Level systems are a common tool used to manage students with emotional and behavioral disorders. To date, we have little research to support the efficacy of using level systems, and further, certain components of level systems may be in violation of laws protecting children and youth with disabilities. This article addresses three areas of legal concerns regarding the use of level systems, all of which pertain to a failure to individualize the program: restricted access to the least restrictive environment, curricular concerns, and procedural concerns. In addition, a decision-making model is described that will guide school personnel in designing individualized level systems which will most likely meet the mandates of the law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP. A., & TroutmanA. C. (1990). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
2.
AlgozzineR. (1990). Problem behavior management: Educator's resource service.Rockville, MD: Aspen.
3.
BarbettaP. M. (1990). GOALS: A group-oriented adapted levels system for children with behavior disorders.Academic Therapy, 25(5), 645–656.
4.
BauerA. M., & SheaT. M. (1988). Structuring classrooms through levels systems.Focus on Exceptional Children, 21(3), 1–12.
5.
BauerA. M., SheaT. M., & KepplerR. (1986). Levels systems: A framework for the individualization of behavior management.Behavioral Disorders, 12, 28–35.
6.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
7.
Board of Education, Sacramento City School v. Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874, 878 (E.D. CA 1992), appeal pending 9th Circuit (1994).
8.
BraatenS. (1979). The Madison School program: Programming for secondary level severely emotionally disturbed youth.Behavioral Disorders, 4, 153–162.
9.
CarrE. G., & DurandV. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 1–15.
10.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d. 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
11.
Doe v. Maher, 793 F. 2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986), aff'd sub nom, Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 385, 108 S. Ct. 596 (1988).
12.
EvansI., & MeyerL. (1985). An educative approach to behavior problems: A practical decision model for interventions with severely handicapped learners.Baltimore: Brookes.
13.
Foster-JohnsonL., & DunlapG. (1993). Using functional assessment to develop effective, individualized interventions for challenging behaviors.Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(3), 44–50.
GableR., & StrainP. (1981). Individualizing a token reinforcement system for the treatment of children's behavior disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 7, 39–45.
16.
GelfandD. M., & HartmannD. P. (1984). Child behavior analysis and therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
17.
GerstenL. (1984). University of Northern Colorado severe ED demonstration project. In SwansonH. L., & ReinertH. R. (Eds.), Teaching strategies for children in conflict (2nd ed; pp. 343–360). Saint Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby.
18.
GoldsteinA. P., SprafkinR. P., GershawN. J., & KleinP. (1980). Skillstreaming the adolescent.Champaign, IL: Research Press.
19.
Greer v. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991), withdrawn and remanded on jurisdictional grounds, 956 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1992), previous opinion reinstated, 974 F.2d 173 (11th Cir. 1992).
20.
GrumleyL. (1984). Day treatment program agreement.Jeffersonville, IN: Clark County Special Education Cooperative.
21.
HewettF. M. (1967). Educational engineering with emotionally disturbed children.Exceptional Children, 33, 459–467.
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, 20 U.S. Congress Sec. 1401 et seq.
23.
Honig v. Doe, see Doe v. Maher.
24.
JensonW. R., SloaneH. N., & YoungK. R. (1988). Applied behavior analysis in education.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
KerrM. M., & NelsonC. M. (1989). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
26.
KlotzM. E. B. (1987). Development of a behavior management level system.The Pointer, 31(2), 5–11.
27.
LeoneP. E. (1985). Suspension and expulsion of handicapped pupils.Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 111–121.
28.
McCulloughL. L. (1989). The Garden Springs phase system. In KerrM. M., & NelsonC. M. (Eds.), Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom (2nd ed.; pp. 385–390). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
29.
MastropieriM. A., JenneT., & ScruggsT. E. (1988). A level system for managing problem behaviors in a high school resource program.Behavioral Disorders, 13, 202–208.
Oberti v. Clementon Board of Education, 801 F. Supp. 1392 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd on appeal 995 F. 2d 1204 (3rd Cir., 1993).
32.
ParkerR., TindalG., & HasbroukJ. (1989). The activity structures observation scale.Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Division of Teacher Education.
33.
S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d. 342 (5th Cir., 1981).
34.
SassoG. M., & ReimersT. M. (1988). Assessing the functional properties of behavior: Implications and applications for the classroom.Focus on Autistic Behavior, 3, 1–15.
35.
SmithS. W., & FarrellD. T. (1993). Level system use in special education: Classroom intervention with prima facie appeal.Behavioral Disorders, 18, 251–264.
36.
Vetter-ZemitzschA., BernsteinR., JohnstonJ., LarsonC., SimonD., & SmithA. (1984). The on-campus program: A systemic/behavioral approach to behavior disorders in high school.Focus on Exceptional Children, 16(6), 1–8.
37.
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended by s119 of P.L. 95–602, 29 U.S.C. s794.
38.
WalkerH. M. (1986). The assessment for integration into mainstream settings (AIMS) assessment system: Rationale, instruments, procedures, and outcomes.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(1), 55–63.
39.
WalkerH. M., & RankinR. (1980). The SBS inventory of teacher social behavior standards and expectations.Eugene, OR: Center on Human Development.
40.
WalkerH. M., & RankinR. (1983). The Walker-Rankin rating scale of adaptive and maladaptive child behavior in school.Eugene, OR: Center on Human Development.
41.
WoleryM., BaileyD. B.Jr., & SugaiG. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students.Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
42.
YellM. L. (1989). Honig v. Doe: The suspension and expulsion of handicapped students.Exceptional Children, 56(1), 60–69.
