Dealing Positively with
Antisocial Behaviors
Presented by:
Daniel R. Martin
2
3
Taken from the November 1989 Issue of Principal, Vol. 69, No. 2
4
Authority to Control Conduct

School authorities "have both the inherent
and the statutory power to maintain order and
discipline in the schools and to exclude from
the student body those who are detrimental
to such body and whose conduct is inimical
to the exercise of the institution’s scholastic
function."

See Davis v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, 313
F.Supp. 1217 (ED Mich, 1970).
5
Authority to Control Conduct

Revised School Code

Educate pupils and provide for their safety
and welfare


MCL 380.11a(3)
Adopt and enforce code of student conduct

MCL 380.1312(8)
6
Limitations on Control

“Vigilant protection of constitutional freedom
is nowhere more vital than in the community
of American schools.”


Keyishian v Board of Regents, 385 US 589 (1967)
“It hardly can be argued that either students
or teachers shed their constitutional right[s] . .
. at the school house gates.”

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Com. Sch. Dist.,
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
7
Limitations on Disciplinary Authority

Constitutional Limits

First Amendment


Fourth Amendment


Speech / Press / Religion
Search & Seizure
Due Process
Limitations on Disciplinary Authority

Statutory Limits

IDEA

Change of Placement / Manifestation
Determination

FBA/BIP

Modified FAPE

Corporal Punishment

Seclusion and Restraint
Zero Tolerance Policies


Mandatory Permanent Expulsions

Dangerous Weapons

Arson

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Physical Assault on School Personnel
Mandatory Suspension or Expulsion

Verbal Assault on School Personnel

Bomb Threats
10
11
State Board of Education

Researchers have found no evidence that zero
tolerance policies make schools safer or
improve student behavior.

Studies suggest that overuse of suspensions
and expulsions may actually increase likelihood
of later criminal misconduct.

Students subject to suspension and expulsion
are isolated from learning environments.
12
State Board of Education

Review existing zero-tolerance policies that are
above and beyond those required in law

Limit number of offenses mandating suspension
and referral to law enforcement


directly related to safety of students and personnel
Reserve removing a child from an educational
opportunity for the most serious infractions

not used as discipline for minor occurrences
13
State Board of Education

Implement or expand use of proven alternative
behavior management strategies that allow
educators to address disciplinary matters
correctively, rather than punitively, reducing
suspensions

restorative practices,

positive behavior supports, and

peer mediation
14
15
16
Positive Behavior Supports FBAs & BIPs
Everyone Counts!
Including those who engage
in antisocial behaviors.
State Policy

Every district must
implement system
of school-wide
positive behavior
support strategies
18
MDE PBS Policy & Guidance
“A ... data-based effort that
concentrates on adjusting the
system that supports the
student. Such a system is
implemented by collaborative,
school-based teams using
person-centered planning.”

Implementation Guide 2008
19
School Wide PBS: 3-Tiered Model
20
IDEA Reqts – Proactive / IEP

If child’s behavior interferes with his/her
learning or learning of others, then as part of
the development of IEP the IEP Team must

consider use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports and other
strategies to address that behavior

20 USC §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)

34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)
21
IDEA Reqts – Reactive / Discipline

As part of discipline process, when
misconduct is determined a manifestation of
student’s disability, IEP Team must either

If no FBA or BIP, conduct FBA and implement
BIP; or

If the student has a BIP, review and modify it
as necessary to address behavior

§1415(k)(1)(F)(i)

34 CFR § 300.530(f)(1)
22
IDEA Reqts – Reactive / Discipline

Student must receive “as appropriate” an
FBA, BIS and “modifications” designed to
address behavior violation so it does not recur

When suspended in excess of 10
consecutive school days, or

When placed in an IAES

20 USC §1415(k)(1)(D)(ii)

34 CFR § 300.530(d)(ii)

See Q&A on Discipline – Q E-2
23
MDE Discipline Procedures

If manifestation, then:


If not a manifestation, then


Immediately initiate FBA/BIP process
or review an existing FBA/BIP to
address the behavior
Immediately initiate, as appropriate, an FBA and
behavioral intervention services and modifications
designed to address the behavior violation so that it
does not recur, or review an existing FBA/BIP to
address the behavior
See, MDE Discipline Procedures 2011, p. 8
24
MDE Discipline Procedures

Districts must document their
process for determining whether
a BIP or other behavioral
intervention services or
modifications are appropriate

MDE recommends using FBA
process as documentation of
meeting this requirement
25
Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

Generally, an acceptable FBA:

Defines target behavior

Establishes baseline of behavior frequency

Collects information regarding antecedents

Collects information regarding consequences* of
the behavior for the child

Not punishment, but what student gets from behavior
26
Functional Behavioral Assessments

Key to an appropriate FBA is data



Documentation and data collection are becoming
increasingly focused upon in due process hearings
“ABC” data and documentation of interventions must
be collected across environments (regular education,
special education and other “educational settings”)
depending on where the behavior is exhibited
Analysis of data is key to preparing an appropriate
BIP

Graph the data and the effects of interventions
27
When to Perform FBA

In most cases where child’s behavior impedes the
learning of self or others and can be readily
anticipated to be repetitive, development of IEP
will include development of strategies to address
that behavior

Danielle G. v New York City BOE, 50 IDELR 247 (ED NY,
2008)


ASD student’s self stimulatory behavior required FBA because
it interfered with her learning
See also, Mobile County Board of Ed, 50 IDELR 84 (SEA
Al., 2007)
28
When does one perform an FBA?

When implementing PBS & devising or revising BIPs



school wide or individual
For individual students, you need not conduct FBA or
implement BIP when:

behavior no different than typical student for that grade

behavior is not repetitive
Regulatory Rule of Thumb:

where behavior impedes learning of the student or of others,
and

behavior is repetitive or readily anticipated to be repetitive
29
How Do PBS Relate to BIPs?

PBS in the proactive IEP may constitute BIP in
reactive/discipline context

Functional behavior assessment is the foundation
for both PBS and BIP

P in PBS does not preclude use of negative
consequences

BIPs should contain positive components

Existence of BIP referenced in IEP

In certain situations MDE requires the BIP to be “in” the IEP
30
Who performs the FBA?

IDEA does not require any particular person or
any particular qualifications (e.g., a board
certified behavior analyst)

Staff who perform FBAs must be prepared and
provided adequate training

Such training, provided by the school district
working with the state department of ed, may be
in-services, technical assistance, etc.

Letter to Janssen, 108 LRP 65830 (OSEP 2008)
31
Who performs the FBA?

State guidance document on Implementing
PBS recommends a team, including:

Student’s teacher

Parents

Student

Support staff

Administrators

Outside providers
32
Consent for FBA

Letter to Christiansen, 47 IDELR 161 (OSEP
2007)

FBA may be an evaluation which requires
consent if it is used to determine whether a child
has a disability, or the extent of special education
or related services

No consent required if used for school wide PBS
33
Independent Educational Evaluations

Harris v District of Columbia Public Schools, 50
IDELR 194 (DC, 2008)



FBA is an “educational evaluation”

“Evaluation” is a procedure to determine the specialized
instruction or related services a student needs

Integral in determining the behavioral needs of the
student
Parent is entitled to IEE if they disagree with an
evaluation obtained by the school
Since FBA is an “evaluation” parent is entitled to
an IEE on the FBA if disagree
34
Steps in Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs)

Consider assessment information


Make hypothesis regarding behavior
Devise BIP

Target and replacement behaviors

Environmental supports

Train Staff

Collect Data

Review & Revise BIP as necessary
35
BIP Content


More than one way to devise a BIP

IEP itself could lay out elements of positive behavior
support that could constitute a BIP

Separate written document may set forth positive supports,
replacement behaviors to be taught, intervention strategies
and response strategies
PBS and BIPs are process as well as product

Good implementation requires good documentation

Data tells you when to review and revise
36
BIP Content

Generally, if district followed process and
implemented a BIP, Courts will not second
guess the content / strategies of the BIP

Alex R. v Forrestville Valley Community School
Unit, 41 IDELR 146 (7th Cir., 2004)

Neither Congress nor US Department of Ed created any
specific substantive requirements for the BIP

As long as BIP reasonable (i.e., reasonably calculated)
a court will not create substantive requirements for BIP
37
Elements of a BIP

Identify Target Behavior

Identify Replacement Behaviors

Identify Strategies

Environmental modifications/accommodations

Proactive interventions/redirection

Identify Rewards

Identify Consequences
38
BIP in a Separate Written Document?

School Bd of Independent School District No. 11, 106
LRP 15941 (8th Cir., 2006)

Held neither state nor federal law required the
behavior plan to be in writing

The District staff had documented interventions

District staff responded to behavioral incidents
with set procedures

Student made progress
39
BIP in the IEP

Neither the IDEA nor its implementing
regulations require the BIP to be in the IEP


While a district may choose to do so, it is not
required under IDEA or Part B regs

Letter to Huefner, 23 IDELR 1072 (OSEP 1995).

However, best practice includes developing, reviewing,
implementing and documenting a BIP as part of the IEP
process
Compare MDE Discipline Manual

To exclude the removal as a count day, removal
must be in BIP and BIP must be in IEP
40
MDE Discipline Procedures

II.G. Removal Part of Behavior Plan
1. If a removal from school is written into a
behavior plan that is part of the student’s
IEP …, the removal does not count as
days of removal for disciplinary reasons. However,
those days are counted as suspension for IDEA
reporting purposes in MSDS.
*
*
*
3. When a removal from school is written into a behavior
plan that is not part of the student’s IEP, the removal
counts toward the days of removal for disciplinary
reasons and the days are counted as suspension for
IDEA reporting purposes in MSDS.
41
MDE Discipline Procedures

For BIP to be considered part of IEP
a. BIP must be explicitly written in the IEP
MDE recommends that BIPs be written in the
Supplementary Aids and Services or Special Factors
section of IEP, and include the time, frequency,
condition, and location for implementation of the BIP
b. The district must convene an IEP or develop an
amendment to change the BIP
c. If removal is part of the BIP, Procedural Safeguards
should be provided to the parent
42
Aversives in the BIP?

Generally, Positive Behavior Supports does
not mean that the BIP may not have negative
consequences

However, the majority of a well designed BIP will
focus on the teaching aspect of behavior
modification

i.e., on teaching replacement behavior, not on the
consequences for the behavior
43
Aversives in the BIP not prohibited

OSEP clarified that IDEA does not expressly
prohibit the use of aversive behavioral
interventions


Letter to Anonymous, 50 IDELR 228 (OSEP
2008)
Must also look to state law, as state law may
establish additional requirements

Letter to Trader, 48 IDELR 47 (OSEP 2006)
44
Seclusion & Restraint Standards

Applies to use of Seclusion or
Restraint with ALL students

Students with and without
disabilities

must be undertaken only by
trained personnel & as a last
resort
45
Prohibited uses

May not be utilized

for the convenience of staff

as a substitute for an educational program

as a form of discipline or punishment

as a substitute for less restrictive alternatives

as a substitute for adequate staffing

as a substitute for staff training in PBS and crisis
prevention and intervention
46
Training

Personnel must have training

Awareness training to “the broader educational
community”

Including “pre-service” training for all teachers

Awareness training for substitute teachers

Comprehensive training for “key identified
personnel”
47
Emergency Exclusion

“Emergency seclusion” is only appropriate
where an emergency exists and seclusion is
essential. Seclusion may be appropriate where:



the behavior poses an “imminent risk to the safety
of the individual student” or others
A behavior that requires immediate intervention
constitutes an “emergency”
Seclusion is not appropriate for students who exhibit
self-injurious behavior or are suicidal
48
Three Types of Restraint

Physical


Chemical


direct physical contact that prevents or significantly
restricts a student's movement
administration of medication for purpose of restraint
Mechanical

use of any device or material attached to or adjacent
to student’s body that restricts normal freedom of
movement and which cannot be easily removed by
student
49
Other prohibited practices

Prone restraints

Restraints that negatively impact breathing

Corporal punishment

Deprivation of basic needs

Anything constituting child abuse

Intentional use of noxious substance(s) or stimuli
which results in physical pain or extreme discomfort
50
Emergency Restraint

“Last resort” intervention for student
to regain self-control

Behaviors that may require the use of restraint:

The behavior poses an imminent risk to the
safety of the individual student or to others; or

is otherwise governed by the corporal punishment
sections of the Revised School Code

MCL 380.1312
51
Actions not prohibited

Standards on physical restraint is
not intended to forbid actions taken:

to break up a fight

to take away a weapon

to briefly hold the student in order to calm or comfort

minimum contact necessary to physically escort a
student from one place to another

to assist a student in completing a task (provided the
student does not resist or the resistance is minimal in
intensity or duration)

to hold a student to prevent an impulsive behavior that
threatens the student's safety
52
Corporal Punishment §1312(1)

§1312(1) of Michigan Revised School Code
prohibits corporal punishment

Defined as “the deliberate infliction of physical pain
by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any
other physical force used as a means of discipline”

Specifically excludes “physical pain caused by
reasonable physical activities associated with
athletic training”
53
Reasonable Force §1312(4) of RSC

An employee / volunteer / contractor may

use “reasonable physical force”

upon a pupil

as necessary

to maintain order and control in a school or school
related setting

for the purpose of providing an environment
conducive to safety and learning
54
Reasonable Force §1312(4) of RSC

As necessary for 1 or more of the following:

Restrain/remove a pupil whose behavior is interfering with
the orderly exercise and performance of school functions—
if the pupil has refused to comply with request to refrain
from further disruptive acts

Self defense/defense of another

Prevent pupil from harming self

Quell disturbance that threatens physical injury to another

Obtain weapon or dangerous object from pupil

Protect property
55
Reasonable Force §1312 of RSC

Deference must be given to reasonable good faith
judgments by an employee/volunteer/contractor in
using physical force in the above situations


When such force is used in accordance with the act on a
student (or person of school age in a school related setting)
there is immunity from civil damages
A person willfully or through gross negligence violating
the act may be appropriately disciplined

An employee may be disciplined in accordance with school
board policies
56
57
The Collaborative Problem
Solving (CPS) Approach
Everyone Counts!
And deserves to be treated
with compassion and respect.
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS)
59
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS)
The trademarks “Collaborative Problem Solving”
and “Collaborative Problem Solving approach” are
registered to Dr. Ross W. Greene.
I am not a certified trainer, have no affiliation with
Dr. Greene, and am merely presenting an
overview of the model. While I am presenting my
best understanding of the model, the accuracy of
the information presented should not be assumed.
Visit the website www.livesinthebalance.org to
access model updates and other resources.
60
www.livesinthebalance.org
61
www.lostatschool.org
62
CPS Paradigm Shift
Behavioral challenges understood as form
of developmental delay

domains of flexibility/adaptability, frustration
tolerance, and problem-solving

deserving of the same compassion and
approach as are applied to other cognitive
delays

reading, writing, and arithmetic
63
CPS – Behavior & Problems

Challenging behavior occurs in
response to specific unsolved
problems


e.g., homework, screen time, teeth brushing,
clothing choices, sibling interactions, etc.
These unsolved problems are usually
highly predictable and can therefore be
solved proactively
64
CPS – Behavior & Problems

Typical disciplinary approach using
time-outs, detentions, suspensions,
expulsion, and isolation do not solve these
problems or "build character" but rather often
makes things worse

Primary goal of intervention is to collaboratively
solve these problems in a way that is realistic
and mutually satisfactory so that they don't
precipitate challenging behavior any more
65
Collaborative Problem Solving

Adults take a genuine interest in
kid’s concerns and perspectives,
which are viewed as legitimate, important,
and worth listening to and clarifying

Adults who do not resort to physical
intervention and are knowledgeable about
and proficient in other means of solving
problems
66
Collaborative Problem Solving

Solving problems collaboratively
prepares kids for the demands they
will face in the real world

Blind obedience to authority is dangerous;
life in the real world requires expressing
one's concerns, listening to the concerns
of others, and working toward mutually
satisfactory solutions
67
CPS: Five Goals of Plan B

Goal 1: Pursue unmet expectations and
ensure that your concerns about a kid’s
challenges are addressed

Goal 2: Solve the problems precipitating a child’s
challenging episodes in a collaborative, mutually
satisfactory, and durable fashion

Goal 3: Teach the kid the skills he’s lacking

Goal 4: Reduce challenging behavior

Goal 5: Create a helping relationship
68
Three Approaches

Plan A


Plan B


Adults impose their will in response to
unmet expectation / problem
Collaborative problem solving
Plan C

Dropping an expectation completely, or at
least temporarily
69
CPS: 3 Steps of Plan B
Step 1: Empathy

Understand the kid’s concern / perspective
Step 2: Define the Problem

Adult’s concern about problem or unmet expectation
Step 3: Invitation

Restate the two concerns (kid’s and adult’s) and invite
the kid to solve it collaboratively – together

Realistic & mutually satisfactory solution
70
CPS: Assessment of Skills/Problems
71
72
Everyone Counts!
73