To help students, schools use a process to identify and understand challenging behaviors and find possible solutions. This is called functional behaviour assessment (BAF). An FBA is like an exam that focuses on behavior. However, if the child`s behaviour interferes with their learning or that of others, the IDEA requires that the IEP team consider only “the use of positive behavioural interventions and supports, as well as other strategies to manage that behaviour” (§ 1414 (d) [3] [B] [i]). Commenting on IDEA (2006), the U.S. Department of Education`s Office of Special Educational Programs (OSEP) stated that BAFs and BIPs “are not required components of an ILL” for this learning disability unless state law provides otherwise (pp. 46-629). In a subsequent commentary, OSEP added that IDEA does not define BAFs or PIPs and submits to state law for related matters, such as who is qualified to perform BAFs or BIPs (letter to Janssen, 2008). Although these interpretations of OSEP are not legally binding, subsequent case law (e.g. Zirkel, 2011a) has generally confirmed this interpretation.
Some students have difficulty learning in school because of behavioural problems. The search process began with the state law citations in Circles (2011b), but expanded to include a comprehensive Boolean search in the Westlaw database of (a) state laws and (b) state regulations using various search terms, including “school” and “functional behavior!” Evaluation” OR “Functional behaviour! Analysis” OR “Behavior! Intervention Plan” OR “Behaviour! Management Plan” OR “Behaviour! Support Plan” (where “!” is the root expander in the Westlaw search system). In the resulting citations, the main selection criteria were (a) FBA or GDPR definitions, triggers, or procedures; and (b) application to the K-12 school context. Although the dividing lines were not uniformly clear, the exclusions consisted of government legal provisions specific to FBA and GDP (a) for personnel preparation and approval (e.g., Minn. R. 8710.5050); (b) for special public schools (e.g. Ill. Admin. Code tit.
89, § 827.30); c) private special schools (e.g. 8 Va. Admin. Code §§ 20-671-10); (d) for study programmes or related services (e.g. W. Va. Code R. tit. 126, § 42-7); (e) for relevant school district policies (e.g., Miss Rev.
Stat. § 3-11-15); and (f) were peripheral rather than a precursor or consequence of segregation and restraint (e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. § 151C-391.1; 7 Vt. Admin. Code § 1-12:4504). An FBA tries to understand what lies behind behavioral challenges. The basic idea is that behavior serves a purpose. Whether children know it or not, they act a certain way for a reason. When schools and families know what causes behaviour, they can find ways to change it.
Practical recommendations. In addition, based on careful analysis of the pros and cons of legalization, school psychologists should consider more comprehensive and effective collective action to advocate for more robust and stringent FBA and GDP provisions in state laws and/or IDEA, and to serve as experts for more responsive court decisions. Perhaps the limited legalization of AFAs and PIK is due to targeted compliance and scope of professional discretion. However, this attribution does not align with the growing wave of state laws on isolation and restraint in schools (e.g., Butler, 2015), which has led to new and different requirements for BAFs and/or PIKs, ranging from consideration to implementation. Moreover, a more limited finding that overlaps with this trend is the extension of FBA or GDP requirements to general education students, exemplified by the requirement of GDP as a prerequisite for “habitual disruptor” status (Miss Rev. Stat. § 37-11-18.1). Keep in mind that FBA may not be a quick fix to behavioral issues. It will take a lot of work from the school, you and your child to make things better. But FBA can give a more complete picture of why your child is struggling. The results tables followed the submission in circles (2011b). Specifically, Table 1 codes the state`s legal requirements for when, who, what and how of BAFs or PIK in the context of K-12 public schools.
The gray highlighted states and entries represent changes since the Circle overview (2011b). Analysis in Table 1 shows that 36 of the 50 states have provisions for ABFs and BIPs, but net additions were relatively modest and largely due to the relatively recent expansion of state laws restricting the use of isolation and restrictions in K-12 schools. In addition, the previously leading state of California has replaced its core law with much more limited provisions regarding the breadth and depth of requirements for AFAs and PIKs. The overall scope of FBA/GDP legislation remains rather sparse, particularly with respect to who must perform ABFs and GCS and specifications of how or process for ABFs. As Collins and Zirkel also document (in press), even in states like New York, with relatively strict provisions for FBAs and PIKs, courts have treated these provisions as procedural, thus subjecting them to the applicable two-step approach, “harmless mistake” for denying free adequate public education (FAPE) under IDEA. For example, in m.W. v. New York City Department of Education (2013), the Second Circuit found that the county`s violation of the state`s legal requirement for an FBA for a disabled child who engaged in learning-defying behavior was not a rejection of FAPE because the IEP adequately met the child`s behavioral needs. The results of this state legal investigation reinforce the gap between professional recommendations and legal requirements, as recently documented by Collins and Zirkel (in press). Despite the value of a proactive approach to behavioral problems among students with disabilities, government policymakers have been rather frugal and passive in passing laws or regulations specific to FBAs and PIFs.