Get documents about "Welcome to the 2006 PENT FORUM
Document Sample
Diagnostic
Centers
California Welcome to the 2006 PENT FORUM
Department
Of
Education
Designed by your PENT Leadership Team
Diagnostic
Centers But first, a thank you from all of us
California
Department
Of
to our sponsors, hosts and organizers
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Diagnostic Centers
Department
Of
California Department of Education
Education
DEL
N O RT E
S IS K IY O U
M OD O C
T R IN I T Y S H A S TA
LA S S E N
H U M B O LD T
TEH AM A
PLUMAS
M E N D O CI N O
SU TT ER
LA K E
G LE N N
C O LU S A
BU TT E
YUBA
S IE R R A
N E VA D A
PLACER
Debbie Holt
SO NO MA
S O LA N O
M A R IN
N A PA
Y O LO EL DO RADO
SAC R AM EN TO
A L P IN E
AM ADO R
CDE-DCS Director
C O N TR A
PENT Program Manager
C O S TA
C A L AV E R A S
DCN
SAN
M AT E O S A N TA ALAMEDA SAN T U O LO M N E
C LA RA J OA QU IN
S A N TA
CRUZ S TA N I S LA U S M A R IP O S A
SAN
M ON O
B E N IT O M ERCED M ADERA
DCC
M ON T ER EY
FR ESN O
TU L AR E
Lizette Edrosa
K IN G S
IN Y O
SAN KERN
PENT Website Manager
LU I S (N or th & W es t)
O B IS P O
S A N TA
KERN
(S o uth & E a st )
S A N B E R N A R D IN O
& Forum Coordinator
BARBARA
LO S A N G E LE S
VEN TU R A
DCS
R IV E R S ID E
O RANG E
SAN D IEG O IM P E R IA L
Diagnostic
Centers
The Statewide SELPA Organization
California
Department
Of
and SELPA Behavior Committee
Education
SELPA Behavior Committee
Carol Bartz
Mildred Browne
Steve Collins
Jackie Haugen
Sandee Kludt
Al Sasuga
and
Deborah Holt
Diana Browning Wright
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Our Gracious FORUM Hosts
Education
Sandee Kludt, SELPA Director
Northern/Central Forum Host
Jackie Haugen, SELPA Director
Southern Forum Host
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Your PENT Leadership Team
Of
Education
Adam Stein Elena Alvarez
Bruce Gale G. Roy Mayer
Clay Cook Gail Cafferata
Clinton Eatmon Hope Michel
Denise Keller Joan Justice-Brown
Diane Hannett Toni Lien
Dru Saren Valerie Samuel
PENT Project Organization
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education
“None of Us Is As
Skilled As All of Us”
PENT
PENT
Director
Project Manager
Diana
Browning Wright Deborah Holt
PENT
PENT Project Teams
Leadership Team Research, Website,
Diversity, etc.
PENT Cadre
PENT Members
Email Consultations and List-Serve
PENT Behavior Advisors
SELPA Behavior Committee
SELPA Directors at large
PENT Collaborators
B.E.S.T., E.B.S., T.A.B.S., Project Reach
Diagnostic
And you! You all are the stars
Centers
California
Department
Of
of this Forum! Thank you ALL
Education
for your upcoming
contributions at this Forum
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Messages from some of our
Of
Education PENT Collaborators
George Sugai -University of Connecticut
Jeff Sprague - University of Oregon
Bonnie Kraemer - CSUSD
G. Roy Mayer - CSULA
Frank Gresham - Louisiana State University
Mike Vanderwood - UC Riverside
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Dr. Jeff Sprague
Department
Of
Education
University of Oregon
All of us struggle daily to get our colleagues to adopt, implement and
sustain effective FBA and PBS practices in our schools. We know that
our goals for academic success for all children will not be met until
this is achieved. Researchers are now focusing intensely on this
matter, and exploring the challenge from a cultural perspective as
well. The research underway assessing "fidelity" of behavior plans is
incredibly important, timely, and shows us the future of research in
this area. Given this reality, we are called to consider multiple aspects
of our collective work to help our children and communities become
as healthy and successful as possible (and in ways the community
defines as of value).
I applaud this important work focused on getting evidence-based
practice to scale and to quality.
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Dr. Bonnie Kraemer
Department
Of
Education
San Diego State University
Greetings PENT Cadre:
“The research coming out of PENT is certainly exciting.
The recent BSP data showing the relevance of applying
the BSP-QE to students with more severe disabilities,
particularly autism, documents the breadth and critical
nature of this instrument. I look forward to future research
coming from the PENT team and examining the outcome
data when it becomes available. Thanks for all your hard
a work on behalf of children and youth with disabilities.”
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education
Dr. Mike Vanderwood
University of California, Riverside
I applaud the PENT Cadre’s emphasis this year on
progress monitoring of all interventions, whether they
are academic or behavioral. Through well designed
interventions, with on-going progress monitoring, we
are able to more effectively evaluate a student’s
response to intervention.
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Dr. G. Roy Mayer,
Of
Education
CalState University , Los Angeles
“The BSP-QE appears to be an excellent instrument
for helping practitioners in the field acquire and
practice some basic behavior analysis principles and
practices. My graduate students in ABA also report
that it helps them write improved behavior analysis
reports. Diana and I hope the revised BSP-QE is
helpful to you as well.”
Dr.
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Forum 2006 Agenda
Of
Education
Opening Keynote: Dr. Sylvia Rosenfield
• Team processing of her presentation
PENT Research findings
The NEW Improved: BSP-QE 2006
• Scoring practice
• Structured feedback
• Scoring reviews
Diagnostic
Centers
Agenda (continued):
California
Department
Of
Education
Cadre sharing rotations
Severe behavior, emergencies
New IDEIA
• FBA?
• Manifestation Determination?
• Behavior plans?
• Shortened day?
KM brief discussion
2006 summary
Evaluation/prizes
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Our Keynote Speakers!
Education
2003 Summit: G. Roy Mayer - Consultation Skills
2004 Forum: George Sugai - PBS School Wide
2005 Forum: Jeff Sprague - Becoming Consumers
of Research
2006 Forum:
Sylvia Rosenfield - Consultation
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Consulting Experience for Some of US?
Department
Of
Education
Typical Day for Some Educational/
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Behavior Consultants?
Department
Of
Education
The School Experience for
Diagnostic
Centers
Some of Our Students
California
Department
Of
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Meetings not going as expected?
Department
Of
Education
Designing School-Wide Systems
Diagnostic
Centers
California
for Student Success
Department
Of Behavioral Systems
Education Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students 1-5% 1-5% •Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10% 5-10% Selected Group Interventions
Selected Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk)
•Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency
•High efficiency •Rapid response
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions 80-90% Universal Interventions
80-90%
•All students •All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive •Preventive, proactive
“Teachers have a particularly difficult time writing
Diagnostic
Centers
California
BSPs for high school kids who have difficulties with
Department
Of motivation. More specifically, this group of kids are
Education
high school age and may or may not demonstrate
average academic skills. They do not act out
aggressively. Instead, they typically sit quietly in the
back of the room, rarely participate in classroom
discussions, may often sleep in class, and work
completion is very limited. I'm finding teachers very
reluctant to write BSPs based on their perception that
these kids are just lazy, unmotivated, depressed,
conduct disordered, drug using adolescents, or all of
the above, and there is nothing they can do for them.
They feel they need outside psychotherapy. I know
you've heard this before.”
Diagnostic
Centers Cadre Message: Think Outside the Box!
California
Department
Of
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California A Warm Welcome!
Department
Of
Education
Dr. Sylvia Rosenfield
srosenf@umd.edu
The Four „s
Navigating Service Delivery:
Compliance, Consultation
Communication, Collaboration
Sylvia Rosenfield, Ph.D.
srosenf@umd.edu
www.icteams.umd.edu
Presented at
PENT Forums 2006
ompliance:
Getting your plans used
• Why do we need to worry about how we
delivery our services?
• Doesn‟t everyone appreciate the experts
and take our advice?
Knowledge Utilization:
“Information is the ultimate
waste product of our age.”
Just knowing how to change behavior
does not mean behavior will be
changed.
I see my professional role as:
Expert Collaborative
The Expert-Collaborative Dimension
Expert Collaborative
• I focus on content and • Relationships with staff
don‟t worry too much are critical to my work.
about relationships • When teachers do not
• It is important for implement my
teachers to accept my recommendations, I
intervention consider the relationship.
recommendations
Limitations of Expert Models
Treatment non-adherence is an old and common
problem shared across disciplines.
“Hippocrates noted that patients often lie when they
say they have taken their medicine” (p. 11)
“A partnership, a collaboration between [providers
and clients] must be established and maintained if
treatment adherence is to be expected”
(Meichenbaum & Turk, 1987, p. 266).
Other reasons why
expertise is not enough.
• Practitioners are unable to predict what will be
effective in a particular situation, in spite of empirical
research on interventions.
• Research/technical knowledge must be translated into
case/context specific interventions.
• Best practice demands that interventions be continued,
modified, or terminated based on outcomes.
• Reframing Resistance to Intervention by Teachers
as a Process Issue
• Collaborative Consultation as a Strategy
• Understanding Role of School Culture
IC-Team Program Goal
Enhance/ Improve/ Increase Student and Staff Performance
Objectives
• Develop a systematic support network within each building,
including a trained IC-Team Facilitator and trained
Instructional Consultation Team.
• Enhance teachers‟ skills in and application of best practices
of instructional/behavioral assessment and delivery
• Develop school-wide norms of collaboration and problem-
solving
• Utilize data for classroom and school decisions
ollaboration as a
feature of school culture
• ”Research confirms the power of professional
community to heighten teachers' effectiveness and
strengthen the overall capacity of a school to pursue
improvements in teaching and learning. Increasingly,
we find evidence that some aspects of a school‟s
professional culture, especially a collective
responsibility for student success, are associated with
student achievement.” (Little, in press)
Collaboration through a
Community of Practice
• Wenger et al.(2002) definition: “groups of people who
share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about
a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing
basis”
• “During problem-solving meetings, teachers can
receive confirmation, support, and challenges to their
ideas, and a new collective meaning regarding the
referred case may emerge from the team as a result of
the discussion.(Benn & Rosenfield)
Bringing a Community of Practice to
the School Level
• Creating a collaborative school culture around
improving student outcomes-shared goals
• Effective communication
• Regularly scheduled times to meet for
consultation and collaboration
• Recognizing the pitfalls
Collaborating around Problems
“During problem-solving meetings, teachers
can receive confirmation, support, and
challenges to their ideas, and a new
collective meaning regarding the referred
case may emerge from the team as a result
of the discussion.(Benn & Rosenfield, 2004)
Problem Solving Teams as
Delivery Systems
• Need to avoid “old wine in new bottles”
problem
• Creating a team structure is not enough:
structural change without conceptual change
will not work
• Distinction between process and delivery
system
Team Structure and Training
• Multi-disciplinary & trans-disciplinary
• Effective meeting structures: regular,
sufficient time, explicit role expectations
• Training in: communication skills, problem
solving, team building and maintenance,
assessment and strategies
onsultee-Centered Consultation
• Nonhierarchical helping relationship between a
consultant and consultee who seeks
professional help with a work problem
involving a third party
• Consultee (e.g., teacher) has a direct
responsibility for the learning, development or
productivity of the client
onsultee-Centered Consultation
• Primary task is to choose and reframe
knowledge appropriate to the consultee‟s work
setting
• Goal is the joint development of a new way of
conceptualizing the work problem so that the
repertoire of the consultee is expanded and
the professional relationship between the
consultee and the client is restored or
improved.
– International Workgroup on CCC
Applying Social Constructivist Theory
1) Higher order learning is fundamentally a social process in
which intra-personal growth occurs as a result of exposure
to cultural tools (e.g., problem solving skills) on the
interpersonal plane (consultation process).
2) Development is mediated through language as individuals
are exposed to new ideas.
3) Supportive facilitators (consultants) help individuals to
reach higher levels of functioning.
(Knotek, et al., 2004)
Process Variables:
Three Critical Case Manager Skills
Systematic
Collaborative Problem Solving Instructional &
& Reflective Process Behavioral
Communication Assessment
What is your problem-solving
structure?
(Diagram or Narrative)
IC Problem Solving Stages
• Contracting
• Inform • Purpose • Focus ∆ • Collaborative Nature
• Problem Solving Process • Time/ Data
• Gain Agreement
• Problem Identification & Analysis
• Specific and Observable Terms
• Instructional Assessment to ensure an instructional
MATCH
• Prioritize
• Baseline
• Goals (3-6 weeks)
IC Problem Solving Stages
• Strategy/ Intervention Design
• What? • When? • How often? • What Conditions?
• Who?
• Strategy/ Intervention Implementation
• Have we done what we‟ve planned?
• Strategy/ Intervention Evaluation
• Weekly data collection • Relate to Baseline and Goals
• Follow-up, Re-design, Closure
• Revisit • Revise • Refine • Re-Try
IC-Team Support Process
Teachers
complete brief
"request for
Ongoing data
assistance"
Team member
collection to assigned as Case
determine Manager
progress toward
goals
Contract for
Professional
Collaboration
Classroom
strategies Assessment of
developed/ student's entry
demonstrated/ skills conducted
implemented
Baseline and Goals
Established and
Documented
Why Teachers Refer
School Culture determines
• How and who teachers ask for help
• How a problem is framed
• What an acceptable resolution is
ontracting
• Introduce concept of case manager/consultant
• Elicit expectations
• Explain stage-based, problem solving process
• Clarify focus of problem solving
ontracting
• Contract for:
• Shared ownership
• Data collection related to classroom performance
• Non-evaluative nature
• Parameters of confidentiality
• Time to meet- regular meetings
• Check for agreement and commitment to participate
ommunication
• Consultation as a constructive act: facilitating change
in consultee understanding of the concern by jointly
reconceptualizing the work problem.
• Language used in framing the problem impacts the
expectation of the consultee that the problem could be
resolved.
(Tombari & Bergan, 1978)
Work Communities are
Language Communities
• Shared Reality: Talking about a topic with another person
generates beliefs about the objectivity of the message. Saying
is Believing!
• Audience Tuning: Individuals modify their message to take into
account their perceptions about what the audience wants to
hear.
• Correspondence Bias: Tendency to see the person rather than
the situation as the source of behavior.
(Higgins, 1999)
Developing a Working Relationship:
Collaborative Communication Skills
Consultants trained in Instructional Consultation (Rosenfield,
1987) utilize basic communication skills to establish
collaborative “working relationship” with classroom teachers.
The purpose of communication skill use is to ensure that the
consultant and teacher create a shared perspective of the
presenting concern. By creating a shared understanding of the
concern, the consultant and teacher can equally contribute in
the development and implementation of feasible strategies. In
addition, the use of key communication skills supports the
teacher in professional reflection related to the efficacy of
current practices.
What did the Teacher Say?
What Would You Reply?
You be the consultant ….
Teacher: Reena seems to be a student who is intent on
manipulating the situation to focus attention on her. If
this doesn’t happen, she often pouts and talks back if
she doesn’t get her way. This is the predominant kind
of behavior that we see at times when things aren’t
going well for her. If she gets instant help and is
moving successfully through an activity, these kinds of
activities aren’t present, but if frustration occurs or if
she comes in that day feeling down about something,
she becomes very infantile.
What did the teacher say? What would you reply?
Key Communication Skills
• Paraphrasing
• Perception Checking
• Clarifying Questions
• Request for Clarification
• Summarizing
• Relevant Questions
• Offering Information
• Active & Attentive Listening
Key Communication Skills, Cont.
Requesting Clarification: Statements which attempt to increase
understanding of what the speaker has said through asking for
elaboration, examples, details that clarify the speaker‟s
communication.
EXAMPLE: So you have said that your bottom reading group has
been struggling with the reader and is not working on grade level.
It would be helpful if you could give me examples of what they can
and can not do.
Paraphrasing: Restatement of what the speaker has said in one‟s
own words to communicate back to the speaker what you believe you
have heard. Allows the speaker to provide the listener with feedback
and correct misunderstanding. Provide focus for continuing discussion.
EXAMPLE: So you are concerned that the children do not have the
basic skills that first graders need to succeed in learning to read.
Key Communication Skills, Cont.
Perception Checking: A statement which communicates to the
speaker that the listener has heard an emotion as well as the
literal message.
EXAMPLE: You sound very frustrated with this group.
Questioning: Questions are useful in extending the topic at
hand, but they often change the focus or direction to follow the
listener‟s thinking rather than to allow the speaker to make a
point clearly.
EXAMPLE: What reading program are you using this year?
You be the consultant ….
Teacher: Reena seems to be a student who is intent on
manipulating the situation to focus attention on her. If
this doesn’t happen, she often pouts and talks back if
she doesn’t get her way. This is the predominant
kind of behavior that we see at times when things
aren’t going well for her. If she gets instant help and
is moving successfully through an activity, these
kinds of activities aren’t present, but if frustration
occurs or if she comes in that day feeling down about
something, she becomes very infantile.
What did the teacher say? What would you reply?
Levels of Impact
and Training Methods
L ev e l of Im p ac t E vid e n ce of Im pa c t T ra ining M e th od
P a rt icip a nt c an arti c ul a te
D id a ctic P rese nta tion
Awa re ne ss g e ne ra l c on c ep ts and
of Th e ory a nd C onc e pt s
id e ntify probl e m
P a rt icip a nt c an arti c ul a te
M odel ing a nd
C onc e ptu a l c onc e pt s c lea rly and
De monst ration
U nd e rstanding d e sc rib e app ropri a te
(i.e. live , vid e o , e tc .)
a ctions r e quir e d
P rac ti ce in Simul a te d
P a rt icip a nt c an beg in to Situ a tion s
Skil l Ac quis ition u se sk ills in stru c tu red w ith F ee db a ck (i .e . rol e
or simula ted s ituat ions pl a y,
w rit ten e xe rci se s, e tc .)
P a rt icip a nt s ca n u se C oa c hing a nd
A ppli ca tion o f Sk ills skills fl e xibly in ac tu a l Sup e rvi sion
situ a tion D uring A ppli c ation
Selected Bibliography
Benn, A., & Rosenfield, S. (2005, August). An analysis of problem-solving teams
as communities of practice. Poster session presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Higgins, E.T. (1999). “Saying is believing” effects: When sharing reality about
something biases knowledge and evaluations. In L.L. Thompson, J.M.
Levine, D.M. Messick (Eds.). Shared cognition in organizations: The
management of knowledge (pp. 33-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Knotek, S., Rosenfield, S, Babinski, L. & Gravois, T.A. (2004). The process of
orderly reflection and conceptual change during instructional consultation.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation.
Little, J. (in press) Professional communication and collaboration. In
W.D.Hawley & D. Rollie (Eds). The Keys to Effective Schools, Second
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Selected Bibliography
Meichenbaum, D., & Turk, D.C. (1987). Facilitating treatment adherence: A
practitioner’s guidebook. NY: Plenum Press.
Rosenfield (2002) Best practices in instructional consultation. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds. Best practices in school psychology IV. Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Rosenfield (1987) Instructional consultation.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenfield & Gravois (1996). Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating
for change. New York: Guilford.
Tombari, M., & Bergan, J. (1978). Consultant cures and teacher verbalization,
judgments, and expectancies concerning children’s adjustment problems.
Journal of School Psychology, 3, 212-219.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Navigating the „s
• COLLABORATION
• CONSULTATION
• COMMUNICATION
You be the consultant ….
Teacher: Reena seems to be a student who is intent on
manipulating the situation to focus attention on
her. If this doesn’t happen, she often pouts and
talks back if she doesn’t get her way. This is the
predominant kind of behavior that we see at
times when things aren’t going well for her. If
she gets instant help and is moving successfully
through an activity, these kinds of activities aren’t
present, but if frustration occurs or if she comes
in that day feeling down about something, she
becomes very infantile.
What did the teacher say? What would you reply?
Currently, in your school…
What happens when a teacher has a
concern about a student?
and…
If you could change things, what would
be different?
Diagnostic
Centers
California
BREAK TIME!
Department
Of
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
PENT Research:
Of
Education Current Findings and Future Directions
Your PENT Research Team
Diana Browning Wright
Dr. G. Roy Mayer
Dr. Bonnie Kraemer
Dr. Bruce Gale
Dean Crews
Clayton Cook
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Changes based on our findings to date
Of
Education
2004: Changed our BSP form to two clusters
2006: Changed our BSP form to make typing
easier
2005-2006: Designed Forum 05 and 06 to
discover our strengths and weaknesses
• training to address our identified weaknesses
2003-2006: Publications and research in progress
2006: BSP-QE Version 2006!
• training to improve overall plan quality for all of us
N o te : N u m b e rs c o rre s p o n d w ith th e s c o rin g s y s te m o n th e B S P Q u a lity E v a lu a tio n G u id e
N o t F o r D is p la y - F o r T e a c h e r U s e O n ly
Diagnostic B eh a v io r S u p p o rt P la n
F or B ehavior Interfering w ith L earning of Student or P eers
Centers
California S tud ent IE P D ate o f T his A d d end um
1 . B ehavio r im p ed ing learning is
Department 2 . It im p ed es learning b ecause
Of 3 . T eam estim ate o f need fo r b ehavio r sup p o rt p lan extrem e serio us m o d erate need ing attentio n, early stage interv entio n
4 . C urrent F req uency/Intensity/D uratio n o f B ehavio r
Education 5 . A ny current p red icto rs fo r b ehavio r?
6 . IE P T eam b elieves b ehavio r o ccurs b ecause (team hyp o thesis -b ehavio r functio n)
7 . W hat team b elieves stud ent sho uld d o instead o f the p ro b lem b ehavio r (m atch to hyp o thesis)
8 . W hat sup p o rts the stud ent using the p ro b lem b ehavio r (in o r m issing in enviro nm ent, in o r m issing in instructio n)
9 . B ehavio ral G o als/O b jectives related to this p lan
T o achieve this o utco m e, b o th teaching o f new alternative b ehavio r and reinfo rcem ent is need ed . yes no
T o achieve this o utco m e, reinfo rcem ent o f alternative b ehavio r alo ne is em p hasized (no new teaching is necessary). yes no
T o achieve this o utco m e, enviro nm ental sup p o rts o r changes are need ed . yes no
A re curriculum acco m m o d atio ns necessary? yes no ; Is there a curriculum acco m m o d atio n p lan? yes no
B S P to b e co o rd inated w ith o ther agency’s service p lans? yes no ; P erso n resp o nsib le fo r co ntact
T each in g strategies an d n ecessary cu rricu lu m or m aterials for n ew b eh avior in stru ction
10.
B y w ho m ? H o w freq uent?
E n viron m en tal stru ctu re an d su p p orts to b e p rovid ed (T im e/S p ace/M aterials/In teraction s)
11.
W ho estab lish? W ho m o nito r?
R ein forcem en t p roced u res
12.
B y w ho m ? F req uency?
R eactive strategy to em p loy/d eb riefin g p roced u res to u se if p rob lem b eh avior occu rs again
13.
P erso nnel:
C om m u n ication p rovision s D aily/W eekly R eports/R ecord K eeping
14.
B etw een F req uency?
N o te : N u m b e rs c o rre s p o n d w ith th e s c o rin g s y s te m o n th e B S P Q u a lity E v a lu a tio n G u id e
N o t F o r D is p la y - F o r T e a c h e r/S ta ff U s e O n ly
B e h a vio r S u p p o rt P la n
Diagnostic F o r B eh a vio r In terferin g w ith S tu d en t’s L ea rn in g o r th e L ea rn in g o f H is/H er P eers
Centers
California T h is B S P a tta c h e s to : IE P d a te : 5 0 4 p la n d a te : T e a m m e e tin g d a te :
S tu d e n t N a m e T o d a y’s D a te N e x t R e v ie w D a te
Department 1. T h e b e h a vio r im p e d in g le a rn in g is (d e s c rib e w h a t it lo o k s lik e )
Of 2. It im p e d e s le a rn in g b e c a u s e
3. T h e n e e d fo r a B e h a vio r S u p p o rt P la n e a rly s ta g e in te rve n tio n m o d e ra te s e rio u s e xtre m e
Education 4. F re q u e n c y o r in te n s ity o r d u ra tio n o f b e h a vio r
re p o rte d b y a n d /o r o b s e rve d b y
P R E V E N T IO N P A R T I: E N V IR O N M E N T A L F A C T O R S A N D N E C E S S A R Y C H A N G E S
W h a t a re th e p re d ic to rs fo r th e b e h a v io r? (S itu a tio n s in w h ic h th e b e h a v io r is lik e ly to o c c u r: p e o p le , tim e , p la c e , s u b je c t, e tc .)
O b s e rv a tio n &
5.
A n a ly s is
W h a t s u p p o rts th e s tu d e n t u s in g th e p ro b le m b e h a v io r? (W h a t is m is s in g in th e e n v iro n m e n t/c u rric u lu m o r w h a t is in th e
e n v iro n m e n t c u rric u lu m th a t n e e d s c h a n g in g ? ) 6 .
R e m o v e s tu d e n t’s n e e d to u s e th e p ro b le m b e h a v io r
W h a t e n v iro n m e n ta l c h a n g e s , s tru c tu re a n d s u p p o rts a re n e e d e d to re m o v e th e s tu d e n t’s n e e d to u s e th is b e h a v io r?
In te rv e n tio n
(C h a n g e s in T im e /S p a c e /M a te ria ls /In te ra c tio n s to re m o v e lik e lih o o d o f b e h a v io r ) 7 .
W h o w ill e s ta b lis h ? W h o w ill m o n ito r? F re q u e n c y
A L T E R N A T IV E S P A R T II: F U N C T IO N A L F A C T O R S A N D N E W B E H A V IO R S T O T E A C H A N D S U P P O R T
T e a m b e lie v e s th e b e h a v io r o c c u rs b e c a u s e : (F u n c tio n o f b e h a v io r in te rm s o f g e ttin g , p ro te s t, o r a v o id in g s o m e th in g )
O b s e rv a tio n &
8.
A n a ly s is
A c c e p t a re p la c e m e n t b e h a v io r th a t m e e ts s a m e n e e d
W h a t te a m b e lie v e s th e s tu d e n t s h o u ld d o IN S T E A D o f th e p ro b le m b e h a v io r? (H o w s h o u ld th e s tu d e n t e sca p e /p ro te st/a vo id
o r g e t h is /h e r n e e d m e t in a n a c c e p ta b le w a y ? ) 9 .
W h a t te a c h in g S tra te g ie s /N e c e s s a ry C u rric u lu m /M a te ria ls a re n e e d e d ? (L is t s u c c e s s iv e te a c h in g s te p s fo r s tu d e n t to le a rn
re p la c e m e n t b e h a v io r/s ) 1 0 .
In te rv e n tio n
W h o w ill e s ta b lis h ? W h o w ill m o n ito r? F re q u e n c y
W h a t a re re in fo rc e m e n t p ro c e d u re s to u s e fo r e s ta b lis h in g , m a in ta in in g , a n d g e n e ra liz in g th e re p la c e m e n t b e h a v io r(s )?
11.
S e le c tio n o f re in fo rc e r b a s e d o n :
re in fo rc e r fo r u s in g re p la c e m e n t b e h a vio r re in fo rc e r fo r g e n e ra l in c re a s e in p o s itive b e h a vio rs
By whom ? F re q u e n c y?
Note: Numbers correspond with the scoring system on the BSP Quality Evaluation Guide
Not for Display - For Teacher/Staff Use Only
BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLAN
Diagnostic For Behavior Interfering with Student’s Learning or the Learning of His/Her Peers
Centers
California This BSP attaches to: IEP date: 504 plan date: Team meeting date:
Department Student Name Today’s Date Next Review Date
Of 1. The behavior impeding learning is (describe what it looks like)
Education 2. It impedes learning because
3. The need for a Behavior Support Plan early stage intervention moderate serious extreme
4. Frequency or intensity or duration of behavior
reported by and/or observed by
PREVENTION PART I: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND NECESSARY CHANGES
What are the predictors for the behavior? (Situations in which the behavior is likely to occur: people, time, place, subject, etc.)
Observation &
Analysis 5.
What supports the student using the problem behavior? (What is missing in the environment/curriculum or what is in the
environment curriculum that needs changing?)
6.
Remove student’s need to use the problem behavior-----
Intervention
What environmental changes, structure and supports are needed to remove the student’s need to use this behavior?
(Changes in Time/Space/Materials/Interactions to remove likelihood of behavior)
7.
Who will establish? Who will monitor? Frequency?
ALTERNATIVES PART II: FUNCTIONAL FACTORS AND NEW BEHAVIORS TO TEACH AND SUPPORT
Team believes the behavior occurs because: (Function of behavior in terms of getting, protest, or avoiding something)
Observation &
8.
Analysis
Accept a replacement behavior that meets same need-----
What team believes the student should do INSTEAD of the problem behavior? (How should the student escape/protest/avoid
or get his/her need met in an acceptable way?)
9.
What teaching Strategies/Necessary Curriculum/Materials are needed? (List successive teaching steps for student to learn
replacement behavior/s)
10.
Intervention
Who will establish? Who will monitor? Frequency?
What are reinforcement procedures to use for establishing, maintaining, and generalizing the replacement behavior(s)?
11.
Selection of reinforcer based on:
reinforcer for using replacement behavior reinforcer for general increase in positive behaviors
By whom? Frequency?
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Research Update
Of
Education
Clay Cook
UC Riverside, Research Team Member,
PENT Leader
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Why evaluate BSPs at all?
Of
Education
There is lots of research on best practices in
BSP development
• However, nothing has been undertaken, until
recently, to assess the degree to which plans are
developed in accordance with best practice.
It is an important first step in determining the
impact of BSPs on student outcomes
Because a well written plan is far more legally
defensible than a poorly written one!
Diagnostic
Question One: How well is the field
Centers
California
Department
developing behavior plans in
Of
Education California?
Superior
Good
11% 0%
Underdeveloped
Weak
32%
57%
Typical Team study: 11% adequacy
Diagnostic
Centers
Question Two: Can we increase plan
California
Department
Of
quality through training on key concepts?
Education
Superior
6%
Good Weak
36% 30%
42% adequate
Pre-Summit
Plans
Underdeveloped
28%
All accepted CADRE were required to attend training
“One Page Behavior Plans That Work.”
Slide prepared by Clay Cook, Dean Crews, Diana Browning Wright, 3/05
Diagnostic
Centers
Question Three: Now that we have a
California
Department
Of
scoring rubric, can we increase plan
Education
quality through training on this
quantitative tool?
PENT Cadre training on BSP-QE 2003
VS
Training on the 6 key concepts without BSP-QE
Component (Typical training done on behavior
plans) 1999-2003
Slide prepared by Clay Cook, Dean Crews, Diana Browning Wright, 3/05
Diagnostic
Centers
Training on BSP-QE Improves
California
Department
Of
Plan Quality PENT 2003-2004
Education
Inadequate
Adequate Inadequate Adequate
35%
42% 58% 65%
SUMMIT
Pre-Summit Post-Summit
Plans Plans
These changes are statistically significant!
χ2 = 11.41***
ODDS RATIO = 2.1
Diagnostic
Centers
Percentage Change in Plan Quality
California
Department
Of
PENT 2003-2004
Education
250%
Superior
200%
200%
150%
Percentage Change
100% Weak
Underdeveloped
Good Good
50%
31% Superior
0%
-50% Underdeveloped
Weak -32%
-47%
-100%
BSP QE Plan Quality
Diagnostic
Comparison of plan quality with no
Centers
California
Department
training, 6 key concepts training, and
Of
Education training on BSP-QE
11% Adequate 42% Adequate 65% Adequate
6 Concepts BSP-QE
No Training Training Training
89% Inadequate 58% Inadequate 35% Inadequate
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Implications: What have we learned?
Of
Education
Training on the six-key concepts is better
than NO training at all.
However, if we hope to produce the best
plans possible, we need to train more
specifically in the exact components of a
legally defensible and educationally
meaningful behavior support plan.
• Training using the BSP-QE is a means to
this end.
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
New PENT Research in Process
Education
Establish relationship between previous training
and experience and the ability to write a well
developed plan
Determine effect of BSP-QE training on plan writing
for students with more severe disabilities
• Autism Teachers in Autism Master’s Program at
San Diego State University
Diana Browning Wright and Bonnie Kraemer
with assistance from full PENT Research Team analysis
Diagnostic BSP-QE Training of Autism
Centers
California
Department
Specialists: Pre-Training
Of
Education
Superior Weak
0% 9%
Good Pre-Training Underdeveloped
68% Plans 23%
The students in the program had prior ABA coursework and
experience with behavioral management.
Diagnostic
Centers
Training Improves Plan Quality
California
Department Underdeveloped
Of
Education
Superior Weak 5%
0% Weak
9% Underdeveloped 0%
23%
Training
Pre-Training Post-Training
Plans Plans
Good Superior Good
68% 54% 41%
These changes are statistically significant!
χ2 = 18.12***
95% of the plans in the
Adequate range
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
2006 PENT Cadre Research
Education
Establish relationship between a well developed plan
and student outcomes
Evaluate student outcomes in relation to level of plan
quality
• Does a Good or Superior (Adequate) Plan result in better
student outcomes than a Weak or Underdeveloped
(Inadequate) Plan? Uses PENT FORUM 2006 Plans
Evaluate fidelity of implementation in relation to level of
plan quality
• Does an adequate plan result in better treatment fidelity
than an inadequate plan? Survey of implementers
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department Research Articles, Peer Reviewed Journals
Of
Education
(in press) Establishing and evaluating the
substantive adequacy of positive behavior
support plans-Journal of Behavior Education
(in preparation) Effects of training on the use
of the behavior support plan quality
evaluation guide (BSP-QE) to improve
positive behavioral support plans - Education
and Treatment of Children
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Research Articles, Peer Reviewed Journals
Of
Education
(in preparation) Effects of Training on the
Use of the Behavior Support Plan Quality
Evaluation Guide with Autism Teachers:
Impact on Quality of Positive Behavioral
Support Plans - peer reviewed autism
journal TBA
(in preparation) Linking positive behavior
support plan quality, implementation fidelity
and student outcomes: A first quantitative
study-peer reviewed journal TBA
Diagnostic FYI: 2005 Forum Comparison of Total Scores for
Centers
California
Department
Combined, Returning, and New Cadre Members
Of
Education
19
18.11
18
17.1
17
16.8
16
bsp score
15
14
13
12
11
10
Combined Returning New
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Implications?
Of
Education
We expected to find different results—
we hoped to be getting better
On average, our plans are remaining at
the same level of adequacy (no
regressions!) 2004 17.1 2005 17.1
We will all benefit from a full CADRE
review of BSP-QE !
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Why make changes to BSP-QE?
Education
Correct for common errors
Incorporate graduate student “research
associates” suggestions to improve scoring
Incorporate Diana and Roy’s experience
training advanced students/staff
Improve overall quality of plans
Strengthen areas with more guidance where
research shows weakness are likely to occur
Diagnostic
Centers
Remember: Relationship Between Component
California
Department Scores and Plan Quality 2004 study
Of
Education
Crosstabulation Between Behavioral Goal Scores
and Plan Adequacy
100 100
Adequate
80 78
Percentage of Plans
Inadequate
71
60
40
22 21
20
0 0
Score of 2 Score of 1 Score of 0
Plan Rating on Behavioral Goal
Chi Square = 54.22***
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education
Implication?
If you do understand effective goal
writing then it is highly likely that you
understand how to construct a quality
behavior plan
Diagnostic
Centers Forum 2004 Relationship Between
California
Department
Of
Component Scores and Plan Quality
Education
Crosstabulation Between Enviromental Changes Score
and Plan Adequacy
100 100
81 Ade quate
Percentage of Plans
80 Inade quate
68
60
40 32
20 19
0 0
Score of 2 Score of 1 Score of 0
Plan Rating on Environmental Changes
Chi Square = 39.22***
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Implication?
Education
If you don’t understand how to alter the
environment to remove the need for the
student to use that behavior, then it is
highly unlikely that you understand
how to construct a quality behavior plan
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Research-in-to-Practice
Department
Of
Education
Now Practice Scoring and Revising
See the Mark BSP in your packet
Record your team BSP-QE scores on
“Forum 2006 Team Scoring Summary Sheet”
in groups of 3 or 4
Rewrite any scores of 1 to equal a 2 on
“Revised Scores”
Use “Feedback to BSP-QE Authors Form” for
input if you discover need for changes
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Team Debriefing
Of
Education
Post your reworded sections on Team
charts
Leaders lead discussion on reworded
sections and scoring—inter-rater
reliability?
• Leaders give team score summaries and
rationale sheet
Discussion 15 minutes
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Looking to the Future: BSPs in a
Department
Of
Education
Response to Intervention Model
Serves as a document specifying interventions
carried out by the adults and goals to progress
monitor against.
• Inadequate response to interventions
implemented with integrity would indicate a
potential underlying EBD.
Allows teams to address behaviors that are
impeding learning so that more accurate and
defensible decisions are made about eligibility.
Dr. Frank Gresham, PENT Collaborator: Gresham (in press).
Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying
students with EBD. Education and Treatment of Children.
BEHAVIOR PLAN PROGRESS MONITORING – COMMUNICATIONS WORKSHEET
Diagnostic
Centers
California Complete Who? Under what Manner? Frequency? Content? Two-way
Department Communication:
Of
Specific condition(s)? - paper student - everyday, twice a Goal progress specification?
Education 6 Format information Continuous? carries, email week, monthly, - FERB, positive How will each partner
exchange - ongoing etc. increase or respond with new
partners monitoring agreed problem decrease; information,
upon by partners New information reflections, reports on
Conditional? - incident report or outcome, new ideas,
- incidents, change critical new etc.; NOT signature of
in medication, student receipt
precipitating event information - parent reports
likely to affect back the student’s
today’s behavior response to
debriefing about
the daily behavior
report, etc.
BEHAVIOR PLAN PROGRESS MONITORING – GOALS WORKSHEET
Goal(s) for
Monitoring an
Diagnostic In As measured by
Increase Under what At what level of
Centers By when? Who? Will do what? whom, and how
General Conditions? proficiency?
California measured?
Positive
Department
Behavior
Of
Education
Goal(s) for
Monitoring
As measured by
Reducing/ Under what At what level of
By when? Who? Will do what? whom, and how
Eliminating Conditions? proficiency?
measured?
Problem
Behavior
Goal(s) for
For the
Monitoring
Instead of For the purpose Under
Conditional As measured by
By what purpose or Will do or what At what level of
Use of a Who? whom, and how
When? problem function of what? function contingent proficiency?
Functionally measured?
behavior? what? of what condition?
Equivalent
(repeat)
Behavior
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Lunchtime
Of
Education
After lunch, your poster sessions begin!
Make your selections over lunch
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education Cadre Sharing
Rotation 1
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education Cadre Sharing
Rotation 2
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education Cadre Sharing
Rotation 3
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Behavior Plans in Disciplinary Contexts
Department
Of
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Minority Disproportionality in Special
Department
Of
Education
Education and School Discipline:
What We Know, What We Need to Know
PENT Cadre Greetings from:
Dr. Russell Skiba
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy
Indiana University
skiba@indiana.edu
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Is School Discipline Fair?:
Department
Of
Education
30 Years of Study
CDF (1975): Black students suspended 2-3x
as frequently
Studies since find disproportionality in:
• Office referrals
• Suspension & Expulsion
• Corporal Punishment
Black males 16x as likely as white females to
be suspended (Gregory, 1996)
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Discipline Comparisons by Race
Education
4
4
3.5
Rates Compared to White Students
3
2.35
2.5
1.86
2 1.67 OSS
1.49 1.47
1.33 EXP
1.5
1
0.49 0.5
0.5 0.27
0
Black Hispanic Asian MultiRacial Native
American
Diagnostic
Centers Out-of-School Suspension Comparison
California
Department
Of
Ratios by Race and School Level
Education
7 6.19
6
Likelihood Ratio Compared to Whites
5
3.97
3.65
4
3 2.33 African
2.12
1.76
American
2 Hispanic
1
0
Elementary Middle High
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Out-of-School Suspension Incident
Department
Of
Education
Rate by Race and Locale
60
52.39
50
Incident Rate Per 100 Students
40 39.21 38.89
African
American
30 Hispanic
28.15
White
19.19
20 19.03
16.90
13.90
10.01
10 9.97
10.38 6.60
0
Urban Suburban Town Rural
Locale
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Alternative Explanations of
Department
Of
Education
Disciplinary Disproportionality
Disproportionality is related to SES
• SES and disproportionality correlate,
but…
• But, effects of race remain after control
for SES!
Do black students misbehave more?
• No supporting evidence
• May in fact be treated more severely for
same offenses
D is p ro p o rtio n a lity in O ffic e R e fe rra ls ,
Diagnostic S u s p e n s io n , a n d E x p u ls io n
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
%
%
%
%
E
R
S
E
nr
us
xp
ef
ol
er
pe
el
le
re
le
nd
d
d
d
ed
B la c k S tu d e n ts W h ite S tu d e n ts
Diagnostic
Centers
California
What Behaviors are Students
Department
Of
Education
Referred For? By Race
Of 32 infractions, only 8 significant differences:
White students Black students
referred more for: referred more for:
• Smoking • Disrespect
• Vandalism • Excessive Noise
• Leaving w/o • Threat
permission • Loitering
• Obscene Language
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Improved Student Behavior?
Of
Education
30-50% of students suspended are repeat
offenders
• “Suspension functions as a reinforcer...rather
than as a punisher” (Tobin, Sugai &
Colvin,1996)
Use of suspension correlates with
• School dropout (school level) (Raffaele-
Mendez; Ekstrom, 1986)
• Juvenile incarceration (state level) (Skiba et al)
Dropout or pushout? (Bowditch, 1994)
Diagnostic
Centers
Is Exclusion a Risk for Lower
California
Department
Of
Achievement? Controlling for SES
Education
Davis & Jordan (1994): Negative r between
emphasis on discipline and achievement,
student engagement
Raffaele-Mendez, Knoff, & Ferron (2002):
Simple correlations but only writing related to
discipline when SES controlled
Skiba & Rausch (2004): Both suspension
and expulsion neg. corr’d with state
accountability scores with SES controlled
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Take home messages
Education
Examine your site’s practices related to
culture, ethnicity, and discipline
Make everyone aware of the difference
between the form of the behavior and the
function
Remember: We exist in a cultural context
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Discipline Cases
Of
Education
See handout on
discipline cases
activity
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Behavior in IDEIA 2004
Education
Regulations aren’t out yet
Law must be implemented, 7/05
California law still applies until
alignment is completed
Regulations expected by summer/fall
2006
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Highlights
Education
Suspension - essentially no change
Expulsion - some change to Manifestation
Determination
Need for behavior plan?
• essentially the same
• CA law “Hughes Bill” does not change, and
will not change with Regulations
Excess costs settlement already in place
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
R e a c tiv e S tr a te g ie s :
Education S u pp ort an d co rrec t
skillfu lly a nd safe ly
T ea ch W ha t
Y ou W a nt M ana gin g the
P ro m pt,
C ue F ER B
prob lem s afely 4
C on s e q ue n c e s
o r pu n is h m e n t
A 1
1
2 3
D e b r ie fi n g
a n d /o r
(if ne e d ed )
p ra c t ic e
NOTIFICATION OF BEHAVIOR PLAN
Student Name
Teacher(s) or Implementers
Class/Subject/Service Location or Area
Date the attached Behavior Plan was developed
Diagnostic This student’s Behavior Plan is a component of:
Centers An IEP A 504 Plan
California A school’s team pre-referral intervention plan
Department Other
Date of the above plan:
Of This Behavior Plan is a:
Education Behavior Support Plan for Behavior Interfering with Learning of the Student or his/her peers
Positive Behavioral Intervention Plan for Serious Behavior (history of assault, self-injury, serious
property damage, of other pervasive maladaptive behavior)
If for any reason this Behavior Plan cannot be fully implemented, or proves unsuccessful,
please immediately contact the case manager ________________________available
(time/dates)
phone/location for assistance on next steps.
DO NOT DISCONTINUE PROVIDING THE FULL SPECIFIED PLAN COMPONENTS OR
INTERVENTIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC TEAM AUTHORIZATION. (An IEP or 504 plan is a
legally binding document. The attached PBSP component to address necessary behavioral strategies and
supports is a component of this plan.)
Staff distributing this Behavior Support Plan:
This document is necessary to complete the behavior support planning process.
Please sign and return to: Deadline:
tear off
I understand that has a behavior plan. I have received a copy, and explanation of
content. I understand that I am required to refer to and follow this plan. _______________ __ has reviewed my
specific role in following the student’s behavior plan and I understand that further support and assistance on how
to implement and follow this student’s behavior plan is available to me to assure I am implementing the full plan
in my setting as specified. I understand that a new behavior plan team meeting with my participation can/will
occur at any point necessary to help assure the student’s behavioral success if for any reason the currently
specified behavior plan proves unsuccessful. I will contact __________________________,
available:_________________________________. My signature below indicates I have carefully read this
page and am fully aware of all of the above provisions.
Signature:
Title: _________________________________
Date:
Functional Behavioral Assessment Summary*
*A FBA Analysis is required for suspension past 10 days in a school year or when expulsion is being considered.
(An additional Manifestation Determination is required if expulsion is considered)
Student Date(s) of FBA data collection Date of Incident
Staff conducting FBA
Diagnostic Behavior resulting in this FBA
Centers Date of Manifestation Determination IEP meeting (required in addition to FBA if expulsion is considered):
California Behavior frequency: behavior has occurred only one time behavior has occurred on multiple occasions
This behavior has now resulted in: Cumulative suspension beyond 10 days in a school year
Department Recommendation for an involuntary placement change
Of Recommendation for expulsion
Education Analysis of this behavior was based on:
interviews with
observations on at
review of records, consisting of: health discipline other:
Hypothesis of function of this behavior for this student:
Analysis of why this is the probable function:
If unclear, state why:
FBA has identified these current predictors or triggers for this behavior and these consequences the student achieves by
this behavior (antecedent and consequence analysis):
Estimate of need for behavior support: extreme serious moderate needing attention, early stage intervention
monitoring of behavior needed only; no formal behavior plan is deemed necessary at this time.
Rationale:
What factors in the school environment and/or instruction and/or interactions should be altered to prevent the behavior from
reoccurring (which will be presented to IEP team for inclusion in a behavior plan)
Any other recommended additional services to address the problem behavior?
goals & objectives to be developed in IEP (next IEP meeting date and goal area(s))
in-school services for inclusion in IEP: (next IEP date and recommended services)
off-campus agencies and providers to be specified in IEP (next IEP meeting date and agencies/providers to discuss)
services for parents to be discussed at IEP meeting ((recommended services) and IEP meeting date)
other service or communication provision (recommended services or communication exchanges and IEP meeting date)
Recommended environments where a behavior plan should be used (to be presented to IEP team):
1.
Results of FBA
See IEP date for the Behavior Support Plan which will be developed to address behavior analyzed in this Functional
Behavioral Assessment. This plan describes what staff will do to support alternative behavior. If this behavior required an FAA
(California Education Code for serious behavior: assaultive, self-injurious, severe property damage or other pervasive
maladaptive behavior) and a Positive Behavioral Intervention Plan is recommended, see IEP dated for full data analysis
and PBIP or: if no plan is to be developed as established by the IEP team on: (date) , complete the following:
If a behavior support plan is NOT to be developed as a result of this assessment, the IEP team’s final rationale
The IEP team has determined that if a behavior plan is NOT to be developed as a result of this assessment, a
formal behavior support plan will be developed if:
Problem behavior continues or escalates
Date of IEP in which behavioral goals to monitor future behavior will be (or have been) developed:
Manifestation Determination Analysis Summary Sheet
*Attach explanation of differing viewpoints for each person’s position if consensus not reached on any item
Student: Date of Birth: School:
Current Educational Setting (s)
Alleged Behavior Resulting in this Analysis
Diagnostic
Disability of Student
Centers Behavioral features associated with this disability student has shown in the past
California Was there a behavior plan in effect prior to incident? Yes No
If No, would one probably have prevented this behavior? Yes No No Team Consensus
Department Hypothesis as to function of behavior (see attached functional behavioral assessment results)
Of
Education
Placement Appropriateness
IEP team agreed this was the correct placement prior to incident? Yes No No Team Consensus
Comments:
Is the IEP team in agreement now as to correctness of placement? Yes No No Team Consensus
Comments:
Appropriateness of IEP Content
In relation to the behavior subject to disciplinary action:
Was the IEP team in agreement that all necessary behavioral supports and related services to address behavioral
manifestations of this disability were developed, and were being provided prior to the incident?
Yes No No Team Consensus Comments:
Is the IEP team currently in agreement that in relation to the behavior, the IEP was appropriate, with all necessary
behavioral supports and related services being implemented at the time of the incident?
Yes No No Team Consensus Comments:
Presence of a direct and substantial or causative relationship of this behavior and this student’s disability
What are the observable behavioral manifestations of this disability for this student as reported by individuals knowledgeable of both this
disability and this student’s prior associated behavior? Is the current behavior a more severe/intense version of any disability related
behaviors previously exhibited? Yes No No Team Consensus
To determine a direct and substantial or causative relationship of this behavior with the student’s disability, consider discussing:
Did the student’s disability impair understanding the potential impact and outcome of this behavior? Yes No No Team
Consensus Consider previous difficulty in this are. What previous data supports this conclusion?
Did the disability impair the student’s ability to control the behavior? Yes No No Team Consensus
Consider any previous difficulty in this area and data that supports this conclusion:
Literature review. Is there evidence that other students with this disability have an increased risk of performing this behavior?
Describe sources and summarize findings:
Final Team Decision, Recommendations, Next Steps
Proceed with disciplinary proceedings, final conclusion:
behavior subject to disciplinary action is not a manifestation of the disability; the behavior is not directly, substantially or
causatively related to this student’s disability
Resolution procedures needed, IEP team is not in unison as to:
relation of behavior to disability, or IEP appropriateness: correctness of placement, or
IEP appropriateness: necessary supports and services in relation to this behavior were in place.
Resolution Procedure:
IEP Team agrees behavior is a manifestation of the disability, no further disciplinary proceedings shall occur.
Programming recommendations: no change-describe why add behavior plan (see attached)
add other services or supports (see attached) voluntary change in placement (see IEP dated )
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Prizes! Evaluations! Goodbyes!
Of
Education
Diagnostic
Centers
California
Department
Of
Education
Related docs
