ABSTRACT: A comprehensive search identified 31 state statutes and regulations specific to functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) in the special education context. A systematic tabulation of the state law provisions that exceed the rather narrow foundation requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) revealed that most of these additions were of notably limited scope and specificity, with California being the leading exception. For example, contrary to recommendations in the special education literature, neither the IDEA nor any state special education law requires both a FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others. As another example, only 77 state laws provided definitions of FBAs and/or BIPs, and the vast majority of these definitions merely mentioned some of the key elements in the special education literature, such as "function" for FBAs or "interventions" for BIPs. The discussion explores the disparity between the professional literature and the legal requirements, suggesting the need for more scholarship to recognize and address this differentiation.
* The special education literature on functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs) is replete with rhetoric, research, and increasingly more detailed practical sources, and the legal literature specific to FBAs and BIPs focuses on the applicable case law. However, both of these overlapping literatures lack a systematic analysis of the pertinent provisions in state special education laws that provide more rigorous requirements than the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for school district policies and practices.
Special Education Foundation
An FBA is a systematic process of identifying the purpose, and more specifically the function, of problem behaviors by investigating the preexisting environmental factors that have served the purpose of these behaviors (e.g., Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Steege & Watson, 2008). Based on this foundation, a BIP is a concrete plan of action for reducing the problem behaviors as dictated by the particular needs of the student who exhibits the behavior (e.g., Sugai et al., 2000; Turnbull, Wilcox, Stow, Raper, & Hedges, 2000).
Based on foundational research that suggested a relationship between problem behaviors and environmental conditions, such as amount of attention and difficulty of instruction (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982), various studies have applied the FBA/BIP procedure to a wide range of student populations, target behaviors, and educational environments (e.g., Kennedy, Meyer, Knowles, & Shukla, 2000; Pelios, Morren, Tesch, & Axelrod, 1999). Further, in response to calls for wider use in schools (e.g., Cable & Hendrickson, 2005; Quinn, Gable, Fox, Van Acker, & Conroy, 2001), research efforts are in progress to refine the FBA/BIP procedure for more practical applicability in the school setting (Fox & Davis, 2005; Steege & Watson, 2008).
In addition to broad and not entirely current overviews of the applicable framework in the legislation and regulations of the IDEA (e.g., Osborne & Russo, 2009), the pertinent legal analyses to date have focused on the case law, specifically hearing and review officer decisions concerning FBAs (Drasgow & Yell, 2001) or both hearing/review officer and court decisions concerning BIPs (Etscheidt, 2006; Maag & Katsiyannis, 2006). Although providing useful recommendations for practice based on these case samplings, none of these analyses focused on the differentiation between the IDEA and state law requirements for FBAs and BIPs.
The only reports of official state activity specific to FBAs and BIPs did not specifically and directly examine state laws. An …