A Reply to the Commentaries on "School-wide PBIS: An Example of Applied Behavior Analysis Implemented at a Scale of Social Importance" by Horner and Sugai (2015): PBIS is Function over Form: The Clear Behavioral Roots and Opportunities the PBIS Framework presents to the Field of Behavior Analysis Moving Forward.

Reeve et al. (2016) wrote a reply to critics of the Horner and Sugai (2015) paper. They used a narrative style to defend school-wide PBIS as real ABA.

The authors argued that PBIS keeps the function-over-form heart of behavior analysis. They urged BCBAs to claim, not shun, large-scale school work.

The paper found no new data. Instead it found a gap in identity: many analysts dismiss PBIS as "not pure ABA."

The reply shows that PBIS tiers, data, and function-based plans map directly onto ABA principles. The authors say the field should lead these systems.

Walley et al. (2005) made the same point earlier. Their narrative review also said school-wide PBIS is ABA at scale. Reeve et al. (2016) echo and defend that stance.

Dykens et al. (1991) gave early proof. Their two-year study showed a full ABA schooling package lifted learning gains for 38 students. This empirical base supports the claim that ABA can run entire schools.

Hugh-Pennie et al. (2022) extend the idea. They say if PBIS is ABA, then ABA must also be culturally responsive. Their theoretical paper links function-based supports to reducing racial discipline gaps.

Reilly et al. (2025) add a teaming recipe. They outline four steps for BCBAs to win teacher buy-in for function-based plans, giving practical teeth to the "function over form" slogan.

If you consult in schools, this paper gives you talking points. You can show principals that PBIS tiers are just ABA with different labels. Use that common language to get a seat at the leadership table. Next meeting, map your district’s PBIS flowchart to an ABA conceptual diagram. The visual helps staff see you as part of the system, not an outsider.