View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Safe and Effective Schooling for All Students: Putting into Practice the Disciplinary Provisions of the 1997 IDEA.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Safe and Effective Schooling for All Students: Putting into Practice the Disciplinary Provisions of the 1997 IDEA.
Language: English
Authors: Gable, Robert A., Butler, C. J., Walker-Bolton, Irene, Tonelson, Stephen W., Quinn, Mary M., Fox, James J.
Source: Preventing School Failure. Win 2003 47(2):74-78.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 5
Publication Date: 2003
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Disabilities, Discipline Policy, Elementary Secondary Education, Evaluation Methods, Federal Legislation, Functional Behavioral Assessment, Inservice Teacher Education, Program Design, Program Effectiveness, Student Evaluation, Teacher Workshops, Training Methods
Geographic Terms: Virginia
ISSN: 1045-988X
Abstract: Virginia's statewide plan of educator preparation in functional behavioral assessment, as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is described. The step-by-step training process facilitated positive academic and nonacademic outcomes for all students. Preliminary data support the effectiveness of both the content and delivery of this program. (Contains references.) (Author/CR)
Entry Date: 2003
Accession Number: EJ666167
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFW9jXwh0F61Zq8q4_GY85IAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFILtV_TJtxnQFUmyQIBEICBmbyd8jk3jwUdqAT766Ygg-qfG_ztstZvgfZKf7EApldEnInNSFr9Q8odMgMC3ZX31LjgIc42EDmztMYBdcAdse-yqA5a3MdtocrsA5qQ1nW1DqhQVowymrfcKmbdSedKwqErALS4KMx5H0E_vrJZ7MUk_MZ40twRjEoTaiSr_YNVo4Rrxe9MMZ_A0jhrzqAFJmvs44OedsVfrw==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0009332845;psf01jan.03;2003Apr02.10:11;v1.9</anid> <title id="AN0009332845-1">Safe and Effective Schooling for All Students: Putting Into Practice the Disciplinary Provisions of the 1997 IDEA </title> <p>ABSTRACT: The 1997 IDEA stipulates that states address the needs of school personnel as they relate to positive intervention strategies to deal with student behavior that impedes learning. In response to that mandate, the Virginia Department of Education drew upon accumulated literature and input of experts to develop, implement, and evaluate an inservice program on functional behavioral assessment/ positive behavioral interventions/supports. Discussion is on the step-by-step training process whereby schools are able to establish pupil-specific, classroom-level, and schoolwide efforts to facilitate positive academic and nonacademic outcomes for all students. We present preliminary data that supports the effectiveness of both the content and delivery of this innovative program.</p> <p> <bold> Key words: </bold> behavioral intervention plans (BIP), functional behavioral assessment (FBA), IDEA, Virginia Department of Education</p> <p>Most school personnel readily acknowledge that not all students come to class ready to learn. The reasons are many and varied, including the fact that the school age population is becoming increasingly more diverse. Accordingly, there are greater differences among students with regard to prior knowledge and experience and, in turn, their responses to a standard classroom format (e.g., Walker-Bolton, Gable, & Butler, 2001). In some instances, teacher expectations are at odds with family or community norms (Cartledge et al., 2001). Some students may not possess the prerequisite social/interpersonal, critical thinking, or problem-solving skills to perform well in school. Finally, child-specific stressors, such as the deleterious effects of economic hardship, unemployment, and family conflicts take their toll as well (Cartledge et al., 2001). In all, a number of forces can converge to mitigate against positive student outcomes.</p> <p>When students struggle academically, teachers look for ways to satisfactorily resolve the situation. Teachers routinely seek to identify the cause(s) and make appropriate adjustments in the curriculum or instruction, or both. In contrast, when behavior problems arise, teachers are inclined to rely on some kind of negative consequences (e.g., planned ignoring, verbal reprimand, office referral; cf. Colvin, Sugai, & Kameenui, 1993; Witt, 1986). Experience has shown that most students respond positively to these consequences; but, for some students, these strategies are ineffective and can actually exacerbate a difficult situation (Gable et al., 2001). The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) blurs the distinction between learning and behavior problems. Now schools are obligated to acknowledge the reciprocal nature of academic and nonacademic problems and to address that relationship when it adversely affects student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0009332845-2">Federal Legislation and Its Impact on Schools</hd> <p>The IDEA stipulates that under certain conditions school personnel must address negative classroom behavior by means of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and positive behavioral intervention plans and supports (BIP). Schools must initiate an FBA when drugs, weapons, or potentially dangerous behaviors exist and when student misbehavior impedes the learning of the student or that of his or her classmates (Yell & Shiner, 1997). Furthermore, the IDEA specifies when and what school and state department personnel must do to respond to challenging behavior of children and youth as follows:</p> <p>• The team must explore the need for strategies and support systems to address any behavior that may impede the learning of the child with the disability or the learning of others [614(d)(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>)(B)(i)];</p> <p>• In response to certain disciplinary actions by school personnel, the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team must, within 10 days, meet to formulate a FBA plan to collect data for developing a behavioral intervention plan; or, if a behavioral intervention plan already exists, the team must review and revise it (as necessary) to ensure that it addresses the behavior upon which disciplinary action is predicated [615(k)(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>)(B)];</p> <p>School personnel must be prepared to assume these roles and responsibilities, as follows:</p> <p>• States and localities shall address the needs of inservice and preservice personnel (including professionals and paraprofessionals who provide special education, general education, related services, or early intervention services) as they relate to developing and implementing positive intervention strategies [653(c)(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>)(D)(vi); (Public Law 105-17).</p> <p>In response to these mandates, state departments of education across the country have begun to prepare school personnel to conduct an FBA (Conroy, Katsiyannis, Clark, Gable, & Fox, 2002). In the following discussion, we examine briefly the rationale for introducing FBA into schools. Then, we discuss one state's plan to prepare school personnel to conduct FBAs and develop a positive BIP and supports. We describe the steps taken by the Virginia Department of Education to ensure quality content and effective preparation of school personnel in FBA. Finally, we maintain that schoolwide behavior support represents the most appropriate context within which to position FBA.</p> <hd id="AN0009332845-3">A Rationale for Functional Behavioral Assessment</hd> <p>The functional assessment of challenging behavior has been a mainstay of clinical intervention for decades (e.g., Scott & Nelson, 1999). In 1997, IDEA legislated its movement from clinic to classroom. The logic behind FBA is disarmingly simple--namely, that practically all student behavior is purposeful; it satisfies a need and it is related to the context in which it occurs, for example, in a classroom, a playground, or a hallway (Dunlap et al., 1993). It follows that understanding the motivation behind it is a precondition to identifying ways to deal with problems that interfere with or impedes classroom instruction (Gable et al., 2001).</p> <p>Federal law implies if not specifies that FBA is a team, problem-solving process (Quinn et al., 2001). Most authorities agree that its success hinges on the use of a variety of techniques and strategies to identify the reason (or reasons) behind and ways to respond to problem behavior. In conducting FBAs, emphasis is on identifying the most significant, controllable, and pupil-specific variables associated with the occurrence (and nonoccurrence) of the behavior (Gresham, 1991). That knowledge allows teams to identify the conditions under which the behavior is most likely (and least likely) to occur in the future. Then, school personnel can develop a plan to reduce or eliminate the problem and, at the same time, teach the student more acceptable behavior (e.g., Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1999).</p> <hd id="AN0009332845-4">A Statewide Plan of Preparation in Functional Behavioral Assessment</hd> <p>Across the country, state departments of education are exploring ways to respond to the preservice and inservice training provisions of IDEA (Conroy et al., 2002). The Virginia Department of Education opted to identify various stakeholders and to charge them with the responsibility of developing a statewide FBA plan. The committee consisted of state department personnel, university researchers/educators, school administrators, general and special education teachers, school psychologists, private agency and community representatives, and parents. In addition, the Department of Education established a collaborative relationship with the Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) of the American Institutes for Research (AIR), and the Washington, DC, staff of CECP has played a significant role in the development, validation, and implementation of the FBA training program.</p> <p>The committee began its work by examining critically the accumulated literature on FBA and related subjects. Drawing on that review, the committee produced a booklet consisting of a straightforward explanation of FBA and distributed it throughout Virginia. At the same time, members of the committee conducted a survey of state departments of education to document the various strategies and procedures being undertaken to address the disciplinary provisions of IDEA. The results of that survey revealed that, although states are addressing FBA in various ways, the majority have established cooperative agreements with either universities or mental health centers to deliver instruction (Conroy et al., 2002).</p> <p>The committee also evaluated critically over 200 FBAs collected from IEP teams operating in various parts of the country (Van Acker, Boreson, & Gable, 2001). The purpose of that evaluation was to identify strengths and weaknesses in current practices. Consonant with the research-to-practice gaps reported by Quinn and her colleagues (2001), we found several common pitfalls to successful preparation of school-based FBA teams. Foremost among these is preparing teams to (a) precisely define targeted behavior, (b) properly align interventions with the functions(s) of the behavior, and (c) ensure quality evaluation of both treatment integrity and student outcomes (Gable, Hendrickson, & Van Acker, 2001; Quinn et al., 2001; Van Acker et al., 2001).</p> <p>Drawing on the information compiled from various sources, we produced a multimedia instructional program and distributed copies to experts in FBA to obtain an external review. Predicated on their review, we revised the instructional program to include a series of readings on FBA, a PowerPoint® presentation (with accompanying handouts), along with "bridging" activities designed to integrate various aspects of the FBA process both within and across training sessions.</p> <p>Supported by the Virginia Department of Education, we initiated a series of workshops for FBA teams representing nine Virginia school divisions. These workshops allowed us to subject the instructional program to a formative evaluation. Workshops began with an overview of federal legislation as it relates to disciplinary policy and practices. We stressed that relatively few behavior problems require a formal FBA and that "universal strategies" (e.g., clear expectations, brisk and enthusiastic pace of instruction, student choices) are enough to resolve the majority of classroom problems (Colvin et al., 1993; Sugai et al., 1999). Participants were encouraged to examine carefully current instruction--the amount of student engagement, the number of opportunities to respond correctly to instruction, and the amount of positive teacher feedback, as discrepancies in these areas can trigger problem behavior (Deno, 1998; Greenwood, 2002; Scott, Nelson, & Liaupsin, 2001; Wehby, Symons, Canale, & Go, 1998).</p> <p>Research and experience has also shown that sometimes an FBA can be accomplished in a short amount of time because the motivation for the behavior is self-evident (e.g., Trish disrupts geography class when she is unable to answer the questions posed by her teacher). When either the law or the complexity of the problem demands a formal FBA, school personnel work collaboratively to develop a course of action. Accordingly, we sought to prepare IEP teams to conduct FBAs according to a 10-step process previously field-tested and validated as effective in school settings (available from <ulink href="http://www.air.org/cecp">www.air.org/cecp</ulink>).</p> <p>Workshops focused on strategies by which teams can distinguish between pupil-specific and systemic classroom problems, define the target behavior(s), and use both direct and indirect methods of data collection. Emphasis was on the significance of delineating roles and responsibilities of team members according to prior training and experience and the stage of the FBA process (Jolivette, Barton-Arwood, & Scott, 2000). For example, one team member might review school records for information about the students' problem(s), while another conducts a series of structured interviews with adults who have direct knowledge of the student (e.g., teachers, school psychologist, guidance counselors, and parents). As others have shown, a modified version of the same interview procedure can be conducted with students as well. In addition, one or more team members usually observe in the setting (or settings) in which problem behavior occurs most often and least often--such as in math and geography versus history class. We enumerated ways to determine when enough information has been collected and strategies to analyze a convergent database, and spelled out a formula with which to generate a hypothesis statement regarding the motivation behind a target behavior (Gable et al., 2001).</p> <p>According to the literature, student behavior usually serves one or more functions: (a) to gain attention (e.g., peer approval, or teacher recognition, or both); (b) to avoid or escape an aversive situation (e.g., a boring or too difficult assignment, a negative peer interaction); or (c) a form of communication (e.g., express frustration or anger; e.g., Cullinan, 2002; Gable et al., 2001). Drawing upon information contained in a series of simple to complex case studies, we asked teams to make a "best guess" regarding the motivation behind a student's behavior and to develop an appropriate plan of intervention.</p> <p>Characteristic of FBA/BIP is the importance attached not only to decreasing impeding behavior, but also to teaching the student an alternative response. Therefore, teams were expected to develop positive BIPs and supports based on the "fair-pair" rule. Emphasis was on incorporating a replacement behavior into the BIP--one that predictably served the same function and was equally reinforcing to the student--but was more socially acceptable to others (e.g., Sugai et al., 1999). Finally, we shared ways to evaluate the fidelity with which a team carried out the plan (e.g., scripts, checklists) and to measure the impact of the plan on student behavior (Gable & Hendrickson, 2001).</p> <p>Case study format of instruction . We relied on a case study format of instruction for several reasons. By including a case study and breaking it down into its component parts (e.g., defining the behavior, selecting a measurement tool), teams can be an afforded opportunity to actively engage in each step of the FBA process. Furthermore, a case study format reinforces the fact that FBA is a team problem-solving process. Use of case studies demonstrates that, because no two students likely behave for the same reasons, no two functional assessments likely will yield the same kind or amount of information. Finally, FBA is more a work-in-progress than an exact science (Conroy, Clark, Gable, & Fox, 1999). Accordingly, we underscored the fact that teams inevitably will seek "follow-up" technical assistance and support (Chandler, Dahlquist, Repp, & Feltz, 1999).</p> <hd id="AN0009332845-5">Academic and Behavioral Supports for All Students</hd> <p>Today, there is a growing body of research documenting that schoolwide positive behavior support (also referred to as effective behavior support) is an effective means to change the culture of the school and, in turn, facilitate student success across settings (ERIC/OSEP Project Report, 1999; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Scott, 2001). In establishing a multitiered program of support (schoolwide, classroom level, and pupil-specific), schools are able to assure all students equal but not necessarily the same opportunities for success. The message was simple--schools should embrace positive behavior supports, eschew punitive discipline practices, and rely on research-based interventions aligned with student behavior and the context(s) in which it occurs (e.g., the classroom, cafeteria, or hall corridor). For the relatively small percentage of students who do not respond positively to these strategies, schools will need to develop more targeted interventions (Scott, 2001). Again, these interventions flow from either an informal or a formal FBA (Conroy et al., 1999).</p> <p>Project evaluation. During the past 3 years, we conducted workshops in school divisions throughout Virginia. Participants came from urban (<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref4">56</reflink>), suburban (<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref5">81</reflink>), and rural (<reflink idref="bib206" id="ref6">206</reflink>) schools; there were about 375 persons representing early intervention (<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>), preschool (<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>), elementary (<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref9">112</reflink>), middle school (<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref10">87</reflink>), secondary, (<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref11">153</reflink>) and alternative educational settings (<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>). Participants were selected by the school division; teams consisted of 4 to 5 persons from across professional disciplines; usually a parent was present as well. FBA instruction was arranged so that participants first received a packet of readings, then 2 days of instruction, followed by a series of school-based activities, and finally, a 3rd day of instruction and case-based practice. Evaluation instruments consisted of a pretest of knowledge/skill in FBA and a Likert-type survey at the conclusion of each workshop. We conducted site visits to directly and systemically observe selected teams in operation in the schools. We also met with focus groups of previously trained teams to discuss critically the transfer of learning, obstacles to putting FBA in schools, and the usefulness of instruction across time. Last, we administered a posttest of knowledge/skill in FBA to each cohort group.</p> <p>Mirroring findings from across the country (e.g., Lewis & Sugai, 1999), school personnel reported an improved ability to "separate the child from the behavior," which occasioned a more proactive approach to management and instruction. Schools reported increased use of "early intervention" to resolve minor difficulties before they escalated and became major disciplinary problems. Overall, the most prevalent problems encountered by the teams included aggression, noncompliance, disrespect, disruptive behavior, and verbal harassment, in that order. Even so, schools reported a decrease in special education referrals and the number of both behavioral incidents and disciplinary actions (e.g., in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions).</p> <p>School divisions indicated that curricular or instructional modifications, along with positive behavioral interventions, were the most frequently applied interventions. Student behavior problems often stem from academic failure (Nelson, Scott, & Polsgrove, 1999). That failure sometimes is attributable to improper curricular placement, flawed instructional practices, or inconsistent classroom management (e.g., Sheurermann, 2000). It makes sense to address overlapping academic and nonacademic problems to increase academic achievement and reduce classroom misconduct. Another encouraging finding was that a number of schools reported greater reliance on data to guide decisions regarding instruction. Finally, although less likely attributable directly to the FBA project, a number of schools reported overall improvement in academic achievement.</p> <p>A year after beginning the project, we readministered the Survey of Knowledge of Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools. Results revealed a statistically significant increase in knowledge/skills across 17 of 20 training areas and a concomitant reduction in need for additional instruction. Although some of our data may lack the rigor of more objective measures, our findings appear to support the social validity of the FBA project. Viewed together, evaluation efforts lend further credence to the efficiency of the content/format of instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0009332845-6">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current political climate is punctuated by efforts to strengthen the relationship between research and practice in schools. With regard to FBA, it was because of its proven effectiveness that FBA was put into law (IDEA, 1997; Chandler, Dahlquist, Repp, & Feltz, 1999). We recognize that the FBA process can be complicated and time consuming and that school personnel prefer more time-efficient intervention options. However, practitioners are more likely to implement interventions they judge effective (Witt, 1986). Evidence exists that some school personnel attach greater worth to complex interventions because they require more effort (Cummins & Elias, 1991). These findings are encouraging with regard to FBA in schools.</p> <p>Recently, Nelson (1999) suggested that we possess sufficient knowledge to deal with the bulk of student problems. Nelson further asserted that we must intensify our efforts to rid classrooms of flawed and ineffective practices and put what we know works in their place. One long-term challenge is to find ways to put FBA where it belongs--in a larger organizational framework of positive behavior supports.</p> <p>It has been said that nothing hinders a child more than lost opportunities to learn. Mirroring a nationwide effort, Virginia schools are developing ways to respond effectively to students who manifest overlapping academic and behavior problems. There is growing commitment to introducing research-based practices to establish a more nurturing and effective learning environment. The Virginia Department of Education is dedicated to a number of bold initiatives, one of which is to increase the capacity of local school divisions to conduct effective FBAs and develop quality BIP supports. Statewide training of school personnel in the area of FBA is predicated on the following assumptions:</p> <olist> <item> Students perform best when safety and security are maintained and mutual respect is nurtured;</item> <item> Students perform best when schoolwide and classroom-level academic and behavioral supports are routinely available;</item> <item> Students perform best when emphasis is on prevention and early intervention in academic and behavioral problems;</item> <item> Students perform best when administrators and faculty assume a collaborative relationship in addressing the teaching/learning process; and,</item> <item> Students perform best when a school/home partnership promotes positive academic and behavioral outcomes for all students.</item> </olist> <p>By introducing a range of prevention/ intervention options aligned with the nature and complexity of the problem situation, schools are becoming safer, more effective learning environments for all students (ERIC/OSEP Special Project Report, 1997, 1999; Scott, 2001).</p> <ref id="AN0009332845-7"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Cartledge, G., Tam, K., Loe, S., Miranda, A., Lambert, M., Kea, C., et al. (2001). Culturally and linguistically diverse students with behavioral disorders. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Chandler, L. K., Dahlquist, C. M., Repp, A. C. & Feltz, C. (1999). The effects of team based functional assessment on the behavior of students in classroom settings. Exceptional Children, 66, 101-122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Kameenui, E. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Conroy, M. A., Katsiyannis, A., Clark, D., Gable, R. A., & Fox, J. M. (2002). State office of education practices: Implementing the IDEA disciplinary provisions. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 98-108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Conroy, M., Clark, D., Gable, R. A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). A look at IDEA 1997 discipline provisions: Implications for change in the roles and responsibilities of school personnel. Preventing School Failure, 43, 64-70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Cullinan, D. (2002). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders: An introduction for teachers and other helping professions. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Cummins, W., & Elias, M. (1991). Institutionalization of mental health programs in organizational contexts: The case of elementary schools. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 207-220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Deno, S. (1998). Academic progress as incompatible behavior: Curriculum-based measurement as intervention. Beyond Behavior, 9, 12-17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White, R., et al. (1993). Functional assessment of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>ERIC/OSEP Special Project. (1997). School-wide behavior management systems: Research connections in special education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 1, 1-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>ERIC/OSEP Special Project. (1999). Positive behavioral support: Research connections in special education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 4, 1-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Gable, R. A., & Hendrickson, J. (2000). Strategies for maintaining positive behavior change stemming from functional behavioral assessment in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 286-297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., & Van Acker, R. (2001). Maintaining the integrity of FBA in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 248-260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Gable, R. A., Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Jr., Howell, K. W., Hoffman, C., & Butler, C. J. (2001). Conducting functional behavioral assessment and developing positive behavioral intervention plans and supports. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Greenwood, C. (2002). Science and students with learning and behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 37-52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Gresham, F. (1991). What ever happened to functional analysis in behavioral consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2, 387-392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Jolivette, K., Barton-Arwood, S., & Scott, T. M. (2000). Functional behavioral assessment as a collaborative process among professionals. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 298-313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior supports: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1-16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Nelson, C. M. (1999, January). Institute on IDEA Discipline Provisions. Kansas City, MO: U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., & Polsgrove, L. (1999). Perspectives on emotional/behavioral disorders: Assumptions and their implications for education and treatment. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Quinn, M. M., Gable, R. A., Fox, J. J., Rutherford, R. B., Jr., Van Acker, R., & Conroy, M. (2001). Putting quality functional assessment into practice in schools: A research agenda on behalf of E/BD students. Educational and Treatment of Children, 24, 261-275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Scott, T. M. (2001). A school-wide example of positive behavioral support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 3, 88-94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249-252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2001). Effective instruction: The forgotten component in preventing school violence. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 309-322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Sheurermann, B. (2000). Curricular and instructional recommendations for creating safe, effective, and nurturing school environments for all students. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Positive academic and behavioral supports: Creating safe, effective, and nurturing schools for all students (pp. 7-10). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1999). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43, 6-13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., & Gable, R. A. (October, 2001). Are we hitting the mark: A look at current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD), Atlanta, GA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Walker-Bolton, I., Gable, R. A., & Butler, C. J. (2001). Safe and effective schooling: Virginia's response to the disciplinary provisions of the 1997 IDEA. Proceedings of the VA/CEC Conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Fredricksburg, VA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref8" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Wehby, J., Symons, F., Canale, J. A., & Go, F. J. (1998). Teaching practices in classrooms of students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations and observation. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 51-56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Witt, J. (1986). Teachers' resistance to the use of school-based interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 37-44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Yell, M., & Shiner, J. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers and administrators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-30.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Robert A. Gable; C. J. Butler; Irene Walker-Bolton; Stephen W. Tonelson; Mary M. Quinn and James J. Fox</p> <p></p> <p>Robert A. Gable, an executive editor for Preventing School Failure, is also a professor in the Department of Child Study and Special Education and C. J. Butler is on the staff of the Training and Technical Assistance Center and is an adjunct professor in the Department of Special Education at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.</p> <p>Irene Walker-Bolton is an education specialist at the Virginia Department of Education in Richmond, Virginia.</p> <p>Stephen W. Tonelson is a professor in the Department of Early Childhood, Speech-Language Pathology and Special Education at Old Dominion University.</p> <p>Mary M. Quinn is a principal research scientist for the Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, DC.</p> <p>James J. Fox is a professor in the Child Study Center at East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib206" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ666167
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Safe and Effective Schooling for All Students: Putting into Practice the Disciplinary Provisions of the 1997 IDEA.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gable%2C+Robert+A%2E%22">Gable, Robert A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+C%2E+J%2E%22">Butler, C. J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walker-Bolton%2C+Irene%22">Walker-Bolton, Irene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tonelson%2C+Stephen+W%2E%22">Tonelson, Stephen W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quinn%2C+Mary+M%2E%22">Quinn, Mary M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fox%2C+James+J%2E%22">Fox, James J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. Win 2003 47(2):74-78.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 5
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2003
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline+Policy%22">Discipline Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Functional+Behavioral+Assessment%22">Functional Behavioral Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inservice+Teacher+Education%22">Inservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Design%22">Program Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Workshops%22">Teacher Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training+Methods%22">Training Methods</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Virginia%22">Virginia</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Virginia's statewide plan of educator preparation in functional behavioral assessment, as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is described. The step-by-step training process facilitated positive academic and nonacademic outcomes for all students. Preliminary data support the effectiveness of both the content and delivery of this program. (Contains references.) (Author/CR)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2003
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ666167
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ666167
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 5
        StartPage: 74
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Functional Behavioral Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Virginia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Safe and Effective Schooling for All Students: Putting into Practice the Disciplinary Provisions of the 1997 IDEA.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gable, Robert A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, C. J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walker-Bolton, Irene
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tonelson, Stephen W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quinn, Mary M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fox, James J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2003
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1