drug and alcohol use?

³⁹ Kelm, J. L., & McIntosh, K. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 137-147.

⁴⁰ Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 118–128.

⁴¹ Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (n.d.). Fundamentals of SEL.

⁴² Committee for Children (2020). SEL, school safety, and school climate.

⁴³ SAMHSA (n.d.). Behavioral health integration.

⁴⁴ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS; 2021). Supporting child and student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs.

⁴⁵ Sabornie, E.J., & Espelage, D.L. (Eds.). (2022) Handbook of classroom management. Routledge.

⁴⁶ Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (n.d.). Impact of family engagement.

⁴⁷ Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

⁴⁸ OSPI (2024). Extended myths & facts about inclusionary practices in Washington.

⁴⁹ Mirsky, L. (2004, May 26). Restorative justice practices of Native American, First Nation and other Indigenous People of North America: Part two. International Institute of Restorative Practices.

⁵⁰ Learning Policy Institute. (2023, October 18). Improving student outcomes through restorative practices.

⁵¹ CAST. (2024). Research evidence.

⁵² OSPI (2025). Bulletin No. 041-25: Expanded Nondiscrimination Protections in State Law.

⁵³ CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 3.0 [graphic organizer]. Lynnfield, MA: Author.

⁵⁴ Ruby Bridges Elementary School (2021). Building an inclusive mission and vision: You are a learner; you are a leader; you belong here. (slides 31–34)

To support students socially, emotionally, and behaviorally, staff in schools and districts must also be supported. Particularly when serving students who engage in interfering behavior, staff stress and burnout can present significant barriers to wellness and the joy of teaching. Effective school and district leaders recognize the interconnected nature of student and staff well-being, and understand that all staff must be equipped to prevent and respond to student interfering behavior using trauma-informed and equitable practices.

Professional Development Implementation Planning

Organizing student supports within an MTSS framework requires team-driven shared leadership to build staff capacity and make district and building implementation plans sustainable. To ensure the systems and resources outlined throughout this manual are consistently put into practice within buildings and classrooms, they must be accompanied by supporting leadership practices such as sustained professional development opportunities at all levels. This will help establish the infrastructure necessary to build relevant knowledge and skills and to help staff be successful in consistently supporting student needs.

Principals are required to confer with certificated employees to establish criteria for determining when certificated employees must complete classes to improve classroom management skills.⁵⁵  Nondisciplinary evidence-based interventions and systems of support include: 

• Cultural Competency, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (CCDEI) standards for educators⁵⁶  
• Teacher knowledge, skill, and performance standards including social-emotional learning⁵⁷
• Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Growth Program (TPEP) criteria, including instructional skill, classroom management, handling of student discipline, and fostering a safe and positive learning environment⁵⁸ 

Supporting Educator Well-Being

For school staff, the important work of supporting students who have experienced trauma carries a risk of secondary traumatic stress (STS). Also called compassion fatigue, STS is “the emotional distress that arises when someone vicariously experiences the traumatic experiences of another.”⁵⁹ Staff in education and other helping professions are more likely to experience STS than others. 

When staff experience STS, both staff and students can be negatively impacted. Indicators of STS in school staff may include increased anxiety about safety, feelings of detachment from students, feelings of hopelessness about students and work, and difficulty with decision-making. Experiencing STS can cause staff to feel increased hypervigilance, cynicism, difficulty extending empathy, and an internal sense of professional inadequacy. It can also lead staff to rely more heavily on punitive and/or exclusionary discipline with students.⁶⁰ 

Substitute House Bill 1363 (2021–22)⁶¹  addressed STS in public education. It established minimum requirements for districts to establish policy and procedures regarding workplace mental health, stress management, and support. See the Workforce Secondary Traumatic Stress Compliance Checklist on OSPI’s Workforce Secondary Traumatic Stress webpage for more information.

When school and district leaders believe STS is a concern at the classroom, school, or district level, they should take steps to address it. NCSSLE recommends this process involves seeking feedback, providing opportunities for shared decision-making that includes staff and families, and building strong staff connections that include both supervision and peer support. If student behavior is identified as a concern, leaders may also wish to evaluate their tiered school and district systems to ensure that students who have more complex social, emotional, and behavioral needs are equitably supported by robust and well-prepared teams (rather than one or two individual staff). See Section 2 for more information on specific improvements districts can consider.

Resources for Supporting Educator Well-Being

• OSPI - Workforce Secondary Traumatic Stress
  • Reducing Secondary Traumatic Stress in the K-12 Workforce | Alliance for a Healthier Generation
  • OSPI Workforce Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) Compliance Checklist
• National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments - Building Trauma-Sensitive Schools

---

⁵⁵ RCW 28A.400.110.

⁵⁶ RCW 28A.410.260.

⁵⁷ RCW 28A.410.270(1)(c).

⁵⁸ RCW 28A.405.100.

⁵⁹ OSPI (n.d.). Workforce secondary traumatic stress.

⁶⁰ National Center for Safe Supportive Learning (2018). Building trauma-sensitive schools handout packet.

⁶¹ Washington State Legislature - HB 1363 - 2021-22

⁶² NCSSLE (2018). Building trauma-sensitive schools handout packet.

Districts have a duty to ensure school is safe for all students. School leaders have a variety of responses available to them through district policies and procedures to fulfill that duty, including alternatives to suspension.⁶³ ,⁶⁴  Exclusionary discipline practices, such as classroom exclusions, suspensions, and expulsions, may temporarily address a safety need posed by a student’s interfering behavior. However, it is important to emphasize that school exclusions do not positively change student behavior. This manual provides multiple effective pathways to support students in learning prosocial behaviors as alternatives to interfering behavior, including guidance in Section 4 about supporting individual students with behavior needs that significantly interfere with learning.

This portion of the manual describes several key considerations for school discipline. It is not intended to be a comprehensive resource for understanding school discipline requirements – for guidance and further information, visit OSPI’s Student Discipline page. While student discipline laws and rules apply to all students, there are additional requirements for students eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those requirements are described in brief in Section 5 of this manual.

Avoiding Ineffective and Harmful Disciplinary Practices

A study in 2006 by the Journal of Adolescent Health⁶⁵  analyzed the use and effect of exclusionary discipline practices in Washington State. The study found that zero-tolerance disciplinary practices, a form of mandatory and uniformly applied pre-determined consequences, were commonly relied on in Washington State to punish students who engaged in interfering behavior. While the study stated these practices were intended as a means for preventing school violence, a follow-up report by the American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance Task Force ⁶⁶  found no evidence that zero-tolerance disciplinary practices reduced violence, improved school climate, increased consistency in schools, or deterred future behavior. The report did find evidence, however, that these practices increased racial disparities and were likely to have negative effects on child development. In response, the report offers recommendations, including reforming disciplinary response practices to implement preventative and appropriate measures that improve school climate and promote a sense of belonging.

Student discipline in Washington includes culturally responsive discipline policies and practices that “respond to the needs and strengths of students, support students in meeting behavioral expectations, and keep students in the classroom to the maximum extent possible”.⁶⁷  This aligns with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act which requires state and district plans to include provisions for improving school learning conditions by reducing the overuse of exclusionary discipline practices and the use of “aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety.” ⁶⁸  

Reducing Student Exclusions with School-Based Threat Assessment

School-based threat assessment is a preventative, trauma-informed process, utilizing early interventions to keep students safe and engaged in school.⁶⁹  The main objectives of school-based threat assessment are to assess potential threats to determine the level of concern and action required to address, organize resources and strategies to support identified students, and maintain a sense of psychological safety within the community.

According to RCW 28.A.320.123, suspension or expulsion based solely on the grounds of a school-based threat assessment referral is explicitly prohibited. These are separate but parallel procedures. Disciplinary decisions for interfering behavior should be made separately from, and should not rely on, the outcome of a school-based threat assessment. However, discipline processes may certainly incorporate the findings or recommendations from the threat assessment, such as shortening the length of an exclusion and/or informing the development of a culturally sensitive and responsive reengagement plan under WAC 392-400-710 to support the student in successfully returning to school.

All districts are required to have a School-Based Threat Assessment Program, team, and adopted school board policy and procedure. All nine educational service districts also have Threat Assessment Coordinators within their Regional School Safety Center to provide additional guidance, training, and implementation support. 

Additional resources and guidance on threat assessment can be found at:

• OSPI - School-Based Threat Assessment
• OSPI - Washington State Threat Assessment Fidelity Document

Documenting Disciplinary Removals

All school districts must collect data on disciplinary actions taken in each school and must record these actions using the statewide student data system.⁷⁰   This allows districts to take required actions, described below, to monitor the use of school discipline and prevent discriminatory use of school discipline against student groups. It can also assist districts to determine local needs for professional development and resources based on school discipline patterns.

Some districts may be accustomed to addressing student interfering behavior with “informal” disciplinary removals that are not appropriately documented as exclusions by school staff. OSPI is aware of a variety of “informal removal” practices that would be considered school or classroom exclusions, including but not limited to:

• Calling parents to pick up a student early without referring to or documenting the action as a suspension
• Repeatedly responding to a student’s behavior by having them wait in a staff member’s office for extended periods of time without documenting it as a classroom exclusion and/or in-school suspension
• Excluding a student from school unless their parent or other caregiver attends with them
• Excluding a student from school if their assigned paraeducator is absent for the day

Informal removals violate the requirements in RCW 28A.600.460 when not documented appropriately as a school suspension or classroom exclusion. School staff are always obligated to ensure educational access and must provide students due process rights when the student is excluded by school staff, regardless of whether school staff refer to that exclusion as a suspension or a "day off." Informal removals can also introduce confusion for parents around what disciplinary actions schools are permitted to take.
For students with disabilities, when informal removals are used repeatedly or as part of a pattern of disciplinary responses, those removals may be equivalent to suspensions -- in which case, state and federal disciplinary protections for students eligible under the IDEA and/or Section 504 must be followed. In addition, if a student’s interfering behavior is impacting their learning or the learning of others, the team may have cause to suspect the student may have a disability. Districts must meet their child find obligation to refer for evaluation any student suspected of having a disability and needing special education or related aids and services. For further information on requirements related to discipline for students with disabilities, see Section 5.

Preventing and Addressing Disproportionate Use of Discipline 

As noted above, student discipline is often implemented in ways that demonstrate and exacerbate biases in school and district systems. Students with disabilities, Black students, and boys are suspended, expelled, and referred to law enforcement many times more often than other students relative to enrollment.⁷¹ ,⁷²  These unjust practices can result in systemic discrimination, often beginning as early as preschool, leading to poorer educational and life outcomes for these students.⁷³ 

To prevent and address possible discrimination in the use of student discipline, Washington districts are required to collect and report data on student exclusions. WAC 392-190-048 requires that, at least annually, districts must also review their discipline data – disaggregated by sex, race, multilingual learner status, and disability – and determine if the district has disproportionately disciplined students in any of these categories. If the district identifies any such patterns of disproportionate use of discipline for any of these student groups, the district “must take prompt action to ensure that the disproportion is not the result of discrimination.”

Additional resources on student discipline can be found at:

• Chapter 392-400 WAC
• OSPI - Student Discipline
• OSPI - Special Education Behavior and Discipline 
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Report of Unfair Discipline at School and Associations with Health Risk Behaviors and Experience

---

⁶³ RCW 28A.600.410.

⁶⁴ Examples of alternatives to suspension are described in the Behavior Menu of Best Practices and Strategies (pages 71–82, 151–156).

⁶⁵ Hemphill, S. A., Toumbouroum J. W., Herrenkohl, T. I., McMorris, B. J., & Catalano, R. F. (2006). The effect of school suspensions and arrests on subsequent adolescent antisocial behavior in Australia and the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 736–744. 

⁶⁶ American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. 

⁶⁷ WAC 392-400-010.

⁶⁸ PUBL095.PS - SEC. 1111(g). [20 U.S.C. 6311]

⁶⁹ Madfis, E., Silva, J. R., Crepeau-Hobson, F., & Sulkowski, M. L. (2025). School threat assessment team recommendations: Surveillance versus social support and racial/ethnic equity. School Psychology Review, 1–14. 

⁷⁰ RCW 28A.600.460.

⁷¹ OCR (2023). 2020-21 Civil Rights Data Collection: Student discipline and school climate in U.S. public schools.

⁷² OCR (2020). 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection: The use of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities in K–12 schools.

⁷³ Executive Office of the President (2016). Report: The continuing need to rethink discipline.