Behavioral Issues and IDEA: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and the Functional Behavioral Assessment in the Disciplinary Context

By Brennan L. Wilcox, H. Rutherford Turnbull III, and Ann P. Turnbull

Wilcox, B. L., Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (2000). Behavioral Issues and IDEA: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and the Functional Behavioral Assessment in the Disciplinary Context. Exceptionality, 8(3), 173-187.

Information on ordering the full article is available here.

Summary by Sarah Tetteyfio, NDTAC | stetteyfio@air.org

In this article, the authors discuss the connections between the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS or PBS). Although PBIS is not directly mandated by IDEA, it is required that Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams consider it as a possible strategy to address concerns around students with disabilities and behavioral/disciplinary issues in schools. The authors’ primary argument is that PBIS is the most favorable research-based solution to resolve the issues of both obstructive or “impeding” behaviors and discipline in schools.  Further, they believe that IDEA provides specific support for the use of PBIS.

After briefly providing the audience with background information on IDEA, including descriptions of its six principles, the authors discuss the interconnections of PBIS and IDEA. According to the authors, “the implementation of PBS is both useful and necessary to ensure that schools meet IDEA’s six principles” (p. 175). They also state that “PBS has four interrelated components: (a) systems change activities, (b) environmental alterations activities, (c) skill instruction activities, and (d) behavioral consequence activities” (p. 176). Noting that IDEA does not offer precise definitions for several of its terms and concepts, the authors use the definition for PBIS created by the Center on Behavioral Interventions and Supports, which states that PBIS is a systems approach that helps change behavioral problems by promoting functional behavior and creating atmospheres that are conducive for achieving classroom goals.

Further, the authors contend that PBIS is applicable in two situations under IDEA: in conditions of impeding behavior and providing disciplinary action, when necessary. Tackling the issue of impeding behaviors first, the authors refer to the legislation, which states that the IEP team must “consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior” (p. 176). The authors imply that “that behavior” alludes to impeding behavior. As such, they believe that the term is unclear and thus provide their own definition, which they believe covers all relevant bases and is applicable by practitioners. They also emphasize the fact that PBIS is the only strategy identified for consideration in IDEA, asserting that it is therefore the preferred method.

The authors acknowledge that although IDEA requires IEP teams to consider PBIS as an intervention for impeding behavior, PBIS is not a required consideration in disciplinary cases. However, they believe that since some disciplinary problems may require review and revisions to the IEP, PBIS should be considered in these circumstances as well. In this argument, the authors see PBIS as a prevention strategy to stop future behavioral problems that would result in disciplinary action. Additionally, they conclude that IDEA’s discipline provisions provide support for the need for PBIS in the disciplinary process.

As PBIS is the only method mentioned, the authors claim that IDEA has established a rebuttable presumption, meaning “if the IEP team considers other interventions, it may do so only in comparison to PBS and must have adequate cause for adopting another intervention over PBS when both are appropriate” (p. 181). Essentially, the authors claim that IDEA promotes the use of PBIS and simultaneously discourages the use of “aversive interventions.” Aversive interventions are described as those that involve punishment, pain, or humiliation. A list of examples is provided in the article.

To further support their argument, the authors cite the first special education case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982), which resulted in the process test and benefit test. The process test ensures that local education agencies (LEAs) provide an “appropriate education” to students, while the benefit test ensures that students benefit from the provided educational services. The authors encourage IEP teams to use these tests and document their selection process in order to demonstrate that they have met the IDEA consideration requirement.

Although the authors are major proponents of PBIS, they acknowledge that it is not without limitations. They note that it is unfamiliar to many school-level and higher education staff. Furthermore, its implementation requires significant time and human resources, which may cause some schools to implement “watered-down” versions.

In conclusion, the authors claim that “the general education teacher is very important to the success of PBS” (p. 186). They describe the major role of the general educator on the IEP team and in effective PBIS implementation. As a member of the IEP team, the teacher provides valuable evaluation information and maintains student records, including documenting progress. The authors contend that the general education teacher is responsible for implementing the IEP and PBIS plan within the classroom and therefore is a key instrument in attaining the desired outcomes for the student.

See the Current Reading List

For more information on IDEA, visit NDTAC's Special Education Library page.

View NDTAC's Technical Issue Brief on PBIS that provides an overview of PBIS; its benefit and relevancy to populations who are neglected, delinquent, and at risk; snapshots of positive implementation within juvenile facilities; and links to other resources.

Read about two neglected or delinquent institutions that have implemented PBIS with dramatic results in NDTAC's spotlight article on PBIS in Juvenile Justice Settings.

Sign up for NDTAC's e-mail list! You'll receive event and product announcements as well as timely information from NDTAC and the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, this listserv provides you with a forum to share with and request information from other professionals in the field about issues related to the education of youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk.