Developed by Contra Costa SELPA 2003-2004 IMPROVING STUDENT BEHAVIOR IMPROVING STUDENT BEHAVIOR A Framework for Looking at Behavior Change

Developed by Contra Costa SELPA

2003-2004

IMPROVING STUDENTIMPROVING STUDENT

BEHAVIORBEHAVIORA Framework for Looking at Behavior Change

Behavior Planning Options 2/8/02

2

Facilitated by

Contra Costa SELPA Staff


3

Purpose

The purpose of this training is to inform parents and staff

of the options available under federal and state law to address behavior issues.


4

Agenda Changing Our Thinking About Behavior Foundations for Improved Social Behavior Classroom Instructional Adaptations

of Curriculum Requirements Classroom Management Systems Instructional Goals in Social Skills Areas Positive Behavior Support Plan Functional Analysis Assessment & PBI Plan More Restrictive Environments


5

Changing Our Thinking About Behavior

• Behavior is communication

• Behavior is related to the context in which it occurs

• Particular behavior is the best choice available to the student at that time in that context

• Appropriate behavior needs to be taught like any other skill

• Improving student behavior is everyone’s responsibility


6

Classroom Instructional Adaptation of Curriculum Requirements

Classroom ManagementSystem

Instructional Goals inSocial Skills Areas

Positive BehaviorSupport Plan

Functional Analysis Assessment & PBI

Plan(Hughes Bill)

More Restrictive Environment

Supportive School Climate and AttitudeToward Student Diversity

Engaging Curriculum Presented atInstructional Level of Student


7

Foundations for Improved Social Behavior

• Start with the basics:– Supportive school climate

– Commitment to the success of all students

– Shared responsibility for improving behavior

– An engaging Curriculum presented at the Instructional level of the student

Interventions built on these foundationsare more likely to succeed.


8

Curriculum Catastrophes

Too difficult

Too dull

Too confusing

Too much

Directions poorly explained

Too little help available

No context (irrelevant)


9

Teach Social Skills Within Academic Lessons

Note necessary skills and rationale

Model use of skills

Role play or practice

Give positive feedback

Note possible consequences of not using skill


10








Plan (Hughes Bill)



11

Curriculum Adaptations

• Accommodations and Modifications improve student behavior by increasing student success.

• Can be done for any student at any level.

• Require some preplanning.

• May or may not fundamentally alter standards.


12








Plan(Hughes Bill)



13

Classroom Management Systems

Simple

Clear consequences and rewards

Frequent reinforcement

Cooperative, not competitive

Everyone contributes to earning classroom rewards

Avoid “Free Time” rewards


14







Functional Analysis Assessment PBI Plan

(Hughes Bill)



15

Instructional Goals

To be developed for every student whose behavior interferes with his/her learning or the learning of others

Implementation across all settings and all staff

Specific, measurable and obtainable in one year


16

Instructional Goals

Appendix D:– Possible Behavior Goal Areas

– Developing Sequential Objectives

– Task Analysis Method

– Examples of IEP Goals and Objectives


17








Plan(Hughes Bill)



18

Positive Behavior Support Plan

New requirement under IDEA ’97– “The IEP team also shall, in the case of a child

whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, if appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior”

34 C.F.R. Sec 300.346(a)(2)(i)


19

Positive Behavior Interventions

Implies use of Applied Behavioral Analysis Methodology, Including:– Functional Analysis

– Environmental Adaptations

– Teaching Strategies

– Reinforcement Procedures

– Reactive strategies


20

Bare Bones Behavior Support Plan

Description of Behavior

Functional Assessment

Description of Alternate Behavior

Behavioral Objective

Description of Supports

Teaching Strategies

Reactive Strategies


21

Functions of Behavior

Observation vs. Assumption in Determining Function of Behavior

Function Determines Strategy

Different Theories of Behavior Rely on Differing Functions

Basic Behavioral Function: Get or Avoid Something


22

Positive Behavior Support Plan

Comments and notes in Federal Regulations for IDEA ’97 avoided temptation to “over regulate” what constitutes Positive Behavioral Interventions, Strategies and Supports

California Education Code does not avoid that temptation


23








Plan(Hughes Bill)



24

Functional Analysis Assessment & Positive Behavior Intervention Plan

AB 2586 (Hughes Bill) contains very specific requirements

Offers more protections than federal law in some cases

Preceded federal law by seven years

Requires certification for implementers: Behavior Intervention Case Managers

Requires extensive documentation


25

Functional Analysis Assessment

Specifies amount and locations for observations

Requires medical, social and environmental information

May require observation and information from other settings

Requires description & frequency of alternate behaviors


26

AB 2586 Requirements

Must be initiated when emergency procedures are used, or when IEP determines it is necessary

Each SELPA must develop policies regarding:– aversive techniques,

– prohibited techniques,

– emergency techniques


27

Aversive Techniques

Mild Interventions – Involve the management of reinforcements

Moderate Interventions – Involve the withdrawal of privileges

Severe Interventions- Unlocked “Time Out”– Maximum of 30 minutes per episode

– Must be paired with plan to provide positive reinforcement and increased interaction


28

Prohibited Techniques

Any intervention that is likely to cause:– Physical pain

– Inadequate supervision

– Ridicule, humiliation, emotional trauma

– Immobility of all four extremities

– Exposure to noxious substances

– Locked Time-out or Seclusion

– Others that place student at risk for injury


29

Emergency Interventions

Must be written in Behavior Intervention Plan

Incidence must be recorded

Report must be shared with parent and IEP team

Interventions include: Physical Restraint, Containment, Area Evacuation, Controlling Self-defense, and 911


30








Functional Analysis Assessment & PBI Plan

(Hughes Bill)


31

More Restrictive Environments

When interventions have proven unsuccessful, consider– Additional expertise

– More restrictive environment

– Special Education Hearing Office rulings in expulsion and full inclusion cases


32

Summary

Inappropriate behavior serves a function

Appropriate social behavior needs to be taught like any other skill

Teaching appropriate behavior is everyone’s responsibility

The more effort that goes in to supporting the foundations of behavior change, the less will be required to rebuild the outcomes


33

Thank you for attending

this training.


34

Suspension & Expulsion

Change of Placement

•Manifest Determination

•Alternative Settings

•Stay Put


35

Honig v. Doe

1988 Decision of U.S. Supreme Court

Court determined that unilateral exclusions from school that constitute a change of placement are impermissible.

Court adopted the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights opinion that disciplinary removals up to 10 school days are not a change of placement.


36

A Constitutional Principle

General Rule: Federal law supersedes state law. (Supremacy Clause)

Exception: When State law grants greater individual rights than federal law, State law must be followed.


37

Sources of Law

Federal Law

IDEA (20 USC section 1415(k))

IDEA Regulations (34 CFR sections 300.519 et seq.)

State Law

Education Code sections 48911, 48915.5, 48915.6

Judicial Decisions

Special Education Hearing Office Decisions


38

Four Types of Disciplinary Removals

During a school year:

1. Short-term removals of 10 days or fewer.

2. Short-term removals of more than 10 cumulative days not constituting a change in placement.

3. Short-term removals of more than 10 cumulative days constituting a change in placement.

4. Long-term removals of more than 10 consecutive days.


39

Removal

Children are “removed” when they cannot continue to:– Progress in the general curriculum;

– Receive the services specified on their IEP; and/or

– Participate with nondisabled children to the extent they would have in their current placement.

Removals may include:– In-school suspensions

– Bus suspensions


40

Change of Placement

A “removal” that constitutes a “change of placement” triggers significant procedural protections.

When is a “removal” a “change of placement?”


41

Change of Placement

A removal is a change of placement when it:– Is for more than 10 consecutive school days.– Is for more than 10 cumulative school days and

constitutes a pattern because of factors such as:The length of each removal;The total amount of time the child is removed;

and The proximity of the removals to one another.


42

Type 1: Short-Term Removals

General Disciplinary Rules Apply

No Right to Educational Services

No IEP Team Meetings Required Regarding:– Behavior Interventions

– Manifestation Determination


43

Type 2: Short-Term Removals(No Change of Placement)

General Disciplinary Rules Apply Right to Educational Services on 11th Day

– To Enable Child to: Progress in General Curriculum; and Advance Toward Achieving IEP Goals & Objectives

– School Personnel Consult with Child’s Special Education Teacher to Determine Scope of Services

IEP Team Meeting Required Regarding Behavior Interventions

No IEP Team Meeting Required Regarding Manifestation Determination


44

Types 3 & 4: Change of Placement

Right to Educational Services on 11th Day– To Enable Child to:

Progress in General Curriculum; and Continue to Receive Those Services & Modifications

Described in Child’s IEP Necessary to Meet IEP Goals & Objectives

– IEP Team Determines Scope of Services

IEP Team Meetings Required Regarding:– Behavior Interventions– Manifestation Determination


45

IEP Team Meeting re: Behavior Interventions

Must Be Held Within 10 Business Days After:– The 11th Day of Removal; or

– A Removal that Constitutes a Change of Placement


46

IEP Team Meeting re: Behavior Interventions (cont.)

Purpose of IEP Team Meeting– To develop an assessment plan when the

district did not conduct a functional behavior assessment and implement a behavior intervention plan (“BIP”) before the behavior that resulted in the removal; or

– To address the behavior by reviewing and modifying the BIP when the child had a BIP at the time of the behavior that resulted in the removal.


47


Functional Behavior Assessment– This is a federal requirement. – It may be an assessment requiring parental consent

or a review of existing data by the IEP team.

Functional Analysis Assessment– This is a state requirement.– It is an assessment requiring parental consent

conducted when a student exhibits a serious behavior problem that significantly interferes with implementing IEP goals and objectives.


48


One component of a Functional Behavior Assessment may be to determine whether the student’s behavioral history warrants a functional analysis assessment.


49

IEP Team Meeting re: Manifestation Determination

Must Be Held Within 10 School Days After the Decision to Impose a Removal that Constitutes a Change of Placement

Purpose of IEP Team Meeting– To review the relationship between the

child’s disability and the behavior subject to the disciplinary action.


50

IEP Team Meeting re: Manifestation Determination (cont.)

Federal law requires the IEP team to consider all relevant information including: – Evaluation and diagnostic results;– Information supplied by the parents;– Observations of the child; and– The child’s IEP and placement.

State law requires the IEP team to base its decision on the results of a preexpulsion educational assessment (and a review of health and discipline records).


51


Federal law requires the IEP team to consider: – Were the child’s IEP and placement appropriate?– Were the special education services, supplementary aids

and services, and behavior intervention strategies provided consistent with the child’s IEP and placement?

– Did the child’s disability impair his/her ability to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior subject to the disciplinary action?

– Did the child’s disability impair his/her ability to control the behavior subject to the disciplinary action?


52


State law requires the IEP team to consider:– Was the child’s behavior caused by, or a direct

manifestation of, his/her identified disability?

– Was the child appropriately placed at the time of the behavior subject to the disciplinary action?


53


If the IEP team determines that the child’s behavior was a manifestation of his/her disability, the student may not be disciplined.

If the IEP team determines that the child’s behavior was not a manifestation of his/her disability, the student may be disciplined in the same manner as general education students.


54

Interim AlternativeEducational Settings

Federal law allows a hearing officer to order a change of placement to an IAES for up to 45 days if the district can demonstrate by substantial evidence that maintaining the child’s placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others.

State law is unclear regarding a hearing officer’s authority to order a change of placement to an appropriate IAES for not more than 45 days. (Alameda USD, 32 IDELR 159 (2000) but see Stanislaus COE/Ceres USD, 27 IDELR 409 (1997).)


55

Stay Put

Special education students must remain in their current educational placement pending resolution of due process proceedings unless the district and parent agree otherwise.

The “stay put” placement is “the placement called for in the student’s IEP which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising.” (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Ed., 918 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1990); Alameda USD, 32 IDELR 159 (2000).)

No expulsion hearing may be conducted until due process proceedings (and appeals) are completed.


56

Stay Put (cont.)

Under federal law, “current placement” is not interpreted to include a specific school or classroom.

California regulations define “specific educational placement” as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location, or equipment necessary to provide instructional services.” This regulation has been interpreted to require districts to maintain children at a particular school site (and/or in a particular classroom) to comply with the “stay put” provision of the law. (Vista USD, 29 IDELR 749 (1998).)


57

Children Not Yet Eligiblefor Special Education

General Principle: A child not determined eligible for special education who engaged in behavior subject to disciplinary action may assert IDEA protections if the district had knowledge that the child is disabled before the behavior subject to disciplinary action.


58

Children Not Yet Eligiblefor Special Education (cont.)

A district will be deemed to have knowledge that a child is disabled if:– The child’s parent expressed concern in writing to district

personnel.– The child’s behavior or performance demonstrated the

need for special education.– The child’s parent requested a special education

evaluation.– District personnel expressed concern about the child to

other district personnel pursuant to the district’s special education referral system.


59

A district will not be deemed to have knowledge if, as a result of receiving the above information, the district:

– Conducted an evaluation and determined that the child was not disabled; or

– Provided notice to the child’s parents of its determination that an evaluation was not necessary.

If a district did not have knowledge that the child is disabled before the behavior subject to disciplinary action, the child

– May not assert IDEA protections; and– May be disciplined like his/her general education peers.



60

If a parent requests a special education evaluation at the time of disciplinary action, a district must:

– Stay disciplinary proceedings (recommended);– Complete the special education assessment in an

expedited manner;– Notice and convene an IEP team meeting to:

Determine eligibility; and If the child is determined to be eligible, develop an IEP and

conduct a manifestation determination.

During this time period, the child will remain in the placement determined by the District. The “stay put” provision does not apply to a child not yet eligible.



61

If the child is determined to be eligible for special education, the district will likely decide to:– Dismiss its disciplinary proceedings; and– Proceed with the IEP process.

If the child is determined not to be eligible for special education, – The parent may request a due process hearing on the

issue of eligibility (and the manifestation determination); and

– The district may proceed with its disciplinary proceedings.



62

Discipline & Section 504

OCR has opined that the same procedural protections available to special education students are available to students determined to be disabled under Section 504.

OCR recommends that districts maintain a formal, written discipline policy for students determined to be disabled under Section 504. (Desert Sands (CA) USD, 26 IDELR 613 (1997).)


63

Discipline & Section 504 (cont.)

Section 504 and its implementing regulations do not contain a “stay put” provision.

If a dispute arises regarding disciplinary action against a student determined to be disabled solely under Section 504, the student is not entitled to remain in his/her current educational placement pending the outcome of the dispute. The “stay put” provision does not apply to a student determined to be disabled solely under Section 504.

Documents

Developed by Contra Costa SELPA 2003-2004 IMPROVING STUDENT BEHAVIOR IMPROVING STUDENT BEHAVIOR A Framework for Looking at Behavior Change