Assessment is an integral part of the learning and teaching process. The assessment process helps to (a) determine eligibility for special education programming, (b) plan instructional programs, and (c) monitor and evaluate student progress. Additionally, IDEA now requires that IEP teams conduct functional behavioral assessments and manifestation determinations. In this article we examine the legal requirements of assessing students with disabilities, especially students with emotional and behavioral disorders. We begin with a review of assessment legislation and litigation in special education. Next, we analyze the legal requirements for how to conduct assessments of students with EBD. Finally, we offer our analysis of school districts' obligations under the law and provide suggestions for how to conduct educationally appropriate and legally correct assessments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
Bateman, B.D., & Linden, M.A. (1998). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (3rd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West .
3.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
4.
Conroy, M., Clark, D., Gable, R., & Fox, J. (1999). A look at IDEA 1997 discipline provisions: Implications for change in the roles and responsibilities of school personnel. Preventing School Failure, 43, 64-70.
Drasgow, E., Yell, M.L., Bradley, R., & Shriner, J.G. (1999). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: A school-wide model for conducting functional behavioral assessments and developing behavior intervention plans. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 244-266.
7.
Eyer, T. (1998). Greater expectations: How the 1997 IDEA Amendments raise the basic floor of opportunity for children with disabilities. Education Law Reporter, 126, 1-19.
8.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1990). Making educational research more important. Exceptional Children, 57, 102-107.
9.
Gorn, D. (1999). What do I do when ... The answer book on special education law. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
10.
Heflin, L.J., & Simpson, R.L. (1998). Interventions for children and youth with autism: Prudent choices in a world of exaggerated claims and empty promises. Part 11: Legal/policy analysis and recommendations for selecting interventions and treatments. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 13, 212-220.
11.
Homer, R., & Carr, E. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities: Functional assessment and comprehensive intervention. Journal of Special Education, 31, 84-104.
12.
Huefner, D.S. (2000). Getting comfortable with special education law: A framework for working with children with disabilities. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gorton.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401-1485.
Iwata, B.A., Vollmer, T.R., & Zarcone, J.R. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, applications, and limitations. In A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use on aversive and nonaversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 310-330). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
16.
Kauffman, J.M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kerr, M.M., & Nelson, C.M. (1998). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Kubick, R.J., Bard, E.M., & Perry, J.D. (2000). Manifestation determinations: discipline guidelines for children with disabilities. In C. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.). IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams (pp. 199-240). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
20.
Lewis, T.J., Scott, T.M., & Sugai, G.M. (1994). The problem behavior questionnaire: A teacher-based instrument to develop functional hypothesis of problem behavior in general education classrooms. Diagnostique, 19, 103-115.
21.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
Neef, F. (Ed.). (1994). Functional analysis approaches to behavioral assessment and treatment (special issue). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27.
24.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
25.
O'Neill, R.E., Homer, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole .
26.
Reschly, D.J. (2000). Assessment and eligibility determination in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. In C. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.) IDEA amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams (pp. 65-104). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Scott, T.M., & Nelson, C.M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249-252.
29.
Sugai G., Horner, R.H., & Sprague, J.R. (1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 253-257.
30.
Senate Report of the Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997, cited in 64Federal Register12625 (1999).
31.
Tilly, W.D., Knoster, T.P., & Ikeda, M.J. (2000). Functional behavioral assessment: Strategies for positive behavior support. In C. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.), IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams (pp. 151-198). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
32.
Touchette, P.E., MacDonald, R.F., & Langer S.N. (1985). A scatterplot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 18, 343-351.
33.
Wolery, M., Bailey, J., & Sugai, G. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
34.
Yell, M.L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Yell, M.L., & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases. Journal of Special Education , 33, 206-215.
36.
Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., Bradley, R., & Rozalski, M. (2000). Ensuring compliance with the disciplinary provisions of IDEA 97: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 13, 3-18.
37.
Yell, M.L. & Shriner, J.G. (1997). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and parents. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-9.
