A comprehensive search identified 31 state statutes and regulations specific to functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) in the special education context. A systematic tabulation of the state law provisions that exceed the rather narrow foundation requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) revealed that most of these additions were of notably limited scope and specificity, with California being the leading exception. For example, contrary to recommendations in the special education literature, neither the IDEA nor any state special education law requires both a FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others. As another example, only 17 state laws provided definitions of FBAs and/or BIPs, and the vast majority of these definitions merely mentioned some of the key elements in the special education literature, such as “function” for FBAs or “interventions” for BIPs. The discussion explores the disparity between the professional literature and the legal requirements, suggesting the need for more scholarship to recognize and address this differentiation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Sch. Dist., 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2004).
2.
Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730 (2d Cir. 2007).
3.
Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist. v. Zhou, 976 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
4.
BloodE., & NeelR. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look as what is actually being delivered.Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 67–80.
5.
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
6.
CarrE. G., & DurandV. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
7.
ClaesE., DevroeW., & KeirbilkB. (Eds.). (2009). Facing the limits of law.New York: Springer.
8.
ConroyM., KatsiyannisA., ClarkD., GableR. A., & FoxJ. J. (2002). State office of education practices implementing the IDEA disciplinary provisions.Behavioral Disorders, 27, 98–108.
DrasgowE., & YellM. L. (2001). Functional behavioral assessments: Legal requirements and challenges.School Psychology Review, 30, 239–252.
11.
EtscheidtS. (2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Pedagogical and legal analysis of issues.Behavioral Disorders, 31, 223–243.
12.
FoxJ., & DavisC. (2005). Functional behavior assessment in schools: Current research findings and future directions.Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 1–4.
13.
GableR. A., & HendricksonJ. M. (2005). Changing discipline policies and practices: Finding a place for functional behavioral assessment in schools.Preventing School Failure, 43, 167–170.
14.
HanleyG. P., IwataB. A., & McCordB. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.
IDEA regulations commentary, 71 Fed. Register 46,540 et seq. (Aug. 14, 2006).
20.
IwataB. A., DorseyM. F., SliferK. J., BaumanK. E., & RichmanG. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury.Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.
21.
KennedyC. H., MeyerK. A., KnowlesT., & ShuklaS. (2000). Analyzing the multiple functions of stereotypical behavior for students with autism.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 559–571.
22.
KilluK., WeberK. P., DerbyK. M., & BarrettoA. (2006). Behavior intervention planning and implementation of positive behavioral support plans: An examination of states’ adherence to standards for practice.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 195–200.
23.
Letter to Janssen, 51 IDELR ¶ 253 (OSEP 2008).
24.
Letter to Trader, 48 IDELR ¶ 47 (OSEP 2006).
25.
MaagJ. W., & KatsiyannisA. (2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 31, 348–360.
26.
Md. Code Ann. (Educ.) § 7–1102 (2009).
27.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1998, June). Functional behavioral assessment: State policies and procedures. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED420958)
28.
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2011, January). State regulations for implementing Part B of the IDEA. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/sec619/stateregs.asp
OsborneA. G., & RussoC. J. (2009). Update on the disciplinary provisions of the 1997 and 2004 IDEA amendments.West's Education Law Reporter, 244, 915–922.
31.
OsborneA., RussoC., & ZirkelP. A. (2010, July). You be the judge: Point/counterpoint—FBAs and BIPs.ELA Notes, 45(3), 8–9.
32.
PeliosL., MorrenJ., TeschD., & AxelrodS. (1999). The impact of functional analysis methodology on treatment choice for self-injurious and aggressive behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 185–196.
33.
PennockJ. R., & ChapmanJ. W. (Eds.). (1974). The limits of law.New York: Lieber-Atherton.
34.
Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 47 IDELR ¶ 227 (OSERS 2007).
35.
Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, 52 IDELR ¶ 231 (OSERS 2009).
36.
QuinnM. M., GableR. A., FoxJ., Van AckerR., & ConroyM. (2001). Putting quality functional assessment into practice in schools: A research agenda on behalf of E/BD students.Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 261–275.
37.
ScottT. M., & KampsD. M. (2007). The future of functional behavioral assessment in school settings.Behavioral Disorders, 32, 146–157.
38.
SmithC. R. (2000). Behavioral and discipline provisions of IDEA ‘97: Implicit competencies yet to be confirmed.Exceptional Children, 66, 3, 403–412.
39.
SteegeM. W., & WatsonT. S. (2008). Best practices in functional behavior assessment. In ThomasA., & GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 337–347). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
40.
SugaiG., HornerR. H., DunlapG., HienemanM., LewisT. J., NelsonC. M., … WilcoxB. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessments in schools.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23, 131–43.
41.
TurnbullR., WilcoxB. L., StoweM., RaperC., & HedgesL. P. (2000). Public policy foundations for positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports.Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 218–231.
Van AckerR., BoresonL., GableR. A., & PottertonT. (2005). Are we on the right course: Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools.Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35–36.
44.
WeberK. P., KilluK., DerbyK. M., & BarrettoA. (2005). The status of functional behavior assessment (FBA): Adherence to standard practice in FBA methodology.Psychology in the Schools, 42, 737–744.
45.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2007, February). Information update bulletin 07.01. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/bul07-01.html
46.
YellM. L., & ShrinerJ. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for general and special education teachers.Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1–19.
47.
ZirkelP. A. (2003). Do OSEP policy letters have legal weight? West'sEducation Law Reporter, 171, 391–396.
48.
ZirkelP. A. (2007). Suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities: The latest requirements.West's Education Law Reporter, 214, 445–449.
49.
ZirkelP. A. (2008). Discipline of students with disabilities: A judicial update.West's Education Law Reporter, 235, 1–10.
50.
ZirkelP. A., & McGuireB. L. (2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 100–112.
51.
ZirkelP. A., & ThomasL. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI.Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.
