FBAs and BIPs Legal Issues and Practical Strategies for IEP Teams

FBAs and BIPs: Legal Issues and Practical Strategies for IEP Teams by Jose L. Martín, Attorney at Law RICHARDS LINDSAY & MARTIN, L.L.P 13091 Pond Springs Road, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78729 jose@rlmedlaw.com Copyright © 2015, 2017 RICHARDS LINDSAY & MARTÍN, L.L.P Issues on FBAs What is a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)?—The FBA requirement is related to   the   provision   in   IDEA   requiring   that   "in   developing   an   IEP   for   'a   child   whose behavior   impedes   the   child's   learning.'   the   school   district   must   'consider   the   use   of positive behavioral interventions and  supports, and other strategies,  to  address  that behavior.'" 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i). There is no language, however, on the necessary components of an FBA, or who must conduct an FBA. See  Letter to Janssen, 51 IDELR 253 (OSERS 2008). Neither IDEA ’04 nor the 2006 final regulations, moreover, contain a definition or additional guidance with respect to FBAs In   commentary   to   the   1999   IDEA   regulations,   the   USDOE   indicated   that   in conducting   an   FBA,   “the   IEP   team   need   to   be   able   to   address   the   various situation,   environmental,   and   behavioral   circumstances   raised   in   individual cases. 64 Fed. Reg. 12,620 (1999) Some   cases   have   attempted   to   cast   further   light   on   what   an   FBA   should accomplish, In  Independent Sch. Dist. No. 2310, 29 IDELR 330 (SEA MN 1998), a Minnesota hearing officer stated that the general purpose of an FBA is to provide the IEP  team with additional information, analysis, and strategies for dealing with   undesirable   behavior,   especially   when   it   is   interfering   with   a   child's education. The process involves some variant of identifying the core or "target" behavior; observing the pupil (perhaps in different environments) and collecting data   on   the   target   behavior,   antecedents   and   consequences;   formulating   a hypothesis   about   the   cause(s)   of   the   behavior;   developing   an   intervention   or interventions to test the hypothesis; and collecting data on the effectiveness of the intervention(s) in changing the behavior. Yet another hearing officer stated that “developing an FBA is a process that involves identifying the core or "target" behavior;   observing   the   student   and   collecting   data   on   the   target   behavior; formulating   a   hypothesis   about   the   causes   of   the   behavior;   developing FBAs and BIPs—Page 1 interventions to test the hypothesis; and collecting data on the effectiveness of the interventions in changing the behavior.”  Broward County Sch. Bd., 110 LRP 38,160 (SEA Florida 2010) This commentator’s  “horse­sense”  definition of an FBA is an assessment  of a student’s behavioral functioning, gleaned from observational data from sources knowledgeable   about   the   student’s   day­to­day   behavior,   that   is   reasonably calculated   to  assist  the   IEP   team  in  developing  an  appropriate  BIP   (Behavior Intervention Plan, a general term intended to describe the portion of an IEP that contains positive behavior interventions, supports, and strategies) The FBA is likely to include information regarding type of behaviors, frequency, severity, location, triggering factors, and previously attempted strategies, among others. There is no requirement that the FBA be conducted with the assistance of a school psychologist, or that it be part of a psychological evaluation. The better the FBA, however, the more effective the BIP. At this point, schools are getting in trouble for not conducting  any FBAs, rather than for conducting poor ones (see caselaw below) When is an FBA required?—If an IDEA­eligible child is exhibiting recurring behaviors that impede their learning or the learning of others, a FBA should be conducted to help determine the potential need for a behavior intervention plan (BIP). See Connor v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 109 LRP 67,343 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(Lack of FBA not a denial of FAPE   where   student’s   anxiety   and   fidgeting   did   not   impede   his   learning   in   the classroom). In addition, IDEA provisions at sections 1415(k)(1)(D) and (F) also require FBAs in the two following situations: For long­term removals—In addition, IDEA requires an FBA “and behavioral intervention   services   and   modifications”   when   the   school   undertakes   a disciplinary change in placement based on a long­term (>10 consecutive school days)   removal,   including   in   situations   where   the   student   is   removed   due   to special offenses (drugs, weapons, serious injury). 34 C.F.R. §300.530(d)(1)(ii) When behavior is determined to be related to disability—Also, the regulation requires an FBA and implementation of a BIP when the school determines that a behavior   is   a   manifestation   of   the   child’s   disability   in   a   manifestation determination   review   If   a   BIP   had   already   been   developed,   the   regulation requires a review of the BIP, with revisions as necessary to address the behavior 34 C.F.R. §300.530(f)(1).  Is there a requirement for a FBA/BIP in cases where there is no manifestation or “link” but the school decides not to undertake a long­term removal?—In the 2006 commentary FBAs and BIPs—Page 2 to the final IDEA regulations, USDOE did not require the FBA/BIP process in situations where the behavior was not related to disability. It stated that “we must recognize that Congress   specifically   removed   from   the   Act   a   requirement   to   conduct   a   functional behavioral assessment or review and modify an existing behavioral intervention plan for  all  children   within  10 days  of  a disciplinary   removal,  regardless   of  whether   the behavior was a manifestation or not. We also recognize, though, that as a matter of practice, it makes a great deal of sense to attend to behavior of children with disabilities that is interfering with their education or that of others, so that the behavior can be addressed, even when that behavior will not result in a change in placement. In fact, the Act   emphasizes   a   proactive   approach   to   behaviors   that   interfere   with   learning   by requiring that, for children with disabilities whose behavior impedes their learning or that of others, the IEP Team consider, as appropriate, and address in the child’s IEP, “the   use   of   positive   behavioral   interventions,   and   other   strategies   to   address   the behavior.” (See section 1414(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Act).   This provision should ensure that children who need behavior intervention plans to succeed in school receive them.” Fed Reg. 46,721. Here, USDOE is reminding schools that the FBA/BIP process is one that must   be   considered   proactively,   in   response   to   behavior   that   impedes   learning, irrespective of a recommendation for serious disciplinary action What about cumulative removals totaling 10 school days in a school year?—As with the   language   of   IDEA   ‘04,   the   final   regulations     not   contain   any   requirement   to conduct the FBA/BIP process when a student has been removed a total of 10 school days in a school year. Schools, however, are cautioned that the general threshold for conducting the FBA/BIP process is when the student engages in recurring behaviors that interfere or impede their learning or that of others. As a matter of good practice, schools   should   use   the   FBA/BIP   early   in   situations   of   repeated   or   escalating misbehavior, for both educational and legal reasons. In situations where a student has been   removed   10 days  within  a school  year,  it is  highly  likely  that  the  standard  of recurring­behavior­that­impedes­learning has been met, and thus an FBA is needed Is an FBA a required “prerequisite” to developing an appropriate BIP?—The general notion   is   that   the   FBA   data   informs   the   development   of   the   BIP   and   is   the   data foundation of the BIP. But, legally, a BIP could be appropriate even if a formal FBA was not conducted. In the recent case of C. F. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 57 IDELR 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), a federal  court  held that a BIP  was appropriate,  and addressed  the pertinent behavioral issues, despite not being preceded by an FBA. The court ruled that the   IEP   team   “had   access   to   a   substantial   amount   of   information   on   C.F.'s   current interfering behaviors and did draft a BIP, which reflected the behaviors and provided for the continued use of intervention strategies.” Nevertheless, it appears advisable for districts   to   proceed   along  the  lines  of  the  generally   accepted  practice  of conducting FBAs to collect the data necessary to formulate appropriate BIPs FBAs and BIPs—Page 3 What about children who come from private schools?—In situations where a child has been placed in private schools before enrolling in a public school, the public school IEP can rely on behavioral observations and data provided by the private school. See  A. L. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 57 IDELR 69 (S.D.N.Y 2011) Is an FBA an “evaluation” requiring parental consent under IDEA?—In 2007, OSEP explained   that   a   district   that   intends   to   conduct   a   functional   behavioral   assessment should   ask   whether   the   planned   FBA   will   focus   on   the   educational   and   behavioral needs of a specific child. If so, the FBA qualifies as an evaluation or reevaluation under Part B and therefore triggers all of the accompanying procedural safeguards, including the need to seek parental consent. If, however, the district uses an FBA as a widespread intervention tool to improve the behavior of all students in its schools, the FBA is not an evaluation and parental consent is not necessary.  Letter to Christiansen, 48 IDELR 161 (OSEP   2007);  see   also  Northwestern   School   Corp.,  111   LRP   26,429   (SEA   Indiana   2011) (district that used questionnaires to gather information from a kindergartner's teachers as part of an FBA should have obtained parental consent first, as this was not merely a review of existing data, but rather a collecting of new data) Can a parent request an independent FBA if the district has conducted its own and the parent   disagrees   with   it?—Apparently   yes   OSERS   has   ruled   that   a   parent   who disagrees  with an  FBA  that is  conducted  in  order  to  develop   an  appropriate   IEP  is entitled   to   request   an   IEE   at   public   expense  Questions   and   Answers   on   Discipline Procedures, 52 IDELR 231 (OSERS 2009) Examples of Useful FBA Questions What are the main behavior problems in order of priority? How frequent are these behaviors? How severe? Where do the behaviors take place? When do the behaviors take place? What happens just before the behavior? What happens after behavioral incidents? What strategies are currently being used? How effective are the strategies currently used? What strategies were used, but discontinued? What consequences are currently used? How effective is application of consequences? To which reinforcers does the student respond? Which reinforcers are not effective? What input can the parent provide? FBAs and BIPs—Page 4 Will the parent assist in implementing behavioral supports/strategies? Many schools collect the above type of questions in a standardized form that teachers and staff can complete, and which the IEP team can use to help develop the BIP Comments on Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) When to develop a BIP?—Generally, an IEP team should consider development of a BIP whenever   an   IDEA   student   exhibits   recurring   behavior   problems   that   impede   their learning or the learning of others. It is best to intervene early with a BIP, before the behavior pattern becomes entrenched and more difficult to address A point on BIP forms—The forms that are used to develop BIPs should be flexible, and allow for the most individualized process possible. Although not necessarily inappropriate, checklist BIPs tend to “shoehorn” staff into the listed strategies, instead   of   encouraging   innovative   and   uniquely   individualized   approaches Moreover,   many   checklist   items   on   BIP   checklists   include   interventions   and strategies   that   really   are   nothing   more   than   traditional   classroom   discipline management   techniques,   rather   than   innovative   ideas   for   individualized interventions for particular problem behaviors Interplay   with   IEP   goals   and   objectives—The   BIP   should   tie   into   the   behavioral goals and objectives on students’ IEPs. The BIP provides day­to­day strategies and techniques to address the behavior, while the objectives serve to measure progress on the behaviors in question Common BIP Problems Not taking nature of disability into account Insufficient customization of consequences and reinforcers (reduces their  effectiveness) Inappropriate or partial implementation by instructional staff Simple lists of consequences—punishment­only formats Lack of meaningful positive strategies to prevent behaviors or promote  acquisition of appropriate replacement behaviors FBAs and BIPs—Page 5 Failure to revise ineffective BIPs (watch for old BIPs that student now  manipulates or learns to “work”) Using minor modifications to regular discipline plan for complex cases (difficult  cases require well thought­out and highly individualized BIPs) Contingencies not clear or specific (leads to staff confusion and inconsistent  implementation) Insufficient contingencies (give staff a plan B if A fails) 10 Failure to address all target behaviors 11 Overreliance on a BIP checklist­based form Ideas for Steps to Develop a Solid BIP Gather   FBA   data   (observation,   evaluation,   teacher   comments)   and   determine proper behavioral baselines as part of the FBA report Identify target behaviors Review data regarding possible strategies and consequences Develop positive strategies to promote acquisition of appropriate behaviors to   replace inappropriate behaviors Customize potential consequences for inappropriate behavior Develop hierarchy of consequences, in case first consequence is ineffective (or gather a set of non­hierarchical consequences for staff to choose from) Prepare draft BIP for IEP team deliberation  If   feasible,   solicit   input   from   evaluating   psychologist   prior   to   presenting   BIP draft at meeting Identify potential support services needed to facilitate successful implementation of BIP FBAs and BIPs—Page 6 Evaluate effectiveness of BIP periodically with a data­based approach Tips for Successful Implementation of BIPs Involve implementers in drafting of BIP Communicate to staff the legal implications of failure to implement BIP Avoid power struggles over application of BIP Apply consequences in firm, but non­emotional tone Remember that positive strategies may be more effective than consequences Apply BIP consistently On complicated BIPs, hold a meeting of instructional staff to review the BIP and conduct Q & A Make BIP available to all staff who might be involved in disciplining the child Monitor implementation of BIP periodically (preferably on a planned data basis) 10 Allow implementers to provide input regarding effectiveness of BIP Some BIP Cases Walker County Bd. of Educ., 111 LRP 48,174 (SEA Alabama 2011)—The district’s failure to conduct an FBA or develop a BIP despite a student’s escalating behavior problems amounted to a denial of FAPE. The behavior had escalated to the point that the student was placed in an alternative disciplinary setting several times in a school year, and the parents reported that the student had experienced an emotional breakdown that led to a hospitalization Mesquite Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Student, 197­SE­0410 (SEA Texas 2011)—A parent argued that an FBA was deficient because it was conducted at an ARDC meeting, instead of by means of behavioral observations over time. Given that the school knew of the student’s serious behavior problems prior to the evaluation, the Hearing Officer stated that “the FBAs and BIPs—Page 7 FBA   should   have   been   conducted   as   part   of   Student’s   comprehensive   FIE   given Student’s behavioral needs as related to student’s suspected ED. MISD used the FBA to identify Student’s problem behaviors and help the ARDC select interventions to directly address those behaviors; however, MISD did not conduct the FBA in accordance with best practices based on observation of Student’s behavior over time and in a variety of settings.” But the Hearing Officer ruled that, the failure to conduct the FBA as part of the FIE and in accordance with best practices is, at best, a procedural issue that is legally significant only if it results in the denial of a FAPE. “The question then is whether the FBA resulted in a BIP and Behavior IEP that addressed Student’s needs and conferred upon student the requisite benefit in the behavioral arena.” And, the Hearing Officer found that it did. Lake Travis ISD v. M.L., Cause No. 1:06­cv­00046­SS (W.D. TX 2007).  Wallingford­Swarthmore Sch. Dist., 110 LRP 68,486 (SEA Pennsylvania 2010)—In a case that demonstrates that difficult cases may require more intensive FBA/BIP work, a hearing officer held that a school denied a child with multiple disabilities and behaviors a FAPE. The school commonly modified the BIP without prior FBAs or parent input, and   although   it   had   the   capacity   to   create   behavior   charts   and   collect   detailed behavioral   data,   there   was   little   evidence   that   staff   used   these   tools   to   revise   and improve the student’s BIP  “The District cites the use of behavioral technology (data collection)  but   demonstrates   the  clear  lack  of  sufficient  knowledge   of  how  to  apply procedures to positively affect behavior change.” Imagine Charter Schools at East Mesa, 55 IDELR 112 (SEA Arizona 2010)—When an Arizona parent requested a BIP, the IEP team determined, based on teacher input and observation, that the student was not exhibiting behavior that impeded her learning, so it denied the request. The hearing officer rejected the parent’s argument that an FBA was   necessary,   as   the   behaviors   were   not   serious   and   did   not   subject   the   child   to disciplinary  actions. “Based  on the documentation submitted,  [the student's alleged] behaviors   are   either   related   to   the   student's   learning   disability   or   are   typical   mild behaviors for a second­grader in a school classroom.” Thus, the standard for requiring an FBA was not met Little   Rock   Sch   Dist.,   37   IDELR   30   (SEA   Arkansas   2002)—Failure   to   provide appropriate  BIP  for student with disruptive and injurious behaviors led to need  for more   restrictive   environment   BIP   was   outdated,   used   a   one­page   form,   and   relied mostly on the parents taking the student home when he misbehaved Conroe Ind. Sch. Dist., 38 IDELR 53 (SEA Texas 2002)—The hearing officer found that the   BIP   for   a   student   with   extremely   disruptive   behavior   and   verbal   outbursts   was appropriate. It contained some planned ignoring of minor behaviors, warnings, cooling­ off periods, and limited personal reactions to disciplinary incidents.  FBAs and BIPs—Page 8 Neosho R­V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 38 IDELR 61 (8th Cir. 2003)—The need for a proper BIP existed long before the school made efforts to establish a plan for a student with stress­ related behavior problems. For a significant time, the student exhibited behaviors that impeded his ability to benefit from his education, and there was no BIP In re: Student with a Disability, 41 IDELR 115 (SEA Wisconsin 2003)—Hearing officer disagreed with parents that BIP was inappropriate because it called for consequences that   included   suspension   The   BIP   contained   positive   behavioral   supports   and strategies, and the use of consequences was not inappropriate, even for behavior related to   disability   Moreover,   the   district   had   the   right   to   make   the   final   disciplinary decisions, even if the BIP called for consulting the parents Mobile  County  Bd. of Educ., 40 IDELR  226 (SEA  Alabama  2004)—District  failed to conduct an FBA and implement a BIP for an 11­year­old student with severe MR, CP, hearing  loss,  ADHD, and  ED  who   exhibited  aggressive  behaviors,  which  led  to   the student’s arrest Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Community Unit Sch. Dist #221, 41 IDELR 146 (7th  Cir 2004)—BIP  drafted to deal with student’s  escalating behaviors was appropriate, and included visual aids, sensory breaks, and manipulatives. The court noted that the IDEA did not include specific substantive requirements  for BIPs  Even though the student became more violent, and eventually needed a more restrictive behavior unit, the court refused to find that the BIP was not appropriate Internet resources on BIPs www.ldonline.org/article/6180 This article explains the requirements of the IDEA regarding addressing problem behavior. It provides  a step­by­step guide  to conducting a functional  behavioral  analysis, and writing a behavior plan.  http://cecp.air.org/familybriefs/ The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) offers a number of family briefs on behavior. Two were mentioned above under "Behavior as Communication." If you'd like to know more about how to write a BIP, read CECP's Behavioral Planning Meetings, which describes what BIPs are and how parents and the school system work together to write one.  http://cecp.air.org/fba/problembehavior/main.htm If the IEP team isn't real sure how to address a student's problem behavior, then members might find this CECP resource helpful: Addressing Student Problem Behavior, Part I: An IEP Team's Introduction   to   Functional   Behavioral   Assessment   and   Behavior   Intervention   Plans   It's FBAs and BIPs—Page 9 available at the link above.  Other Resources Behavior Intervention Plans Five Essential Themes that Add up to Adequacy Researcher   Susan   Etscheidt   of   the   University   of   Northern   Iowa   reviewed   800   due process, district court and appellate court decisions that were decided between 1997 and 2005 and contained the term BIP (Behavior Intervention Plan). That case review yielded   52   published   decisions   in   which   the   adequacy   of   the   Positive   Behavior Intervention Plan was a central feature Etscheidt reports that five themes emerged from her research. Each provides important information that advocates and parents need to take into consideration as they work together   to   plan   effective   behavioral   interventions   on   behalf   of   students   with disabilities FINDINGS A Positive Behavior Intervention Plan must be developed when a student’s behavior   interferes   with   learning.  Seventeen   of   the   reviewed   cases   concerned   the failure of IEP teams to develop positive BIPs for students with a variety of significant behavior problems. In the majority of the cases, the school districts were aware of the needs but still did not take steps to address serious behaviors that could be dangerous or long standing issues with school attendance that interfered with educational success Parents prevailed in sixteen of the seventeen cases School   districts   ran   into   difficulty   trying   to  substitute  informal   BIPs,   social   skills programs or student contracts for a fully developed positive BIP. Districts were also confused about  when  to develop a BIP, one maintaining that a student who had not been suspended or removed from his program for more than ten days did not require a BIP, despite a very high frequency of disciplinary actions over a seven month period Another serious issue raised in several cases was the attempt to move students to a more   restrictive   placements  rather   than   developing   a   positive   BIP   that   would   be sufficient to meet the students’ needs in a less restrictive school setting. In these cases, outcomes for parents were mixed – one hearing denied placement in a private school, but in several cases, districts were ordered to either engage a certified behavior analyst to evaluate and develop a BIP and IEP or private school placement and tuition was ordered FBAs and BIPs—Page 10   A   Positive   Behavior   Intervention   Plan   must   be   based   on   recent   and meaningful assessment data.  Decisions in these cases established that school districts must base student behavior plans on data that is gathered from evaluations that are properly conducted and interpreted. When districts were able to demonstrate that they used recent and professionally developed data, they prevailed in several decisions even though the students in question were not necessarily responding positively to the BIP On   the   other   hand,   districts   were   not   successful   in   defending   observations,   or   the development of a positive BIP without the use of a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA).  A   Positive   Behavior   Intervention   Plan   must   be   individualized   to   meet   the student’s unique needs  School districts were not successful in arguing cases where they   had   substituted   a   behavior   management   system   used   to   manage   the   entire classroom, group counseling sessions, or a restrictive program addressing students with behavior problems for the development of an individualized BIP.    A   Positive   Behavior   Intervention   Plan   must   include   positive   behavior Strategies and supports.  The kinds of intervention strategies developed for students was also a focus of another sixteen of the cases reviewed. Districts were successful in responding   to   parent   complaints   when   the   positive   BIPs   contained   a   variety   of individualized, positive and student focused strategies. Strategies that were specifically mentioned in decisions included environmental alterations, alternative skill instruction, cooling   off   periods,   curricular   modifications   and   frequent   contact   with   parents   and professionals   working   with   the   student   outside   of   school   Plans   that   included punishment and discipline, shorter school days, excessive use of time­out and isolation as   primary   interventions   were   seen   as   contributing   to   students’   lack   of   academic progress and negative self­image Further,   districts   that   attempted   to   substitute   punishments,   manipulation   of   the student’s  school day by requiring parents to take student home, adult escorts in the school   building,  or  use  of restraints   for  properly  developed  BIPs  did  not prevail  in hearings. In these cases, parents were successful in receiving compensatory education or districts were ordered to provide meaningful assessments and detailed positive BIPs based on extensive data collection through the implementation of a proper FBA. School district   use   of   a   basket   hold   or   restraints   in   crisis   situations   was   supported   in   the decisions reviewed, even though it was not a positive intervention It is also interesting to note that school districts were not successful in substituting IEP goals and objectives for positive behavior intervention strategies! FBAs and BIPs—Page 11  A Positive Behavior Intervention Plan must be implemented as planned and effects   must   be   monitored.  In   the   nine   cases   addressing   implementation   and monitoring,  school  districts   were  successful   when  they  could  demonstrate   that   they made   a   good   faith   effort   to   implement   complicated   plans,   and   that   suspending   a student from school was not necessarily a deviation from a BIP and was consistent with the provisions of IDEA. In those cases, parents were not successful in arguing that any punishment of their child was not allowed because of their disability and the fact that suspension deviated from the BIP In two more extreme cases, school districts were successful in arguing that contacting the police was permitted to restore order or to escort a student to a safe place.  Parents were successful in those cases where a BIP was simply not implemented at all, when the BIP was clearly inadequate and behavior of the student was bringing about more serious consequences, when staff was not trained to implement the plan, and the plan was not updated by the IEP team as needed THE BOTTOM LINE In general, parents do not frequently prevail in due process proceedings. These research findings   suggest   that   parents   have   prevailed   in   a   remarkable   number   of   the   cases reviewed because: •  School districts failed to act despite clear evidence that a student’s behavior was a significant barrier to their learning;  •  School   districts   recognized   a   student’s   need   for   intervention,   but   substituted group   counseling,   classroom­wide   behavior   modification   programs,   IEP   goals, suspension, and more restrictive school days or programs for a Functional Behavior Assessment and the development of an individualized BIP.  •  School districts could not demonstrate that their actions were based on current and adequate data, individualized to the student in need of intervention and utilized good professional practices This information is particularly useful and important given the new IDEA requirement that   whether   a   student   has   received   FAPE   is   to   be   decided   based   on   substantive grounds and that procedural violations must meet a new high standard to be included in hearing decisions: 34 CFR 300.513 (a) Decision of Hearing Officer on the provision of FAPE, (1)(2) and (3) DISCUSSION FBAs and BIPs—Page 12 It is the responsibility of the school district and each child’s IEP Team to ensure that when behaviors are impeding that child’s ability to learn and to be successful in their academic, social and communication development, a proactive course of action is taken on behalf of that child. Unfortunately, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has given little guidance as to what the standards should be for the collection of data and the development and implementation of a Positive Behavior Intervention Plan Susan Etscheidt’s research offers five sets of information about how hearing officers and courts have evaluated the efforts of school districts to address student behavior through the positive Behavior Intervention Plan. It is useful, of course, to know and understand where   school  districts  have   failed  in  meeting   procedural  requirements   under  IDEA More   important,   are   the   discussions   that   are   closely   related   to   the   best   practices advocates and parents should require of the school staff when considering interventions for  a particular  student   We  can be   hopeful  in  concluding   that hearing  officers  and courts have taken seriously the quality of the positive BIPs developed for students, as well as issues of when they are needed and how they are to be developed, implemented and monitored The   Research:  Behavioral   Intervention   Plans:   Pedagogical   and   Legal   Analysis   of Issues. Susan Etscheidt, Department of Special Education, University of Northern Iowa Published in Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 223­243 OSEP Fact Sheet on FBAs Functional Behavioral Assessment Felix is an inquisitive, resourceful 15­year­old high school student with traumatic brain injury  He has struggled  academically  and  behaviorally  for  years. In middle  school, when presented with a difficult or complex assignment, he would frequently whine, stomp his feet, or hit his teacher or another student. When reprimanded, Felix would often run out of the room and, on several occasions, left the school grounds without permission Instead   of   removing   Felix   from   his   neighborhood   school,   the   school   personnel conducted a functional behavioral assessment to evaluate the reasons for his problem behavior. The team determined that Felix acted inappropriately when he was frustrated with  the academic demands. Therefore,  the school revised  his academic  program to meet his individual needs. This included an adapted curriculum with individual and small group tutoring and a revised behavioral support program. The last two years of FBAs and BIPs—Page 13 middle school were a great success for Felix, his family, and school staff Introduction Functional   Behavioral   Assessment   (FBA)   is   an   integral   component   of   designing effective behavior support plans. FBA is a systematic process for describing problem behavior, and identifying the environmental factors and surrounding events associated with problem behavior. This information is used to identify and teach more appropriate replacement behaviors and to develop an effective plan for reducing the frequency or severity of the problem behavior Why This Approach is Important The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that, at a minimum, the FBA be conducted when disciplinary sanctions result in extended periods (i.e. either before   or   not   later   than   10   business   days   after   either   the   first   removal   beyond   10 cumulative school days in a school year or commencing a removal that constitutes a change in placement) in which a student is removed from school. In addition to the IDEA   requirements,   the   FBA   gives   schools   valuable   information   about   the   possible causes   of   problem   behavior   Research   demonstrates   that   the   process   of   positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and developing behavioral support plans is more effective when the FBA is conducted prior to developing interventions. The FBA is used to a) define the problem behaviors, b) describe the settings under which problem behaviors are and are not likely to be observed, c) identify the function (the why) of the problem behaviors, and d) collect information from direct observation to support these outcomes Key Principles of Practice While there  are a variety  of techniques  available to  conduct  a functional behavioral assessment, all FBA processes as a general matter, based on research, include the same basic steps: Collect   Information   through   informal   consultation   as   well   as   direct   observation Conversations, questionnaires, checklists, and structured interviews with key persons (e.g.,   teachers,   parents,   the   student)   who   have   contact   and   experiences   with   the individual student can offer insights into the contexts or conditions under which the behavior occurs. Direct observations should also be made, so that observers can watch the behaviors as they are occurring and note the environmental events (environmental factors, antecedent and consequence events) that may initiate or sustain the behaviors Specific,   concrete   behaviors   are   defined   after   observational   assessments   have   been performed FBAs and BIPs—Page 14 Propose  Testable  Explanations of the  student's  behavior. A testable  explanation  is  a hypothesis   that   may   explain   the   relationship   between   a   problem   behavior   and environmental   factors   that   seem   to   be   associated   with   its   occurrences   Variables observed may include settings or circumstances that seem either to lead to the problem behavior   or   reinforce   it   after   the   fact   The   hypothesis   should   consider   the   possible functions of the behavior for the student Assess   the   Validity   of   Your   Hypotheses   to   confirm   the   validity   of   the   testable explanations. In general, additional information is collected about the conditions under which   the   problem   behavior   occurs   and   does   not   occur   This   information   should demonstrate that occurrences of the behavior and the presence of these conditions are related and predictable The results of the FBA should be used to develop an effective and efficient behavioral intervention/support plan Although  the FBA  term  was introduced  formally  in the  IDEA  '97, there  has been  a strong history of using FBA for reducing behavioral problems. It is a critical tool for developing effective behavior intervention/support plans Where To Go For More Information Office  of Special Education Programs Office  of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services U.S. Department of Education 330 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20202 Phone: (202) 205­5507 Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index.html The OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Behavioral Research and Training5262 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403­5262 Phone: (541) 346­2505   Fax:   (541)   346­5689   Web   site:   http://www.PBIS.org   The   Center   was established   by   OSEP   to   give   schools   capacity­building   information   and   technical assistance for identifying, adapting, and sustaining effective school­wide disciplinary practices The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW   Washington,   DC   20007   Phone   (202)   944­5000   Fax   (202)   944­5454   Web   site: http://www.air­dc.org/cecp/   CECP   promotes   and   supports   the   development   and adjustment of children with or at­risk of developing serious emotional disturbance. To achieve that goal, the Center collaborates at Federal, state, and local levels to contribute to   and   facilitate   the   production,   exchange,   and   use   of   knowledge   about   effective practices FBAs and BIPs—Page 15 ... It is also interesting to note that school districts were not successful in substituting? ?IEP goals? ?and? ?objectives? ?for? ?positive behavior intervention? ?strategies! FBAs? ?and? ?BIPs? ??Page 11  A Positive Behavior Intervention Plan must be implemented as planned? ?and effects  ... Lack of meaningful positive? ?strategies? ?to prevent behaviors or promote  acquisition of appropriate replacement behaviors FBAs? ?and? ?BIPs? ??Page 5 Failure to revise ineffective? ?BIPs? ?(watch? ?for? ?old? ?BIPs? ?that student now ... to evaluate? ?and? ?develop a BIP? ?and? ?IEP? ?or private school placement? ?and? ?tuition was ordered FBAs? ?and? ?BIPs? ??Page 10   A   Positive   Behavior   Intervention   Plan   must   be   based   on   recent   and meaningful assessment data.