The Endrew F.
Decision Re-Defines a “Free Appropriate Public Education" (FAPE) for
Students with Disabilities (Part III of III)
Dear
Colleagues,
Foreword
On March 22nd, the Supreme Court made
history by expanding the depth and breadth of the “free appropriate public
education” (FAPE) mandate in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) for all students with disabilities (SWD).
In their unanimous decision (Endrew
F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017; CLICK HERE
for the entire official decision], the Supreme Court clarified and broadened
the scope of SWD’s special education rights—building on their decision 35
years earlier in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School
District, Westchester County v. Rowley (1982).
When taken together, the Rowley
decision provides districts and schools FAPE-related guidance for SWDs who are
educated in the regular education classroom. The Endrew F.
decision provides FAPE-related guidance when SWDs need their educational
programs largely outside of the regular education classroom—typically in a
special education classroom or setting.
Given the importance of this decision
for all educators, we have devoted three consecutive Blogs to both analyze and
provide guidance—relative to students’ academic and social, emotional, and
behavioral success—as we move ahead.
* In Part I [CLICK HERE for Blog]: We used direct
quotes from the Court’s ruling “tell Endrew’s story”—including why the Court
took this significant case, how it differed from Rowley, and how it increases
the “disability spectrum” relative to IDEA’s FAPE requirement.
* In Part II [CLICK HERE for Blog]: We discussed a
service and support blueprint for academically struggling students and SWDs to
help schools to create academic multi-tiered, “FAPE-proof” system.
* Finally, in this Part III:
We will discuss a service and support blueprint for SWDs (and others) who
exhibit behavioral challenges to help schools create a multi-tiered social,
emotional, behavioral “FAPE-proof” system.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Introduction
As noted above, on March 22nd, the
Supreme Court made history by clarifying and expanding the depth and breadth of
the “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) mandate in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for all students with disabilities
(SWD).
According to an April 4th Education Week article by Christina Samuels and Mark Walsh [CLICK HERE for the entire article], some of the “Key Takeaways” from the Endrew F. decision are the following:
According to an April 4th Education Week article by Christina Samuels and Mark Walsh [CLICK HERE for the entire article], some of the “Key Takeaways” from the Endrew F. decision are the following:
The court rejected a (FAPE) standard adopted by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that an IEP is adequate as long as
it provides a benefit that is “merely more than de minimis.” Roberts said a
student offered an IEP under that standard “can hardly be said to have been
offered an education at all.” He also noted that the IDEA requires an
educational program (that is) “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make
progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” Roberts said.
More specifically: For a child fully
integrated into the regular classroom, an IEP typically should be
“reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance
from grade to grade.”
For a child not fully integrated into the regular classroom
and for whom grade-level advancement is not a reasonable prospect, an IEP must be “appropriately ambitious,” providing
the child the chance to “meet challenging objectives,” the court said.
The opinion rejected an argument put forth on behalf
of Endrew F. that would require schools to provide students with
disabilities the opportunity “to achieve academic success, attain
self-sufficiency, and contribute to society that are substantially equal to the
opportunities afforded children without disabilities.” Roberts said such a
standard was at odds with the court’s analysis in Rowley.
Overall, the Supreme Court ruling
recognized the individual nature of SWDs’ educational needs. That
is, given the 13 disabilities areas covered within IDEA, different students
will have different, and different intensities of, service, support,
instructional, and intervention needs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Comparing and Contrasting Amy
Rowley vs. Endrew F.
The critical background points
relative to the Rowley case are the following:
* Amy Rowley was a student whose
disability involved having a hearing impairment.
* She was making “excellent progress
in school”—“perform[ing] better than the average child in her (general
education) class” and “advancing easily from grade to grade.” Her IEP
provided her with “time each week with a special tutor and a speech therapist”
and a “district propos(al) that Amy’s classroom teacher speak into a wireless
transmitter and that Amy use an FM hearing aid designed to amplify her
teacher’s words. . .”
* The 1982 Supreme Court only
considered “the facts of (this) case before us,” and concluded that the
individualized educational program described above “satisfied the FAPE
requirement”—presumably, because Amy was making progress given the services
provided.
* More specifically, the Court defined
the provision of FAPE for students “receiving instruction in the regular
classroom. . . (T)his would generally require an IEP ‘reasonably calculated to
enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.’”
* Beyond this case, the Supreme
Court did not provide a “test” (or a series of decision rules) that could be
used in future cases to determine the presence of FAPE.
In fact, as noted above, the Court
acknowledged that IDEA requires states to “educate a wide spectrum of children
with disabilities and that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of
the spectrum will differ dramatically from those obtainable by children at the
other end.”
_ _ _ _ _
The notable, functional differences
between Amy Rowley and Endrew F. include the following:
* Endrew has a different disability
than Amy—namely, autism, and the services provided in his IEP were not
addressing his significant social, emotional, and behavioral needs such that he
was not making progress in the regular classroom.
* Endrew’s IEP was not changing over
time—from the District’s perspective because he was “failing to make meaningful
progress toward his aims.” From the Parents’ perspective, Endrew’s lack
of progress indicated that “only a thorough overhaul of the school district’s
approach to Endrew’s behavioral problems could reverse th(is) trend.”
* Endrew’s attendance at a “private
school that specializes in educating children with autism” resulted in
behavioral improvements and “a degree of academic progress”—based on IEPs that
provided him “a behavioral intervention plan that identified Endrew’s most
problematic behaviors and set out particular strategies for addressing them.”
In summary: Endrew was
different than Amy because (a) his disability was largely behaviorally-related
(an area not addressed in the Rowley decision); (b) he was not making
educational progress in the regular classroom (with the services and supports
in his IEP); and (c) he needed more specialized and intensive interventions (in
a substantially different special education placement and program).
_ _ _ _ _
With the Endrew F. ruling in
hand, districts and schools need to review their research-based practices
relative to how they are providing their multi-tiered continuum of services,
supports, instruction, and intervention for different students with different
disabilities and different intensities of need.
In order to do this, an evidence-based
academic instruction and intervention blueprint was described in our last Blog
message [CLICK
HERE, once again, for this Blog]. Below, we will outline a
complementary evidence-based social, emotional, and behavioral instruction
and intervention blueprint.
Using both blueprints, schools and
districts can evaluate their current multi-tiered continua, those elements that
they need to maintain, the gaps that exist, and what steps are needed to close
those gaps.
Critically, in order to provide an
appropriate, differentiated FAPE to all SWDs, schools and districts need these
two blueprints to help guide their IDEA-related prevention, assessment, and
instruction/intervention processes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Multi-Tiered Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Model to Provide FAPE to ALL Students
Just as the “ultimate” goal of a
multi-tiered academic system is helping every student to be an
effective and independent learner (at their grade and developmental level).
. .
. . . the “ultimate” goal of a
multi-tiered behavioral system is helping every student to be an
effective self-manager—socially, emotionally, and behaviorally—at their
grade and developmental level.
Said a different way, the ultimate
multi-tiered preschool through high school goal is to teach and motivate all
students to progressively demonstrate the following:
* Accurate and insightful social,
emotional, and behavioral awareness and understanding of themselves and others;
* Flexible and adaptive interpersonal,
social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional
control and coping skills; and
* Effective and independent (over
time) social, emotional, and behavioral skills and interactions across a
variety of typical to challenging to unexpected and intense situations and
circumstances.
_ _ _ _ _
These goals can only be accomplished by
understanding the scientific, psychological foundation—once again—of
social, emotional, and behavioral self-management.
But. . . what many educators
may not fully understand is that this scientific, psychological foundation is the
same foundation needed to prevent and address:
* Virtually all of the social
problems exhibited by students (for example, teasing, taunting, bullying,
and physical aggression;
* Virtually all of the emotional
problems exhibited by students (for example, their reactions to different
life crises or traumas); and/or
* Virtually all of the behavioral
problems exhibited by students (e.g., their disobedience, disruptions,
disrespect, and defiance).
_ _ _ _ _
Moreover, in the context of a
multi-tiered system, these goals can only be accomplished by organizing the
social, emotional, and behavioral instruction needed to teach and motivate all
students—and the additional strategies, services, and supports needed by
challenging students—along a prevention, strategic intervention, and
intensive need/crisis management continuum.
Thus, for the students demonstrating
mild to extreme socially, emotionally, or behaviorally inappropriate behaviors,
reactions, or interactions, the multi-tiered approach must include (a)
strategic or intensive strategies, services, supports, and/or interventions that
decrease or eliminate the challenges; with (b) concurrent or complementary
approaches that replace the challenges with expected, appropriate,
prosocial, and self-managing behaviors.
Below, we will first discuss the
psychological science underlying students’ social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management.
Then, we will discuss the prevention,
strategic intervention, and intensive need/crisis management continuum.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Scientific Components of
Self-Management Introduced
There are five interdependent
components (see figure below) that “anchor” the underlying science of social,
emotional, and behavioral self-management:
* Positive Relationships and
School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
From: Knoff, H.M. (2014). School Discipline,
Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral
Support Implementation Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
CLICK HERE for more information.
Unfortunately, as noted above, some
educators (largely because they are trained in education, not psychology) may
not know or fully understand these components—and how they interact.
And so, in their quest for solutions
to address a wide range of social, emotional, and/or behavioral issues and
problems, these same educators too often introduce “programs” or “frameworks”
into their schools and classrooms that are endorsed, advocated, or marketed by
others (including the U.S. and some state Departments of Education, some
“trusted” publishers, and some notable “thought leaders”) that . . .
Do not focus on social, emotional,
and behavioral awareness, skills, competence, and self-management as their
primary outcomes;
Do not have the necessary
scientific, psychological foundations, or integrate all five of the
interdependent components;
Do not correctly translate the
science into evidence-based practices;
Have not been field-tested in a
wide variety of representative settings, situations, and circumstances; and
Have not been independently
evaluated using objective multi-assessment, multi-setting, multi-trait,
multi-respondent tools and approaches.
_ _ _ _ _
At other times, these educators
introduce and implement “niche” programs in an attempt to address one
significant problem—with the hope that the program will (magically) generalize
to other problems.
Some of these niche programs are being
advocated or marketed across the country in such areas as:
* Cultural Competence
* Character Education
* Poverty Awareness
* Character Education
* Poverty Awareness
* Social-Emotional Learning
* Trauma Sensitivity
* Mindfulness
* Trauma Sensitivity
* Mindfulness
* Restorative Justice
* Teasing and Bullying Programs
* Teasing and Bullying Programs
And this is not to say that these
areas or concerns are not legitimate.
This IS to say that all of
these strategies, programs, or frameworks will not be successful
unless (a) they integrate the five components above; and (b) have been (also as
above) effectively, objectively, and successfully designed, field-tested,
evaluated, and scaled-up.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Scientific Components of
Self-Management Described
In the broader context of school
discipline and classroom management, the five interdependent components that
comprise the scientific, psychological foundation to students’ social,
emotional, and behavioral self-management are briefly described below.
These components have been
field-tested and validated in thousands of schools across the country over a
35+ year period. . . but most important, they have been validated as part of Project
ACHIEVE’s Positive Behavioral Support System (PBSS) and multi-tiered system
of services and supports (www.projectachieve.net).
This is significant because Project
ACHIEVE was designated an evidence-based model in these areas by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) in 2000; and it was listed on the National
Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) because of this
designation.
As an “advanced organizer” to the
descriptions, below is a brief, ten-minute YouTube presentation that overviews
these components and how they positively impacted schools across Arkansas as
part of a multi-year, state-wide scale-up federal grant.
Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
Effective schools work consciously,
planfully, and on an on-going basis to develop, reinforce, and sustain positive
and productive relationships so that their cross-school and in-classroom
climates mirror these relationships.
Critically, however, these
relationships include the following: Students to Students, Students to
Staff, Staff to Staff, Students to Parents, and Staff to Parents.
And functionally, they involve
training and reinforcement. For example, students need to learn the
social and interactional skills that build positive relationships with others,
and the peer group must “buy into” the process.
Similarly, teachers need to recognize
the importance of committing to effective communication, collaboration, and
collegial consultation. But, they also need to have the skills to
accomplish these. . . in good times and bad.
All of this generalizes to
self-management. When students have good social, emotional, and
behavioral self-management skills, they rarely demonstrate them in negative,
aversive, or toxic environments.
When they don’t have these skills, the
absence of positive relationships and school/classroom climates often impede
the instruction, their learning, or their motivation to learn.
_ _ _ _ _
Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skills
Instruction
Students—from preschool through high
school—need to know the explicit social, emotional, and behavioral expectations
in the classrooms and across the common areas of the school. These
expectations need to be communicated in a prosocial way as “what they need to
do,” rather than in a negative, deficit-focused way as “what they do not
need to do.”
Indeed, teachers and administrators
have more success teaching students to (a) walk down the hallway, rather than
do not run; (b) raise your hand and wait to be called on, rather than don’t
blurt out answers; (c) accept a consequence, rather than don’t roll your eyes
and give me attitude.
In addition, these expectations need
to be behaviorally specific—that is, we need to describe exactly what we want
the students to do (e.g., in the hallways, bathrooms, cafeteria, and on the
bus).
Moreover, it is not instructionally
helpful to talk in constructs—telling students that they need to be
“Respectful, Responsible, Polite, Safe, and Trustworthy.” This is because
each of these constructs involve a wide range of behaviors. At the
elementary school level, students really do not functionally or behaviorally
understand these higher-ordered thinking constructs. At the secondary
level, students may interpret these constructs (and their many inherent
behaviors) differently than staff.
And it is the behaviors that we need
to teach . . . so that students can fully demonstrate the global constructs that we
want.
In the final analysis, however:
You can’t teach a behavioral construct. You need to teach the behaviors
that are represented within each construct that you want your students to
demonstrate.
Thus, beyond specifying the social,
emotional, and behavioral expectations in a school or classroom, these social,
emotional, and behavioral skills must be taught as part of classroom
management.
In fact, these skills are taught the
same way that we teach a football team their offensive or defensive schemes and
plays, an orchestra its music and movements, a drama club and actors a play’s
scenes and lines, or a student how to break-down and learn a specific academic
task.
And, the teaching methodology that
needs to be used involved social learning theory. Explicitly, we
need to teach the skills and their steps, to demonstrate them, to give students
opportunities to practice them and receive feedback, and then to help students
to apply their new skills to “real-world” situations.
Relative to self-management and this
component, we need to communicate our social, emotional, and behavioral
expectations to students, and then teach them to perform them—in different
settings, with different people, in different contexts, and under different
conditions of emotionality. Functionally, this means that our schools
need to consciously and explicitly set aside time for social skills
instruction, and then embed the application of this instruction into their
classrooms and group activities, and (for example) cooperative and
project-based instruction.
_ _ _ _ _
Student Motivation and Accountability
For the skill instruction described
above to “work,” students need to be held accountable for demonstrating
positive and effective social, emotional, and behavioral skills. But to
accomplish this, students need to be motivated (eventually, self-motivated) to
perform these skills.
Motivation is based on two
component parts: Incentives and Consequences. But critically,
these incentives and consequences must be meaningful and powerful to the
students (not just to the adults in a school).
Too often, schools create
“motivational programs” for students that involve incentives and consequences
that the students couldn’t care less about. Thus, it looks good “on
paper,” but it holds no weight in actuality—from the students’
perspectives.
At other times, schools forget that
they need to recognize, engage, and activate the peer group in a motivational
program. This is because, at times, the peer group actually is
undermining a positive behavioral program by negatively reinforcing specific
students (on the playground, after school, on social media). These
students then “behave” appropriately only when they are interacting one-on-one
with adults (i.e., in the absence of the “negative” peer group), and they
behave inappropriately with adults in the presence of the peer group—to avoid
later (on the playground, after school, etc.) peer disapproval, rejection, or
aggression.
On a functional level, both incentives
and consequences result in positive and prosocial behavior. The
incentives motivate students toward the expected behaviors, and the
consequences motivate students away from the inappropriate behaviors (and,
again, toward the expected ones).
But critically, educators need to
understand that you can only create motivating conditions. That is, we
can’t force students to meet the social, emotional, and behavioral
expectations. Indeed, when we force students to do anything, we are
managing their behavior, not facilitating self-management. And while we
have to do some adult management to get to student self-management. . . if we
only manage students’ behavior, then they will not (know how to) self-manage
when the adults are not present.
Ultimately, relative to this
component, the goal is self-motivation and self-accountability.
When this occurs, we have a high probability of comprehensive student
self-management.
_ _ _ _ _
Consistency
Consistency is a process. It
would be great if we could “download” it into all students and staff. . . or
put it in their annual flu shots. . . but that’s not going to happen.
Consistency needs to be “grown”
experientially over time and, even then, it needs to be sustained in an ongoing
way. It is grown through effective strategic planning with explicit
implementation plans, good communication and collaboration, sound
implementation and evaluation, and consensus-building coupled with constructive
feedback and change.
It’s not easy. . . but it is necessary
for school success.
But relative to school discipline,
classroom management, and student self-management, consistency must occur all
four of the other interdependent components.
That is, in order to be successful,
staff (and students) need to (a) demonstrate consistent prosocial relationships
and interactions—resulting in consistently positive and productive school and
classroom environments; (b) communicate consistent behavioral expectations, while
consistently teaching and practicing them; (c) use consistent incentives and
consequences, while holding student consistently accountable for their
appropriate behavior; and then (d) apply all of these components consistently
across all of the settings, circumstances, and peer groups in the school.
Moreover, consistency occurs when
staff are consistent (a) with individual students, (b) across different
students, (c) within their grade levels or instructional teams, (d) across
time, (e) across settings, and (f) across situations and circumstances.
Critically, when staff are
inconsistent, students feel that they are treated unfairly, they sometimes
behave differently for different staff or in different settings, they can
become manipulative—pitting one staff person against another, and they often
emotionally react—some students getting angry with the inconsistency, and
others simply withdrawing because they feel powerless to change it.
Said a different way:
Inconsistency undercuts student accountability, and you don’t get the
consistent social, emotional, or behavioral self-management that you want in
class or across the school.
A football coach, orchestra conductor,
drama director, or classroom teacher (academically) would never teach, practice,
or reinforce their “skills” inconsistently. Neither should those
responsible for the social, emotional, and behavioral program (which
necessarily involves everyone) in a school.
_ _ _ _ _
Implementation and Application Across All Settings
and All Peer Groups
The last component of the school
discipline, classroom management, and student self-management model focuses on
the application of the previous four components to all of the settings,
situations, circumstances, and peer/adult interactions in the school.
Relative to the first area, it is
important to understand that the common areas of a school are more complex and
dynamic than the classroom settings. Indeed, in the hallways, bathrooms,
buses, cafeteria, and on the playground (or playing fields), there typically
are more multi-aged or cross-grade students, more and varied social
interactions, more space or fewer physical limitations, fewer staff and
supervisors, and different social demands.
As such, the positive student social,
emotional, and behavioral interactions that may occur more easily in the
classroom often are more taxed in the common school areas.
Accordingly, students need to be
taught how to demonstrate their interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict
prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills in each common school
area. Moreover, the training needs to be tailored to the social demands
and expectations of these settings.
Relative to the latter area, and as
above, it is important to understand that the peer group is often a more
dominant social and emotional “force” than the adults in a school. As
such, the school’s approaches to student self-management must be consciously
generalized and applied (relative to climate, relationships, expectations,
skill instruction, motivation, and accountability) to help prevent peer-to-peer
teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, hazing, and physical aggression.
This is done by involving the
different peer groups in a school in group “prevention and early response”
training, and motivating them—across the entire school—to take the lead
relative to prosocial interactions.
Truly, the more the peer group can be
trained, motivated, and reinforced to do “the heavy prosocial lifting,” the
more successful the staff and the school will be relative to positive school
climate and consistently safe schools. And, the more successful students
will be relative to social, emotional, and behavioral self-management.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Multi-Tiered Prevention,
Strategic Intervention, and Intensive Need/Crisis Management Continuum
As discussed in the introductory
sections of this Blog, all students will not learn, master, or be able to apply
their social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills unless the
five scientific, psychological components are implemented across a multi-tiered
prevention, strategic intervention, and intensive need/crisis management
continuum.
For the students demonstrating mild to
extreme socially, emotionally, or behaviorally inappropriate behaviors,
reactions, or interactions, the multi-tiered approach must include (a)
strategic or intensive strategies, services, supports, and/or interventions that
decrease or eliminate the challenges; with (b) concurrent or complementary
approaches that replace the challenges with expected, appropriate,
prosocial, and self-managing behaviors.
_ _ _ _ _
In past Blogs, I have discussed how
the “new” Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) encourages
states, districts, and schools to re-think their multi-tiered approaches so
that they best address the needs of their respective students.
I have also cautioned—if not
criticized—the U.S. Department of Education’s (and, hence, many state
departments of education) untested, flawed, and unsuccessful MTSS and PBIS
approaches (based on federal reports investigating many states and settings
across the country).
Critically, embedded in my criticism
is the fact that there are no federal education laws that require
the U.S. Department of Education’s MTSS or PBIS frameworks, and that
many districts and schools have been misled regarding this fact.
As proof: when these
terms appear in federal law (largely ESEA and IDEA), they appear generically in
LOWER CASE terms, and WITHOUT ACRONYMS.
And yet, the U.S. Department of
Education (primarily through its various federally-funded National Technical
Assistance Centers) have either misquoted the law, or allowed educators to
confuse the lower case terms in federal law with their UPPER CASE use of the
terms—often in the names of the TA Centers themselves.
For those interested in these past
discussions, you can read the following past BLOGS:
CLICK
HERE ESEA/ESSA Tells Schools and Districts: Build Your Own
Multi-Tier System of Supports for Your Students’ Needs (January, 2017)
CLICK
HERE Rethinking School Improvement and Success, Staff
Development and Accountability, and Students' Academic and Behavioral
Proficiency (July, 2016)
CLICK HERE The New ESEA/ESSA:
Discontinuing the U.S. Department of Education’s School Turn-Around, and
Multi-tiered Academic (RtI) and Behavioral (PBIS) System of Support (MTSS)
Frameworks (March, 2016)
CLICK
HERE Your State’s Guide to RtI Just Doesn’t Make Sense
(February, 2015)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Brief Description of the Prevention, Strategic Intervention, and Intensive Need/Crisis Management Tiers
Right from the beginning, it is
important to emphasize that the Tiers should not be defined or organized by:
percentages of students, places where services are delivered, who is
responsible to deliver specific services, or when certain student assessments
should be conducted.
In fact, it is easiest to define the
Tiers as existing along a continuum reflecting the intensity of
services, supports, strategies, and interventions that specific students need in
a specific goal-oriented academic and/or social, emotional, behavioral area.
Thus, there are not “Tier II”
students. Instead, there are students who need “Tier II” services,
supports, strategies, or interventions—for example, to help them with emotional
self-control, or academic motivation, or to increase their conflict prevention
and resolution skills.
Significantly, the designation of a
service, support, strategy, or intervention into a particular Tier is somewhat
relative across schools and districts. For example, the same intervention
may be considered a Tier I, II, or III support based on such factors as the
level of staff training and expertise, the presence of on-site versus off-site
intervention staff, or the presence or absence of intervention technology.
Thus, what is a “Tier II” intervention
in a well-resourced school or district might be a “Tier III” intervention in a
lesser-resourced school or district.
All of this is reinforced by
ESEA—which defines a "multi-tier system of supports" (NOTE the
lower case language) as:
"a comprehensive continuum
of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students'
needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional
decision-making."
NOTE that ESEA does not require any
number of Tiers, and the practices are in response to a specific student’s
needs.
_ _ _ _ _
In general, the Prevention Tier
of a multi-tiered continuum involves academic and social, emotional, and
behavioral instruction and interventions that occur in the general education
classroom, involving the general education curriculum, largely directed by the
general education teachers.
While some students may be receiving
Tier II or Tier III services or supports to help them succeed in the general
education curriculum, some of the “typical” components within Tier I are shown
in the figure below.
From: Knoff, H.M. (2014). School Discipline,
Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral
Support Implementation Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
CLICK
HERE for more information.
In general, the Strategic
Intervention Tier of a multi-tiered continuum
is needed when students do not respond to the preventative approaches or
strategies being implemented across the five scientific components discussed
earlier in this Blog.
At this Strategic level,
data-based functional social, emotional, or behavioral assessments need to be
conducted to determine the underlying reasons for a student’s significant
non-responding, negatively responding, or inappropriately responding
behavior. The results of these assessments then are linked to strategic
social, emotional, or behavioral instruction or intervention approaches.
These approaches are implemented to the greatest degree possible in the general
education classroom by the general education teacher with consultative support
from related service or other intervention specialists.
As one part of the
functional assessment, Project ACHIEVE differentiates among the “Seven High-Hit
Reasons” for students’ significantly challenging behavior. These High-Hit
Reasons include the following:
Reason #1: The Student
has never learned, mastered, or can/is not applying the expected behavior
(Skill Deficit)
Reason #2: The Student is
learning social, emotional, and behavioral skills, but at a slower rate than
his/her peers (Speed of Acquisition)
Reason #3: The Student
can demonstrate the appropriate behavior in one setting, but not all settings
(Transfer of Training/Generalization)
Reason #4: The Student
can demonstrate the appropriate behavior when things are “calm,” but not when
“agitated” (Conditions of Emotionality)
Reason #5: The Student
can demonstrate the behavior, but is choosing not to (Motivation/Performance
Deficit)
Reason #6: There has been
inconsistent conditions, instruction, motivation, or accountability that has
resulted in inconsistent student behavior (Inconsistency)
Reason #7: There is some
“Special Situation” (e.g., a traumatic event or situation) in a school setting,
involving the student’s peer group, or in the home or community that has/is
significantly affecting the student’s behavior (Special Situation)
This functional behavioral assessment
approach is far more comprehensive than the FBA approaches used in most
districts. In fact, the “traditional” FBA approach has not changed in
over 25 years—despite new research that has extended the possible reasons
underlying student (mis)behavior.
Regardless, there are an extensive
number of possible social, emotional, and behavioral interventions that are
matched to the Seven High-Hit Reasons underlying many students’ behavior.
Some of these are identified in the figure below.
From: Knoff, H.M. (2014). School Discipline,
Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral
Support Implementation Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
CLICK
HERE for more information.
Finally, the Intensive
Need/Crisis Management Tier of a multi-tiered continuum is needed when students are chronically non-responsive to
effectively-implemented interventions, or when their social, emotional, or
behavioral challenges are significant, extreme, or at a crisis level.
Critically, students do
not need to experience Tier I and/or Tier II services, supports,
strategies, or interventions in order to “qualify” for Tier III services.
Indeed. . . . if you need to go to the emergency room, you go to the emergency
room. You do not have to “try” specific medical procedures or
interventions for a specific amount of time—and have these interventions
“fail”—in order to have the emergency room door “swing open.”
Thus, if a student needs
what a school or district considers a Tier III service, the student gets that
service.
Because the multi-tiered
system of supports is more about the intensity of services, supports,
strategies, and interventions than anything else, many Tier III interventions
are actually Tier II interventions that are simply implemented with more
intensity (e.g., more frequency, more individualized, more consultative complexity
or expertise, etc.).
However, as represented in
the figure below, some more clinically-oriented psychological interventions can
occur at Tier III—interventions that are typically only provided by
clinically-trained school psychologists, clinical psychologists, or other
licensed mental health therapists.
From: Knoff, H.M. (2014). School Discipline,
Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral
Support Implementation Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
CLICK
HERE for more information.
Critical Points
While there is a sequential nature to
the multi-tiered social, emotional, and behavioral/Positive Behavioral Support
System (PBSS) continuum, it is a strategic and fluid—not a
lock-step—blueprint. That is, the supports and services are utilized
based on students’ needs, as well as the intensity of those needs.
Critically, many students with complex
needs will receive different supports or services on the PBSS continuum
simultaneously—and, they also might be receiving supports or services on the
academic PASS continuum (see Part II of this Blog series).
Thus, consistent with the Rowley and
Endrew F. decisions, all PBSS services, supports, strategies, and programs are
strategically delivered to individual students with individually assessed
needs. And while it is most advantageous to have the general education
teacher deliver needed supports and services in the general education classroom
(i.e., the least restrictive environment), other intervention options might
include pull-in services (e.g., by special education teachers, counselors,
school psychologists, school social worker coming into a general education
classroom), short-term pull-out services (e.g., by these same related services
personnel), or more intensive pull-out services (e.g., to include school-based
or school-linked psychologists or other therapists).
With a conscious eye to FAPE—relative
to Students with Disabilities (SWD), these staff and setting decisions are
based on the intensity of students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs;
their response to previous intervention services and supports; the seriousness
of the problem at-hand; and the level and intensity of intervention expertise
needed.
Summary
Ultimately, the goal of the
multi-tiered PBSS continuum is to provide students with early, intensive, and
successful services and supports that are identified through a functional
assessment/problem-solving process, and implemented with integrity and needed
intensity. For the more strategic and intensive strategies and interventions
in the continuum, the results of the functional assessments are linked directly
to the interventions. This selection and implementation process helps to
ensure FAPE.
_ _ _ _ _
Returning back to Endrew F.:
As an expansion of Rowley, the Endrew F. decision helps us understand
some basic principles relative to the delivery of FAPE to SWDs:
1. The Supreme Court stated, “The
goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging
objectives. Of course, this describes a general standard, not a formula.
But whatever else can be said about it, this standard is markedly more
demanding than the “merely more than de minimis” test applied by the Tenth
Circuit.”
_ _ _ _ _
2. FAPE must be determined in the
context of how a student’s disability impacts the services and supports needed
in an IEP (“in light of a child’s circumstances”).
_ _ _ _ _
3. SWDs are not guaranteed to make
educational progress.
_ _ _ _ _
4. Having considered only two cases,
involving two different disabilities (of the 13 specified in IDEA), and two
different intensity levels of individualized educational need, the Court does
not believe it appropriate (or even possible) to identify set decision rules
relative to a district’s provision of FAPE.
_ _ _ _ _
5. The Court noted its “deference” to
the expertise and judgement of the professionals in a school district—albeit in
a partnership with the Parents—when writing an IEP, and it “vests these
officials with responsibility for decisions of critical importance to the life
of a disabled child.”
_ _ _ _ _
6. Finally, the Court stated that
IDEA’s provision of FAPE did not include “an education that aims to provide a
child with a disability opportunities to achieve academic success, attain
self-sufficiency, and contribute to society that are substantially equal to the
opportunities afforded children without disabilities.”
_ _ _ _ _
Conclusion
As you “journey” toward the end of
this school year, I hope this overview of the multi-tiered social, emotional,
and behavioral (PBSS) continuum, and its connection to the Supreme Court’s Endrew
F. FAPE decision, has provided a blueprint to help you to evaluate,
validate, and/or change your current district or school approaches to SWDs (and
others) exhibiting challenges in these areas.
I also hope that the first two
Blogs also have provided an understanding of the Supreme Court decision
itself (Part I), and how the decision relates to students with academic
intervention needs (Part II).
Relative to the social, emotional, and
behavioral area, know that I have written much more extensively in my recent
Corwin Press book:
School Discipline, Classroom Management, and
Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral Support Implementation
Guide.
CLICK HERE for more information.
If you are interested in this book, I
am happy to provide the 100+ page Study Guide to this book FOR FREE.
All you have to do is to e-mail
me
( knoffprojectachieve@earthlink.net ), and request
the Guide.
_ _ _ _ _
Meanwhile, I always look forward to
your comments... whether on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you in any area of the
multi-tiered school and schooling process, I am always happy to provide a
free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify your needs
and directions on behalf of your students.
I am also happy to come to your school
or district to guide a “more personalized” and individually-tailored
implementation. I am currently working with 15 or more school
districts—all over the country and abroad.
Best,
Howie
No comments:
Post a Comment