ADVOCATING 4 KIDS

Let’s do a Functional Behavior Assessment on the teacher who will not make appropriate adaptations for the student with Aspergers.

 Here is a Functional Behavior Assessment of a teacher who will not make appropriate adaptations for a student in a regular classroom who has high functioning autism / Asperger Syndrome. Functional Behavior Assessment for Teacher Smith

Description of the Behavior:

Teacher Smith sees the student struggling, being overwhelmed and under organized but she chooses to use the school’s punishment based behavior system and/or to give him poor grades.

Baseline Frequency of the Behavior: Charted at 2 to 3 times per day. Function of the

Behavior: Escape and Avoidance of gaining new understanding or trying new techniques.
Positive Behavior Supports for Teacher Smith:

Teacher Smith is given training to increase her understanding of autism spectrum differences.

Teacher Smith is given training to teach her specific strategies. Additional school staff are assigned to help her implement the strategies.

Teacher Smith is shown a video, given a pamphlet to read, or exposed to a speaker to help her connect emotionally with the concerns.

Improved strategies are modeled by another teacher whom she respects.

The parents conference with Teacher Smith to articulate their son’s differences and help her gain understanding.  An Autism Consultant or Administrator observes Teacher Smith frequently and gives positive reinforcements for using good strategies. A reinforcement survey is done to see if the best reinforcers are tangible (chocolate or Starbucks) or whether she responds well to social rein forcers (Praise in front of peers).

 The parents send positive notes to Teacher Smith’s administrator when she has made an appropriate effort.

Reactive Behavior Plan –When Teacher Smith makes poor behavior choices she must spend her lunch time in the Principal’s office and write a Think Sheet about why she did the behavior and how she will use a better strategy next time. Here is a Social Story for a parent who wants a one on one aide for a student who needs to develop more independent behaviors. The “Just Right” Amount of Support The goal for all students is to become independent citizens in home, school and community. Sometimes this is a difficult goal for students with differences. Some students need more help than others. Each student needs the “Just right” amount of support. With too little support, a student might not be successful. They might not make their best academic progress. They might have social problems or be unable to take care of their personal needs. They need adults around to be sure that they have their needs met and are learning. Too much adult
support causes a student to look and feel different from their peers. Some students get very used to an adult doing too much for them. They become dependent instead of growing more independent.
Actually, we are all interdependent. Many students ask each other or the classroom teachers for help. When there is an adult who is always with a student, he sometimes does not learn to refer to the classroom teacher or talk to a peer when he needs help. It is important that a student’s team make good decisions about what the “Just Right”
level of support is for each student. Teams hope that they give enough support and then fade that support so that the students are becoming i independent citizens. This session will consider a number of “Behavior” concerns among adults who work with students on the autism spectrum and give examples using the application of strategies such as: Positive Behavior Supports, Visual Cues, Power Card stories, Rating scales, Sensory Diet, Language  Therapy, Music Therapy, Behavior Management Plans, Discrete Trial
Training, Pivotal Response Training, Relational Development Intervention, Incidental Teaching, Integrated Play groups and/or Social Skills training, Although some of the examples of strategies may contain elements of humor, the intent is also to use positive strategies to change the adults who affect the lives of the individuals on the autism spectrum whom we care about.

Dated February 9, 2007

Dr. Kris Christiansen

Assistant Superintendent of Special Education and Related Services

Washoe County School District, Student Support Services

P.O. Box 30425

Reno, Nevada 89520-3425

Dear Dr. Christiansen:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in which you forwarded to my attention a letter submitted initially to this office dated May 10, 2005.  I apologize for the delay in responding.  You are asking for clarification under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B) regarding whether a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) always triggers the procedural safeguards applicable to an evaluation or an independent educational evaluation (IEE) and whether parent consent is required prior to conducting an FBA.

In your May 10, 2005 letter, you reference an OSEP letter to Montana attorney Jennifer L. Scheinz dated June 7, 2000, in which OSEP responded, based on the situation posed by Ms. Scheinz’s query, that an FBA conducted subsequent to the initial evaluation was a reevaluation, and that a parent was entitled to an IEE under applicable regulations if the parent disagreed with the child’s FBA.  On the other hand, you point out that the clarification provided in OSEP’s 22nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA and in Technical Assistance Guide #1, suggests that an FBA is a teaching methodology, which requires ongoing data collection to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the behavior support plan.”  See OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Applying Positive Behavioral Supports and Functional Behavioral Assessments in Schools, 9, 17 (1999).’

Your May 10, 2005 letter also makes reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984), and you ask to which OSEP interpretation your School District should give deference.  As explained below, we do not believe that the Scheinz letter and the TAG are in conflict.^[1]

If an FBA is used to evaluate an individual child in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.311 to assist in determining whether the child is a child with a disability and the nature and extent of special education and related services that the child needs, it is considered an evaluation under Part B and the regulation at 34 CFR §300.15.  Parental consent, consistent with 34 CFR §300.300(a) and (b), is required for an FBA conducted as an individual evaluation or reevaluation.  If the FBA is conducted for individual evaluative purposes to develop or modify a behavioral intervention plan for a particular child, under 34 CFR §300.502, a parent who

disagrees with the child’s FBA would have the right to request an IEE at public expense.  These regulatory provisions are consistent with the policy clarification provided in the Scheinz letter.

In contrast, the excerpt from the TAG reproduced in the 22nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA provides technical assistance for public agency personnel who wish to utilize positive behavioral supports and FBAs as methodologies within the agency’s schools to improve the behavior of all students in the schools.  The TAG is a compilation of research that reflects the opinions of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education.  The purpose of the FBA is summarized in the TAG as “a process of understanding behavior in the context in which it is observed and of guiding the development of positive behavioral interventions that are relevant, effective, and efficient.  FBA is a best and preferred practice for all challenging behavior, not just for behavioral events that result in suspensions or other disciplinary actions” TAG #1, at 9.

The TAG does not state that parental consent would not be required for an FBA conducted as “a best and preferred practice for all challenging behavior,” as your letter suggests.  However, we believe that if the FBA is intended to assess the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in the school as a whole, the parental consent requirements in 34 CFR §300.300(a) and (c) generally would not be applicable to such an FBA because it would not be focused on the educational and behavioral needs of an individual child.  If an FBA is used, for example, in the context of
positive behavior supports as a process for understanding problem behaviors within the entire school and to improve overall student behavior in the school, it generally would not be
considered an evaluation that would require parental consent, unless such consent is required from the parents of all children in the school prior to conducting such an evaluation.  34 CFR §300.300(d)(1)(ii).

Your letter also asks:  “If the IEP [individualized education program] team has developed appropriate goals and objectives, and specially designed instruction and wish to complete an FBA to determine the effectiveness of the teaching methods and positive behavioral supports used for the student to make progress towards IEP goals/objectives, is this considered an assessment, therefore requiring parental consent?”

ERIC/OSEP Digest E571

For some time, researchers and school personnel have been studying the effects of a wide range of problem behaviors on classroom learning. Research funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and other government agencies corroborates educators’ concerns that behavior difficulties interfere with the learning of both the student exhibiting the behavior problem and his or her peers.

In light of this research, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 require that understanding the relationship between learning and behavior must be a key ingredient in planning the individualized education program (IEP) for a student with disabilities. Consequently, teams charged with developing IEPs are required to address the children’s behavioral as well as learning problems. IEP teams must conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and implement behavior intervention plans that include positive behavioral interventions and supports.

States are responding to these new requirements speedily. As of June 1998, 35 states and territories have current plans to develop or revise written policies and procedures or guidelines related to FBAs to be consistent with the requirements of IDEA. Some of the IDEA requirements relate to FBAs and the influence of behavior on learning. They include the following:

* IEP teams must explore the need for strategies and supports to address any behavior that may impede the learning of the child with disabilities or the learning of his or her peers.

* IEP teams must meet within 10 days of any disciplinary actions resulting in suspension or expulsion of a student with disabilities. The meeting’s purpose is to plan a functional behavior assessment so data will be available for a behavior plan. If such a plan already exists, the IEP team reviews and revises it, as necessary, to ensure that it addresses the student’s behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action.

* States must address the in-service needs of education personnel in the area of development and implementation of positive intervention strategies.

WHY CONDUCT A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT?

The purpose of a functional assessment is to gather information in order to understand a student’s problem behavior. However, an FBA goes beyond the “symptom” (the problem behavior) to the student’s underlying motivation to “escape,” “avoid,” or get something. OSEP and other government-sponsored research and educators’ and psychologists’ experience have demonstrated that behavior intervention plans stemming from the knowledge of why a student misbehaves (i.e., based on a functional behavioral assessment) are extremely useful in addressing a wide range of problems.

Often, the functions of a behavior are not inappropriate, rather, it is the behavior itself that is judged appropriate or inappropriate. If the IEP team determines through an FBA that a student is seeking attention by acting out, they can develop a plan to teach the student more appropriate ways to gain attention, thereby filling the student’s need for attention with an alternative or replacement behavior that serves the same function as the inappropriate behavior. At the same time, strategies may be developed to decrease or even eliminate opportunities for the student to engage in inappropriate behavior.

CONDUCTING A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

Identifying the reasons for behavior will take many forms, and while the IDEA advises an FBA approach to determine specific contributors to behavior, it does not require or suggest specific techniques or strategies to use when assessing that behavior. However, several key steps are common to most FBAs:

1. Verify the seriousness of the problem. Many classroom problems can be eliminated by the consistent application of standard and universal discipline strategies of proven effectiveness. Only when these strategies have not resulted in significant improvement on the part of the student should school personnel go forward with an FBA.

2. Define the problem behavior in concrete terms. School personnel need to pinpoint the behavior causing learning or discipline problems and to define that behavior in terms that are simple to measure and record. For example, a problem behavior might be “Trish is aggressive.” A concrete description is “Trish hits other students during recess when she does not get her way.”

3. Collect data on possible causes of problem behavior. The use of a variety of techniques will lead the IEP team to a better understanding of the student behavior. Key questions include the following: Is the problem behavior linked to a skill deficit? Is there evidence to suggest that the student does not know how to perform the skill? Does the student have the skill but for some reason not perform it consistently? Also, a probing discussion with the student may yield an enhanced understanding of what, in each context, causes problem behavior.

4. Analyze the data. A data triangulation chart is useful in identifying possible stimulus-response patterns, predictors, maintaining consequences, and likely function(s) of the problem behavior. A problem behavior pathway chart can be used to sequentially arrange information on setting antecedents, the behavior itself, and consequences of the behavior that might lead to its maintenance.

5. Formulate and test a hypothesis. After analyzing the data, school personnel can establish a plausible explanation (hypothesis) regarding the function of the behaviors in question. This hypothesis predicts the general conditions under which the behavior is most and least likely to occur as well as the consequences that maintain it. The team can then experimentally manipulate some of the relevant conditions affecting the behavior. If the behavior remains unchanged following this environmental manipulation, the team can reexamine the hypothesis with a view to altering it.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLANS

The student’s behavior intervention plan should include positive strategies, programs or curricular modifications, and supplementary aids and supports required to address the behaviors of concern. It is helpful to use the data collected during the FBA to develop the plan and to determine the discrepancy between the child’s actual and expected behavior.

Intervention plans that emphasize skills needed by the student to behave in a more appropriate manner and that provide proper motivation will be more effective than plans that simply control behavior. Interventions based on control often only suppress the behavior, resulting in a child manifesting unaddressed needs in alternative, inappropriate ways. Positive plans for behavioral intervention, on the other hand, will address both the source of the problem and the problem itself and foster the expression of needs in appropriate ways.

EVALUATING THE PLAN

It is good practice for IEP teams to include two evaluation procedures in an intervention plan: one procedure designed to monitor the consistency with which the management plan is implemented, the other designed to measure changes in behavior.

In addition, IEP teams must determine a timeline for implementation and reassessment and specify how much behavior change is required to meet the goal of the intervention. Assessment completion should be within the timelines prescribed by the IDEA. If a student already has a behavior intervention plan, the IEP team may elect to review and modify it or they may determine that more information is necessary and conduct an FBA. The IDEA states that a behavior intervention plan based on an FBA should be considered when developing the IEP if a student’s behavior interferes with his or her learning or the learning of classmates. To be meaningful, plans need to be reviewed at least annually and revised as often as needed. However, the plan may be reviewed and reevaluated whenever any member of the child’s IEP team feels it is necessary.

ERIC Identifier: ED429420
Publication Date: 1998-11-00
Author: Fitzsimmons, Mary K.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education Reston VA. ERIC/OSEP Special Project on Interagency Information Dissemination.

Administrators who conduct functional behavioral assessments usually seek an explanation for a student’s problem behavior before devising individualized interventions.

But as more school districts have adopted systemwide positive behavioral support models, the practice of conducting universal FBAs has emerged.

This evolution of the FBA has bred some confusion among special education professionals, who know IDEA requires them to attain parental consent before conducting an FBA on a student who exhibits challenging behavior that might stem from emotional disturbance or another behavioral or emotional disability.

In Letter to Christiansen , 48 IDELR 161 (OSEP 2007), then-OSEP director Alexa Posny attempted to clarify the issue, differentiating between universal and individualized FBAs: “If an FBA is used … to improve overall student behavior within the school,” she wrote, “it generally would not be considered an evaluation that would require parental consent, unless such consent is required from the parents of all children in the school prior to conducting such an evaluation.”

However, Posny wrote, if you conduct an FBA to determine if a child has a qualifying disability or to figure out the extent of special education and related services the child requires, the FBA would qualify as an evaluation or reevaluation under IDEA Part B and necessitate parental consent.

Review the factors you’re considering before conducting an FBA to ensure you seek parental consent under the right circumstances.

“We usually get permission from parents when we conduct [an FBA], but when a suspension involves a special education student and it’s going to a manifestation [determination], I have been asked to do an [FBA], and I haven’t gotten a particular permission to do that,” said Rossella Fanelli, a school psychologist in the New Canaan (Conn.) Public Schools. “Sounds like I should get permission in I in that instance as well.” http://www.justice4all.org/files/School%20Psychologist%20Jan%202008.pdf