SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
OCLB SPECIAL EDUCATION PRIMER
DISCIPLINE - OPENING THOUGHTS

Introduction

The last section of the OCLB Special Education Primer discussed Congress' reauthorization amendments proposing elimination of short-term objectives and benchmarks from the Individualized Education Program [IEP]. We also briefly discussed two Senate provisions on positive behavior support and assistive technology.

This OCLB Primer chapter summarizes current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] law on discipline, introduces the reader to positive behavior support [PBS], summarizes our concerns about proposed discipline amendments and suggests effective amendments that could improve school discipline for all students.

The Challenge of Discipline

Nothing generates more controversy within special education law than how one addresses the issue of disciplining a student who has disabilities. Consider the following examples:

The teacher told Shelby, a middle school student, to take out a specific book and begin work. Shelby sat without moving. A few seconds later the teacher repeated the order. Shelby sat. The teacher repeated the order a third time. Finally, Shelby showed some movement toward the book. The teacher thought Shelby's failure to follow directions was intentional and ordered her to sit in the hallway for the remainder of the class. Subsequent neuropsychological evaluations showed that Shelby has a neurological deficit which delays transmission of messages within the brain. It takes her much longer to hear and process instructions and send the message from the ear to the brain; and for the brain to translate and transmit the message from the brain to the muscles which finally move to complete the instruction.

Chris, a sixth grader, constantly fidgeted in his seat and would not sit still when told by the teacher. He interrupted conversations, "picked" at other students, forgot his books and often did not complete assignments. The teacher punished him for his fidgeting and disruptive conduct by making him sit in the corner. He also received low or failing marks because he either turned his work in late or did not turn it in at all. Later evaluations showed that Chris has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD].

Morgan, a high school student, walked into the history class wearing her coat. The teacher told her to take her coat to her locker and threatened to send her to the principal's office if she refused to obey. Morgan swore at the teacher, banged her fist on the desk and stormed out of the room, slamming the door. The school suspended Morgan for three days. Later evaluations disclosed that Morgan has Oppositional Defiant Disorder, a psychological disability impairing her ability to interact effectively with authority figures.

Taylor, a middle school student who has autism, persisted in asking his teacher a question during a class period. The teacher thought Taylor's persistence was negative behavior and ignored it. Taylor walked up to the teacher, took her face in his hands, and from close range asked her the question again. The teacher considered Taylor's action an assault. Taylor was immediately suspended from school and referred for expulsion proceedings. A later meeting with Taylor's parents revealed that Taylor had received extensive Lovaas training, including the clasping of his face in the support person's hands to reinforce questions until Taylor was able to provide an answer.
These are but a few all too real examples of student "behavior" that led to disciplinary action even though the conduct was caused by disabilities rather than by any deep desire or intent by the student to be disobedient. Yet in each instance the conduct led the teacher to respond negatively, surely injuring the student's self esteem and probably damaging the student's relationship with the teacher.

The world has changed drastically since special education laws first were implemented in 1975. In our day we entered school through any one of several school doors and went to our classes. Today, kids all enter school by a single door and often go through metal detectors and package screeners before being sent on to class.

Schools have evolved into "zero tolerance" and "take personal responsibility" zones. No excuses. School codes of conduct often are 30 to 40 pages long. School boards have implemented disciplinary schedules that define specific actions and mandate specific punishments, completely eliminating any aspect of discretion on the part of school principals or building administrators. Educators, parents and members of the public want schools to impose strong disciplinary measures. After all, we all are held accountable for our behavior as adults, aren't we?

What, then, should a school administrator do when a student like Shelby, Chris, Morgan or Taylor has the challenges or engages in the behavior we described above? How should their conduct be evaluated?

Discipline Under IDEA '97 – How Things Work Now

Current law recognizes the correlation between disability and behavior and mandates consideration of that correlation in two separate ways.

First, when developing a student's IEP the IEP Team must "consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports" when the student's "behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others ..." [20 USC 1414(d)(3)(B)(i).]

Second, when the school contemplates changing the child's educational placement [in other words, suspension] for a period greater than 10 days then the school must review the student's program and – assuming the program is appropriate and is being followed faithfully – determine whether the conduct for which punishment is proposed is related to the student's disability.

We will examine these two requirements in separate articles. The remainder of this article reviews behavior considerations when developing the IEP. The next OCLB Primer article will review how behavior considerations are weighed when disciplinary proceedings are in play.

Behavior Considerations in IEP Development

IDEA '97 formally acknowledges that physical, mental or emotional disabilities can and do interfere with a child's ability to benefit from a free appropriate public education. IDEA '97 requires every IEP Team to review the child's behavior and determine whether it significantly impedes the child's learning or the learning of others.

IDEA '97 embraces the concept that most of the time behavior challenges can be addressed at the IEP level through carefully crafted goals and objectives. IEP Team members should collect, share and review all available information describing the challenging behavior, the events occurring before and after the behavior, and data identifying the child's emotional and educational stressors.

Parents and schools are encouraged to use all special education and related services that are available to help the child positively address and resolve the behavior difficulty. IDEA '97 contemplates that in most instances behavior difficulties identified at the IEP Team level will be resolved by the IEP Team by using goals and objectives that teach and practice social skills development, diffusion techniques, communication skills, etc; and through the use of positive intervention with the child.

When IEP Teams identify behavior difficulties requiring greater levels of intervention, the behavior challenges are evaluated (skills or performance deficits, environmental modifications, etc.) and a needs-based behavior intervention plan [BIP] is put into place to help the student, family and school respond to challenging behaviors as they happen.

IDEA '97's provision requiring IEP Teams to consider behavior challenges is stated in general terms and does not mandate any specific form of behavioral review. The common practice, however, is to use functional behavior assessments [FBAs] to guide development of effective BIPs. While this approach is optional in the IEP development stage, FBAs and BIPs are a mandatory part of the process used to review proposed suspensions of more than 10 days or expulsions.

What are Functional Behavior Assessments?

A functional behavior assessment [FBA] is the primary tool used to identify and try to understand a student's challenging behavior. The FBA has four goals:

To describe behavior;

To predict when and where the behavior will occur;

To identify possible reasons for why the child behaves the way she or he does; and

To develop intervention support strategies that conform to the IEP or behavior team's best understanding of why the behavior is occurring.
Data for the FBA comes from several sources:

Thorough review of the child's entire school record and all available outside professional records.

Extensive, direct observation of the child in school (classroom and common areas), community and home settings.

Interviews with the child, the child's parents and siblings, teachers and other school personnel, community service providers and friends who know the child.

Completion and review of rating scales, observed behavior charts and related assessment tools.
A formal FBA requires commitment from all of its participants. Although good FBAs sometimes can take months to complete, they are invaluable tools for helping to identify what happens before and after a challenging behavior occurs. This better prepares behavior team members to develop comprehensive, positive strategies to support the child in learning new behavior.

What are Behavior Intervention Plans?

A behavior intervention plan [BIP] is a written and individualized behavior support plan that is based on a functional assessment of the child's challenging behavior. BIPs include positive behavioral support to address identified academic and behavior concerns. A behavior intervention plan is:

based on functional assessment and guided by a reasoned understanding of why the behavior is occurring;

directed towards skill building and environmental changes;

comprehensive; involving multiple intervention components; and

assessed on its effectiveness, not just the change in the targeted behavior, but on the broader quality of life issues such as maintenance across time and generalization across settings (Bambara & Knoster, 1995)
A BIP may teach a student how to replace banging her head on the table with raising her hand as the primary method of getting the teacher's attention. A BIP might help a student learn to address another student to gain attention rather than grabbing the other student's hair or limbs. The BIP may positively reinforce a student who works independently. The plan might include specific, success-assured tasks that a student will do while learning to raise her hand and work independently. The BIP plan describes how its success will be evaluated, contains a regular review schedule and identifies those conditions which require immediate revision or modification.

The BIP is an active document which must be reviewed and revised periodically. A strong, well-written BIP under IDEA '97 is vital to developing an IEP, but the BIP does not have to be part of the IEP to be effective. In fact, most schools and families prefer to separate the BIP from the IEP. An IEP can refer to a BIP, but a BIP standing alone can be changed without having a formal meeting of the IEP Team. Once in place the BIP should be evaluated as often as the child's targeted behavior is evaluated.

Summary of Behavior Concerns in IEP Development

IDEA '97 mandates that IEP Teams consider or investigate behavior concerns when developing initial and annual IEPs. The purpose behind the requirement is to identify, prepare for and reduce or eliminate behavior challenges that interfere with education. The mandate is general and leaves it up to the IEP Team to decide how to evaluate and address potential behavior challenges.

[We noted in the previous chapter of the OCLB Special Education Primer that the Senate's IDEA Reauthorization Bill strengthens the mandate to plan for behavior challenges by substituting the words "provide for" for the word "consider" appearing in IDEA '97. We believe this is a positive change that should be incorporated into future IDEA amendment or reauthorization packages. However, this proposed change, standing alone, does not justify supporting S.1248 as it passed the Senate.]