Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Intervention Plans: Review of the Law and Recent Cases
Cynthia A. Dieterich, Nicole D. Snyder, and Christine J. Villani, Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Intervention Plans:
Review of the Law and Recent Cases
Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Inter vention Plans: Review of the Law and Recent Cases
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Nicole D. Snyder
Christine J. Villani
Recommended Citation
Part of the Educational Assessment; Evaluation; and Research Commons; and the Education Law
-
Commons
I.
INTRODUCTION
“The ability to ask the right question is more than half the
battle of finding the answer.”
―Thomas J. Watson (Former Chairman and CEO, IBM)1
Educators call upon students to ask questions as a means to
evaluate academic, social and emotional growth. Student
answers provide educators with data associated with each
student’s development. Data provides educators with a means
to ask new questions to gather additional data that further
contributes to an understanding of student progress.2 This
question and answer process occurs within the intertwined
mechanisms of a Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”) and
Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) beginning with the 1997
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (“IDEA”), which mandated an FBA and BIP as part of the
multidisciplinary evaluation and Individualized Education
Program (“IEP”).3
Early legal studies of FBAs and BIPs investigated the
* Cynthia A. Dieterich is an Assistant Professor of special education in the Department
of Leadership and Literacy at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT.
† Nicole D. Snyder is an associate at Latsha, Davis, Yohe & McKenna, P.C. in Exton,
PA.
‡ Christine J. Villani is a Professor of Elementary Education at Southern Connecticut
State University in New Haven, CT.
1 JOEL WEISS, THE QUOTABLE MANAGER: INSPIRATION FOR BUSINESS AND LIFE
81 (2006).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i) (2012) (“[I]n the case of a child whose behavior
impedes the child’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.”).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A).
196
B.Y.U. EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL
[2017
extent to which school leaders were familiar with FBAs and
BIPs,4 identified implementation strategies based on limited
case law,5 advocated for a mandate to aid students with
complex mental health needs,6 and provided a general legal
overview.7 In response to some of those earlier studies, more
recent studies now empirically analyze state special education
laws,8 advocate the use of FBAs to support students in urban
settings to avoid juvenile detention,9 provide a legal rationale
for using FBAs and BIPs as a framework to determine
nonpositive interventions,10 and use both mechanisms to dismantle
the school-to-prison pipeline.11 This is because the intent of
BIPs and FBAs is to address and correct student misconduct
and discipline before either escalates in severity or necessitates
a serious disciplinary response (i.e. expulsion, etc.).12 Many
schools have punitive-focused disciplinary policies and
procedures that can have negative impacts on students with
special needs.13 However, the added procedural safeguards
provided through FBAs and BIPs could potentially have a
meaningful impact on fighting the school-to-prison pipeline.14
Additionally, FBAs have undergone a rather dramatic
evolution considering they were initially required in “limited
situations of 45-day placements for weapons and/or illegal
drugs.”15 However, recent cases and commentary reveal that
FBAs and BIPs address a wide range of behaviors—from
aggressive and externalizing behaviors to internalizing,
isolating, or school- and task-avoidance behaviors.16 Addressing
a broad spectrum of behaviors rather than exclusively
evaluating students with violent or illegal activity affords
school leaders the opportunity to meet the needs of all children
with behavior problems. In addition, implementing FBAs and
BIPs across a wider range of behavior problems than was
originally intended by the law aligns with the intent of FBA
and BIP practices within social sciences—that is, to
systematically identify the underlying cause of problematic
behaviors and to create positive behavioral interventions to
develop socially appropriate responses.17 An increase in
prosocial responses minimizes behaviors that are often
associated, at least in part, “with lower academic achievement
and reduced participation in positive post-school experiences
such as employment, secondary education and independent
living.”18
Cannon, Gregory, and Waterstone affirm the problem of
children with behavior problems:
[E]vidence shows that these students are also more likely to
be suspended or expelled than their classmates. A
combination of lower achievement and frequent disciplinary
removals sets the stage for these students to drop out of
school at rates that are significantly higher than the general
student population. Both during school and after they lea (...truncated)