Alumnus Spotlight: George Sugai

Dr. George Sugai is Emeritus Professor in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. In 2019, he retired as Carole J. Neag Endowed Chair and Professor with tenure in School of Education at the University of Connecticut. His research and practice interests included school-wide positive behavior support, behavioral disorders, applied behavior analysis, organizational management, and classroom and behavior management, and school discipline. He was a classroom teacher, program director, personnel preparer, and applied researcher. Currently, he is senior advisor for the OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. He completed his M.Ed. in 1974 and Ph.D. in 1980 in Special Education at University of Washington.

---

Q. Could you share insights about your educational journey at the University of Washington?

Thank you for inviting me to reflect on my UW experience, especially in honor of the Haring Center’s 25th anniversary. In sharing my reflections, I acknowledge that I have had the wonderful good fortune to learn from students, educators, families, researchers, and practitioners.

The landscape of education, both general and special, has changed significantly since my retirement in 2019 due to various factors like the Covid pandemic, social unrest, racial and economic disparities and inequities, school and community violence, and climate warming. Despite these challenges, I believe future scholars and practitioners will make a positive impact by staying grounded in science and focusing on important measurable student outcomes, especially for children with disabilities and their families.

My UW education and the people I’ve encountered have profoundly influenced my career in special education. I attribute the shaping of my educational journey at UW to three main factors: theoretical priority, expert role modeling and instruction, and positive cohort support. These influences have not only shaped my career but also enriched my understanding of the field and its challenges.

Q. Please tell us more about these influences.

One of the great opportunities occasioned by being retired is reflecting on the path of my development and experiences. UW was and is still highly influential.

With respect to ”theoretical priority,” I came to UW with a BA in biological sciences, which gave me an excellent natural sciences foundation for learning about and becoming fluent with precision teaching, direct instruction, and applied behavior analysis (ABA). Having this well-defined and defendable theoretical foundation, that is behavioral sciences, enabled me to describe working problems in observable terms, derive conceptually sound interventions, and empirically test and evaluate the impact of my actions.

With respect to “expert role modeling and instruction,” much of what I do is the result of what I learned from UW special education teachers and researchers. Although many are to “blame,” I want to name drop a few: Felix Billingsley, Gene Edgar, Ellis Evans, Norris Haring, Tom Lovitt, Rick Neel, David Ryckman, Steve Schinke, and Owen White.

With respect to “positive cohort support,” one the important aspects of my UW experience and overall career has been the supportive and caring relationships that were initiated at the UW and durably maintained. To this day, I communicate regularly with and glean positive role modeling, support, encouragement, and advisement from members of my UW cohort. Again to name drop, they include Don Bailey, John Emerson, Susan Harris, and Mark Wolery. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I met my positive life support, Betsy Fernandez, while we were both UW students.

Q. Much of your research has been in classrooms and schools. How did your UW experience shape your approach to research and practice in special education?

One of the more important aspects about research and practice that I learned at UW was grounding my work in applied educationally important questions and concerns. This focus meant spending time in classrooms and schools to learn about what was most pressing for students and their teachers and families. It also meant developing and operationalizing research questions and methodologies that had application relevance in real student-teacher interactions and natural classroom and school instructional and behavioral contexts. Thus, my “approach to research and practice in special education” leans heavily on precision teaching, ABA, single case research design, and direct instruction.

Q. Tell us more about positive behavior support (PBS).

First, I think it is important to remember that PBS is firmly grounded in the behavioral sciences, in particular, ABA. Although many extensions and variations have evolved,some may not be rooted in the same behavioral tradition which may not represent the intent of the original PBS developers. Second, PBS gives us an empirically defendable scaffolding for acknowledging and giving priority to the personalized values of individuals with disabilities and their families and the larger systemic and cultural characteristics of their educational, social, and familial conditions. Third, we incorporated the tenets of PBS into our work in classroom and school to integrate academic instruction, behavior and classroom management, school climate, individual function-based support, etc. into efficiently doable, effectively defendable, and measurable practice actions. In sum, I think PBS has given us the extended conceptual, social, and educational validation to improve the applications and outcomes of our behavioral sciences in classroom and school contexts, especially for students with disabilities and their families.

Q. How did your work in positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) evolve?

I think it is important to iterate repeatedly that PBIS is not a “practice” or intervention. Instead, it is best conceptualized as an implementation framework that organizes teaching and learning environments and experiences for success. The emphases are on implementing empirically defendable practices with fidelity, collecting and using relevant implementation and outcome data, and giving educators the capacity and opportunities to teach and learn…all with a priority on selecting, emphasizing, and achieving important student outcomes and benefit.

When we received federal (OSEP) support for the PBIS Center over 30 years ago, our team was given an incredible opportunity to develop, implement, and document our integrated ABA and PBS work. I want to highlight that the accomplishments of the PBIS Center were the result of capable, like-minded individuals working effectively and collaboratively as a national team. As a member of that team, I was privileged to experience and learn from the important and durable outcomes of millions of students and their families and educators.

I would be remiss if I also didn’t acknowledge the productive and collaborative partnerships the PBIS Center enjoyed with students and their teachers and families. Our focus on applied research and systemic implementation put us in classrooms, hallways, lunchrooms, buses, and many other real teaching and learning settings.

Q. What do you consider to be the most influential qualities of the PBIS effort?

Our PBIS team learned that an empirically supported practice can only be truly effective if implemented with fidelity and durability and if educationally important student-level outcomes and benefits are realized. As such, I think our adoption and integration of the organizational logic from the public health prevention sciences and the importance of establishing opportunities to implement with high fidelity were two of the more important qualities of our PBIS effort.

The public health prevention logic provided our PBIS team with an organizational continuum of behavior support that enabled efficient alignment of effective practices with varying teaching and learning needs. This continuum includes universal supports for all students and educators (tier 1), targeted supports for those requiring additional assistance (tier 2), and indicated supports for individuals needing intensive help (tier 3).

With respect to the continuum logic, I want to emphasize two important considerations. First, the continuum organizes teaching and behavior supports and does NOT “place” students along it. That is, a student may require tier 2 behavior support but must not be labeled as a “tier 2 student.” We must always use person-first language. For example, “George is supported with an individualized behavioral contract for using his words (tier 3), receives reading instruction with his grade level peers (Tier 1), and checks in with Ms Schwartz 3 times per day (Tier 2).”

Second, a common misrule is that “tier 3 is special education.” Students with disabilities are included at all points along the continuum based on their individual strengths and needs. For example, “Ilene may have an IEP that stipulates individualized supports for her early literacy and self-management goals (tier 3) and also participate without supports in math instruction, lunch and snack periods, and structured recess activities with her same-age peers (tier 1).”

The PBIS Center has maintained its tradition and priority for empirical verification and evaluation. Quantitative research methodologies remain a mainstay of the organization and operation of the Center’s daily activities. Peer-reviewed studies, comprehensive evaluations, and data-based demonstrations are prominently showcased at www.pbis.org and in all presentations and training activities.

Over the last few years, the continuum of support logic has been extended into broader implementation applications under the umbrella of multi-tiered systems of support or MTSS. It is important to acknowledge that PBIS and MTSS share the same foundational elements, but MTSS has extended reach into academic instruction and outcomes.

Finally, implementation remains a top priority for the PBIS Center team. This involves removing adoption and implementation barriers, promoting successful implementation, ensuring and encouraging empirically defendable practices, utilizing student outcome data for meaningful decision making, and prioritizing educationally important applied outcomes.

Q. What advice would you like to share for future UW researchers and practitioners?

I’ve learned that my best experiences and accomplishments have been associated with sticking to a few rules or tenets that I first learned at the UW and thereafter shaped my career experiences, even in retirement:

a. Work from a defendable theoretical foundation, that is,I am a behavior analyst.

b. Give priority to empirically defendable practices, that is, I depend on the scientific process.

c. Arrange teaching and learning environments for high levels of implementation success, accuracy, and durability, that is, I’m responsible for what I do and what students learn.

d. Clearly define and defend the learner outcome, that is, I make decisions based on what is important to students.

e. Nourish important relationships and collaborations, I benefit from my mentors, friends, and family.

Q. What was it like to retire from such a productive and accomplished career?

One of the most satisfying experiences of retirement is watching the PBIS Center effectively, efficiently, and relevantly continue and extend its work. The Center has an incredibly talented team and network with its own successful implementation capacity.

In addition, I also am gratified to see many of my students shape their own accomplished careers and many of my practitioner colleagues find success in their teaching and implementation efforts. The result is many children and youth with disabilities and their families are experiencing improved academic and social behavior outcomes.

Finally, I’m pleased that my own education, including my UW experience, gave me the initial capacity and behavioral fluency to navigate the complex environments of public schools, higher education, various educational systems, and contemporary social and political challenges.

I miss being in school classrooms and schools, conducting applied research with my colleagues and school partners, passing on what we have learned to future implementers, and preparing the next generation of researchers and practitioners. However, I’ve learned that others are carrying the torch, especially when confronting contemporary challenges.

And, as any good behavior analyst would do, in my retirement I’ve found functionally equivalent alternative behaviors and activities to replace my work behaviors and routines. My “team” is my family and the many friends I’ve acquired over more than 4 decades, starting, of course, with my UW “family.” Although a bit cliché-ish, for me its all about “moving” and “behaving” in deliberate and doable steps and with the positive support of a network of a positively reinforcing team.