And the Two Shall Become One: Marrying Behavior Intervention
Plans and Individualized Education Programs
By Kristin Holst, M.Ed.
from T/TAC Link Lines
November/December 2007
It is no secret that a good marriage requires a supreme act of
balance. Both partners must come together as a whole in order to
function properly. Similarly, in order to be truly effective, it
is important to have a marriage between student’s behavioral
intervention plans (BIPs) and their individualized education programs
(IEPs). Since students are assessed as a whole, it only makes sense
that each student has one comprehensive plan. Thus, it is essential
that educators meld BIPs and IEPs into one document and stop looking
at just parts of the student’s plan.
Educators recognize that academic problems reflect errors in learning
or skill deficits that can be addressed through quality instruction.
The same holds true for behavior problems. Students with academic
skill deficits may require more intense, highly structured, direct
instruction or specially designed instruction based upon ongoing
assessment. Similarly, students with behavior skill deficits may
require more individualized, intensive behavior interventions derived
from the results of a functional behavioral assessment (FBA).
Comprehensive positive behavior support plans include strategies
that address setting events, antecedents, skill deficits, and consequences
(OSEP, n.d.). Teams are typically well versed in designing setting
event interventions, antecedent interventions, and consequence interventions.
However, skill-building strategies, specifically identifying desired
behaviors and teaching replacement behaviors, often pose a greater
challenge and subsequently become the least emphasized of the four
components. In fact, Killu, Weber, Derby, and Barretto (2006) did
a comparison study across 49 states, examining the FBA and BIP resources
developed and disseminated by state education agencies. Only 29%
of the states surveyed provided information to schools on the development
of goals and objectives with specific mastery criteria.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 (IDEA 2004) requires IEP teams to address academic achievement
and functional performance. Functional performance encompasses areas
such as socialization, communication, personal management, self-determination,
and behavior (VDOE, 2005). IEPs should include statements of measurable
annual goals, including academic and functional (behavioral) goals
(20 U.S.C. §1414). The federal regulations also require IEP
teams to design and implement progress monitoring plans for academic
and functional (behavioral) goals. Unfortunately, the data concerning
progress towards academic and functional goals in IEPs and BIPs
are often nonexistent (Etscheidt, 2006).
Despite these mandates, BIPs and IEPs are often viewed as two separate
documents. IEP teams address academic weaknesses through designing
observable, measurable annual goals. These same teams address behavior
skill deficits through BIPs. General statements found on BIPs may
include, “Teach the student to increase on-task behavior during
independent seatwork,” or “Teach the student self-monitoring
skills.” These types of statements do not clearly define what
the instruction looks and sounds like. The plans also often neglect
specifying the individuals responsible for data collection, as well
as the locations, dates, and times of such data collection (Etscheidt,
2006).
What is the simplest way to ensure IEP teams address the instructional
component of the BIP, make the interventions clear to all team members,
and include a progress monitoring component? One option is to create
a seamless document by translating the skill-building strategies
listed in the BIP into measurable annual goals (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Skill Building Strategy
(Listed on the BIP)
|
Measurable Annual Goal for Functional Performance
(Listed on the IEP)
|
| Teach Mary to increase on-task behavior during
independent seatwork. |
By June 2008 when given independent seatwork, Mary will increase
her on-task behavior from 0 minutes to 15 minutes. She will
(a) ask her teacher to clarify directions if necessary, (b)
begin the assignment within 3 minutes, and (c) continue working
on the assignment for 15 minutes with no more than one verbal
prompt at least two times per school day, as documented daily
on a teacher observation log. |
| Teach Steven self-monitoring skills. |
By June 2008 when given a daily self-monitoring checklist,
Steven will document by the end of every class period the number
of times he raised his hand to ask for help when needed and
bring his checklist to his teacher(s) to see if his results
match for five consecutive days documented daily on a teacher
observation log. |
There are many advantages to marrying the IEP and the BIP into
one document. This process gives everyone involved a complete picture
of the whole student and his or her needs. It also leads to focused
and more comprehensive planning for doing what is best for students,
ensuring that appropriate supports are in place for student progress.
As a plan that holds both academic and behavioral (functional) goals
emerges, students, parents, teachers, and administrators will see
the benefit and move from “I might” to “I do.”
References
Etscheidt, S. K. (2006). Progress monitoring: Legal issues and recommendations
for IEP teams. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 56-60.
Killu, K., Weber, K. P., Derby, K. M., & Barretto, A. (2006).
Behavior intervention planning and implementation of positive behavioral
support plans: An examination of states’ adherence to standard
practice. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(4), 195-
200.
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
& Support. (n.d.).
School-wide PBS: Tertiary prevention. Retrieved September 4, 2007,
from http://www.pbis.org/tertiaryPrevention.htm
Virginia Department of Education, (2005). Virginia Department of
Education’s Sample IEP
Form. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/sped/
iep.shtml
|
