Differentiating Legal From Professional Lenses: A Systematic Analysis of Judicial Rulings on Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans

Abstract

In 2017, Zirkel provided a comprehensive analysis of the judicial rulings related to Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs). Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court’s Endrew F. decision reshaped the special education landscape, while reaffirming the centrality of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States. Yet, the vague language of the IDEA for FBAs and BIPs has remained unchanged. This article provides an updated analysis of the judicial case law on FBA-BIPs, focusing on the outcomes of the rulings overall and longitudinally as well as the component categories of entitlement, appropriateness, and implementation. The discussion includes recommendations that differentiate the legal parameters of these judicial rulings from proactive best practices that tend to mitigate litigation and promote effective student outcomes.

Keywords

special education law functional behavioral assessments (FBAs)behavior intervention plans (BIPs)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A.L. v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 73 IDELR ¶ 71 (W.D. Tex. 2018).

Alex W. v. Poudre School District RE-1, 94 F.4th 1176 (10th Cir. 2024).

A.M. v. New York City Department of Education, 845 F.3d 523 (2d Cir. 2017).

Beer v. USD 512 Shawnee Mission, 82 IDELR ¶ 223 (D. Kan. 2023).

Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools v. Maez, 70 IDELR ¶ 157 (D. N.M. 2017).

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Bouabid v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education, 80 IDELR ¶ 44 (M.D.N.C. 2021), aff’d on other grounds, 62 F.4th 851 (4th Cir. 2023).

Brimo

Dinkler

Gillberg

Lichtenstein

Lundström

Åsberg Johnels

(2021). The co-occurrence of neurodevelopmental problems in dyslexia. Dyslexia: International Journal of Research and Practice, 27(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1681

Butte School District No. 1. v. C.S., 817 F. App’x 321 (9th Cir. 2020).

10.

C.E. v. Chappaqua Central School District, 695 F. App’x 621 (2d Cir. 2017).

11.

Center on PBIS. (2014). When to use functional behavioral assessment: Best practice vs. legal requirements. https://www.pbis.org/resource/when-to-use-functional-behavioral-assessment-best-practice-vs-legal-guidance

12.

Center on PBIS. (2022). Tier 3 student-level systems guide. https://www.pbis.org/resource/tier-3-student-level-systems-guide

13.

Coleman v. Wake County Board of Education, 76 IDELR ¶ 5 (E.D.N.C. 2020).

14.

Collins

Zirkel

P. A.

(2017). Functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention plans: Legal requirements and professional recommendations. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716682201

15.

Colonial School District v. N.S., 76 IDELR ¶ 127 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

16.

Cook v. Little Rock School District, 73 IDELR ¶ 43 (E.D. Ark. 2018).

17.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2020). Applied behavior analysis (3d ed.). Pearson.

18.

Croucher

S. M.

(2015). Understanding communication theory: A beginner’s guide (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796710

19.

Danielson

M. L.

Claussen

A. H.

Bitsko

R. H.

Katz

S. M.

Newsome

Blumberg

S. J.

Kogan

M. D.

Ghandour

(2024). ADHD prevalence among U.S. children and adolescents in 2022: Diagnosis, severity, co-occurring disorders, and treatment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 53(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2024.2335625

20.

Dieterich

C. A.

Snyder

N. D.

Villani

C. J.

(2017). Functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans: Review of the Law and Recent Cases. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2, 195–217.

21.

Dieterich

C. A.

Villani

C. J.

(2000). Functional behavioral assessment: Process without procedures. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2000(2), 209–219.

22.

Dieterich

C. A.

Villani

C. J.

Bennett

P. T.

(2003). Functional behavioral assessments: Beyond student behavior. Journal of Law & Education, 32, 357–367.

23.

Dobbins

J. C.

(2010). Structure and precedent. Michigan Law Review, 108, 1453–1496.

24.

D.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, 975 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2020).

25.

E.C. v. Fullerton Unified School District, 79 IDELR ¶ 17 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

26.

Elizabeth B. v. El Paso County School District 11, 841 F. App’x 40 (10^th Cir. 2020).

27.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017).

28.

Enterprise City Board of Education v. S.S., 76 IDELR ¶ 295 (M.D. Ala. 2020).

29.

E.S. v. Conejo Valley Unified School District, 72 IDELR ¶ 180 (C.D. Cal. 2018).

30.

Etscheidt

(2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Pedagogical and legal analysis of issues. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290603100202

31.

Hirsch

S. E.

Lewis

T. J.

Griffith

C. A.

Carlson

Brown

Katsiyannis

(2023). An analysis of selected aspects of functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans. Journal of Special Education, 57(3), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221146168

32.

Horner

R. H.

Yell

M. L.

(2017). Commentary on Zirkel: Judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA and corollary state laws—An update. Journal of Special Education, 51(1), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917697289

33.

Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., 960 F. 3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2020).

34.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

35.

Iovannone

Moore

T. D.

Williams

J. M.

Sanchez

Kauk

(2024). Are we on course yet? Functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan technical adequacy in schools. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060466

36.

Jack J. v. Coatesville Area School District, 72 IDELR ¶ 154 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

37.

J.H. v. Seattle Public Schools, 2024 WL 895539 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2024).

38.

Joe V. v. Wimberley Independent School District, 79 IDELR ¶ 106 (W.D. Tex. 2021), aff’d on other grounds, 80 IDELR ¶ 181 (5th Cir. 2022).

39.

Kern

George

H. P.

Evanovich

L. L.

Hodnett

Freeman

(2024). A review of laws and policies of the U.S. states and territories on the use of restraint-seclusion in schools. Exceptional Children, 90(4), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241247032

40.

L.B. v. Kyrene Elementary School District, 75 IDELR ¶ 44 (D. Ariz. 2019), aff’d on other grounds, 112 F.4th 1156 (9th Cir. 2024).

41.

Lee v. Board of Education for Prince George’s County, 2024 WL 361330 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2024).

42.

L.J. v. School Board of Broward County, 927 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2019).

43.

Maag

J. W.

Katsiyannis

(2006). Behavioral intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 31(4), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290603100403

44.

McCahill

Healy

Lydon

Ramey

(2014). Training educational staff in functional behavioral assessment: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26(4), 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-014-9378-0

45.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). School pulse panel: Surveying high-priority, education-related topics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.asp#student-behavior-may24-chart-1

46.

Nelson

J. R.

Benner

G. J.

Lane

Smith

B. W.

(2004). Academic achievement of K–12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100104

47.

Pottsgrove School District v. D.H., 72 IDELR ¶ 271 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

48.

R.B. v. Downingtown Area School District, 509 F. Supp. 3d 339 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

49.

Samudre

M. D.

Ackerman

K. B.

Allday

R. A.

(2020). A systematic review of general educator training with functional behavior assessments. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319869938

50.

Savage

Ferguson

C. J.

Flores

(2017). The effect of academic achievement on aggression and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.002

51.

Sean C. v. Oxford Area School District, 70 IDELR ¶ 146 (E.D. Pa. 2017), aff’d on less specific grounds, 751 F. App’x 220 (3d Cir. 2018).

52.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

53.

S.W. v. Abington School District, 73 IDELR ¶ 179 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

54.

Upper Darby School District v. K.W., 2024 WL 3811990 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).

55.

U.S. Department of Education. (2024, November). Using functional behavioral assessments to create supportive learning environments. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/using-functional-behavioral-assessments-to-create-supportive-learning-environments/

56.

Warmbold-Brann

Burns

M. K.

Preast

J. L.

Taylor

C. N.

Aguilar

L. N.

(2017). Meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions and modifications on student behavior outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000207

57.

Weakland

J. H.

(1967). Communication and behavior: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 10(8), 1–4.

58.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. F.

Shriner

J. G.

(2022). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEPs. Rowman & Littlefield.

59.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2011). Case law for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans: An empirical analysis. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 175–212.

60.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2016). State special education laws for functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans: An update. Communiqué, 45(3), 4–6.

61.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2017). An update of judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA and corollary state laws. Journal of Special Education, 51(1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917693386

62.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2023a). COVID-19 and students with disabilities: A snapshot of the legal activity to date. West’s Education Law Reporter, 410(1), 1–7.

63.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2023b). The role of law in special education. Exceptionality, 31(4), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2023.2274350

64.

Zirkel

P. A.

Hetrick

(2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are most judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849

65.

Zirkel

P. A.

Karanxha

(2024). Longitudinal trends in special education case law: An updated analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 37(1), 42–51.

66.

Zirkel

P. A.

Skidmore

(2018). Judicial appeal of due process hearing rulings: The extent and direction of decisional change. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 29(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317741