Provo School District unveils SET baseline data, directs principals to prioritize PBIS expectations

Provo School District leaders on March 28 presented baseline results from a districtwide SET (Schoolwide Evaluation Tool) review and told principals to focus on clearly defining and teaching schoolwide behavioral expectations as part of next year’s school improvement plans.

District staff said the SET work inspected whether schools have a consistent matrix of behavioral expectations, whether those expectations are actively taught, and whether responses to misbehavior are implemented systematically across locations. The presentation, led by district PBIS coaches with Jason Cox, Jared Sites and Daryl Jensen cited a 0–1–2 scoring method (0 = not present, 1 = partially, 2 = fully implemented) and recommended districtwide alignment on sections A and B of the survey this year.

The district described the SET as an administrator interview and verification process that included document reviews and interviews of students and staff. Staff said scores reflect both policy and practice: schools must not only post expectations (e.g., “SOAR”) in hallways but also connect classroom-level rules to the school matrix and provide specific, consistent feedback to students. PBIS coaches and Student Services (Carrie Rollins named) tabulated results, met with principals to review each school's strengths and required school-improvement plan entries, and recommended specific actions for schools with gaps between expectation definition/teaching (A/B) and response systems (D).

District leaders told the board that the effort is intended to be implemented over a multi-year timeline, to avoid overwhelming staff. Coaches will support principals with targeted technical assistance; a revised coaching model will assign PBIS coaches to high-need schools while also giving each coach an additional third of the district to consult with. Staff said this change aims to bolster tier-1 (universal) behavioral supports so schools respond less often with tier-2 or tier-3 interventions.

Board members asked questions about variation in district support, which the presenters said was partly intentional: PBIS coaches are prioritized for higher‑need Title I schools. Staff noted three schools scored lower on “district-level support” because coaches are assigned to other high‑needs campuses and secondary schools often see fewer district visits. The board was told principals will include PBIS goals in their school improvement plans, which district staff will circulate for board review in about a month.

Ending: District staff said school improvement plans tied to the SET data will appear for board review in mid‑April; the board directed staff to continue coaching redesign and help principals connect school rules to classroom practice.