Guidelines for
Determining
Eligibility for
Special Education
for Students with
Serious Emotional
Disability
August 2013
Exceptional Student Services Unit
1560 Broadway, Suite 1175 • Denver, CO 80202 • 303-866-6694
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Background, Introduction, and Guidelines
1
Objectives
Section 2 - Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) as a
Framework for Supporting the Academic, Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Needs of All Students
4
Section 3 - State and Federal Laws Related to SED
17
Section 4 - Referral Process for Determining Eligibility for
22
Special Education Services
Section 5 - Eligibility
34
Section 6 - Special Considerations
47
Appendix A
56
Appendix B - Multi-tiered System of Support – Additional
58
Information
Appendix C - Sample Forms
64
Appendix D - Functional Behavior Assessment & Behavior
72
Intervention Plan
- Addendum A
- State Recommended IEP Forms
References
84
86
94
Section 1
Background, Introduction, and Guidelines Objectives
In Colorado Law, a student with a Serious Emotional Disability has “emotional or
social functioning, which prevents the child from receiving reasonable educational
benefit from regular education.” [ECEA 2.08 (3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8 (4)]
Background and Introduction
Guidelines Objectives
Initial Revision: Incorporating a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)
Framework into the Identification Process.
The purpose of these
guidelines is to assist multidisciplinary teams, including
families, in the application of
best practices while using the
new disability criteria for
identifying students with a
Serious Emotional Disability
(SED). The guidelines
contain:
In January 2009, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) convened a task
force to begin the process of revising guidelines in effect since December 2001
for identifying students with a Significant Identifiable Emotional Disability
(SIED), a specific disability category found within Colorado’s Rules for the
Administration of the Exceptional Children’s Education Act (ECEA).
Over the course of two years this task force, comprised of special education
directors, teachers, school psychologists, school social workers, university
representatives, family advocates, and consultants from CDE, engaged in
research, discussion, and problem solving. Its aim was to develop new
guidelines that would be responsive to the issues confronting students with
emotional disabilities, as well as families, practitioners, and school personnel
who collaborate to address their needs. Their primary goal was to integrate
Response to Intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) now included under Multi-Tiered System Supports (MTSS),
for the identification and support of students with emotional disabilities into
the guidelines. Doing so brought these revisions into greater congruence with
practices introduced in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004
(IDEA, 2004), its regulations in 2007, and allowed for increased support of all
students’ emotional and behavioral health in the school setting.
IDEA 2004 included a heightened emphasis on effective core instruction and
universal interventions. This change in practice results in improved
educational outcomes for all students, including those at-risk for emotional
and/or behavioral difficulties, as well as students already identified as having
an emotional disability. Similarly, a heightened federal emphasis on positive
behavioral supports reinforces the implementation of an MTSS problemsolving approach, using evidence-based practices for screening, prevention,
and early support of students’ emotional and academic needs. The integration
of an MTSS framework increases the chances that appropriate services are
being provided prior to formal referral and identification for students in need.
Research has demonstrated that such a prevention-oriented approach leads to
significantly better outcomes in social, academic, and disciplinary areas over
the long-term (Beard & Sugai, 2004; Fox, Dunlap, & Cushing, 2002; Isaacs, 2008;
Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002; Kagan & Neuman, 2000; Weist, 2003).
•
•
•
•
A comprehensive
overview of the
procedures for
identification
Clarification of criteria,
especially regarding the
intensity, duration, and
pervasiveness of behaviors
Approaches for
differentiating students
with an SED from those
solely with social
maladjustment
Identification of evidencebased assessment
methods/tools
BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION, AND DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES
2
Furthermore, an MTSS framework intentionally focuses on partnerships between school and family, and results
in joint problem solving that leads to mutually desirable and positive outcomes (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008).
Considering that school systems tend to under-identify the school-age population with emotional and behavioral
problems (Walker, Hishioka, Zeller, Severson, & Feil, 2000) and/or delay their identification until it is “too late”
(Conroy, 2004), an MTSS framework can serve students at risk for emotional disability and allow them to begin
receiving interventions before they are formally identified. This is both a necessary practice to meet the needs of
students, and may further serve to reduce the need for placement in special education altogether. As such, the
task force’s extensive work to incorporate MTSS practices into the guidelines for the identification of students
with emotional disabilities provided a necessary foundation to improve academic and behavioral outcomes.
Secondary Revision: Aligning with Federal Eligibility Criteria.
The original revision process was driven by a desire to better integrate an MTSS framework into the guidelines.
The passage of House Bill 11-1277 in 2011, which allowed for the first modification of Colorado’s disability
criteria in 11 years, also created an opportunity for more comprehensive changes to the criteria themselves.
The passage of HB 11-1277 spurred the ability to respond to feedback from the special education field to modify
Colorado’s criteria for emotional disability to be more in line with those found in both IDEA 2004 and in the
majority of other states. This change in actual criteria meant subsequent additions to the foundation of work laid
by the originally convened task force. To ensure that these additions were still in line with the needs and
perspectives of families, educators, special education personnel, and mental health providers, a new task force
with similar representation was created to integrate the changes introduced by the new criteria into the evolving
guidance documents. The result is the present document, which integrates the work of a multitude of
professionals, family representatives, and community voices that will serve to support school-based providers in
best meeting the needs of our students with emotional disabilities.
Of note, HB 11-1277 also statutorily renamed the title of the eligibility category to Serious Emotional Disability
(SED), as it will be referred to throughout the rest of this document.
Please Note: A variety of screening/assessment tools and interventions are referenced
throughout this document. These suggested resources do not represent an exhaustive
list, nor are they required or endorsed by the CDE. The identification or description of
any commercial product is for the purpose of providing an example and does not
constitute the CDE’s endorsement of such product.
BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION, AND DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES
The Colorado Department of Education would like to thank the following individuals for their dedication and
work in revising the state’s criteria for students with SED:
Initial SIED Task Force (2010-1012):
Barb Bieber and Michael Ramirez, CDE, Co-Chairs
Barbara Blanchard, Jefferson County School District
Courtney Hertner, Colorado Council for Children with Behavior Disorders
Erin McConnell, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, CDE
Karen McAvoy, Cherry Creek School District
Kim Bundgaard, Mountain BOCES
Liz Davis, Colorado School Social Work Committee
Robyn Hess, University of Northern Colorado
Yoko Kadeira, Colorado Society of School Psychologists
Gail Ploen, School Social Work, CDE
Montina Romero, Fountain Ft. Carson School District
Steve Sandoval, Adams 50 School District
Hana Vujeva, School Psychology Intern, CDE
SED Task Force (2012-2013):
Barb Bieber, CDE, Chair
Jo Ann Bayus, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, CDE
Kim Bundgaard, Mountain BOCES
Brian Diaczun, Thompson School District
Eldridge Greer, Denver Public Schools
Beverly Harris, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, CDE
Chris Koehler, Colorado Society of School Psychologists
Cathy Lines, CSEAC, Family Partnering, CDE
Melissa Miller, Colorado Council for Children with Behavior Disorders
Jenny Olson, Cherry Creek School District
Nate Thompson, Littleton School District
Kim Rivera, EMPOWER (parent organization)
Montina Romero, Fountain Ft. Carson School District
Aaron Vogt, Poudre School District
Shannon Altenhofen, School Psychology Intern, CDE
The contents of this manual were developed
under a grant from the U.S. Department of
Education. However, those contents do not
necessarily represent the policy of the U.S.
Department of Education, and you should not
assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
3
Section 2
Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) as a
Framework for Supporting the Academic, Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Needs of All Students
An Overview of MTSS
Section Objectives
Rationale
•
Schools face a growing challenge in meeting both the academic and behavior
needs of every student. Educators implementing a continuum of both
academic and behavior supports and interventions, and partnering with
families and communities, increase effectiveness and positive educational
outcomes for diverse student populations.
Define and provide a
rationale for MTSS
•
Provide a prevention
emphasis for academic
and behavior supports
•
Identify the benefits of
developing a problemsolving culture to
respond to educational
needs
•
Describe how supports
can be provided across
the MTSS tiers
Success is related to students’ active engagement in evidence-based practices
across multiple settings. Responding to students’ needs by providing them
with coordinated support at home and school is imperative. Thus, this chapter
incorporates academic and behavior supports within the context of an MTSS
framework.
Description of Existing School-Wide
Systems Approach to Academic and
Behavioral Supports
Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) and Response to
Intervention (RtI) are compatible
preventive approaches to establishing
the supports needed for all children in
a school to achieve both social and
academic success. PBIS and RtI can be
individually developed and
implemented by any school that
emphasizes prevention and support for
every student, makes decisions using
valid and reliable data, supports
effective teaming to facilitate
communication and ownership of all
students by all staff, partners with
families, and follows a tiered approach
to instruction.
The main purpose of the MTSS process
is to enhance the success of students
with a variety of academic and/or
behavior challenges.
An MTSS framework involves
the interactive use of data,
practices, and systems inherent
in the framework of Positive
Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) as well as
Response to Intervention (RtI).
While these initiatives are
referenced in key legislation
and have been foundational in
establishing processes to
facilitate student success, it is
imperative to now integrate
these initiatives and develop an
overarching system where the
purpose is to frame and drive a
school district/school’s vision
of ensuring that every student
has the opportunity to
experience success in the
educational system.
MTSS is a system that
structures the decision making
process of selection,
implementation, and
evaluation of instructional
practices or interventions to
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
use with students. Student progress is systematically measured using
data within a structured problem-solving process. Data regarding
student response to intervention(s) over time helps school teams
determine appropriate instructional/behavioral next steps. The consistent
use of this process is critical to ensuring that every student is successful.
This is accomplished by providing him/her every available and
appropriate opportunity for learning, both at home and school, catching
and correcting learning errors at the earliest possible point, as well as
mitigating barriers to learning.
5
Definition - Colorado MTSS
MTSS is a whole-school, data-driven,
prevention-based framework for
improving learning outcomes for every
student through a layered continuum of
evidence-based practices and systems.
Students come to school with unique cultural, behavioral, developmental, and familial learning experiences that
affect their readiness to learn and succeed at school. Improved student outcomes are directly linked to
understanding what students bring to school, their experience with school and classroom conditions, teacher
practices, and the level of family and community support in continuing learning outside of school. School and
District leadership teams promote and support the coordination of district and state policy, professional
development, and other initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of school and classroom conditions, teacher
practices, as well as family and community instruction. (TELL Survey, CDE, 2009, 2011).
Within an MTSS framework data, practices, and systems are used effectively to coordinate learning between
home and school. Establishing maximum organizational efficiency and implementation fidelity requires
consideration of how data, practices, and systems are related and interact with each other to improve student
outcomes. This approach organizes evidence-based practices into a system that is proactive and responsive to the
progress of every student and can be implemented with the greatest implementation fidelity. In Colorado, both
PBIS and RtI have intentionally included family and community partnering, a critical component because of its
strong evidence for improving student outcomes (CDE, 2008, 2011).
In sum, the MTSS framework:
• uses an efficient, streamlined approach
• establishes and maintains a common language & understanding
• generalizes staff skills
• coordinates learning across multiple settings
• is evidence-based (e.g., integration of behavior and reading within a three- tiered model produced larger
gains in literacy skills than a reading-only model [Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella,
2007]).
Essential Features when Implementing an MTSS Framework
Screen Universally
Schedule for systematic and regular review of overall academic and behavior progress and status of every
student (e.g., once a month, once per grading period).
Monitor Progress Continually
Schedule for regular and frequent review of academic and behavior progress of all students on current
instructional activities, content, and/or lessons.
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
6
Link Academic and Behavior Decisions
Consider the relationship of academic and behavior instruction and student progress through (a) assessment and
evaluation, (b) instructional and behavior management, and (c) progress monitoring and evaluation.
Decide with Data
Use data to inform question-guided decisions related to (a) student progress and responsiveness, (b) intervention
effectiveness, and (c) implementation fidelity.
Layer Evidence-Based Practices Along A Continuum
Use empirically-supported, culturally and developmentally appropriate academic and behavior-related practices
that are sequenced, linked, and layered to support the academic and behavior needs of all students based on their
responsiveness (i.e., success) through a systematized problem solving process.
Facilitate and Coordinate Through Leadership Teaming
Develop and sustain leadership teams (e.g., groups of individuals who represent the school and community,
students, family members, general and special educators, and specialists) that are responsible for coordinating the
implementation of practices and systems.
Partner with Families and Communities*
Students spend 70% of their time outside of school (Callender & Hansen, 2004). Thus, providing opportunities
for students to practice and generalize academic and behavior learning in multiple settings, with multiple adults,
increases skill retention and application, With the implementation of evidence-based partnering practices, such as
two-way communication and school outreach, there is cultural sharing between home and school, creating
understanding of differences and adult alignment around student success (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes,
2012; Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008).
*Please see Appendix A for a more complete description of family and community partnering.
Prevention-Based Approaches for Academic and Behavioral Supports
Teaching and learning environments require a strength-based approach to foster positive, successful academic
and social behaviors. This results in reduced intensity, frequency, and duration of existing academic and behavior
challenges.
Effective school systems and classrooms:
•
Invest in preventing behavior challenges by establishing expectations/rules for all students, staff, and
families while teaching and reinforcing appropriate behavior, and consistently correcting behavior errors
and re-teaching behavior skills to students. This focus on prevention encourages appropriate behavior
and helps schools and personnel avoid a pattern of punishment and reaction to behavior problems.
•
Have support systems readily available to identify and address the needs of students who are at risk of
developing academic and/or behavior problems. Efforts to integrate academic instruction and behavioral
expectations at the school-wide and classroom level are supported. (Filter & Horner, 2009; Lee, Sugai, &
Horner, 1999; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009). Families and communities are considered integral
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
7
learning support systems at all tiers, whose participation results in improved student behavioral and
academic outcomes.
•
Develop and maintain policies and practices that deliver high levels of support to students with chronic
behavior and/or academic challenges (Utah State Office of Education, 2004).
•
Ensure that behavior expectations and support systems are shared with families and communities in
multiple venues and languages, and confirm that there is understanding and knowledge of how to
support student learning and how to team when a student struggles. This teaming process supports all
adults in implementing positive reinforcement, with students experiencing consistency in numerous
environments (CDE, 2012).
Instruction Designed to Improve Student Outcomes *
The integration of behavior and academic instruction at the school-wide and classroom levels is a primary
objective of Colorado educators. Therefore, in order to meet the current and future needs of every student,
including students with disabilities, educational professionals need to implement practices that include behavior
and academic supports in a systematic school-wide and classroom manner, and partner with families to
coordinate efforts.
* Additional MTSS Guidelines for Instruction can be found in Appendix B
Creating a Problem-Solving Culture for Continuous Improvement
Students’ needs exist along a continuum. Some students need more or fewer services than others, both within and
across different groups. We suggest creating ways that service intensity can be varied in direct proportion to
individual student needs, within and outside special education boundaries. This situation is desirable from a
student learning standpoint and cost efficient from a resource allocation standpoint. In this way, resources can be
expended early within a problem-solving system, when problems are less intense, in the hope of remediating the
problems prior to their escalation. This type of delivery system encompasses all children, rather than only those
who struggle.
Problem-Solving Process*
The problem-solving process can be applied to every student in
a system, to small groups of students, and to individual
students. The process provides educators and families with a
consistent, step-by-step process to identify problems and to
evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Research has
supported the effectiveness of using a defined method to
determine student need and to develop and evaluate
interventions. At its core, the problem-solving method requires
answering four questions:
1. What is the problem?
2. Why is it occurring?
3. What are we going to do about it?
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
8
4. Is it working?
Step 1: Define the Problem: What is the Problem?
Define the problem as the measureable difference between the desired outcome and the actual behavior or
performance.
Step 2: Problem Analysis: Why is it Occurring?
Gather relevant information in the domains of instruction, curriculum, environment and the learner(s) through
the use of reviews, interviews, observations and tests to determine contributing factors to the problem.
Step 3: Plan Implementation: What are We Going to Do About It?
Select and implement a system support or an intervention that is focused on what to teach, how best to teach it,
and how to monitor progress.
Step 4: Evaluate Response to Intervention: Is It Working?
Determine the effectiveness of implemented system supports or interventions and make appropriate educational
decisions. When evaluating the response to intervention, identify if the response was favorable or not, and
continue to collect data to monitor the effects of the intervention.
* A full description of the Problem Solving Process may be found in Appendix B.
For a more in-depth explanation of the Problem Solving/Consultation process, please see CDE training modules
available at www.cde.state.co.us/RTI. Additional resources can be found from the OSEP National Technical
Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports at www.pbis.org, as well the RtI Action
Network at www.rtinetwork.org.
Applying an MTSS Approach to Students with Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Challenges
This Model is a three-tiered system designed to meet the needs of all students.
 Every student receives Universal supports
 Some students also receive Targeted supports
 Few students also receive Intensive supports
ALL STUDENTS
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
9
Universal Practices
Universal practices are implemented using valid and reliable data, and follow a school-wide team approach.
School-wide implementation of behavioral supports includes established expectations, explicitly taught
expectations, reinforcement and acknowledgment of following expectations, as well as systematic correction of
behavior errors and re-teaching of social and behavior skills for all students, staff members, and families.
At the universal level, supports and interventions are provided to all students across all settings for both
academics and behavior. These universal interventions, aimed to be effective for at least 80% of students, focus
upon proactive and preventative strategies to reduce problem behavior and academic failure. An example of a
universal intervention for behavior is the development of three to five positively stated behavioral expectations
that are established school-wide, are culturally responsive, explicitly taught, and reinforced to all students across
settings.
At the classroom level, effective, evidence-based management strategies are the foundation of primary
intervention. Because it is well established that the classroom environment significantly affects student behavior,
(Kern & Clemons, 2007; Kern, Gallagher, Starosta, Hickman & George, 2006; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004), proactive
classroom management strategies focus on creating an environment structured to (a) identify, teach and
encourage the behaviors that will lead to student success, (b) prevent problem behaviors, and (c) facilitate
academic success (Newcomer & Lewis, 2004.) There is a reciprocal relationship between good classroom
management and effective instruction. The best instructional strategy is good classroom management, and the
best classroom management tool is the use of good instructional strategies that ensure student engagement. An
example of this occurs when a teacher implements a variety of classroom management strategies and
instructional practices and provides greater individualization and differentiation of content for a student who is
beginning to struggle behaviorally in their classroom.
Questions to Consider:
•
•
•
•
What programming has been provided to all students in the building, grade, or class to teach and
reinforce behavioral expectations?
How effective are the universal interventions in supporting the needs of all students?
Are classroom management practices culturally responsive?
Are families and communities informed of school-wide behavioral expectations and how they can
reinforce them outside of school?
Screening
At the universal level, school teams establish a system to analyze the data and/or results of behavioral screening
measures. Just as screening measures are used for academics within the MTSS framework, universal screening
practices are established for social, emotional, and behavior concerns. Teams may be identified differently (e.g.,
grade level team or Problem Solving Team [PST]) but must have an efficient and effective process to collect,
analyze, and review data on a regular basis. The collection and review of data should drive instructional
decisions and interventions. When applied to social/emotional growth and behavior, screening measures should
be quick, efficient, and applicable to all students. For example, students’ school records are a rich source of
screening information, such as attendance, tardy patterns, discipline referrals, health history, and/or suspension
incidents. Attendance and tardy information can reveal students with a variety of social and behavioral
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
10
challenges (e.g., poor health, lack of transportation, avoidance of academic failure, and/or need for support
outside of school) (Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman, & Sugai, 2007).
When MTSS is being implemented as a universal intervention and primary prevention strategy, the systematic
analysis of office discipline referral data can be used to identify students needing targeted intervention(s). Using
these specific data sources makes identification of students who might be at risk a more objective process.
Colorado’s Academic Standards for Comprehensive Health and Physical Education (December, 2011), which
include grade level expectations and benchmarks for Emotional and Social Wellness and Prevention and Risk
Management can also serve as guidelines for identifying students who need more support.
“Screening for instructional purposes is not
There is a clear link between academic difficulties and
evaluation. The screening of a student by a
problem social behavior (Chafouleas et al., 2007).
teacher or specialist to determine
Therefore, a quarterly review of students who have
appropriate instructional strategies for
experienced a significant decline in their academic grades
curriculum implementation shall not be
can reveal an underlying change in a student’s family or
considered to be an evaluation for eligibility
community situation, or that they are not benefiting from
for special education and related services.”
instruction. This type of screening is especially useful at
- §300.302, Federal Regulations; 402 (4)(b),
the secondary level where there a larger numbers of
ECEA
students and the behaviors may not be as overt. Screening
to determine appropriate instruction/intervention,
essential to an effective MTSS process, may be conducted for any child prior to a referral for special education
without informed parental consent (IDEA, 2004).
Formal Universal Screening
Recent advances in systematic screening techniques should be considered as additional tools by schools/districts.
Three examples are described below. They are provided for information purposes only, and do not constitute an
endorsement by the CDE.
•
The Behavioral and Emotional Screening System; BESS (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007): A screening tool that
measures behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses in children and adolescents, preschool
through high school. This standardized screening system consists of short forms that can be completed
by teachers, parents, and/or the student.
•
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders; SSBD (Walker & Severson, 1992): A school-wide standardized
screening and identification procedure that reduces bias in teacher referral-driven screening procedures
by using a series of “gates” or stages. At the first gate, teachers who have received a brief training
evaluate all their students according to whether they are at risk for either externalizing or internalizing
behavior disorders and develop a list for each group. At the second gate, the teacher rates the top three
students in each list on two short scales. Those students whose ratings exceed local norms advance to
the third gate which consists of two sets of observations by a trained observer. This measure is
moderately successful in identifying students who have behavioral disorders (Doll & Haack, 2005).
•
Social Skills Improvement System; SSIS (Gresham & Elliot, 2008): A screening tool that can be used with
students in preschool through high school and focuses on observable behaviors in four skill areas: Prosocial Behaviors, Motivation to Learn, Reading Skills, and Math Skills. Teacher, parent, and student
forms help provide a comprehensive picture of student functioning
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
11
Examples of Universal Practices*
Supports/Interventions
Sources of Evidence
• Defining and teaching appropriate behaviors
• Attendance records
• Positive acknowledgement and reinforcement
• Truancy records
of appropriate behaviors
• Office discipline referrals
• Removing obstacles to the desired behavior
• Records of visits to the health office
• Re-teaching appropriate behavior
• Academic performance data (e.g., sudden drop
• Altering the instructional level
in grades)
• Using effective classroom management
• Formal screening tools (e.g., BESS, SSBD, SSIS)
strategies
• Family and community data, records of
participation
• Flexible grouping
• Peer modeling/peer mediation
• Structuring a safe and predictable learning and
social environment
• Additional practice
• Family and community partnering
Academic components for all students include quality core instruction that is explicit, systematic, and
differentiated, and uses scientifically based instructional research to teach critical elements outlined in the
Colorado Academic Standards.
*A description of school climate and culture designed to improve student outcomes may be found in Appendix B
SOME STUDENTS
Supplemental Targeted Interventions
Targeted interventions are for students who need universal level practices along with layered academic and
behavior supports. Interventions at this level include matching students to interventions based on need (i.e.,
function of behavior error) in an efficient, data-based system of delivery.
Academic components include universal/core instruction, as well as supplemental targeted instruction that
address the specific needs of students who do not meet benchmark requirements. These academic interventions
should be scientifically based, and aligned with core classroom instruction. Behavior and academic targeted
interventions require continual collection and use of data for decision making and attention to:
•
increasing structure and predictability,
•
increasing intensity of instruction,
•
increasing contingent adult feedback,
•
increasing home and school communication, coordination, and
•
linking academic and behavior performance.
Approximately 10% to 15% of students may need targeted interventions. In the event that data indicate that
universal practices are insufficient to meet the needs of an individual student, that student is typically referred to
the PST by his or her teacher, an administrator, or a family member. The Problem Solving Team (PST) is usually
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
12
comprised of various school staff (special or general education teachers, school counselors, school psychologists,
etc.), as well as parents/family members of the student, and the student themselves (if over the age of 15). Using
existing data, the role of the team is to plan additional supports and interventions for those who need it. The team
can define the behavior(s) of concern based on data, select evidence-based interventions, establish progress
monitoring procedures as well as setting a targeted goal, and assign tasks and timelines for carrying out the plan.
Targeted interventions can be simple. Ideally, they consist of program modifications that are easily implemented
within general education. Standard protocol, targeted interventions typically involve small group, supplemental
supports that are evidence-based and focus on a student’s strengths. Strategies to support and encourage
academic engagement can be a powerful behavioral intervention. Small group interventions can be designed to
address student-specific learning needs, such as social skills development, anger replacement training or
enhancing study skills. Students may also be provided with specific accommodations, such as minimizing
transitions, scheduling frequent breaks or reducing environmental sensory stimuli.
Other examples of targeted interventions for behavior include:
•
•
•
self-monitoring,
re-teaching expectations, and
targeted social/emotional curricula.
Multiple school personnel can provide the interventions, including the classroom teacher, intervention specialist,
related service providers or other staff. Families can participate, as well, in implementing and monitoring of the
interventions. Student progress should be monitored and discussed regularly between the PST, interventionist,
and family and formally presented in follow-up PST meetings.
If a student does not respond to the first intervention attempted, the PST may modify the plan by either changing
the intervention or increasing its intensity. The team should also determine whether the intervention has been
delivered with fidelity. This involves the consideration of whether it has been delivered as specified (i.e., with
integrity) and for the prescribed dosage (i.e., with sufficiency.) Additional support or training may be needed to
attain fidelity or to assist in the consistent implementation of an intervention. It is not appropriate to determine
that a student has not responded to an intervention if it was not delivered with fidelity.
Questions to Consider:
• What universal and/or targeted programming has been provided to all students in the building,
grade, or class to teach and reinforce behavioral expectations?
• How effective is the targeted intervention in supporting the needs of the identified student?
• Is the intervention culturally responsive?
• Has the intervention been implemented in the manner prescribed?
• Has the intervention been delivered long enough and with the appropriate intensity?
• Has the family partnered in the selection, implementation and monitoring of the intervention, as
well as helped in coordinating learning at home and the community?
Assessment
Assessment at the targeted level is often more intense and focused, with the results of the assessment guiding the
intervention. Once a behavioral intervention is in place, the response to the intervention will need to be
accurately monitored. When there are not specific measurement guidelines, intervention should be monitored at
least every other week, using relevant progress monitoring tools.
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
13
Useful data, which provide quantifiable measures of potential progress include:
•
•
•
•
•
direct observation of behavior using time sampling tools,
office referral patterns,
teacher and family ratings,
points earned toward daily goals, and
student self-monitoring data.
If the academic or behavioral need is difficult to identify, a diagnostic/prescriptive or functional behavioral
assessment (FBA) may be necessary to determine the focus of the intervention. In order to meet a student’s
academic or behavioral needs when selecting assessments at the targeted tier, the focus must be on identifying the
specific skills that need additional work or determining the functions that a particular behavior serves.
Progress monitoring
Data are collected, evaluated, and used on an ongoing basis to determine the student’s rate of progress and the
effectiveness of intervention. Progress monitoring should occur with appropriate frequency, be sensitive to the
behavior that the team is attempting to change, and be efficient to administer and score.
The evidence collected may track progress related to:
• Frequency – the number of events in a period of time (e.g., hitting six times during a school day). This data
collection approach is best for high frequency, observable behaviors that have a discrete beginning and
end.
• Rate – the number of events within a unit of time (e.g., yelling three times per hour). This approach is
also appropriate for discrete, high frequency behaviors. If rate data are collected, comparisons can be
made across days and weeks which is helpful, given the variability in school calendars.
• Duration - total time (e.g., out of seat for eight minutes); percent of time (e.g., looking out the window
40% of the time); or average time per event (e.g., each temper tantrum lasted six minutes). This data
collection approach is best for behaviors that tend to have a longer duration, or may occur less frequently.
• Latency – time elapsed before a behavior begins after a request or prompt (e.g., an average of a two
minute delay to return to seat following teacher instructions). This approach is useful when one is
measuring task avoidance.
If the data collection process is too cumbersome, it is unlikely that data will be collected consistently. The
responsibility may be designated to one or more members of the team. Teams also need to identify the baseline of
functioning, target specific behavioral goals, and determine the amount of time and/or number of data points that
are necessary to make subsequent decisions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. Collaboration with
the student’s family can provide further information to determine if interventions are effective in multiple
settings. Progress monitoring of academics may also be informative to determine if planned behavioral
interventions are having the desired impact on academic performance.
Duration of Targeted Interventions
In summary, targeted interventions must be evidence-based, delivered with fidelity, and monitored on a regular
basis. Often, students will respond differently to interventions, making it difficult to determine in advance
the appropriate duration of a specific intervention (Sprague, Cook, Wright, & Saddler, 2008). Typically, 20 to 40
school days (four to eight weeks) is considered an adequate period for determining whether interventions are
having an impact (Sprague et al., 2008).
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
14
Examples of Targeted Practices
Supports/Interventions
Sources of Evidence
• Ongoing universal interventions
• Universal screening information
• Interventions based on the hypothesized
• Progress monitoring information
function of a student’s behaviors
• Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)
• Self-monitoring
• Direct observation of behavior using time
sampling tools
• Check-in/Check-out program
• Re-teaching expectations
• Office referral patterns
• Targeted social skills training
• Points earned toward daily goals
• Teaming with families to learn new skills
• Improved academic performance and
engagement.
FEW STUDENTS
Intensive Individual Interventions
Intensive individual behavior supports are used with students who have not responded sufficiently to universal
and targeted instruction and intervention. This level of behavior support may include wrap-around services.
Often this may require intensive collaboration with community agencies, medical professionals, and/or juvenile
justice officials. In an MTSS framework, families will have been partnering with the school across the tiers, but
their role may become more explicitly defined as additional community supports are involved.
Academic components include intervention(s) designed to provide intensive, focused support to the most at-risk
students. This level of instruction is more explicit, more intensive, and specifically designed to meet individual
needs. The duration and intensity of this intervention is variable based upon student assessment and progress
monitoring data.
If evidence suggests that targeted levels of intervention are not sufficient to meet the social, emotional, or
behavioral needs of an individual, the PST convenes to address continuing concerns and possible next steps. The
team may determine that it is necessary to collect more information through individual diagnostic/prescriptive
assessments for the purpose of better informing instruction/intervention. An FBA, which may occur at either the
targeted or intensive level, should be performed if it has not already been completed.
Supports and interventions at the Intensive Tier are intended for individual students with significant and/or
chronic skill deficits, approximately 1% to 5% of the student population. Typically, the decision to move to the
intensive tier of intervention is made by the PST when a student has not responded adequately to one or more
attempts of supplemental and/or targeted supports/interventions. The interventions in the intensive tier are also
evidence–based, but are designed to be more intense and specifically designed to meet individual needs.
The PST establishes specific goals for the student, determines and implements interventions and supports specific
to the individual student’s needs, and identifies and collects the evidence to monitor the student’s progress.
Furthermore, the team agrees upon a reasonable timeframe in which to review the evidence of the student’s
response to the plan.
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
15
Questions to Consider:
• What Universal, Targeted, and Intensive programming has been provided to teach and
reinforce behavioral expectations?
• How effective are the Universal, Targeted, and Intensive interventions in supporting the
needs of the identified student?
• Has the culture of the student been considered in planning interventions?
• Have the interventions been implemented in the manner prescribed?
• Have the interventions been delivered long enough and with the appropriate intensity?
• Has the family partnered in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the
intervention?
Assessment
The frequency and specificity of progress monitoring is likely to increase at Tier III. Based on the needs of the
individual, and the frequency of occurrences of the targeted behavior, the team should set realistic timelines for
progress monitoring. Because of the resources provided at this level, the response to Tier III intervention needs to
be monitored at least once a week, with more severe behavior problems monitored daily. There are no specific
guidelines to determine a reasonable timeframe for behavioral interventions prior to considering the presence of
an educational disability. In the past it was recommended that a period of three to six months may be sufficient
for most students. However, in some cases that may be too long a period of time.
In determining a reasonable timeframe for a specific student, it is helpful to consider:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the intensity and frequency of behaviors,
the number of data points collected to measure the response to the intervention,
the guidelines prescribed by the chosen intervention,
the fidelity with which the intervention has been delivered,
the developmental age of the child,
the influence of external/environmental factors,
the partnering between school, home, and community
the possibility of behaviors becoming worse at the beginning of an intervention, and
the apparent need for ongoing and specialized supports and services in order for the student to
benefit from the general education curriculum.
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AS A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPORTING THE ACADEMIC, SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
16
Examples of Intensive Practices
Supports/Interventions
Sources of Evidence
• Ongoing Universal and Targeted
• Improved attendance
Interventions
• Increased academic engagement
• Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
• Progress on stated goals or plan objectives
implemented with fidelity
• Student and family satisfaction ratings
• Increased communication and collaboration
reflect improvement
between home and school
• Collaboration between school and outside
agencies
• Individualized social/emotional support
(Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Anger
Replacement Training)
• Individualized safety/crisis planning
The collected evidence may indicate that interventions have been effective for the student to meet his or her goals,
resulting in a plan to gradually reduce support to increase the student’s independence. Conversely, the data may
indicate that the interventions were not successful in changing behaviors, and that the plan will need to be
continued or adapted to meet the needs of the student. When interventions do not appear to be effective, it is
always important to evaluate whether the interventions were delivered with fidelity before modifying the
intervention.
If evidence-based interventions are provided at the Universal, Targeted, and Intensive levels of support,
inappropriate referrals to special education can be avoided. By requiring that referrals to both the PST and
special education be based on data, and by having a required period of interventions with consistent progress
monitoring and family partnering, significant sources of bias are eliminated. It is anticipated that this process will
also help reduce the disproportionate representation of specific demographic groups in SED programs. At the
same time, the RtI/PBIS process is not intended to delay SED eligibility if a disability is suspected. A referral to
determine special education eligibility for a SED is appropriate if social, emotional, or behavioral difficulties
continue, even when research-based interventions have been provided.
Summary
Every student, from preschool through graduation, will benefit from supports provided through an MTSS
framework. Instruction and interventions are provided in coordination with families through a layered
continuum of resources to support each student’s success. For students with social, emotional or behavioral skill
deficits, evidence-based interventions should be implemented within an MTSS framework prior to consideration
of special education eligibility.
Section 3
State and Federal Laws Related to SED
Federal Regulations
Section Objective
There are a number of federal statutes that apply to the education of students
with disabilities, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504), and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
•
Provide an overview of the
federal and Colorado state
laws relevant to students
with an SED
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004)
When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, no changes were made to the criteria for
the identification of Emotional Disturbance. However, several changes were
made that are relevant to the SED guidelines. The following new elements that
were emphasized in IDEA 2004 are integrated into the present SED guidelines:
• early recognition of learning difficulties through screening;
• a focus on formative assessment that drives instruction;
• attention to outcome data;
• the implementation of scientific, researched-based instruction;
• the requirement of implementing positive behavioral interventions
and supports;
• the provision of supplementary instruction or intervention;
• the possibility of including parent counseling and training as a related
service; and
• increased parental involvement in a child’s learning and in educational
decision-making processes.
IDEA 2004 defines emotional disturbance and lists the criteria for emotional
disturbance as:
300.8(c)(4)(i)
300.8(c)(4)(i)(A)
300.8(c)(4)(i)(B)
300.8(c)(4)(i)(C)
300.8(c)(4)(i)(D)
300.8(c)(4)(i)(E)
300.8(c)(4)(ii)
Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following
characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects
a child's educational performance:
An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers.
Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances.
A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with
personal or school problems.
Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children
who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional
disturbance under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section. (Federal Register, August 14, 2006).
As a result of HB 11-1277, the criteria for Serious Emotional Disability within
Colorado’s Exceptional Children’s Education Act (ECEA) were changed to
more directly align with the federal criteria. However, the Federal title,
“Emotional Disturbance” was changed in ECEA to “Serious Emotional
Disability” in order to be consistent with the titles of other eligibility categories
STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO SED
18
a, e.g., Intellectual Disability. In addition to the five primary criteria for SED that were taken directly from the
federal definition, the ECEA criteria continue to emphasize that there be an impairment in either academic or
social/emotional functioning [2.08(3)(b)(i) and 2.08(3)(b)(ii)]. Furthermore, four qualifiers from the previous
definition of Significantly Identifiable Emotional Disability (SIED) (ECEA, July, 2012) were retained to further
emphasize the need for prior interventions, the consideration of cultural factors, and that a condition must be
considered pervasive across settings and not transient responses or isolated incidents for a student to be eligible
[2.08 (3) (c) (i-iv)].
The new ECEA criteria (December, 2012) are as follows:
2.08
(3)
A child with a serious emotional disability shall have emotional or social functioning which
prevents the child from receiving reasonable educational benefit from general education.
(a)
Serious emotional disability means a condition exhibiting one or more of the
following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree:
(a)
(i)
An inability to learn which is not primarily the result of intellectual, sensory
or other health factors;
(a)
(ii)
An inability to build or maintain interpersonal relationships which
significantly interferes with the child’s social development;
2.08
(3)
2.08
(3)
2.08
(3)
2.08
2.08
2.08
(5)
(3)
(3)
(a)
(a)
(a)
2.08
(3)
(b)
2.08
(3)
(b)
2.08
(3)
(b)
2.08
(3)
(c)
2.08
(3)
(c)
2.08
(3)
(c)
(ii)
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction exist to a marked degree; that is,
at a rate and intensity above the child's peers and outside of his or her
cultural norms and the range of normal development expectations.
2.08
(3)
(c)
(iii)
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction are pervasive, and are observable
in at least two different settings within the child's environment. For children
who are attending school, one of the environments shall be school.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances;
A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression;
A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal
or school problems.
As a result of the child’s serious emotional disability, as set out above, the child
exhibits one of the following characteristics:
(i)
Impairment in academic functioning as demonstrated by an inability to
receive reasonable educational benefit from general education which is not
primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or other health factors, but due to
the identified serious emotional disability
(ii)
Impairment in social/emotional functioning as demonstrated by an inability
to build or maintain interpersonal relationships which significantly interferes
with the child’s social development. Social development involves those
adaptive behaviors and social skills which enable a child to meet
environmental demands and assume responsibility for his or her welfare.
In order to qualify as a child with a serious emotional disability, all four of the
following qualifiers shall be documented:
(i)
A variety of instructional and/or behavioral interventions were implemented
within general education and the child remains unable to receive reasonable
educational benefit from general education.
STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO SED
2.08
(3)
(c)
(iv)
2.08
(3)
(d)
The term “serious emotional disability” does not apply to children who are socially
maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disability under
paragraph 5 (a) of this section.
19
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction have existed over a period of time
and are not isolated incidents or transient, situational responses to stressors
in the child's environment.
2012
1973
1990
Section 504 of
the
Rehabilitation
Act of 1973
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
1997
2004
2011
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education Act
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Colorado
House Bill
11-1254:
Measures to
Reduce the
Frequency of
Bullying in
Schools
Education Act
(IDEA)
Reauthorized
& amended
(IDEA 2004)
Reauthorized
HB 11-1277,
criteria for
Serious
Emotional
Disability
within
Colorado’s
Exceptional
Children’s
Education
Act (ECEA)
2012
Colorado
House Bill
12-1345:
Section 21:
Disciplinary
Measures in
Public
Schools
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, and IDEA
Since Congress amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports has held a unique position because it is the only approach to addressing behavior that
is specifically mentioned in special education law. This emphasis on using functional assessment and positive
approaches to encourage prosocial behavior remains in the current version of the law as amended in 2004. For
more information, refer to http://www.pbis.org/.
Congress' reasons for encouraging the use of PBIS stem from (a) the historic exclusion of individuals with
disabilities based on unaddressed behavior and (b) the strong evidence base supporting the use of PBIS. The
Supreme Court in Honig v. Doe (484 U.S. 305 [1988]) clarified this intent, saying:
“Congress very much meant to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude
disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school (p. 323).”
Congress also recognized the need for schools to use evidence-based approaches to proactively address the
behavioral needs of students with disabilities. Thus, in amending the IDEA both in 1997 and in 2004, Congress
explicitly recognized the potential of PBIS to prevent exclusion and improve educational results in 20 U.S.C. §
1401(c)(5)(F):
“(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities
can be made more effective by—
(F) providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as
disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children.”
IDEA's Requirements to Use Functional Assessments and Consider PBIS
Congress was careful to balance the need to promote the education of children with disabilities and the right of
states to govern their own educational systems. IDEA's requirements regarding the use of functional assessments
and PBIS reflect this balance. IDEA requires:
STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO SED
•
•
•
20
The IEP team to consider the use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports for any student
whose behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others [20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)].
A functional behavioral assessment when a child who does not have a behavior intervention plan is
removed from their current placement for more than 10 school days (e.g. suspension) for behavior that
turns out to be a manifestation of the child's disability [20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(i)].
A functional behavioral assessment, when appropriate, to address any behavior that results in a longterm removal [20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(D)].
Congress further encouraged the implementation of PBIS by allocating funds to "provide training in methods of...
positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the classroom" [20 U.S.C.
§1454(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)].
In acknowledgement of the emphasis on PBIS within IDEA, the implementation of SED identification as
described in these guidelines will be based on an integration of an MTSS framework which includes both PBIS
and RtI.
Other Federal Laws Related to Students with SED
As stated previously, other legislative mandates that have an impact on students
with social/emotional disabilities include Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990. Each is briefly reviewed
below.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504
This civil rights legislation prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual with a disability
solely on the basis of the disability. The law applies to any agency receiving federal funds, including local
education agencies. In schools, Section 504 guarantees that students with disabilities be provided equal access to
education. All individuals with a disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities (e.g.,
walking, breathing, hearing, and self-care) must receive an education that is comparable to that of typical peers.
In order to accomplish this mandate, an educational institution must make reasonable accommodations and
modifications for qualified persons with disabilities. Section 504 ensures the provision of “regular or special
education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped
persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met” (Yell, 2006). Additionally, the
protections of 504 extend to such school-related enterprises as sports, extracurricular activities, or schoolsponsored social functions.
Any person who qualifies for special education services under IDEA is also entitled to the protections of Section
504. However, a student with a disability requiring only a reasonable accommodation may be eligible for a 504
Plan whether or not they have an IEP. It is important to understand the two laws, their inter-relationship, and
how they apply to students with emotional disabilities. Practitioners and families should note that Section 504
contains a much more global description of a child with a disability than IDEA. Therefore, the protections of
Section 504 may apply to children with disabilities who are not eligible for special education services under state
ECEA or federal IDEA provisions although there are fewer procedural safeguards available to those students and
their families.
STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO SED
21
American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an antidiscrimination statute protecting the rights of people with
disabilities in specific areas including employment, telecommunications, transit, and public accommodation. The
concept of “reasonable accommodation” is the primary ADA issue impacting schools. This concept suggests that
schools must make “reasonable accommodations” to ensure the access of people with disabilities to programs,
activities, employment practices, services, or buildings. For students with emotional or mental health disabilities,
teachers must consider how to make reasonable accommodations within the classroom setting.
Colorado Laws Related to Students with a SED
Colorado House Bill 11-1254: Concerning Measures to Reduce the Frequency of Bullying in Schools: The provisions of
this bill revised the definition of bullying [C.R.S. 22-32-109.1 (a)(X)(B)]. “Bullying” means any written or verbal
expression, or physical or electronic or gesture, or pattern thereof, that is intended to coerce, intimidate, or cause
any physical, mental, or emotional harm to any student.
Students with disabilities are often subjected to bullying (Twyman, Saylor, Saia, Macias, Taylor, & Spratt, 2010).
Such behavior is specifically prohibited in section 22-32-109 (1)(11)(1): “Bullying is prohibited against any student
for any reason, including but not limited to any such behavior that is directed toward a student on the basis of his
or her academic performance; or against whom federal and state laws prohibit discrimination.” It is further
spelled out that federal and state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex,
sexual orientation, national origin, religion, ancestry, or need for special education services.
School districts are required to incorporate in their conduct and discipline policy appropriate disciplinary
consequences for students who bully and for those who take retaliatory action against someone who reports in
good faith.
Colorado House Bill 12-1345: Section 21: Disciplinary Measures in Public Schools: This legislation was specifically in
response to “zero tolerance” policies that have resulted in unnecessary expulsions, out-of-school suspension and
referrals to law enforcement agencies.
The law discourages mandatory expulsions except in cases of firearms and encourages the use of prevention,
intervention, restorative justice, peer mediation, counseling, and other approaches to address misconduct.
According to 22-33-106 (1.2) School districts are encouraged to consider the following when suspending or
expelling a student, or referring a student to law enforcement (Section 21 (III) :
• Student’s age
• Disciplinary history
• Whether the student has a disability
• Seriousness of violation
• Whether the violation committed threatened safety of any student or staff member
• Whether a lesser intervention would properly address the violation committed
Under §300.530(e), a manifestation determination must occur within 10 days of any decision to change a child
with a disability’s placement because of a violation of a code of student conduct.
Section 4
Referral Process for Determining Eligibility for
Special Education Services
Initiating the Referral
A student demonstrating significant social, emotional, or behavioral concerns
at school may be referred for an evaluation to determine eligibility to receive
Special Education services for a Serious Emotional Disability (SED). The
process for determining eligibility for Special Education services can be
initiated at any time by the school and/or the parent/guardian.
Referral from the Problem Solving Team (PST) or Student Assistance
Team
Consideration of a possible SED is most likely to arise from the Problem
Solving Team (PST), which includes the family, as it addresses concerns for an
individual student. A referral may arise when the progress monitoring data
indicates an insufficient response to interventions when compared to peers
following two or more trials of interventions or when diagnostic data raises
suspicions. It should be noted that one of the eligibility criteria for SED
requires: “A variety of instructional and/or behavioral interventions were
implemented within general education and the child remains unable to receive
reasonable educational benefit from general education (ECEA 2.08[3][c]).” To
meet this requirement, it is reasonable that several interventions of varied
intensities are tried prior to a referral. A referral may also be initiated when
the intensity of the interventions/supports provided cannot be maintained
within general education.
This process represents a significant change in how an initial referral is made
due to the increased emphasis on the collection of data to support whether or
not a student is responding to researched-based interventions that are
implemented with fidelity.
Even when an MTSS is being implemented, it is important not to delay a
referral for special education evaluation beyond the point when the PST begins
to suspect an educational disability. Implementing Response to Intervention
(RtI) within MTSS does not replace the right of a child with a disability to be
identified as such and to receive special education services. Once a referral is
made, and the parent has provided written consent to conduct the evaluation,
the evaluation must be completed within 60 calendar days.
Referral by Parent or Guardian
Parents have the right to request a special education evaluation at any time.
For students with emotional disabilities, parental concerns may arise when
their child receives a mental health diagnosis from a private or community
provider. The family may believe that the student will need additional
supports in order to perform adequately in school. However it is important to
Section Objectives
•
Provide an
understanding of the
referral process for an
evaluation for Special
Education services
•
Provide an overview of
evaluation planning
•
Provide researchbased, standardized
tools used to assess
social/emotional
behavior
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
23
note that a mental health diagnosis from the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and/or medical
diagnosis do not guarantee that the student will be eligible for SED identification. The criterion of an “inability to
receive reasonable educational benefit from general education” (ECEA 2.08[3]) must also be met. Furthermore, it
is not required that a student have a medical diagnosis to be eligible for services.
Administrative Unit (AU) Options When a Parent Makes a Referral
When the AU/District agrees with the parent that the child may be a child with a disability, then the AU/District
must evaluate the child. The first step is for the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation form to be signed
by the parent. Next, the team should proceed with the steps described in the section on Evaluation Planning.
If the AU/District does not believe an evaluation is warranted, and does not plan to conduct such an evaluation, a
Prior Notice of Special Education Action form must be issued to the parents. The Notice of Special Education Action
must address:
• the action that the administrative unit refuses to take,
• why the administrative unit is refusing to take the action,
• the information used in making the decision, (e.g., evaluation procedures, tests, records, etc.)
• any other options and factors considered by the team,
• the procedural safeguards available to the parent.
The parent can challenge this position by requesting a due process hearing to resolve the dispute regarding the
child’s need for an evaluation.* However, it is important to note that when families have been consistently
involved in the problem solving process and in educational decision making regarding their child, such disputes
occur infrequently.
*Adapted from Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RtI) and Early Intervening Services, U.S.
Department of Education, http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home.
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
24
Factors to Consider When Making a Referral
Effectiveness of Interventions:
•
Evidence that interventions implemented are evidence-based and are culturally responsive
•
Documentation that interventions were carried out with fidelity, which includes sufficiency (i.e., as
prescribed and for an adequate length of time, typically at least four to eight weeks) and integrity,
(i.e., carrying out the program as designed)
•
Documentation that adjustments were made to the interventions as a result of ongoing progress
monitoring (e.g., changes were made to the intensity, duration, or frequency of interventions based
on data)
•
Documentation that families have been participating as partners in intervention development,
implementation, and monitoring
Diagnostic Information:
•
Results of any diagnostic/prescriptive assessment administered for the purpose of informing
appropriate instruction/intervention, particularly if the student was not responding adequately to
early intervention attempts or lack of appropriate instruction
•
Evidence suggesting that the student’s behavior is not the result of environmental, cultural or
economic factors, academic disadvantage, social maladjustment, low cognitive functioning, or other
exclusionary factors
•
Family and community data
Continued Need as Demonstrated by Progress Monitoring Data:
•
Evidence that achievement and/or behavior differ significantly from students with similar
sociocultural characteristics
•
Evidence of a gap between a student’s behavior and compliance at least 75% of the time with a
desired behavior
•
Evidence that the gap with peers in regard to the behavioral expectation is not closing
•
Evidence that the student needs ongoing supports/services that cannot be maintained through
general education alone in order to benefit from general education
Evaluation Planning
Multidisciplinary Team
The Multidisciplinary Team that ultimately makes eligibility decisions must be comprised of parents and should
include other individuals who are knowledgeable about the evaluation findings and can interpret their
instructional implications. When the referral relates to social, emotional, and/or behavioral problems, at least one
team member who is knowledgeable about mental health and behavioral concerns (e.g., school psychologist,
social worker, or counselor) is needed. When the Multidisciplinary Team members are selected from those on the
PST, they are already familiar with the child’s history and data. The family, as a member of the PST, will have
already been participating in the intervention and data collecting process. If necessary to provide specific
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
25
expertise or to fulfill particular roles, additional team members can be identified. The Multidisciplinary Team,
which includes the family, will create an evaluation plan and carry out the necessary evaluation, the results of
which are then used by the group to determine whether the child has a Serious Emotional Disability.
Essential members of the Multidisciplinary team include:
• the parent(s)
• the student (age 15 or older)
Required members of the Multidisciplinary team include
•
•
•
•
•
a general education teacher (if student is or may be receiving services in the general education classroom)
•
community or external professionals, as relevant
(Procedural Manual: The Colorado State Recommended IEP, 2008.)
a special education teacher (or Speech Pathologist if child is receiving only speech and language)
an individual who can interpret the results of evaluation(s)
the special education director or his/her designee
related services providers, when their services are being considered for initiation, continuation or
discontinuation
Data Review
Once a decision has been made to refer a student for special education evaluation, the Multidisciplinary Team,
including the parents, should review existing evaluation data on the child. The team must review evaluations and
other information provided by the parents of the child (e.g., parent interview; medical/ psychiatric evaluations;
private clinical evaluations; and the health or developmental history.)
Additional data may include any of the following:
•
•
•
current classroom-based, local, or state assessments
•
•
classroom products
classroom observations
other information from teachers (e.g., developmental, academic, communicative, behavioral and
functional life skills checklists)
record review(s) (e.g., attendance, discipline, and offense reports)
If interventions have been occurring for a period of time, the resulting progress monitoring data will become part
of the body of evidence to be used in determining a disability. Similarly, other data already gathered as part of
the intervention process, including structured observations, interviews, or a Functional Behavior Assessment
(FBA), can be used for purposes of determining eligibility. In many cases, there may be only a few remaining
questions regarding whether a student is eligible for SED.
The team needs to decide whether the information that already exists is sufficient for special education eligibility
consideration and to meet legal documentation requirements. If it is not, the team must determine what further
assessment/information is needed for a “full and individual initial evaluation” (34CFR §§300.304 through
300.306.) All of the relevant information referred to above becomes part of the body of evidence for
determination of a disability. When suspecting an emotional disability, it is advisable for the team to review the
Determination of Disability: Serious Emotional Disability form (See State model form at the end of section 5 of these
guidelines). The criteria for the identification of SED are specified in the document.
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
26
As for any disability, personnel conducting individual assessments need to be qualified to administer the
particular instruments. Any certification or licensure requirements linked to the administration of particular
assessments need to be taken into account.
Prior Written Notice and Consent to Evaluate*
Once the decision to make a special education referral has been made, the school district must provide notice of
the intent to conduct an evaluation for special education eligibility consideration and must obtain informed
consent from the parent, using the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation form. Information regarding the
Parent and Child Rights in Special Education: Procedural Safeguards Notice must be provided to the parents at this
time. It is especially important that the school district ensures parental understanding of their rights and those of
the child. If the family has been participating in the individual PST process, this understanding will be facilitated,
as they will have been learning throughout.
For some students, the team may determine that no additional assessment is needed. This decision is noted on
both Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation form, as well as the justification for the decision. The
evaluation procedures, tests, records or reports that support this decision need to be referenced. Alternatively, if
the team decides that more information is needed and/or there are questions that still need to be answered, the
areas to be evaluated are to be documented on the form.
The full and individual evaluation must be completed within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent for
the evaluation (Federal Register, §300.301 [c]).
* A copy of the Prior Written Notice and Consent to Evaluate form is in Appendix C.
Evaluation for an SED
Within the MTSS framework, assessment for SED is an ongoing, multifaceted, data collection process. The
process begins by systematically applying evidence-based interventions with students who fail to respond to
universal, positive behavioral support strategies and then evaluating their responses. This process takes place
within general education and should not be regarded as steps leading to special education. For students with
social, emotional, and/or behavioral concerns, interventions for both academics and behavior may be needed. It
is anticipated that at least two planned, function-based interventions that last for 4 to 8 weeks each will be
implemented with progress monitoring of their results. If a student’s behavior is too severe or intense, an
exception should be made to the length of this process. Documentation of the interventions and the progress
monitoring results should be included in the Evaluation Summary report.
When the MTSS process involves implementing screening, evidence based interventions and progress monitoring
in a reliable and valid way, the need for additional testing, using formal diagnostic instruments, should be
reduced. A comprehensive battery of assessments in which every student receives the same formal assessments
should rarely be needed.
An evaluation for SED eligibility should describe distinctive patterns of behavior that are related to the five ECEA
criteria along with information regarding the frequency, intensity and duration of maladaptive behaviors, or
deficits in coping skills. Behavior should be assessed across a range of settings and contexts by a variety of
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
27
persons in order to collect a comprehensive view of the student’s behavior. Partnering with the family and
possibly communicating with community agencies can provide information on the child’s functioning outside of
school.
Full and Individual Evaluation
The Federal Regulations and Colorado Rules require that a “full and individual evaluation” (34CFR §§300.304
through 300.306) must be conducted before the initial provision of special education and related services. It must
consist of procedures to determine if the child is a child with a disability and to determine the educational needs
of the child.
As indicated by the phrase “if appropriate” in the following statement from the Regulations for IDEA
2004[(§300.304)(c)(4)], evaluation is now more targeted than in the past. “The child is assessed in all areas related
to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general
intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.”
Even though the evaluation is more targeted, the law also states that it must be sufficiently comprehensive to
identify all of the child’s needs for special education and related services, whether or not commonly linked to
SED. It is not uncommon for a child to exhibit co-occurring disorders or disabilities, (e.g., Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Specific Learning Disabilities) for which all needs must be identified and addressed.
It is anticipated that the data gathered during the problem-solving process, related directly to the student’s
performance in the learning context, should be more focused on the identified social, emotional, or behavior
problems and thereby reduce the need for formal assessments outside the area of specific concern. However, the
Federal Regulations make it clear that, in conducting the evaluation, school personnel must use a variety of
assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the child, including information provided by
the parents. A test of cognitive ability is not required for SED identification, unless needed to rule out a cognitive
impairment.
Following is a list of some of the evaluation tools that might be included in a full and individual evaluation:
•
•
semi-structured interviews (with student, teachers, and family members)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
curriculum-based assessments & other progress monitoring tools
observation of the child across at least two specific, relevant settings, at least one of which is in school if
the child is attending school
results from state & local assessments
functional behavioral assessments
behavior rating scales
vocational assessments
developmental, academic, behavioral and functional life skills checklists
standardized assessments
The team may not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for making a disability
determination and for determining an appropriate educational program. Even though a child’s response to
scientific, research-based interventions is proposed as an important part of the SED determination and the
educational planning process, other types of information/assessment data should be collected throughout the
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
28
MTSS Problem-Solving process that can become part of a body of evidence. For determination of SED, progress
monitoring data alone is not sufficient.
Colorado, along with other states, recognizes that SED can affect academics or social/emotional functioning or
both. Therefore, academics and social/emotional functioning are equally weighted in making a determination of
emotional disability. An impairment in social/emotional functioning typically means that a student cannot build
or maintain relationships with peers and teachers and the result impacts their social development, defined as
“those adaptive behaviors and social skills which enable a child to meet environmental demands and assume
responsibility for his or her welfare (ECEA §2.08 [5][b])”. Evaluation of educational performance from a broader
perspective can focus on school adaptive functioning and behaviors such as motivation, time on task, study skills,
productivity, problem solving and coping skills, and school engagement.
As with all disabilities, evaluation procedures (including assessments) must be valid, reliable and sensitive to
cultural and linguistic differences between students. Assessments are to be administered in accordance to
prescribed instructions by trained and knowledgeable personnel. Evaluation of culturally and linguistically
diverse students should be conducted in the student’s dominant spoken language or other mode of
communication, whenever possible.
In summary, assessments should be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
focused and ongoing,
empirically based,
culturally and linguistically responsive,
designed to answer specific questions,
designed to address academic, social functioning, and exclusionary criteria, and
inclusive of information from a variety of sources (e.g., families, student, general and special education
teachers, related service providers, and community agencies, if applicable.)
With the implementation of MTSS, reduced reliance on formal, standardized assessments is presumed.
Components of a Body of Evidence
A body of evidence is a collection of information about student progress that reflects the student’s social,
linguistic, and cultural background. Gathering a body of evidence at the universal level includes a review of
records and documents offering a broad view of students’ academic, behavior, health, and discipline data and
teacher-family communication. At the targeted level, student, family, and teacher/school personnel interviews in
addition to observations by more than one person across different settings offer more in-depth information
regarding student strengths, needs, behavior, and performance. A functional analysis of behavior is useful to
guide intervention planning. Finally, standardized classroom, district, and state assessments can provide reliable,
comprehensive examination of targeted skills.
Review of Records
Student records contain extensive information pertaining to the history of an emotional or behavioral problem.
Universal screening measures, described in Section 2, may involve record reviews. If this has not already
occurred, the following records may be helpful in understanding the history and nature of a student’s behavior
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
29
and emotional concerns and should be reviewed when determining eligibility for special education services:
•
•
Cumulative Records
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attendance Records
Academic Records: (Curriculum based assessments, state or district level assessments, grade reports,
classroom work samples)
Discipline Records
Transportation Records
Teacher Logs and Records of Academic Progress
Health Records
Past or Present Special Education Records
Family or Community-shared Records/reports as available to assess out-of-school information
These records should be reviewed in order to identify patterns of student performance. Students with emotional
disabilities often have problems with academics, social relationships, attendance, and/or behavior. By examining
these records, practitioners can begin to identify problems that appear to have been triggered by specific events or
culminating events; the settings in which students have the most difficulty and the most success; and the
pervasiveness of problems the student is experiencing. These records also help inform effective intervention
planning for home and school.
Social History:
Problem-solving interviews with teachers and semi-structured interviews with family members and the student
can help to identify specific issues that can be targeted with Tier 2 or 3 interventions. When a full and individual
assessment is conducted for SED eligibility, interviews should be conducted with parents, teachers and the
student whenever possible to develop a comprehensive social history.
Family Interviews:
As described earlier, partnering with families in the problem solving process is a key feature of MTSS. Because
families have unique knowledge of their child, two-way communication is an essential component of intervention
planning. Team members need to be sensitive to and respectful of the emotional impact that having their child
considered for an emotional disability has on families.
For school-based assessment, semi-structured interviews are especially appropriate for families. (Busse & Beaver,
2000) Families can provide information about the student’s strengths and medical and developmental history.
When specific problems are identified, parents can provide information on their duration and frequency as well
as antecedent and consequent conditions that precipitate and sustain the problems. Information can also be
gained about the families’ usual responses to problem behaviors and their expectations and preferences regarding
their student’s behaviors. It may also be important to learn what supports are available in the home to support
the student’s academic performance. Several semi-structured diagnostic interviews have been developed for
interviewing family members. Examples of semi- structured interview questions for family members are available
in Assessment of Children, Behavioral, Social and Clinical Foundations (Sattler, and Hoge, 2006). In addition, many
behavior rating scales include forms for family members. Family participation in providing information during
an FBA adds to its validity and value in determining functions of behaviors and relevant interventions.
Teacher Interviews:
Teacher interviews are another key feature of school-based problem solving consultation. As a general rule,
interviews should be conducted with teachers who spend the greatest time with the student. Following the
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
30
problem-solving model, interviewers should ask about the frequency, intensity, and duration of key problems
and antecedent, sequential, and consequent conditions. Answers to these questions can lead to hypotheses for an
FBA. Teachers can also provide information related to academic performance that is essential to determining
whether emotional and behavior problems have an adverse effect on the student’s educational performance.
Child/Adolescent Interviews:
Semi-structured formats are usually most appropriate for interviewing children and adolescents because they
offer opportunities for evaluating children’s coping strategies and their perception of precipitating events or
persons related to their problems. Questions pertaining to subjective experience are especially important with
adolescents, who are developmentally more able to constrain observable behavior while still experiencing
emotional distress (McConaughy, 2006). Direct interviews also offer opportunities to observe behaviors, such as
response to limit setting, distractibility, language skills, and interaction style. A well conducted interview can
help establish rapport and build a bridge from assessment to intervention. The interview can also be used to
assess the feasibility of different interventions. Many examples of structured interviews for children and
adolescents, including questions for a mental status evaluation, depression, substance use disorder, traumatic
brain injury, etc. are available in Assessment of Children, Behavioral, Social and Clinical Foundations (Sattler, & Hoge,
2006).
Systematic Direct Observation*:
Direct observations are an essential data source for assessing children’s emotional and behavioral problems, and
observations in at least two settings in the child’s environment, one of which must be school, are required.
Observations should occur in relevant settings where problems are occurring, as well as in settings where
behavior is less likely to occur. Because student behavior varies, more than one observation over different days is
needed. Observing one or two control students (matched on demographic factors) in the same setting provides a
comparison with peers. Independent observers are recommended who can record overt behavior and
environmental conditions surrounding behavior. Low frequency, high severity behaviors may be harder to
observe using systematic direct observation. Tools are available to aid in behavior data collection and analysis
(e.g., Behavior Lens, Behavior Tracker Pro, AIMSWeb Behavior, BOSS, etc.)
* Sample observation forms can also be found in Appendix C.
Functional Behavior Assessment*:
A Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) provides important information about the functions that a particular
behavior serves, and is a critical step in developing a positive behavior support plan. By understanding the
function underlying a behavior of concern as well as the conditions (i.e., antecedents and consequences) that
motivate and sustain the problem behavior, teams will be better able to plan interventions. An FBA is most
effective when completed by a team that includes a member trained in the FBA process and who is familiar with
the student, both in and out of school. Family members and students themselves should also be involved in the
FBA process. As problem behaviors become more severe, the process may be conducted with greater depth, time,
and analysis. More complex behavior problems require a multi-modal approach that includes observations,
interviews, and possibly targeted standardized assessment to understand the function the behavior serves for the
student.
* Forms to support the FBA process can be found in Appendix D.
Based on the information obtained through an FBA, a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) addressing the student’s
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
31
problem behavior can be developed. An effective BIP must:
• identify SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-specific) related to
the behavior(s) of concern;
• provide clearly written strategies for all involved in implementation;
• Include the family as a partner, and community resources as needed;
• be implemented with fidelity, as written;
• be evaluated regularly and systematically and revised as needed; and
• identify a plan for providing direct and ongoing consultative support regarding implementation
and evaluation.
Due to the strong connection between academics and behavior, the BIP may include a combination of
interventions in both areas.
Academic Determination:
All special education eligibility evaluations require the assessment
of a child’s current academic achievement and educational
performance. If a review of records, including curriculum based
assessments, state or district level assessments, grade reports,
classroom work samples, and curriculum-based measures are
determined to be insufficient to understanding the student’s
academic functioning, individually administered tests of academic
achievement may provide valuable additional information to the
body of evidence.
According to 2012 legislation concerning
discipline, a behavior plan is required
after two removals from a teacher’s
class, and may be completed after one
removal. In addition, family members
must be notified.
Further, a student cannot be removed
from a teacher’s class for the remainder
of the term unless a behavior plan has
been developed and implemented (C.H.B.
12-1345 § 22-32-109.1[2][B]).
Behavior Rating Scales:
Standardized assessments of social/emotional functioning and behavior through behavior rating scales may
provide more specific information on social/emotional strengths and challenges. They may also help to compare
observations from multiple raters (e.g., parents, teachers, and student). While evidence-based rating scales
incorporate validity scales to address rater inconsistency and/or a consistent, negative tone toward the child,
rating scales are still limited due to their subjectivity. Ultimately, they reflect raters’ perceptions of problems.
According to Chafouleas et al. (2007), a behavior rating scale should be considered an indirect measure of actual
behavior, and information from a single rating scale should not be used as the sole data source in high-stakes
decisions. Thus, results are useful to identify specific areas of concern, but additional data are necessary to design
appropriate interventions (McConaughy, 2006).
Behavior rating scales are tools designed to reliably measure a cluster of related behaviors, (e.g., disruptive
behaviors) based on past observation. With parent and teacher rating scales, the rater must be familiar with the
student. Specific definitions of “familiarity” (e.g., knowing the student six months) may be included within the
directions for a particular scale. Qualified administrators should select standardized rating scales with
empirically-based syndromes and large normative samples that are developmentally appropriate, and adequately
represent both sexes and culture.
Standardized Assessments:
Standardized assessments can provide an in-depth, reliable assessment that focus on specific areas of functioning.
Standardized assessments can also assist in the determination of the “significance” of a behavior (i.e., that a
behavior “exists to a marked degree” as specified in the eligibility criteria). At least one standardized assessment,
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
32
with results supporting the Multidisciplinary Team’s conclusion that a student is/is not a student with an SED,
must be included in the full and individual evaluation. Rather than using a standard battery of assessments, the
use of diagnostic assessments that are focused on a specific area of concern is recommended.
There are many standardized measures used to assess social/emotional behavior. The list below represents
assessments used by many Colorado school districts. It is not exhaustive, nor does it imply a recommendation or
endorsement by the CDE.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; ASEBA™ (Achenbach, 2001; Achenbach, 2000)
Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social Emotional; ASQ:SE™ (Squires, Bricker, & Twombly, 2002)
Beck Youth Inventories™ (Beck, Beck, & Jolly, 2005)
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition; BASC-2 (Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2004) *
Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale Second Edition; BERS-2 (Epstein, 2004)
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; BRIEF (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000)
Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment; BITSEA™ (Briggs-Gowan and Carter, 2005)
Children’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition; CDI-2™ (Kovaks, 2010)
Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales; Conners CBRS™ (Conners, 2008)
Conners, Third Edition™; Conners 3™ (Conners, 2008)
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition; RCMAS-2 (Reynolds and Richmond, 2008)
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC™; March, 2013)
Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree; EDDT (Euler, 2007)
Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance, Second Edition; SAED-2 (Epstein, 2010)
Social Emotional Assets and Resilience Scales; SEARS (Merrell, 2008)
*Note: The BASC is used by many school districts, but further probing may be necessary through the use of
interviews and/or internalizing scales to support results
Projective Measures:
Although some practitioners might choose to use projective measures on an individual basis to assist in case
conceptualization or intervention planning, it is important to recognize that most do not offer sufficient reliability
and validity to be used for special education decision making. The inadequacy and educational irrelevance of
personality tests have led to increasing reliance on more objective procedures.
Parent Permission:
“School personnel shall not test or
Colorado law prohibits school personnel from administering a
require a test for a child’s behavior
test for any student in the area of behavior without giving notice
without prior written permission from the
to the parent/guardian and describing the recommended testing
parents or guardians or the child and
and how the results will be used. This may be a factor when
prior written disclosure as to the
considering a diagnostic assessment of behavior to assist in
disposition of the results or the testing
planning a targeted intervention, prior to any consideration of
there from.”
special education eligibility. A distinguishing factor that may
(C.R.S. 22-32-109 [1] [ee]).
help guide teams in whether parental consent is required is
whether a student is the only one receiving a particular assessment. Professional judgment that depends on the
context and purpose should be utilized in determining whether parent permission is needed for a behavioral
observation. If an observation is being conducted for an FBA, this would be considered to be a behavioral
assessment, and permission should be obtained. When the family has been participating on the Problem Solving
REFERRAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
33
Team and the FBA process, this is typically not a barrier.
A sample school district’s Permission for Assessment and/or Intervention form (when a special education
evaluation is not being considered) may be found in Appendix C.
Summary
To summarize, a referral for a full and individualized evaluation to determine eligibility for a Serious Emotional
Disability includes:
•
compilation of the data from multiple settings and informants, including the family, leading to the
referral;
•
•
consideration of the socio-cultural background and native language of the student;
•
•
identification and prioritization of areas of educational need; and,
collection of a body of evidence related to eligibility criteria, including the function of the student’s
behavior, subsequent related interventions, and the student’s response to these interventions;
comparison of the body of evidence to Colorado state criteria to determine eligibility.
Section 5
Section Objectives:
Eligibility
Resources
Guidelines from other states and school districts were used as references for
the following section. In particular, Assessment, Identification and Education
Planning for Students with Emotional Disturbance from the Riverside County
Special Education Local Plan Area provided a foundation for describing the
SED criteria.
Determination of Eligibility: SED
The Multidisciplinary Team may use the Determination of Eligibility: Serious
Emotional Disability form recommended by the CDE to make a determination of
eligibility for special education and related services (see form that follows).
Each section should be completed based on the guidance provided below.
Definition: A child with a Serious Emotional Disability shall have
emotional or social functioning which prevents the child from receiving
reasonable benefit from general education. ECEA 2.08(3)
Box 1: Information for SED Determination
The team has addressed each of the following statements and has determined:
IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.304 (c)(6), ECEA 2.08 (3)
Yes
No
1. The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to
appropriately identify all of the child’s special education and
related service needs, whether or not commonly linked to the
disability category (Answer must be “yes” in order for the
child to be eligible for services.)
2. The child can receive reasonable educational benefit from
Yes
1.
No
general education alone (Answer must be “no” in order for
the child to be eligible for services.)
3. the student’s performance: (All answers must be “is not”
in order for the child to be eligible for services.)
is
is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction
in reading, including the essential components of reading
instruction;
is
is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction
in math; and
is
is not due to limited English proficiency.
In order for a child to be considered eligible for special education, a
group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child will
determine if a full and individual evaluation has been provided to
• Provide guidance for
completing the
Determination of
Eligibility: Serious
Emotional Disability
(SED) form
recommended by the
CDE
• Provide guidance in
documenting the
considerations and
conclusions of the
Multidisciplinary Team
in the determination of
whether the child is a
child with a SED and
requires special
education and related
services.
• Support compliance
with SED criteria as
outlined in ECEA and
Federal regulations.
ELIGIBILITY
2.
3.
35
appropriately identify all of the child’s special education and related service needs, and
It is determined that the student is not able to receive reasonable benefit from general education based on
a body of evidence which includes observable and measurable assessment data, and
The student may not be determined to be a child with a disability, if the underlying factor for that
decision is:
• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading
instruction;
• Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
• Limited English proficiency.
Multidisciplinary Teams will want to review the student’s attendance history. If issues of truancy or excessive
absenteeism are evident, what specific intervention(s) have been implemented? It will be important for teams to
rule out poor attendance as an underlying factor in the student’s performance.
Box 2: Emotional or Social Functioning Criteria
The Colorado ECEA regulations require that the disabling condition must significantly impair academic and/or
social/emotional functioning. Social and emotional functioning includes one or more of the five criteria listed in
the rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Children Educational Act.
To be eligible as a child with Serious Emotional Disability, there must be evidence that the child’s emotional or
social functioning meets one or more of the following criteria: (check all that apply) ECEA 2.08 (3)(a)
No
An inability to learn that is not primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or other health factors;
and/or
Yes
No
An inability to build or maintain interpersonal relationships, which significantly interferes with the
child’s social development; and/or
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
I.
Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; and/or
A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; and/or
A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
An inability to learn that is not primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or other health factors ECEA 2.08
(3)(a)(i)
This category requires that a student have such a serious emotional disability that he/she cannot learn
despite appropriate educational interventions. The student essentially cannot learn in a general
education classroom as demonstrated by failure to make a satisfactory rate of educational progress.
Evidence includes failing grades, low scores on district and state assessments, inability to complete
assignments, poor progress monitoring data, etc.
“Inability to learn” is demonstrated when the student cannot make academic gains when causes such as a
learning disability, cognitive disability, physical disability, traumatic brain injury, health problem, and
lack of motivation are eliminated. It should not be confused with an unwillingness or disinterest in
learning. Lack of motivation is demonstrated when the student refuses to complete homework as part of
a pattern of disinterest in learning.
ELIGIBILITY
36
In addition to lack of motivation, the differential assessment should also rule out socio-cultural issues and
excessive absences as primary factors interfering with the student's ability to learn. A student with an
emotional disability may exhibit discrepant achievement due to anxiety, pervasive depression, and/or
reality distortion. The related underlying thoughts and feelings may manifest in behaviors associated
with disorganization, quitting or giving up easily, difficulty retaining material, or achievement scores that
remain significantly below potential. Aspects of the student's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors should
be examined to determine if they produce incapacity to learn in the normal school environment, under
non-special education interventions.
The Multidisciplinary Team will want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child’s intelligence appear average or near average?
• Does the child’s hearing and vision appear normal or corrected to near normal?
• Does the child’s physical health appear normal or near normal?
• Does the child appear motivated to learn?
• What does the family observe at home and in the community?
II.
An inability to build or maintain interpersonal relationships, which significantly interferes with the child’s social
development ECEA 2.08 (3)(a)(ii)
This characteristic requires documentation or other evidence that the student is unable to initiate or to
maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and adults in multiple settings, at least one of
which is educational. There should be a pervasive inability to develop relationships with others across
settings and situations (e.g., more than one teacher, peer or peer group.) Examples of unsatisfactory
student behaviors include physical or verbal aggression, lack of affect, disorganized/distorted emotions
toward others, demands for attention, or withdrawal from social interactions.
The Multidisciplinary Team will need to determine that the student has been unable to establish
meaningful and/or satisfactory interpersonal relationships, and that this inability exists primarily because
of the severity of the emotional disability. Inability should be distinguished from an unwillingness to
form relationships that others consider appropriate (e.g., demonstrating warmth and sympathy toward
others, initiating interactions, and working and playing with others). This criterion requires that the
student has an impairment that negatively affects his/her ability to interact with others.
It should be noted that other disabilities may result in the lack of social skills that could otherwise be
systematically taught to the student. The lack of social skills alone or as the result of another disabling
condition does not make a student eligible under this category. Furthermore, a differential diagnosis
needs to rule out other factors, such as social maladjustment or social immaturity, as being responsible
for the impairment.
ELIGIBILITY
37
The Multidisciplinary Team will want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child have any friends at school, at home, or in the community?
• Does the child have significant challenges with give and take?
• Does the child voluntarily play, socialize, or engage in recreation or other activities with others?
• Does the child engage in significantly over-dependent behaviors or seem to want constant
attention or approval?
• Does the child show lack of emotion or disorganized emotions toward others?
• Does the child display consistent anxiety-based or fear-driven avoidance of meaningful schoolbased social interactions?
• Does the child exhibit significant withdrawal behaviors or isolation?
• Does the child seek negative attention that results in being rejected by others?
• Is the child overly affectionate or display inappropriate sexual behavior?
• What does the family observe at home and in the community?
III.
Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances ECEA 2.08 (3)(a)(iii)
Inappropriate behaviors or feelings refer to those behaviors that make the child appear strange or
unusual compared to others in the same situation. Inappropriate behavior can be withdrawn, deviant, or
bizarre behavior, not just aggressive or acting-out behavior. Some children express their inappropriate
behavior or feelings through confused verbalizations, fantasizing, preoccupation with emotional conflict
in their art work, written expression, or other outlets. Developmental norms and comparisons with
peers in similar circumstances should be used to judge whether the behaviors are inappropriate or
unusual.
This criterion includes behaviors that are bizarre or psychotic, such as compulsions, hallucinations,
preoccupations, delusions, ritualistic body movements, or severe mood swings. Once it is established
that the inappropriate behaviors are significantly deviant, it also must be determined that they are due to
an emotional condition. At the same time, a student need not exhibit bizarre or dangerous behavior or
be psychotic or delusional to meet this criterion. The critical question is whether the child’s reactions to
everyday occurrences are appropriate when considered in relation to how the child’s peers would react.
A child’s behavior needs to be unusually serious as compared to peers. According to the Office of Special
Education Programs, “inappropriate behavior under normal circumstances” is behavior that is atypical
for the student and for which no observable reason exists.” For example, running away from a stressful
situation does not qualify as inappropriate behavior.
Behaviors should occur under normal conditions. Teams should consider whether the child’s home or
school situation is disrupted by stress, recent changes, or unexpected events, although this evidence does
not necessarily disqualify an eligibility determination. This category does not include behaviors that
would be described as solely oppositional, willful, and understood by the student.
There are three components to this criteria. Once it is determined that behaviors are significantly deviant,
it also must be determined that they are due to an emotional condition. The team must also determine
whether the student’s inappropriate responses are occurring “under normal circumstances.”
ELIGIBILITY
38
The Multidisciplinary Team will want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child withdraw to the point that school participation is obstructed?
• Does the child exhibit aggression to the point that school participation is obstructed?
• Does the child engage in obsessive thinking (e.g., persistent, recurrent or intrusive thoughts
that cannot be controlled) to the point that school participation is obstructed?
• Does the child engage in self-injurious behavior?
• Does the child appear oriented to time and place?
• Does the child display extreme changes or shifts in mood or feelings or rage reactions?
• Does the student engage in bizarre verbalizations, peculiar posturing or ritualistic behavior?
• Does the child exhibit flat, blunted, distorted or excessive affect?
• Doe the child overreact emotionally, or laugh or cry inappropriately?
• Does the child demonstrate excited behaviors, such as unexplained euphoria, racing thoughts
or excessive agitation?
• Does the child demonstrate limited self-control?
• What does the family observe at home and in the community?
• Does the child have a history of trauma that is currently manifesting in emotional problems?
IV.
A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression ECEA 2.08 (3)(a)(iv)
To meet this criterion the student must demonstrate actual symptoms of depression. Depressive
symptomology typically involves changes in display of emotion, motivation, physical, and motor
functioning, sleeping/eating patterns, and/or cognition. Symptoms of depression are often displayed
differently in children and adolescents than adults (Sharp and Lipsky, 2002), and differ by gender (Bailey,
Zauszniewski, Heinzer, & Hemstrom-Krainess, 2007). The student's manifestation of unhappiness or
depression must be pervasive, chronic, and observable in the school setting. This means that it must have
become a protracted state that has persisted beyond the time usually expected for reactions to a specific
traumatic event or situation.
Feelings of unhappiness or depression are considered natural reactions when they are the response to
traumatic events (e.g., parental divorce, death of a family member, or military deployment). Such
reactions need to be evaluated in the context of the situation in which they occur with special attention
given to their intensity and duration. If the reactions appear to be of mild or moderate intensity or short
duration and closely tied to a specific situation, they should be addressed using non-special education
interventions. If the unhappiness or depression seems unusually intense or has generalized to other
situations, this could indicate an emotional disability.
ELIGIBILITY
39
The Multidisciplinary Team will want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child exhibit inattentive behavior, ruling out attention problems, to the point that
school participation is obstructed?
• Does the child exhibit agitation?
• Does the child exhibit depressed mood and social withdrawal?
• Has the child lost interest in activities, pastimes or social relations that were previously
enjoyed?
• Does the child display major changes in eating patterns or visible changes in weight?
• Does the child demonstrate lack of energy and appear frequently fatigued or over-tired?
• Does the child demonstrate changes in sleep patterns, including insomnia or over sleeping?
• Does the child exhibit diminished ability to think or concentrate, such as memory difficulty
that is not associated with a thought disorder?
• Does the child demonstrate irritability?
• Does the child express feelings of worthlessness or hopelessness?
• Does the child have suicidal ideation?
• What does the family observe at home and in the community?
V.
A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems ECEA 2.08
(3)(a)(v)
This criterion represents physical symptoms or fears that develop as reactions to an emotional problem
that has no known medical cause. Biological or medical conditions such as allergies, neurological
syndromes, and effects of medications should be ruled out. Also, since it is common to manifest physical
reactions to stress and tension, it is important to demonstrate that the physical symptoms and fear are
excessive and chronic and are associated with the student’s personal or school life.
Fears may range from incapacitating feelings of anxiety to specific and severe phobic reactions and panic
attacks. Typically, such feelings and reactions are irrational and persistent to the degree that the student
engages in consistent avoidance behavior in regard to the person or object of his/her fear. Examples of
physical symptoms without a known medical cause include headaches, gastrointestinal problems
(nausea, stomach aches, cramps, or vomiting), and cardiopulmonary symptoms (racing heart rate,
tremors, and hyperventilating.) There can also be physical reactions or behaviors that are not under
voluntary control, such as tics, eye blinking or unusual vocalizations.
An inability to avoid the feared object or circumstance will usually result in severe anxiety or panic
attacks. Often children can describe their fears but cannot give a meaningful explanation for them.
School phobia, also referred to as separation anxiety disorder, or generalized anxiety, may fit under this
category. For these students, the evaluation must differentiate between school phobia and truancy.
ELIGIBILITY
40
The Multidisciplinary Team will want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child work independently?
• Does the child work well in a group with other students?
• Does the child have frequent physical complaints?
• Does the child have frequent requests to visit the health office?
• Does the child display physical reactions that appear linked to stress, such as sweating palms,
nervous tremors, or increased heart rate?
• Does the child complain of physical problems without known medical cause, such as headaches,
nausea, rashes, stomachaches, cramps, or vomiting?
• Does the child have persistent and/or irrational fear of specific objects, situations or activities that
result in compulsive or avoidance behaviors?
• Does the child exhibit hyper vigilant behavior, to the point that school participation is obstructed?
• Does the child demonstrate physical reactions or behaviors that are not under voluntary control,
such as tics, eye blinking or unusual vocalizations that are not related to physical conditions?
• Does the child worry excessively about school performance to the point where physical
complaints are evident and/or result in the inability to perform?
• Does the child express fear of going to school or refuse to attend school?
• For younger children, does the child react negatively when separated from his/her caregiver, to
the point that school participation is obstructed?
• What does the family observe at home and in the community?
Box 3: Exclusionary Clause
The term “serious emotional disability” does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined
that they have a serious emotional disability in addition to social maladjustment. ECEA 2.08(3)(d)
The Multidisciplinary Team has determined that this child is not a child whose sole area of identified
concern is social maladjustment. The answer must be yes in order to continue with the determination of
Yes
No
SED eligibility
This clause has been the source of much discussion, particularly due to the lack of a universally accepted,
working definition for the term socially maladjusted (Merrell & Walker, 2004,) and has resulted in wide variation
in the treatment of children who are socially maladjusted. A multi-factorial view of social maladjustment,
however, has emerged as consistent in the research literature. This view incorporates an internal factor, such as
interpersonal/affective traits (i.e., callous/unemotional dealings with others, lack of guilt over misdeeds,
egocentricity, lack of empathy, and use of others for personal gain) with a behavioral factor of social deviance,
such as antisocial behavior (Gacano & Hughes, 2004; Tansy, 2004).
There is also general acceptance that social maladjustment consists of behaviors that are outside established
norms of the majority culture although the behaviors may be acceptable to members of a subculture. In this
context, social maladjustment is viewed as a persistent pattern of violating societal norms through such behaviors
as truancy, substance abuse, perpetual struggles with authority, poor motivation for schoolwork, and
manipulative behavior. In addition, problems with mood, behavior, or academics that are related solely to
substance abuse preclude a student being qualified as a child with SED.
ELIGIBILITY
41
The overlap between emotional problems and social maladjustment has been confusing for some professionals.
Although IDEA stipulates that a student who is solely socially maladjusted is not eligible for special education
services as a student with an SED, a student who has an emotional disability with social maladjustment is eligible
for special education services as a student with an SED. Because emotional disability is often correlated with
antisocial behavior, children who have an emotional disability are also frequently socially maladjusted (Kehle,
Bray, Theodore Zhou, & McCoach, 2004). Furthermore, children who are socially maladjusted often have
problems with mood disorders, such as depression or anxiety (Davis, Sheeber, & Hops, 2002). Therefore,
Multidisciplinary Teams should not automatically rule out an emotional disability if a student has been
diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder. Rather, an FBA should be utilized to find
the function or purpose of a behavior.
This overlap has created confusion about what social maladjustment is and how to determine if it exists in
isolation. Because of the frequent co-occurrence of emotional disturbance and social maladjustment,
professionals should avoid using an emotional disability vs. social maladjustment strategy for identification of an
SED. Instead, Multidisciplinary Teams should identify an emotional disability in accordance with the five
eligibility criteria first, and the degree to which social maladjustment is evident next. One assessment that uses
this approach to identifying social maladjustment is the Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree (EDDT) Euler,, 2007).
Another assessment that is also specifically based on the federal criteria and includes a scale for social
maladjustment is The Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance – Second Edition (SAED-2), (Epstein, M.H. &
Cullinan, D., 2010). (Please note that CDE does not recommend nor endorse these assessment instruments.
Rather, they may be explored by districts to determine if they meet local needs.) In addition, accessing student
data, such as discipline records, and conducting interviews that include a full social history can provide a broader
context in which to assess a student’s emotional functioning.
The Multidisciplinary Team may want to address questions, such as:
• Does the child display misbehavior that is controlled and understood?
• Does the child have intact peer relations?
• Is the child a member of a subculture group that is asocial or antisocial?
• Is the child skilled at manipulating others?
• Are conflicts primarily with authority figures (e.g., parents, school personnel, and/or police)?
• Does the child appear defiant and oppositional?
• Does the child generally react toward situations with appropriate affect?
• Does the child lack appropriate guilt or remorse and blame others for problems?
• Does the child appear oriented to reality?
• Does the child dislike school except as a place for social contacts?
• Is the child frequently truant or rebel against rules and structures?
• Is the child involved with the criminal justice system?
In the case that the Multidisciplinary Team determines that a child is solely socially maladjusted, the child would
not be eligible for special education services as a student with an SED. In this situation, it is important for the
general education staff, with input from the family, to plan for effective supports within an MTSS framework for
the student.
For more detailed information on this exclusionary factor, please refer to the section of the guidelines called
“Special Considerations”, subheading “Social Maladjustment”.
ELIGIBILITY
42
Box 4a: --Student Meets One or Both of Following Criteria
Criteria for determining if an SED exists and is preventing the child from receiving reasonable benefit from
regular education shall include one or both of the following characteristics. The team will identify one or more
indicators that the child’s emotional or social functioning prevents reasonable benefit from regular education.
The Serious Emotional Disability, as described above, prevents the child from receiving reasonable educational benefit
from general education, as evidenced by one or both of the following criteria (check all that apply) ECEA 2.08 (3)(b)
Academic functioning: an inability to receive reasonable educational benefit from general education
which is not primarily the result of intellectual, sensory or other health factors, but due to the identified
Yes
No
serious emotional disability; and/or
Social/emotional functioning: an inability to build or maintain interpersonal relationships, which
significantly interferes with the child's social development. Social development involves those adaptive
Yes
No
behaviors and social skills, which enable a child to meet environmental demands and assume
responsibility for his or her welfare.
The team must determine if the child meets the criteria of “inability to receive reasonable education benefit” by
identifying if one or both of the following characteristics are present.
1.
Academic functioning
When considering a student who may have an SED, the Multidisciplinary Team must consider the
adverse effect(s) the suspected emotional disability has on the child’s educational performance. A
determination must be made that a student’s social/emotional functioning is having a significant, adverse
impact on academic functioning. Before a referral for eligibility occurs, school personnel are responsible
for obtaining evidence that effective instruction was provided within the general education classroom
and provision of appropriate and timely interventions occurred. Through this process a body of evidence
is gathered that demonstrates that the child is not responding to research-based curricula and instruction
designed to meet the needs of all students. Additionally, information from a variety of sources is carefully
documented and considered in making a determination of eligibility. This information may include
curriculum based measurements (CBM), teacher interviews and recommendations, as well as information
obtained from the child’s family about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and
adaptive behavior. The presence of one of the following indicators would be considered evidence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Failing grades and/or sudden changes in grades
Academic achievement that is significantly below that of grade and/or age peers that is attributable to
an emotional condition, not a learning disability (document impaired achievement areas)
Inability to pass from grade to grade, or to pass several academic courses in a given year
Work samples that show inability to complete tasks
Inability to attend, concentrate, follow class discussions and/or participate appropriately in
educational activities
Chronic absences, or
Other data.
Note: The academic deficit should not be the result of a communication disorder, linguistic differences,
limited cognitive ability, traumatic brain injury, Autism Spectrum Disorder, or a specific learning
disability.
ELIGIBILITY
2.
43
Social/Emotional Functioning
Impaired social/emotional functioning refers to a student’s inability to develop and maintain
interpersonal relationships with others (e.g., peers and/or teachers) resulting in a loss of reasonable
educational benefit. When identifying a student with an SED, the Multidisciplinary Team must first
provide documentation that specific social and/or emotional indicators are present. When practitioners
are working within an MTSS framework, the problem-solving team, which includes the family, may
gather data and monitor the student’s progress over a period of time to determine if the student’s
performance differs from that of peers. This may result in a body of evidence that reflects that the child is
not responding to research-based, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and that the child is
not demonstrating sufficient progress when provided with social, emotional, and/or behavioral learning
experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state standards. See the following link for
more information on the Comprehensive Health and Physical Education standard and the related
Emotional and Social Wellness standards to guide teams in understanding grade level expectations for
student social/emotional competence. http://www.cde.state.co.us/CoHealthPE/StateStandards.asp
Since social development is a necessary and critical component tied to a student’s educational
performance, deficits in social competence which impair one’s ability to form and maintain interpersonal
relationships with adults and peers may qualify the student for services as a student with an SED
regardless of academic achievement if other eligibility criteria are met. Thus, the Social/Emotional
Functioning criterion has equal weight to Academic Functioning, and may stand alone when determining
eligibility.
Box 4b: All Four Qualifiers Shall Be Documented
Upon determining if one or both of the previous characteristics are present, the team shall then provide
documentation on each of four qualifiers to support the identification.
All four of the following qualifiers shall be documented for either of the above criteria demonstrated: ECEA 2.08 (3)(c)
A variety of instructional and/or behavioral interventions were implemented within general education,
and the child remains unable to receive reasonable educational benefit from general education; and
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction exist to a marked degree; that is, at a rate and intensity
above the child's peers, and outside of his or her cultural norms, and outside the range of normal
development expectations, and
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction are pervasive, and are observable in at least two different
settings within the child's environment. For children who are attending school, one of the
environments shall be school; and
Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction have existed over a period of time and are not isolated
incidents, or transient, situational responses to stressors in the child's environment.
The team is responsible for gathering a body of evidence to determine if social/emotional functioning prevents
the child from receiving reasonable benefit from regular education. Evidence for this determination should be
gathered from a variety of sources.
1.
A variety of instructional and /or behavioral interventions were implemented within regular education, and the
child remains unable to receive reasonable educational benefit from regular education (ECEA 2.08[3][c][i]).
ELIGIBILITY
44
Prior to evaluating a student for special education services, school personnel have the responsibility to
ensure that both instructional and behavioral interventions have been attempted and evaluated in the
general education environment before moving to more intensive supports. It is the task of the Problem
Solving Team (PST), which includes the parents, to develop evidence-based interventions with sufficient
intensity to match the student’s needs. Documentation must reflect that the student has not responded to
evidence-based interventions or behavioral strategies that were implemented with fidelity and over a
period of time. In general, two or more trials of interventions should be implemented for a reasonable
period of time and monitored frequently. A reasonable period of time should be determined by the PST
on a case-by-case basis, according to the nature of the problem, the type and intensity of interventions,
progress monitoring data, and an evaluation of progress. However, a general guideline for a reasonable
period of time might be four to eight weeks for each intervention. A Functional Behavioral Assessment
(FBA) and a Behavior Intervention/support Plan (BIP) are usually necessary steps when planning
intensive, individualized interventions for students with social, emotional, or behavioral skill deficits. The
intervention process may occur with varying degrees of intensity and varying frequency of assessment
and progress monitoring.
2. Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction exist to a marked degree; that is at a rate and intensity above the
child’s peers and outside of his or her cultural norms and outside the range of normal developmental
expectations (ECEA 2.08[3][c][ii]).
The problem behaviors must be of such severity and/or intensity that they are clearly apparent to school
staff and others who are familiar with the student. Evidence of the behavior should be observed by more
than one person across a variety of settings and environments. Behaviors should also be significant in
rate, frequency, intensity, or duration. The social-emotional behaviors of concern must be more severe or
frequent than the normally expected range of behavior for students of the same age, gender, and cultural
group.
Marked degree represents a rate and intensity consistent with clinically significant levels of functioning.
Although in some cases standardized assessments can be used to determine clinical significance,
interpretations should be combined with professional judgment. In all cases, careful interpretation of
clinically significant behaviors should involve the examination of any triggering conditions and/or
events, including those in the home and community. Practitioners must carefully choose and interpret
assessment data by ascertaining a level of normal response for culturally and linguistically diverse
populations, and the degree to which the individual is immersed in that group, and then compare the
student’s rate of response to that norm. Sociocultural factors (e.g., socio-economic status) should also be
considered in context, meaning that all data are analyzed within the family’s culture. Comparisons with
age and grade level peers of the same culture may help to provide evidence that behavioral functioning
differs from the norm.
3. Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction are pervasive and observable in at least two different settings within
the child’s environment, one of which shall be school (ECEA 2.08[3][c][iii]).
In this context, the term” pervasive” includes the notion that the frequency, intensity and duration of the
behavior must exceed average developmental and cultural expectations, as determined through objective
assessment methods and an accumulated body of evidence. To be considered pervasive, at least one of
these indicators must be present in school and in one other setting, such as home or community, and
must be documented in the body of evidence. Observations and interviews can be used to document
school behavior. There are family forms for many social/emotional assessments to obtain information
ELIGIBILITY
45
about other environments. Practitioners must then examine academic, environmental, and interpersonal
factors that are contributing to the presence of the target behaviors.
4. Indicators of social/emotional dysfunction have existed over a period of time and are not isolated incidents or
transient, situational response to the student’s environment (ECEA 2.08[3][c][iv]).
Following traumatic or transitional events, it is not uncommon for children to develop behaviors
associated with emotional disabilities. This qualifier is designed to prevent children who may be
experiencing short-lived, acute, undesirable behavior from having those behaviors considered as
evidence of an emotional disability. Examples of situational stressors would include reactions to
traumatic events (e.g., death in the family, divorce, illness, family move, or a financial crisis). In these
situations, it is necessary to determine that the behavioral characteristics have continued beyond the
expected time for normal adjustment. Transient, situational responses to the student’s environment, if
they occur as several isolated incidents, would not meet this standard.
No specific period of time is offered in the federal regulations. The term a long period of time requires
that the student exhibit one or more of the behavioral criteria long enough to be considered chronic. This
means the behavioral characteristics are manifested for four to six months or are displayed by high
frequency of occurrences over a somewhat shorter period of time. For eligibility purposes, a period of
time might better be defined as a set number of data points rather than a specific period of time. The
team must collaborate with the family to determine length of time that seems reasonable to collect a set
number of data points.
General guidelines suggest a school semester would allow the PST sufficient time to collect a body of
evidence regarding the child’s response to research-based interventions. However, in some cases that
may be too long a period of time. Each situation varies due to the unique circumstances surrounding the
context of the child’s behavioral, emotional or mental health status, and other factors, such as the age of
the child or the intensity of the problem. For example, a shorter time period might be considered for
young children and might be appropriate for acute problems that demand immediate interventions.
Box 5: Determination of Eligibility
The process of determining eligibility for a Serious Emotional Disability is complete when the Multidisciplinary
Team, including the parents, agree that the body of evidence is sufficient for making a determination regarding
the student’s ability to gain reasonable benefit from general education, and the extent to which each of the five
criteria (listed in Box 2 above) exist, and that all of the criteria are substantiated.
Yes
No
The child has a disability as defined in the State Rules for the Administration of the Exceptional
Children’s Educational Act and is eligible for special education.
ELIGIBILITY
46
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY: SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISABILITY
Multidisciplinary Team Members IDEA 34 C.F.R. 300.306(a)(1); ECEA 4.02(6)(b)
A copy of the evaluation report(s) and the eligibility statement has been provided to the parent(s). IDEA 34 C.F.R.
300.306(a)(2)
Title
Section 6
Special Considerations
Social Maladjustment
Overview
With the advent of HB 11-1277, Colorado’s criteria for Serious Emotional
Disability were changed to more closely align with the Federal criteria,
resulting in a significant change for students exhibiting social maladjustment
solely. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997) formally
established emotional disturbance as a distinct special education category,
specifically excluding children who are identified as socially maladjusted from
receiving special education services, unless they are also determined to have an
emotional disturbance. This exclusionary clause, in addition to the vague
federal definition of emotional disturbance, has resulted in a great deal of
discussion. Colorado’s former SIED (Significantly Identifiable Emotional
Disability) criteria within the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act (ECEA)
did not include the social maladjustment exclusion provided in the federal law.
In fact, the criteria included characteristics that are typically associated with
social maladjustment (e.g., a consistent pattern of aggression toward objects or
persons, pervasive oppositional, defiant or non-compliant responses; and a
persistent pattern of stealing, lying or cheating). However, under Colorado’s
new criteria, students exhibiting social maladjustment solely will no longer be
eligible under SED.
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the determination of SED
eligibility. Of utmost importance is the need to focus on meeting the social,
emotional, and behavioral needs of children, whether they meet the criteria for
SED or not, through the use of a multifaceted, proactive approach within a
Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework. This framework seeks to
identify student strengths and respond to student needs regardless of a special
education label, making the distinction between SED and social maladjustment
less consequential (Heathfield & Clark, 2004). When using an MTSS
framework, the principles of response to intervention should be applied in
identifying and intervening early with children who have social, emotional,
and behavioral challenges, regardless of whether a student is being considered
for special education.
Though professionals may not agree on the differences between social
maladjustment and emotional disabilities, nor the exclusion or inclusion of
socially maladjusted students in programs for students with social and
emotional disabilities, most agree on the importance of providing all students
with research-based interventions to meet their needs and partnering with
their families to do so. Therefore, some guidelines are provided to assist those
practitioners who desire to better understand and clarify the characteristics of
both SED and social maladjustment.
Section Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address the clause
of excluding social
maladjustment in
eligibility for SED
Address clinical vs.
educational
identification for
SED
Provide guidance
on differential
diagnosis
Support writing
IEP goals for
students with a
SED
Reinforce
expectations
related to
discipline for
students identified
with a SED
Discuss cultural
considerations in
assessing SED
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
48
Definition
The term “socially maladjusted” is not specifically defined in IDEA or in Colorado’s Regulations. As a result,
there is no agreed upon or officially recognized definition. In general, social maladjustment is viewed as a
diagnostic category whose primary feature is that of conduct problems in which maladjusted students choose
not to conform to socially acceptable rules and norms. Many researchers and practitioners agree that social
maladjustment can be “operationalized as a pattern of engagement in purposive antisocial, destructive, and
delinquent behavior” (Merrell & Walker, 2004, p. 901). Students with social maladjustment tend to view
themselves as normal, and are capable of behaving appropriately and following school/social norms. However,
the distinguishing feature of social maladjustment is one of volition, i.e., these students consciously choose to
break rules and violate norms, viewing these choices as normal and acceptable. This intentionality is considered
to be a primary feature of social maladjustment (Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, 2004).
It is important to reiterate that within the MTSS framework, children who are determined not to be eligible for
services as a child with an SED, but who warrant enough concern about their behavior’s impacts on accessing
the general education curriculum, should still receive targeted interventions and have their needs monitored on
a regular basis. Furthermore, schools should consider whether their general education supports are sufficient
to meet the needs of students with characteristics of social maladjustment or if further professional
development related to classroom management, strengthening implementation of PBIS and targeted strategies,
and/or increased alternative education supports are needed.
Common Characteristics
SED and social maladjustment can display many similar characteristics. Thus, it is also possible for a student to
display behaviors that are evident in both SED and social maladjustment, and thereby be identified as being
socially maladjusted in addition to having an SED. It is important to avoid over-simplification; thus, it should be
noted that a full and individual evaluation is required to assess these factors and gain insight into the function of
the behavior.
Differential diagnosis between SED and social maladjustment is also not clearly defined or agreed upon among
professionals. However, in order to respond to students’ significant social, emotional, and behavioral needs and
to apply appropriate interventions and programming that will lead to improved outcomes, attempting to
differentiate may be helpful to some practitioners. The following characteristics are proposed as a guide for
school professionals in making this determination. Although these behaviors occur on a spectrum, the table
below, adapted from work done by Ventura Unified School District, Conejo Valley Unified School Districts, and
Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency (2004), illustrates commonly occurring characteristics
associated with SED and social maladjustment.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
49
Common Characteristics
Social Maladjustment
Serious Emotional Disability
Social Relationships
1.
Peer relationships are usually intact. Often
unsympathetic, and remorseless in relation to others.
Often a member of a subculture group that is antisocial.
1.
3.
Often skilled at manipulating others. Frequently
quarrelsome.
3.
4.
Conflicts are characterized by power struggles, primarily
with authority figures (e.g., parents, school personnel,
and police). Often displays hostility and may engage in
impulsive, criminal acts.
4.
2.
2.
Peer relationships are often short-lived, a source of
anxiety, and sometimes chaotic.
Tends to have difficulty in establishing or
maintaining group membership.
Others are often alienated by the intensity of need
for attention or bizarreness of ideas and/or
behaviors.
Conflict and tension often characterizes
relationships.
Intrapersonal Dynamics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Often displays positive self-concept, except in school
situations.
Tends to be independent and appear self-assured.
Often displays charming, likable personality.
Lacks appropriate guilt; may show courage or
responsibility but often toward undesirable ends;
generally reacts toward situations with appropriate
affect.
Often blames others for his or her problems, but
otherwise is reality oriented.
Often a risk taker; “daredevil”
Substance abuse more likely with peers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Often is characterized by a pervasively poor selfconcept.
Often overly dependent or impulsively defiant.
Is generally anxious, fearful; mood swings from
depression to high activity; frequently has
inappropriate affect or may react to situations with
inappropriate affect.
Frequent denial and confusion; often distorts
reality without regard to self-interest.
Resists making choices, decisions
Substance abuse more likely individually
Educational Performance
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tends to dislike school except as a place for social
contacts.
Frequently truant.
Frequently avoids school achievement, even in areas of
competence.
Tends to rebel against rules and structures.
1.
School is often a source of confusion and anxiety.
2.
3.
Truancy related to somatic complaints
Achievement is often uneven.
4.
Often responds well to structure in the educational
setting.
Interventions
Intervention depends, in large part, upon the underlying function(s) of a student’s behavior, as determined by an
FBA. Educators and families need to evaluate the impact of behavior on the student’s educational progress as
well as a student’s response to intervention. Additionally, progress monitoring data should be collected and
reviewed to help evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and to provide direction for future interventions and
services.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
50
Current research highlights the importance of using a school-wide universal prevention program coupled with
more intensive early interventions for students identified as being at-risk for behavior problems to help prevent
social maladjustment (Kutash, Duchnowski, & Lynn, 2006). Proactive strategies include universal
social/emotional screening and a continuum of mental health services in an integrated, collaborative format with
community mental health services in order to support access to comprehensive, coordinated services for children
and families (Heathfield & Clark, 2004). Components of successful, research-based prevention programs include
family education and partnering to help foster effective home-school relationships and to support classroom
interventions. Successful prevention programs contain three critical components: family partnering, social-skills
training, and academic remediation.
The National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) Position Statement on Students with Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders (2005) proposes a definition of students with emotional and behavioral disorders that
includes, “children or youth with schizophrenia, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, or who have other
sustained disturbances of behavior, emotions, attention, or adjustment.” NASP suggests that practitioners focus
on the “impact of the behavior on the student’s educational progress (as) the guiding principle for identification.”
The organization’s guidelines for developing comprehensive school intervention plans include:
• individualized academic and curricular interventions,
• consultation with teachers and other service providers,
• consultation and partnership with families,
• individual and group counseling,
• social skills training,
• career, vocational, and transitional planning,
• appropriate educational settings,
• effective discipline practices, crisis planning and management, and
• collaboration with community mental health.
Districts might also consider creating these high quality factors within alternative settings, programs, or schoolwithin-a-school options for students with the most intensive needs. Many of the evidence-based programs
provide skill building in areas that all students could benefit from such as conflict-management, problem-solving,
empathy, and goal-setting.
Summary
Whether a student is identified as having an SED or being challenged with social maladjustment solely, educators
should identify interventions based on the individual needs of each student. Though some practitioners see the
importance of differentiating between SED and social maladjustment, it is more effective to evaluate the evidence
of criteria for an SED, recognizing that some degree of social maladjustment typically exists within children with
an SED. Restated, the primary focus of multi-disciplinary teams should be to identify an SED first, and the degree
to which social maladjustment is evident, second. This rationale is based on the considerable overlap between
SED and social maladjustment, as well as the ethical consideration that students with emotional and behavioral
disorders are under-identified and under-served (Cullinan & Kauffman, 2005), outcomes for students identified
as having an SED are extremely poor (Kauffman, 2004), and most school systems do not have an appropriate
continuum of services for these students (Kauffman, 2003).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
51
Clinical Versus Educational Identification of SED
Students with a clinical diagnosis from the DSM-V (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013) do not automatically qualify for special
education because there also needs to be evidence of an “inability to
receive reasonable benefit from regular education…” as well as,
possibly an “inability to build or maintain interpersonal
relationships” [2.08 and 2.08(3)(a)(ii)]. For families who have
recently learned that their child has a serious mental health disorder,
this can be a confusing and upsetting situation. Further consternation
can be caused by the fact that the terminology and/or diagnoses used in clinical reports is often not the same as
the disability categories identified in State and Federal laws related to Special Education.
Although many data sources must be considered in the determination of an educational disability, information
from a clinical assessment/diagnosis may still provide valuable information to the school team. The
Multidisciplinary Team, which includes the parents, must consider information from clinical and medical reports
when determining if the student meets the eligibility requirements for special education. Additionally, evaluation
data and information from a variety of sources (e.g., Child Find teams, multidisciplinary school teams, physicians,
private clinicians/therapists, and parents) must be used by the team in determining whether a child has a
disability that requires special education services.
As mentioned in Section 3 of this document, children with mental or psychological disorders who do not qualify
for special education may be eligible for accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Determining SED versus Other Health Impairment
Colorado’s criteria for Other Health Impairment (OHI) also changed as a result of HB 11 1277. OHI is now
defined as having “limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental
stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, due to a chronic or acute
health problem, including but not limited to asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, leukemia, kidney disease, sickle cell anemia or
Tourette syndrome”[2.08(7)].
To qualify as OHI eligible, a child must meet four conditions. First, he or she must suffer from a chronic or acute
health condition. Second, the health condition must cause limited alertness to the educational environment due
to limited strength, vitality, or alertness or heightened alertness to the surrounding environment. Third, the
child’s educational performance must be adversely affected by the disability. Finally, OHI, like all other
qualifying conditions, must create a need for special education services.
As a result of these revisions to OHI, most students with a diagnosis of a mental illness should be considered for
eligibility under the SED category. However, a student with ADHD may meet the first two qualifying
characteristics in the paragraph above. If the Multidisciplinary Team is trying to differentiate between eligibility
as SED versus OHI for a student thought to have ADHD, the team should consider how that condition is
manifesting itself and its impact on educational performance. For example, if the condition is only affecting
sustained attention/concentration, then a designation of OHI may be more appropriate. In other words, students
whose conditions have an impact primarily on their strength, vitality, over-alertness, would be appropriately
qualified for special education under the designation of OHI.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
52
Conversely, students whose attention deficits are having a more widespread impact on social, emotional, and/or
behavioral functioning may be eligible for special education under the SED designation. This is particularly true if
those conditions meet the SED criteria of being pervasive and having existed for a long period of time.
Another way to make the differentiation clearer is to consider the suggested goals and interventions for the
student. Are they more directed toward attention alone, or to social and/or emotional performance? The former
would suggest identification under OHI; whereas the latter would point to an SED designation.
SED as it Relates to Other Disability Categories
There are times when students present with both an emotional disability and other disabilities, including
intellectual disability, or autism spectrum disorder. When this occurs, teams often struggle with deciding which
disability is primary or has a greater impact on the student’s access to education.
Following are considerations regarding decision-making related to an intellectual disability:
•
Are the student’s social, emotional, and/or behavioral difficulties related to, or a function of their limited
cognitive skills? Due to limited cognitive processing abilities and difficulties in understanding social
situations, many students with an intellectual disability exhibit negative behaviors and struggle with
coping and controlling emotions. Such students have a cognitive disability and need direct instruction in
behavioral expectations and emotional coping skills in addition to their other educational needs.
•
Does the student have emotional difficulties in addition to an intellectual disability? Several mental
health or emotional difficulties can occur co-morbidly with a cognitive disability. In this situation, the
team needs to discuss which disability is having a greater impact on the student or is a greater barrier to
their accessing the general education curriculum and their education. Regardless of the decision, the
team should provide instruction and support related to both the cognitive deficits and the emotional
challenges.
•
Are the student’s emotional difficulties so severe that they are impacting general adaptive functioning,
and thus cause the student to seem to have limited cognitive skills? These students need intense
intervention to address their emotional needs as well as instruction in adaptive skills.
Following are considerations regarding decision making related to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD):
•
Intervention for students with ASD may look very different than for students with SED. While students
with ASD often display difficulties with social interaction and verbal/non-verbal communication skills,
research indicates that effective interventions and strategies differ from those for students who present
with SED, as opposed to those who present with ASD (Simpson et al., 2005). It is best practice for
students with ASD to participate in the general education setting so that appropriate social interaction
and behavior skills can be reinforced. Placing students with ASD in a more restrictive environment, with
SED peers, puts them at-risk for aggressive behavior due to their naivety. Moreover, students with ASD
acquire social skills through observation. The general education setting provides the most appropriate
environment for socialization to occur.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
53
SED and Young Children
Although children three years and older may be referred for evaluation and be determined eligible to receive
services as a child with an SED, the identification of SED seldom occurs in early childhood and/or preschool
settings. A primary reason is that many emotional problems in the 3 to 5 year age range are thought to represent
transient reactions to stressful life events, rather than a disorder per se. Rapid developmental changes also make
it hard to distinguish normal from abnormal behavior (Gardner & Shaw, 2008.) A persistent concern is that a
label of SED “over-pathologizes” normal variation, individual differences, transient reactions, and relationship
disturbances (Egger and Angold, 2006.)
Therefore, it is especially important that a variety of evidence-based and/or best practice interventions have been
attempted in the child’s early childhood setting and that progress monitoring demonstrates that the behavior of
concern continues to be significantly different than that of peers of the same sex, age and culture before a referral
for an eligibility assessment occurs. A Functional Behavioral Assessment is an essential step in planning
interventions. Early intervention and prevention efforts are critical for this age group because research suggests
that 50-60% of children showing high rates of disruptive behavior at age 3-4 continue to show these problems at
school age (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000.)
Family partnering and outreach are also of critical importance with younger children for many reasons. Families
may not seek supports and services on their own because they are unsure if their child’s behavior is sufficiently
different from other children to require help. In other cases, they fear their child will be inappropriately labeled,
or they may regard their child’s condition as a personal failure (Brauner & Stephens, 2006). The perceived stigma
of mental health care can also interfere with help-seeking. On the other hand, family involvement can aid in
assessment when young children are unable to communicate well. Furthermore, behaviorally based parent
training has been demonstrated to be an effective intervention with this age group. (Gardner, Burton, & Klimes,
2006).
When a clear determination of SED cannot be made using developmentally appropriate diagnostic instruments
and procedures, the disability category of “Developmental Delay” may be used for children from three through
eight years of age if they are experiencing developmental delays in one or more of the following areas: physical
development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or
adaptive development. In this situation, multiple sources of information must be used to determine if the child
meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. A score in the seventh percentile or below on a valid, standardized diagnostic
instrument (or the equivalent in standard scores) in social or emotional
development;
2. Empirical data showing a condition known to be associated with significant
delays in development; or
3. A body of evidence indicating that patterns of learning are significantly different
from age expectations across settings and there is written documentation by the
evaluation team, which includes the parents.
(ECEA 2.08 (13) (a) (i – iii)
Evaluations should be done by a team of qualified professionals, using assessments that are age appropriate and
result in a body of evidence (i.e., not one tool or method alone) that are based on observations and consistent
reports of child behavior in multiple settings (i.e., home and preschool, and by parents, teachers, and other
caregivers).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
54
Two resources for screening programs and assessment instruments include: *
• Compendium of Screening Tools for Early Childhood Social-Emotional Development, (Sosna & Mastergeorge,
2005)
• Developmental Screening and Assessment Instruments with Emphasis on Social and Emotional Development for
Young Children Ages Birth – Five (Ringwalt, 2008)
*The CDE does not recommend nor endorse the above instruments.
For additional information on screening, assessing, and interventions for social emotional concerns in early
childhood populations please refer to the Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Interventions
(TACSEI) (www.challengingbehavior.org) and the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early
Learning (CSEFEL) (www.vanderbilt.edu/csefel).
For younger students whose behaviors may vary due to transient reactions to stressful life events, care should
always be taken that unusual behaviors are not the result of temporary, environmental changes. Cultural factors
must also be considered.
Cultural Considerations in Assessing SED
To provide effective interventions and assessments for students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs, schools
must implement culturally competent practices within a culturally and linguistically responsive environment. In
doing so, it is important to consider a variety of factors that may influence a student’s emotions and behaviors,
including the family environment, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and level of cultural
assimilation/acculturation. Cultural competence includes the ability to recognize when and where cultural issues
might be operating and influencing a student’s behavior. Such differences are not limited to one’s race or
ethnicity, but include differences in background, experiences, and life circumstances, as well as values, beliefs,
and attitudes. Failure to understand or appreciate cultural differences may prevent effective service delivery
(Ortiz, 2006).
A key component of cultural competence is the awareness on the part of the practitioner that one’s own culture
greatly influences the way in which he or she views both the world and other people. Cultural self-awareness is
the first step to improving the ability to work effectively with students
from diverse backgrounds. For example, typical North American
values emphasize autonomy, individual achievement, mastery,
punctuality, progress, and future orientation. An awareness of the
extent to which a practitioner identifies with these values may provide
assistance in realizing the values that guide one’s practice and the way
in which one interprets students’ behavior. (Lynch, 2004)
Cultural differences must be considered not only when working with
students, but with families, as well. Efforts to be aware of a family’s
cultural background can lead to improvements in home-school partnering and better outcomes for students.
Additional factors to consider when partnering with families include linguistic differences and educational
background. Such differences in cultural background and experience may impact a student’s learning and
behavior as well as how certain behaviors are understood and treated. These factors may also affect the likelihood
that a family will feel supported by the school and encouraged to advocate for and participate in their child’s
learning environment (Ortiz, Flanagan, & Dynda, 2008).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
55
NASP provides guidelines to support cultural competence. One such publication includes information on basic
counseling skills, intra and inter-personal awareness, cultural competence, cultural literacy, and multicultural
intentionality (Best Practices in Multicultural Counseling, 2007). Another publication discusses policies and practices
for school personnel to best address the mental health needs of students from diverse backgrounds (Culturally
Competent Mental Health Services in the Schools: Tips for Teachers, 2006
[http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/cultcompmhservices.pdf]). In addition, CDE’s Toolkit
for Learners who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse has a new module which addresses behavior. It is on the
CDE website at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/CLD.asp.
Importantly, culturally competent practices, when applied to assessments and interventions, can serve to prevent
the disproportionate representation of specific groups within the SED category.
An understanding of the economic, political, ecological, social, and historical conditions that play a
role in shaping a family’s unique cultural patterns will aid in providing an individualized approach
to service delivery (NASP Best Practices, 2008).
Developing IEP Goals for Students with SED
Of great concern is the fact that students with SED have the poorest outcomes of any disability category,
according to national data (Kaufman, 2004). Therefore, the IEP Team needs to give careful consideration to
developing goals for the student with social, emotional, and/or behavioral deficits. For many of these students,
academic achievement is also low, and it is anticipated that there will be one or more goals directed at any area of
academic weakness. Improvement in academics frequently has a positive impact on behavior. At the same time,
it is essential that a minimum of one goal be directed to the behavior(s) of concern. This goal needs to have reasonable
timeframe for improvement in order to determine whether interventions need to be changed or their intensity
increased.
Manifestation Determinations
School personnel have the authority to consider, on a case by case basis, unique circumstances when determining
whether to order a “change in placement”, indicating a removal for more than 10 days, for a child with a
disability who violates a code of student conduct. For more information, see guidance document Discipline of
Children with Disabilities http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/Guidance.asp. The current regulations add a
provision for determining whether a behavior was a manifestation of the disability (§300.530[e][1][i] and [ii]).
The following two questions must be asked during the Manifestation Determination:
1.
2.
Was the conduct in question caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s
disability?
Was the conduct in question a direct result of the Local Education Agency’s failure to implement the IEP?
If the parents and relevant members of the IEP team determine that the conduct in question was a manifestation
of the child’s disability, the IEP team must either conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) and develop a
Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), or revise the existing BIP, as necessary.
Appendix A
1. Family, School, and Community Partnering
Family and Community Partnering is the collaboration of schools, families, and communities as equal
partners in improving learner, classroom, school, and district outcomes (CDE, 2010). Over forty years of
research highlights that when schools, families, and community groups work together to support
learning, children do better in school, stay in school longer and like school more (Henderson & Mapp,
2002; Jeynes, 2012).
Family and community partnering is the collaboration of families, schools, and communities as equal
partners in improving learner, classroom, school, and district outcomes. In effective partnering, each
stakeholder shares responsibility for student success by:
•
establishing and sustaining trusting relationships
•
understanding and integrating family and school culture
•
maintaining two-way communication
•
engaging in collaborative problem-solving, using data
•
coordinating learning at home, school, and in the community, and
•
acknowledging and celebrating progress (CDE, 2010).
Central to effective partnering is the recognition of shared responsibility and shared ownership of
student challenges and successes. Families are key partners in all aspects of an MTSS framework, and
should be recognized as having vital information and expertise that they can contribute to the
partnership. It is important for school personnel to partner with families at the earliest point, to
mutually develop interventions, to provide families with progress monitoring information, and to
empower them as equal partners in supporting their children’s learning, both at home and school.
Multi-tiered family, school and community partnering describes the importance of families coordinating
social, emotional, and behavioral learning at the universal (Albright & Weissberg, 2010 ; Sheldon &
Epstein, 2001), targeted, and intensive levels (Duchnowski & Kutach, 2007; Jurbergs, Palcic, & Kelly,
2007; Peacock and Colett, 2010; Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008; Webster Stratton & Reid, 2003). The
Colorado State Advisory Council on Parent Involvement in Education strongly encourages every school
to implement the National Standards for Family-School Partnerships (PTA, 2008) at the universal level so
that there are “core” partnering practices in place for the upper tiers. These are: welcoming all families
into the school community; communicating effectively; supporting student success; speaking up for
every child; sharing power; and collaborating with the community.
Family-school partnering has also been conceptualized in a multi-tiered framework, aligning processes
and practices with the MTSS framework. This model recognizes that families and educators may need
APPENDIX A
57
different levels of partnering to support a student’s school success. Boundaries between the universal,
targeted, and intensive tiers are permeable and fluid which allows families and staff to obtain or request
services across the tiers as circumstances change over time (Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011).
Family-school partnering processes at the universal tier are applicable to all students, families, and
school staff and include such research-based processes as building relationships, creating a welcoming
setting, using two-way communication, and educating partners. These processes become the “cushion”
that also supports targeted and intensive interventions. Partnering processes at the upper level tiers
(i.e., targeted and intensive), include all universal processes and add actions needed to team
interventions when a student is struggling. When teaming is indicated, partnering processes focus on
the development of evidenced-based interventions that can vary by degree of intensity, duration, or
resource allocation. Teaming partnerships that occur in the upper tiers refer to shared efforts by family
members, students, classroom teachers, school specialists and/or community resources if a student’s
learning or behavior concerns at home or at school intensify. Upper tier focus may also be indicated
when an educator or family member is struggling with partnering or needs support or education. In a
tiered partnering framework, processes and practices differ based on resources and need.
Within a tiered model, 80%-90% of families, students, and staff typically benefit from universal
partnering processes and shared practices. Focused partnering processes and practices with smaller
groups may be needed at the targeted tier for some partners (i.e., between 5-15%). At the intensive tier,
highly individualized partnering may be needed for a few students, families and staff (i.e., 1-5%). Thus, in
a classroom of 30 students, approximately 25 would flourish with universal partnering opportunities
offered to all families and students, while another one to five students and their families might need
more targeted or intensive partnering opportunities during the year. The multi-tiered framework
embraces the understanding that for every student, families, and educators will engage in partnering
behaviors with the belief that each student will succeed in school. Responding meaningfully to students
with disabilities and diversity in culture, language, learning, and economic resources may be
conceptualized within a tiered framework, as more resources and time may be needed by educators to
accomplish this successfully (Hill, 2010).
Appendix B
Multi-tiered System of Support – Additional Information
1. Instruction Designed to Improve Student Outcomes
Efforts to integrate behavior and academic instruction at the school-wide and classroom levels
are a primary objective of Colorado educators. Therefore, in order to meet the current and future needs
of every student, including students with disabilities, educational professionals need to implement
practices that include behavior and academic supports in a systematic school-wide and classroom
manner, and partner with families to coordinate efforts.
MTSS Guidelines for Instruction
All MTSS practices are founded on the assumption and belief that all children can learn. The
result is that it is the educator’s responsibility to identify the curricular, instructional, and
environmental conditions that enable learning.
It is best to intervene early with learning and behavior problems, when problems are relatively
small. At a general level, solving small problems is both more efficient and more successful than
working with more intense and severe problems.
Using a multi-tiered approach provides efficient, needs-driven, resource deployment systems to match instructional
resources with student need. To achieve high rates of student success for all students, instruction in schools must be
differentiated in both nature and intensity. To efficiently differentiate instruction for all students, tiered models of
service delivery are used.
Uses a problem-solving method to make decisions within a multi-tier model. Research has supported the
effectiveness of using a clearly defined method to determine student need and to develop and evaluate interventions.
This thinking process can be applied to all students in a system, to small groups of students, and to individual
students. Standard treatment protocols provide efficient, research-based vehicles for addressing the needs of a large
number of students at a secondary tier. Individual problem solving is necessary at tertiary levels within a multi-tier
system. In both systems a problem-solving logic set is used in data-based decision making. Creating a problemsolving culture is central to improving educational outcomes for every student.
Foundational to effective instruction is the use of evidence--based interventions/instruction. NCLB and the 2004
reauthorization of IDEA both require use of scientifically based curricula and interventions. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that students are exposed to curriculum and teaching that have demonstrated effectiveness
for the type of student and the setting. Evidence-based instruction/interventions provide the support for effective
strategies for a majority of students.
Regularly and consistently monitors student progress to inform instruction. The only method to determine if a
student is improving is to monitor the student’s progress. The use of assessments that can be collected frequently
and that are sensitive to small changes in student behavior is recommended. Determining the effectiveness (or lack
thereof) of an intervention early is important to maximize the impact of that intervention for the student. Instruction
may be tailored to the needs of every child only through the use of highly effective, universal-systems informed by
sensitive progress-monitoring practices.
The effective and efficient use of data is foundational for educational decisions. A data-based decision regarding
individual students is central to MTSS practices. Decisions in practice are based on professional judgment informed
directly by student performance data. This principle requires both that ongoing data-collection systems are in place
and that resulting data are used to make informed instructional decisions.
APPENDIX B
59
Use assessment for three different purposes:
1. screening applied to all children to identify those who are not making academic or behavior
progress at expected rates,
2. diagnostics to determine what children can and cannot do in important academic and
behavioral domains, and
3. progress monitoring to determine if academic or behavior interventions are producing desired
effects.
(Batsche, 2005)
2. Steps in the Problem-Solving Process
A. Define the Problem
“The problem should be stated in objective, measurable terms, using direct measures of academics,
behavior, and/or social interactions. The definition of the problem must focus on teachable academic,
behavioral, or social skills that can be measured and can be changed through the process of instruction.”
(RtI: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementation, 2008) The problem can also be defined as the difference
between what is observed and what is expected in an individual student, or in a small group of students.
For example, a 10th grade student may be on-task 30% of time and completing tests with 50% accuracy
while classmates are on-task 75% of the time and completing tests with 78% accuracy. Thus, defining
the problem may involve evaluating the performance and expectations of peers in order to provide the
context or a measure for determining the deviancy of any observable behaviors or performance data. A
similar process of describing observable behaviors can also be used for individuals with internalizing
problems such as depression or anxiety. For example, visits to the school nurse, delay time in starting a
task, missed days from school, amount of peer engagement, or self-ratings of mood might all be
measureable indicators of a student’s functioning
B. Analyze the Problem
“The goal of problem analysis is to answer the question. “Why is this problem occurring?” During this
step, relevant information about the problem is gathered and considered, potential hypotheses about
the probable causes of the problem are described, and further information (assessment) is gathered to
either confirm or disprove the hypotheses.” (RtI: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementation, 2008)
Generally, four methods exist to gather information in school settings. They include:
•
review of existing data,
•
interviews (with student, parents, teachers, peers),
•
observations ( in classroom and/or other settings), and
•
tests (direct assessment using valid procedures).
APPENDIX B
60
When the etiology of a behavior has been determined through the analysis of existing data or by
conducting a Functional Behavioral Assessment (e.g., poor social skill development leading to
inappropriate peer interactions), the team should explore evidence-based interventions. Some
questions for the team to ask in analyzing the problem include:
•
Has the student been taught the target skill?
•
How does the school environment support the acquisition and application of the target skill?
•
How common is the problem?
When problems are occurring for large numbers of students (e.g., more than 20% of the population,)
changes in universal interventions or core instruction may be necessary. Standard protocol (for small
groups) or individualized interventions may be needed when only a few students are concerned.
C. Develop and Implement the Plan
The goal of the third step is to develop a teaching/intervention plan that addresses the function of the
behavior. The plan must also consider whether adequate support exists to ensure fidelity of
implementation, including both integrity and sufficiency.
A good intervention plan:
•
explicitly defines the replacement behaviors and/or skills to be taught;
•
focuses on measurable objectives;
•
identifies who will complete various tasks, when and how;
•
specifies support to ensure implementation integrity and sufficiency will be provided and how
they will be documented;
•
describes a plan for measuring and monitoring effectiveness of the intervention (including a
quantifiable baseline and target goal for the skill to be developed);
•
considers the resources available; and,
•
coordinates home and school learning.
In preparation for evaluating student response to intervention, the team needs to:
•
decide who will do the progress monitoring and how often it will be done;
•
set logical data review timelines based upon the intervention(s); and
APPENDIX B
•
61
determine decision rules based on data to be used in looking at whether the intervention or
goal needs to be modified.
D. Evaluate the Response to Intervention
“Progress monitoring is a methodology for measuring the effectiveness of an intervention and to answer
the question, “Is the instruction/intervention working?” If an intervention is not delivering the desired
results, the intervention should be adjusted or changed. Thus, a key feature of any method used to
collect data is that it can be administered frequently and is sensitive to small changes in skill level.” (RtI:
A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementation, 2008) Student performance can be easily visualized and
evaluated when graphed using tools such as School Wide Information Systems (SWIS), Chart Dog, Goal
Attainment Scaling, and/or student self-monitoring.
“If a behavioral intervention is not producing the desired results, a first step is to determine whether the
intervention is being implemented as designed and for an appropriate amount of time. If not,
adjustments should be made to ensure intervention integrity and sufficiency. Teams should also
consider whether the intensity of an intervention needs to be increased by: 1) reducing the size of the
group, 2) increasing the amount of time/frequency that the intervention is delivered, or 3) narrowing
the focus of the intervention.
In summary, problem-solving is a self-correcting, decision-making model focused on academic and/or
behavioral intervention development and monitoring using frequently collected measurable data on
student performance. The problem-solving process should be rich in data collection and can be
repeated as necessary.” (RtI: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementation, 2008)
3. School Climate and Culture for Improved Student Outcomes
A.
Explicitly Teach Expectations/Rules
Most educators recognize the need for explicit and effective instruction of academic skills. However,
the need for formalized practice and procedures to explicitly teach behavior expectations is not as
commonly recognized in the school setting. Teaching students to understand basic school-wide and
classroom expectations often prevents behavior problems from occurring, which saves instructional
time. Sharing explicit instructions with families, supports students practice in various environments,
and helps to generalize skills.
B.
Points to Consider When Teaching Behavior Expectations
• Keep a record of plans for institutional memory (e.g., school handbook, syllabus) and future
planning.
• Keep notes during the teaching process for things to adjust when re-teaching.
• Be sure to adapt lesson presentation for developmental levels (i.e., student age).
• Plan for re-teaching opportunities (e.g., following extended breaks from school).
APPENDIX B
•
•
•
•
C.
62
Plan for rewarding follow-through of behavior expectations.
Plan for correction and re-teaching with lack of follow-through of behavior expectations.
Use an explicit instructional process.
Ask for feedback and data from families
Suggested Instructional Sequence for Teaching Behavior Expectations
• Define expectation.
• Provide rationale for expectation.
• Teach critical discrimination of expectation (i.e., model examples and non-examples).
• Practice the behavior, if possible in the setting where the behavior is required.
• Discuss what will happen when expectations are followed and what will happen if behavior
errors occur. Also, systematically teach basic classroom routines/procedures where behavior
infractions tend to occur.
D. Suggested Routines/Procedures to Consider
 transitions (i.e., moving from one activity to another, in or out of classroom, between home and
school)
 getting assistance
 working independently
 working in groups
 lining up
 handing in homework and assignments
 sharpening pencils and preparing materials
 hall passes (i.e., bathroom breaks, phone calls)
 procedures specific to classroom equipment (i.e., computers)
 classroom schedule
E.
Reinforce Expectations/Rules
Positive adult attention to appropriate student behaviors is the most powerful way to encourage,
increase and maintain positive behavior in the school setting. Expectations that are well defined and
explicitly taught are an essential component of proactive and preventive school-wide and classroom
management. However, acknowledging and positively reinforcing students for demonstrating the
desired behavior skill increases the likelihood that they will continue to follow expectations and
rules. For this reason, effective school-wide and classroom management systems include consistent
reinforcement, as well as shared knowledge between home and school. The goal of reinforcement is
to make doing things the right way more efficient for getting needs met than doing things the wrong
way. There are many ways to positively reinforce students; however, simply noticing students and
their positive behavior and acknowledging their success socially is a powerful practice that is
underutilized in schools.
APPENDIX B
63
Suggested Types of Reinforcement
 positive social acknowledgement, including verbal
feedback
 privileges
 social activities
 additional opportunities to make choices
 family and community two-way acknowledgment
F.
Correct Behavior Errors
Once behavior expectations have been established and taught, and a system of reinforcement for
demonstrating behavior skills has been implemented for school-wide and classroom management,
procedures for systematic correction of behavior errors and re-teaching of behavior skills should be
implemented. This system for correcting behavior errors should be consistent across staff members,
school locations, and in out-of-school settings (e.g., home, before-and after school care,
community). Additionally, consequences for behavior errors should be addressed using a hierarchy
of reductive techniques, with consequence levels matched to severity of student behavior and
developmentally appropriate practices followed.
Appendix C: Sample Forms
Legal Name of Student
DOB
SASID Student ID (SASID)
Date
PRIOR NOTICE & CONSENT FOR EVALUATION 300.9 AND 300.300 AND 300.503
Dear _________________________________,
Your consent and assistance are requested to determine if your child has a disability, or continues to have a disability, requiring special
education services.
The school is proposing the following: 300.503(b)(2)
 Based on a review of existing information, no additional evaluation
 To evaluate your child for special education eligibility.
data are needed to determine if your child is or continues to be
300.300(a)
eligible for special education services or to determine your child’s
 To reevaluate your child for special education eligibility.
educational needs. 300.305(a)
300.300(c)
Areas to be evaluated:
Reason: 300.305(d)(i)
Reason: 300.305(d)(1)(i)
If you disagree, you may request an assessment. 300.305(d)(1)(ii)
This proposal is based on the following evaluation procedures, tests, records or reports: 300.503(b)(3)
Other options we considered were: 300.503(b)(6)
We decided against these options because: 300.503(b)(6)
Any other factors considered by the team: 300.503(b)(7)
Sincerely, __________________________________________
Name/Title
________________
Phone
Parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards. For a copy or assistance in understanding this
information, please contact the person named above. 300.503(b)(4)
We request your consent because:
Consent for Special Education Evaluation
 This is an initial evaluation and will be used to determine whether your child is a child with a disability and to determine special
education needs. 300.300(a)
 This is a reevaluation and will be used to decide your child’s continued eligibility and/or education needs. 300.300©
 I give my consent for the evaluation or re-evaluation. I understand my consent is voluntary and may be revoked for any evaluation or
reevaluation that has not yet been conducted. 300.9(a),(b),(c),(1) and (2)
 I refuse consent for the evaluation.
 I agree that no additional evaluation data are needed.
______________________________________________________
_______________
Signature (Parent/Guardian/ESP)
Date
 Date consent received by District/Administrative Unit: ______________
 For initial evaluations, a copy of the Notice Procedural Safeguards have been given the parents
APPENDIX C
65
Permission for Assessment and/or Intervention
Student’s Name:
Student ID#
Date of Birth:
Grade:
School:
Date of Meeting:
(Please note: This permission for focused assessment and/or targeted/intensive intervention is to be reviewed and
discussed with a parent as a component of ongoing communication and student success planning.)
Dear Parent:
Our school is committed to supporting student success. If a student experiences
difficulty in academics or behavior, it is important for school personnel and parents
to work together. You are invited to participate in the planning and monitoring of
your child’s targeted interventions. A record of your child’s assessment,
interventions, and progress will be kept in an intervention file at the school. The
quality and effectiveness of interventions for your child will be strengthened by your
involvement.
Specific Area of Concern:
Considered Assessments/ Staff Involved:
Considered Interventions/Staff Involved:
APPENDIX C
66
Purpose of Assessment or Intervention:
I give permission for my child to participate in focused assessment and/or
targeted/intensive intervention with the appropriate intervention specialist. I
understand that I am invited to participate in the planning and monitoring of my
child’s school success as relates to these assessments and interventions. I
understand that I will be given feedback as to the meaning and results of the
assessments and interventions and will receive information/ideas on how to support
school success at home.
Parent/Guardian Signature ___________________________ Date___________
Intervention Facilitator ______________________________________________
Telephone: ___________________ email: ___________@____________.
A copy of this parent permission form is to be given to parents and the original is
placed in the student’s intervention file.
Adapted from Cherry Creek School District, Student Achievement Services, July 2005.
APPENDIX C
67
Sample Observation Forms
Interval and Time Sampling Data Form
15 minute observation period
10 second intervals
Student ____________________________
Date ___________________
Setting/Activity
_______________________________________________
Observer __________________________________
Check Method Used:
____ Momentary Time Sampling (behavior occurred at end of interval)
____ Partial Interval (behavior occurred during any part of the interval)
____ Whole Interval (target behavior occurred during the entire interval)
Start Time: ______ Stop Time:_____ Interval Length: _____
(seconds)
Behavior
Code(s)
Behavior
Definition(s)
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Minute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ten Second Intervals
APPENDIX C
68
10
11
12
13
14
15
Notes: ______________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
69
ON-TASK DATA SHEET
STUDENT:
PAGE:____OF____
DATE:
SAMPLING: Partial interval system (15 seconds observation, followed by
5 seconds recording time).
ACTIVITY:
START TIME
END TIME:
INTERVAL #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ON-TASK
OFF-TASK
NOT RATED
APPENDIX C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Adapted from Laura Riffel.
70
APPENDIX C
Latency Measurement
STUDENT:
PAGE:____OF____
DATE:
ACTIVITY:
TASK
Adapted from Laura Riffel
Time Assigned
Time
Began
Time Between
assign and
beginning
71
Appendix D
Functional Behavior Assessment & Behavior Intervention Plan
FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT OBSERVATION FORM
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Time: ____ : ____
Observer: ________________________________
Student: _________________________________
Classroom/School: _____________________________________________
Setting Description:
Description of Behavior:
Time
Antecedents
Behaviors
Adapted from Effective School Consultation: An Interactive Approach, Sugai and Colvin.
Adapted from Building Positive Behavior Support Systems in Schools, Deanne A. Crone & Robert H. Horner.
Consequences
APPENDIX D
73
Functional Behavioral Assessment Behavior Support Plan (F-BSP) Protocol
Functional Behavioral Assessment Interview –Teachers/Staff
Student Name ____________________________________
Age:____
Grade:____ Date:__________________
Person (s) interviewed:____________________________________________________________
Interviewer _____________________________________________________________________________________
Student Profile: What is the student good at or what are some strengths that the student brings to school?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
STEP 1: INTERVIEW TEACHER/STAFF/PARENT
Description of the
Behavior
What does the problem behavior(s) look like?
How often does the problem behavior(s) occur?
How long does the problem behavior(s) last when it does occur?
How disruptive or dangerous is the problem behavior(s)?
Description of the
Antecedent
When, where, and with whom are problem behaviors most likely?
Schedule
(Times)
Activity
Specific Problem
Behavior
Likelihood of
Problem Behavior
Low
High
1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
With Whom does
Problem Occur
APPENDIX D
Summarize
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Antecedent (and Setting Events)
What situations seem to set off the problem behavior? (difficult tasks, transitions, structured
activities, small group settings, teacher’s request, particular individuals, etc.)
When is the problem behavior most likely to occur? (times of day and days of the week)
When is the problem behavior least likely to occur? (times of day and days of the week)
Setting Events: Are there specific conditions, events, or activities that make the problem behavior
worse? (missed medication, history of academic failure, conflict at home, missed meals, lack of sleep,
history or problems with peers, etc.)
74
APPENDIX D
Description of the
75
Consequence
What usually happens after the behavior occurs? (what is the teacher’s reaction, how do other
student’s react, is the student sent to the office, does the student get out of doing work, does the
student get in a power struggle, etc.)
- - - - - - End of Interview - - - - - -
STEP 2: PROPOSE A TESTABLE EXPLANATION
Setting Event
Behavior
Antecedent
Consequence
1.
2.
Function of the Behavior
For each ABC sequence listed above, why do you think the behavior is occurring? (to get teacher attention,
to get peer attention, gets desired object/activity, escapes undesirable activity, escapes demand, escapes
particular people, etc.)
1.________________________________________________________________________________
2.________________________________________________________________________________
How confident are you that your testable explanation is accurate?
Very sure
6
So-so
5
4
Not at all
3
2
1
APPENDIX D
76
Functional Behavioral Assessment Interview – Students
Student Name _____________________
Age:____
Grade:____
Date:_________________
Interviewer ______________________________________________________________________
Student Profile: What are things that you like to do, or do well, while at school? (E.g. activities, classes,
helping others, etc.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
STEP 1: INTERVIEW STUDENT
Description of the
Behavior
What are some things you do that get you in trouble or that are a problem at school? (e.g. talking out, not getting
work done, fighting, etc.)
How often do you _______________ ? ( Insert the behavior listed by the student)
How long does __________________ usually last each time it happens?
How serious is _________________? (Do you or another student end up getting hurt? Are other students distracted?)
APPENDIX D
Description of the
Antecedent
Where, when and with whom are problem behaviors most likely?
Schedule
(Times)
Activity
With Whom does
Problem Occur
Likelihood/Intensity
of Problem Behavior
Low
High
1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Specific Problem
Behavior
77
APPENDIX D
Summarize
Antecedent (and Setting Events)
What kind of things make it more likely that you will have this problem? (difficult tasks,
transitions, structured activities, small group settings, teacher’s request, particular individuals, etc.)
When and where is the problem most likely to happen? (days of week, specific classes, hallways,
bathrooms)
When is the problem behavior least likely to occur? (days of week, specific classes, hallways,
bathrooms)
Setting Events: Is there anything that happens before or after school or in-between classes that
make it more likely that you’ll have a problem? (missed medication, history of academic failure,
conflict at home, missed meals, lack of sleep, history or problems with peers, etc.)
Description of the
Consequence
What usually happens after the problem occurs? (what is the teacher’s reaction, how do other
student’s react, is the student sent to the office, does the student get out of doing work, does the
student get in a power struggle, etc.)
- - - - - - End of Interview - - - - - -
78
APPENDIX D
79
STEP 2: DEVELOP A TESTABLE EXPLANATION
Setting Event
Behavior
Antecedent
Consequence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Function of the Behavior
For each ABC sequence listed above, why do you think the behavior is occurring? (to get teacher attention,
to get peer attention, gets desired object/activity, escapes undesirable activity, escapes demand, escapes
particular people, etc.)
1._____________________________________________________________________________________
2._____________________________________________________________________________________
3._____________________________________________________________________________________
4._____________________________________________________________________________________
5._____________________________________________________________________________________
6._____________________________________________________________________________________
STEP 3: RATE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN THE TESTABLE EXPLANATION
If you completed both interviews, was there agreement on these parts? (Y/N)
(a) Setting Events __ (b) Antecedents ___ (c) Behaviors ___ (d) Consequences ___ (e) Function ___
How confident are you that your testable explanation is accurate?
Very sure
So-so
6
5
4
3
2
Not at all
1
APPENDIX D
80
STEP 4: CONDUCT OBSERVATIONS (IF NECESSARY)
•
If student has an identified disability and is at risk of suspension, expulsion, or change in placement you
must conduct an observation of student
•
If student does not meet above criteria, but confidence rating is 1, 2, 3, or 4 you should conduct
observations to better understand when, where, and why the problem behavior is occurring.
•
If student does not meet above criteria, and confidence rating is 5 or 6, you may go directly to Step 6
Summarize Observation Data
Setting Event
Behavior
Antecedent
Consequence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Function of the Behavior
For each ABC sequence listed above, why do you think the behavior is occurring? (to get teacher attention,
to get peer attention, gets desired object/activity, escapes undesirable activity, escapes demand, escapes
particular people, etc.)
1._____________________________________________________________________________________
2._____________________________________________________________________________________
3._____________________________________________________________________________________
4._____________________________________________________________________________________
5._____________________________________________________________________________________
6._____________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
81
STEP 5: CONFIRM/MODIFY TESTABLE EXPLANATION
Was there agreement between the Teacher Interview and the Observation? Y/N
a) Setting Events ___ (b) Antecedents ___ (c) Behaviors ___ (d) Consequences ___ (e) Function ___
Was there agreement between the Student Interview and the Observation? Y/N
a) Setting Events ___ (b) Antecedents ___ (c) Behaviors ___ (d) Consequences ___ (e) Function ___
Based on the interviews and observations, what is your working testable explanation for why the problem
behavior occurs?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
STEP 7: EVALUATE PLAN
Behavioral Goal (Use specific, observable, measurable descriptions of goal)
What is the short-term behavioral goal?
_________ Expected date
What is the long-term behavioral goal?
_________ Expected date
What is the long-term behavioral goal?
_________ Expected date
APPENDIX D
Evaluation Procedures
Data to be Collected
Procedures for Data Collection
Person
Responsible
Plan review date:_________________
We agree to the conditions of this plan:
_______________________________
______________________________
Student
Parent or guardian
(date)
(date)
_______________________________
______________________________
Teacher
Teacher
(date)
(date)
_______________________________
______________________________
Action Team member
Action Team member
(date)
(date)
Timeline
82
APPENDIX D
BUILD A COMPETING BEHAVIOR PATHWAY
Desired
Behavior
Setting Event
Antecedent
Problem
Alternative
Behavior
Behavior
Consequence
Consequence
Function
83
APPENDIX D
Task
Prevention: Make problem
behavior irrelevant
(environmental redesign)
Teaching: Make problem
behavior inefficient (teach
new skills)
Extinction: Make problem
behavior ineffective
(minimize reward for
problem behavior)
Reinforcement: Make
desired behavior more
rewarding
Person
Responsible
Addendum A: Behavior Support Plan: Action Plan
By When
Review
Evaluation Decision
Date
• Monitor
• Modify
• Discontinue
84
APPENDIX D
Consequences: Socially
appropriate, aversive event
delivered contingent upon
problem behavior (only used
if needed)
85
APPENDIX D
86
APPENDIX D
87
APPENDIX D
88
Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) Form Narrative
The purpose of this narrative is to guide behavior planning teams through the process of designing and implementing positive Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) when
using the Colorado Department of Education’s (CDE’s) standard recommended BIP form found at http://www.cde.state.co.us or in developing a BIP form for their
school/district. This narrative outlines the procedures for accurately completing each section of the form, describes each step of the behavior planning process in detail,
and explains the importance of each step. This will assist the team in following the sequential steps of designing and implementing a BIP and prompt the team to
integrate essential components such as involving parents and using data to guide decision-making. Various behavior-planning tools are referenced throughout this
document and are included as appendices. This document may also serve as a guide for districts to use when assessing their standard form for behavior planning.
Rationale and Legal Requirements for Using a Behavior Intervention Plan
“Students with disabilities are neither immune from a school’s disciplinary process nor are they entitled to participate in programs when their behavior impairs the
education of other children… school authorities can take swift disciplinary measures… against disruptive handicapped students” (Judge Daly, Stuart v. Nappi).
Disciplinary practices must be brought into play as part of a continuum of research-based strategies including school-wide positive behavior supports. When disciplinary
practices are used exclusive of positive behavior supports, student outcomes are effectively diminished. However, when employed as part of a comprehensive approach
to achieving a positive school climate, school personnel are able to balance the individual needs of special education students with the expectation of a safe and orderly
learning environment for all students. Appropriate student behavior must be defined, taught, reinforced, monitored, re-taught and corrected. The use of functional
behavior assessments is critical in guiding those working with a child to create an effective BIP to reduce problem behavior and to promote appropriate behavior. Not
all students with disabilities are required to have a BIP. However, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are required to develop a BIP and follow student discipline
procedures in accordance with IDEA 2004, 34 CFR § 300.530 through §300. 537 and ECEA Rules §6.02 (10).
The 2006 IDEA regulations at 34 CFR § 300.530 (f) require that if the district, parent and relevant members of the IEP team determine that a student’s conduct (that
gave rise to a change in placement, i.e. a removal for more than 10 consecutive days or a series of removals that constituted a pattern) was a manifestation of the
student’s disability, the IEP team must either:
1. Conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) (unless the district had conducted such assessment before the behavior that resulted in the change of
placement occurred) and implement a Behavioral Intervention Plan for the child.
2. When a Behavioral Intervention Plan already has been developed, review the plan, modify it as necessary to address the behavior, and return the child to the
placement from which he/she was removed (except when the parent and district agree to a change in placement as part of the modification of the Behavior
Intervention Plan).
Additionally, a BIP is required as outlined in 34 CFR § 300.530 (d)(1)(ii). A student with a disability who is removed from his or her current placement either for:
1. more than 10 consecutive days for behavior not determined to be a manifestation of his disability, 300.530 (c), or
2. a student who is removed to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days for weapons, drugs or serious bodily injury, irrespective of
whether his behavior is a manifestation of his disability, 300.530 (g), must receive as appropriate a functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral
intervention (plan) services and modifications that are designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur.
APPENDIX D
89
Instructions for Completing the Behavior Intervention Plan Form
The Colorado Department of Education suggests that LEAs use the CDE recommended Behavior Intervention Plan form found at http://www.cde.state.co.us for students
with disabilities who have an IEP. This narrative provides guidance for teams completing this form. The following numbered sections contain descriptive information
that corresponds to each required step on the BIP form. For your convenience, there are references to FBA tools and resources in the appendix to facilitate data
collection.
Identifying Information
Include student identifying data and parent contact information, such as names, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc. There is also a place to record the date of the next
planning meeting, which should be no more than 30 days from the last meeting date. In addition, there is a place at the top of the page to record the date of the most
recent planning meeting. It is important to always record the new date so that everyone knows they have the most updated version of the plan.
1. Sources of Information
Here the team documents how they obtained information about the student. The team can check off all sources of information that apply, including interviews,
observations, checklists, academic assessments, and record reviews. The goal is to collect information about the student from a wide variety of sources. (See FBA tools in
appendix)
2. Strength Based Profile
This section of the BIP form is for documenting a strength-based profile for the student. The team will use these strengths and interests in the intervention process to
“set the student up for success”, including identifying positive relationships the student may have with adults and/or peers. The team may want to identify pro-social
behaviors the student consistently engages in as well as identify support the child receives from family and community. Other protective factors may include academic
assets, hobbies, talents, or special interests. Document the strength-based profile at the beginning of the plan so that the student’s strengths are used in designing the
interventions. Ideally, student strengths are considered throughout the creation, teaching, implementation, monitoring, communication, and revision(s) of the plan, and
teams weave these strengths throughout the plan, keeping them in mind at each stage of the process.
3. FBA Summary (hypothesis) Statement
The summary (hypothesis) statement is developed from information gathered during the FBA process. Using observations, interviews, background information, and
other data, the team generates a hypothesis regarding the student’s motivation for engaging in the problematic behavior. The summary statement includes important
elements such as the setting events, antecedents, problem behavior/s, and reinforcing consequences. Setting events are situations or circumstances that may exacerbate
the problem behavior. Antecedents serve as predictors of the problem behavior, such as when and where it is most likely to occur. They are environmental triggers that
are most likely to “set off” the behavior and may be identified by looking at the child’s daily routine. The behavior is a result of either trying to obtain a reinforcing
consequence or to avoid or escape from an undesirable task or situation. The maintaining consequences either positively (obtain) or negatively (escape from) reinforce
the child’s problem behavior. When considering replacement behaviors it is important to make the problem behavior inefficient, ineffective, and irrelevant. When using
the Competing Pathways model, replacement behaviors are taught that will help achieve a more positive outcome for the child with the same level of effort. The
following example is provided as a template for the summary statement:
APPENDIX D
90
When (specific activity) occurs, (the student) engages in (describe behavior in measurable terms) in order to gain or avoid (describe the maintaining
consequence that either positively or negatively reinforces the behavior)
In first period class, when instructions for an assignment are given, Mary is likely to break her pencil and throw it indiscriminately at another object (i.e.
desk, wall, and floor) and then sit quietly at her desk with arms folded or head on her desk. Mary gains immediate attention when the teacher comes to her
desk to provide one-to-one instruction.
The process for completing the summary statement is consistent with the Competing Pathways worksheet widely taught throughout the state by CDE personnel as one
of the more effective models for behavior interventions. The Competing Pathways model provides a visual representation of what we are trying to accomplish in the BIP.
(See Competing Pathways document in Appendix).
4. Strategies and Outcomes Worksheet
The team should have the Strategies and Outcomes Worksheet in front of them as they design strategies to implement that will address the problem behavior.
The Strategies and Outcomes Worksheet has four columns: Setting Event Strategies, Antecedent Strategies, Behavior Teaching Strategies, and Reinforcement
Strategies. Design a strategy that addresses each part of the Competing Pathways model. Outcomes are based on data collection and measurement of the
behavior. Outcomes are successful whenever the established criterion has been met. If the outcome is not successful, the team should meet to determine
alternative strategies. It may be helpful to document the dates the strategies are implemented (i.e. from 2/1/07-2/28/07) and the date criterion for success is
met.
Setting Event Strategies
Setting Event strategies are designed to prevent the problem behavior, make it irrelevant or reduce the likelihood that it will occur. Setting Event Strategies
include modifying the activity schedule, adapting the curriculum, modifying the design of the instruction, adding prompts for appropriate behavior, precorrecting for typical problem situations, identifying prevention strategies that can be used at home, and considering environmental arrangements. Example:
Mary will check-in with the school psychologist in her office every morning when the bell rings for first period.
Antecedent Strategies
Antecedent Strategies are also preventative and address the events that most often trigger the problem behavior. Antecedents are immediate predictors of the
problem behavior and may be described by including when and where the behavior occurs. Example: when a difficult writing assignment is anticipated, Mrs. T.
will provide Mary the option to work alone or with a peer.
Behavior Teaching Strategies (Alternative Behaviors)
Behavior Teaching Strategies are designed to make the problem behavior less efficient. In other words, the team should plan to teach the student alternative
ways of obtaining the reinforcement s/he receives after engaging in a problem behavior. This requires the team to identify whether a skill deficit exists, i.e. does
the student refuse to engage in the appropriate behavior because s/he can’t, or because s/he won’t? If a skill deficit exists then teach the expected behavior. It is
important for the team to identify the specific replacement skills and then teach those skills to the student. This might also mean teaching adaptive social skills.
Example: Mrs. T will teach Mary to “ask for help” when frustrated instead of yelling profanities and breaking pencils.
APPENDIX D
91
Reinforcement Strategies (Consequences)
Reinforcement Strategies refer to strategies that make the problem behavior less effective. This means identifying the factors that reinforce and sustain the
problem behavior, then implement strategies that minimize positive (obtain) and negative (avoid) reinforcement for the problem behavior. Introduce a
reinforcement schedule that will, over time, lead the student to generalize the newly acquired skills across settings. Example: When Mary appropriately “asks
for help” instead of yelling, Mrs. T will provide acknowledgement and timely reinforcement.
5. Crisis Intervention Plan
If the student displays unsafe behaviors (i.e. behaviors that may injure self or others) a crisis intervention plan should be developed. The crisis intervention plan will
emphasize prevention, positive intervention, and a continuum of de-escalation techniques. Interventions are applied in sequential steps from the least to the most
effective. It is important to create a crisis plan and attach it to the BIP. The plan should be communicated and distributed to all relevant parties. Keep the plan
somewhere easily accessible in case a crisis occurs. Implementers may not have time to search through the BIP during an emergency. Ensure that the crisis intervention
plan is aligned with district and state policy and supports the school or district safety plan. If the student’s behaviors do not call for a crisis plan there is no need to
include one in the BIP.
6. Evaluation
Effectiveness of the plan is determined through ongoing evaluation. First, identify questions that need to be answered. Next, specify the information needed to answer
those questions. Once this is decided, designate a specific person to collect this information. An effective measurement system includes ongoing progress monitoring
and data collection. Again, specific persons should be designated for collecting and evaluating data for each measurement system. Create timelines that include a
schedule for reviewing the plan. Review the plan continuously. No more than 30 days should pass between review dates. During plan review, the team uses the
collected data to drive their decision-making and to create a more effective plan. An essential element in determining the effectiveness of a plan is identifying the criteria
for success. Define the success criteria in quantifiable, measurable terms. Student input is critical in this process. A student can provide valuable insight into whether
the plan is working and how it might work better. Any progress monitoring data should be kept in a centralized location along with the plan. Many of the same
measurement tools used in developing an FBA can be used in collecting baseline data and for progress monitoring. Please see FBA tools. The key to progress monitoring
is to chart discrete measurable behaviors at regular intervals over a pre-determined period of time to evaluate if they meet the criterion for success. Always review
progress monitoring data at the 30-day follow-up meeting. Resources for collecting and charting progress monitoring data can be found at www.pbis.org,
www.interventioncentral.org and http://www.behaviordoctor.org .
7. Contextual Fit
Contextual fit is an important consideration when designing a BIP. Design the plan specifically for the environment in which it will be implemented. The team must
consider the skills, resources, budget and impact of time constraints to effectively implement the plan with fidelity. The BIP must be congruent with the cultural values,
norms, and expectations of those implementing the plan, as well as family and community members who regularly interact with the student. Ensuring contextual fit
includes planning ahead for changes in normal routines, such as when there is a substitute teacher. The team may consider ways to provide technical assistance or
training to team members with skill deficits Identify who will collect and analyze data and determine the availability of materials for successful implementation. A team
should identify in the plan the best approach to support the implementers of the plan. The people you want to think about in this process include the student, the
teacher, the persons collecting and analyzing the data, and the family. This is best achieved by giving priority to the interests of the student and family, by obtaining
input from the student, and by encouraging the student to be fully invested in the plan. Finally, the plan must be aligned with district policy and have the approval of the
building administrator.
APPENDIX D
92
8. Communication Plan
A key component of an effective Behavior Intervention Plan is communication. When the team arranges for communication of the BIP, they must first determine who
needs to be notified and who needs copies of the BIP. After this is determined, the team must designate persons responsible for communicating the plan to other team
members and determine how contact will be made. Parents and school personnel should always have ongoing communication with each other and have an updated
copy of the plan. It is important to decide the dates/times and frequency of communication, taking special care to communicate revisions and updates in a timely
manner with the appropriate people.
9. Team Members
There is a place to record the names of the members of the planning team. Parents/guardians and the student (as appropriate) are team members. The team should
designate an intervention facilitator and record it on the BIP form. The role of the intervention facilitator is to coordinate meetings and communications; however the
intervention facilitator is not responsible for all duties. The team should delegate duties such as collecting materials or data collection. The team may consider having a
sign in sheet at a behavior planning meetings, particularly if the student is on an IEP. If the student has intensive needs and requires services from a variety of different
agencies, the team might consider designating a “wrap facilitator” to coordinate wraparound services.
Conclusion
The purpose of this narrative is to provide the rationale and legal requirements for using Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs), detailed guidelines for completing the CDE
BIP form, and information for districts to use as a tool in developing their own BIP forms. Each required content area of the BIP is defined and explained. The BIP team
should always include the student’s parent/guardian and the student (as is age appropriate). School personnel to be included on the student’s behavior team are those
who will be involved in the development, monitoring, and evaluation processes. BIPs should be strength based, contain a summary statement that is developed from a
Functional Behavioral Assessment process, provide strategies and outcomes for intervention implementation, have a specific evaluation/progress monitoring plan, and
provide a contextual fit to the needs of the student. At times a Crisis Intervention Plan will be warranted and should be included with the BIP and distributed to all team
members and any personnel who may need to implement it. Communication should be frequent and open between all team members.
Resources, such as CDE’s recommended BIP form, are available at http://www.cde.state.co.us. Additional resources are available at www.pbis.org,
www.interventioncentral.org, and http://www.behaviordoctor.org.
Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs)
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABC Observation Form 1 (PDF)
ABC Observation Form 2 (PDF)
Assessing Activity Routines Form (PDF)
Brief Functional Assessment Interview Form (PDF)
Competing Pathways (PDF)
Competing Pathways, Part 1 (PDF)
APPENDIX D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Competing Pathways, Part 2 (PDF)
Competing Pathways Summary Instructions (PDF)
Fast Fact: FBA - What, Why and How (BEING REVISED)
FBA Guidelines (US DEPT OF ED)
FBA-Behavior Support Plan Protocol (PDF)
FBA-BSP Protocol from Horner and Crone (PDF)
FBA Planning Tool (PDF)
Federal Register (US DEPT OF ED)
Functional Assessment (PDF)
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (PDF)
Functional Assessment Observation Form (PDF)
Functional Behavior Assessment Implementation Checklist (PDF)
Functional Behavioral Assessment Matrix (PDF)
Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form (PDF)
Functional Interpretation of Behavior (PDF)
Goodness-of-Fit Survey for Families (PDF)
Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PDF)
Project FACILE - Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PDF)
Scatter Plot Assessment (PDF)
Scatter Plot Form (PDF)
Self Assessment - Context Fit in Schools (PDF)
Student-Guided Functional Assessment Interview (PDF)
Tips for Good Behavior Plans (PDF)
93
References
Achenbach, T.M. & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms &
Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
Youth, & Families.
Achenbach, T.M. & Rescorla, L.A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms &
Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
Youth, & Families.
Albright, M. I., & Weissberg, R. P. (2010). School-family partnerships to promote social
and emotional learning. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of
school-family partnerships (pp. 246–265). New York, NY: Routledge.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). DSM IV-TR: Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders--Text revision (Fourth ed.). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychiatric Association.
Bailey, M.; Zauszniewski, J.; Heinzer, M. & Hemstrom-Krainess, M. 2007. Patterns of
Depressive Symptoms in Children. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
20(2), 86-95.
Batsche, G.; Elliott, J.; Graden, J.L.; Grimes, J.; Kovaleski, J.F.; Prasse, D.; Reschly D.J.;
Schrag, J; and Tilly, D.W. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations
and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE
Beard, K.Y., & Sugai, G. (2004). First step to success: An early intervention for
elementary children at risk for antisocial behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 29(4), 396409.
Beck, J.S., Beck, A.T., Jolly, J.B., and Steer, R.A. (2005). Beck Youth Inventories, Second
Edition for Children and Adolescents manual. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.
Brauner, C. & Stephens, C. (2006). Estimating the Prevalence of Early Childhood Serious
Emotional /Behavioral Disorders: Challenges and Recommendations. Public Health
Reports, Vol. 121
REFERENCES
95
Briggs-Gowan, M.J., & Carter, A.S. (2005). Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional
Assessment/Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessment, Inc., 2005.
Busse, R. T., & Beaver, B. R. (2000). Informant reports: Parent and teacher interviews. In
E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Conducting school-based assessments
of child and adolescent behavior. pp. 235-273. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Callender, S. & Hansen, A. (2004). Family-School Partnerships: Information and approaches
for educators. NASP Helping Children at Home and School II. Baltimore, M.D.
National Association of School Psychologists.
Campbell, S.B., Shaw, D.S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems:
Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and
Psychopathology, 12, 467-488.
Chafouleas, S.M., Christ, T., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Briesch, A.M., and Chanese, J. (2007).
Generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Ratings to measure social
behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 63-79.
Chafouleas, S.M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., and Sugai, G. (2007). School-based behavioral
assessment: Informing Intervention and Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside of school is
critical. Public Welfare (Spring), 17-23.
Colorado Department of Education (2008). Procedural manual: The Colorado state
recommended IEP. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
Colorado Department of Education (2008). Response to intervention: A practitioner’s guide
to implementation. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
Colorado Department of Education (2009, 2011). Teaching, Empowering, Leading &
Learning (TELL) Survey.
Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
REFERENCES
96
Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners Third Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Conroy, M. A. (2004). Prevention and early intervention for young children at risk for
emotional or behavioral disorders. Fifth CCBD mini-library series: Meeting the
diverse needs of children and youth with E/BD—evidence-based programs and practices.
Arlington: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. in Bradley, R.,
Doolittle, J., and Bartolotta, R. (2008). Building on the data and adding to the
discussion: The experiences and outcomes of students with emotional
disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(1), 4-23. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9058-6.
Cullinan, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Do race of student and race of teacher influence
ratings of emotional and behavioral problem characteristics of students with
emotional disturbance? Behavioral Disorders, 30, 393-402.
Davis, B., Sheeber, L., & Hops, H. (2002). Coercive family processes and adolescent
depression. In J. B. Reid, G. R, Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 173192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Doll, B. & Haack, M.K. (2005). Population-based strategies for identifying schoolwide
problems. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for Intervention (pp. 82-102).
New York: Guilford Press.
Duchnowski, A.J., & Kutach, K. (2007). Family-driven care: Are we there yet? Tampa, FL:
University of South Florida, The Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health
Institute, Department of Child and Family Studies.
Epstein, M.H., & Cullinan, D. (2010). The Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance,
Second Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Euler, B. L. (2007). Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree. Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Filter, K., & Horner, R. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem
behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 1-19.
REFERENCES
97
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., and Cushing, L. (2002). Early intervention, positive behavior
support, and transition to school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10,
149-157.
Gacano, C.B., & Hughes, T.L. (2004). Differentiating emotional disturbance from social
maladjustment: Assessing psychopathology in aggressive youth. Psychology in the
Schools, 41, 849-860.
Gardner, F., Burton, J., & Klimes, I. (2006). Randomized controlled trial of a parenting
intervention in the voluntary sector for reducing child conduct problems:
Outcomes and mechanisms of change. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
47, 1123-1132.
Gardner, F., & Shaw, D., (2008). Behavioral Problems of Infancy and Preschool Children (0-5).
In Rutter, D. et al. Rutter’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 5th edition. pp. 882893. Blackwell Publishing.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., and Kenworthy, L. (2000). BRIEFTM: Behavior
Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System—Rating Scales.
Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Heathfield, L. T., & Clark, E. (2004). Shifting from categories to services: Comprehensive
school-based mental health for children with emotional disturbance and social
maladjustment. Psychology in the Schools, 41(8), 911-920.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Hill, N.E. (2010). Culturally-based worldviews, family processes, and family-school
interactions. In S. Christenson & A. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family
partnerships (pp. 448-472). New York: Routledge.
Isaacs, J. B. (2008). Impacts of early childhood programs. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/09_early_programs_isaa
cs/09_early_programs_isaacs.pdf.
REFERENCES
98
Jeynes, W. & Beuttler, F. (2012). What private & public schools can learn from each
other. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(3), 285-304.
Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J., & Kelley, M. (2007). School-home notes with and without
response cost: Increasing attention and academic performance in low-income
children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology
Quarterly, 22(3), 358-379.
Kagan, S. L., & Neuman, M. J. (2000). Early care and education: Current issues and
future strategies. In S. J. Meisels, & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (pp. 339-360). Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Kamphaus, R.W., & Reynolds, C.R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening
System Manual. Circle Pines, MN: Pearson.
Kauffman, J.M. (2004). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral
difficulties in education. In P. Garneer, F. Yuen, P. Clough, & T. Pardeck (Eds.),
Handbook of emotional and behavioral difficulties in education. London: Sage.
Kauffman, J.M. (2003). Appearances, stigma, and prevention. Remedial and Special
Education, 24, 195–198.
Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Zhou, Z., & McCoach, D. B. (2004). Emotional
Disturbance/Social Maladjustment: Why Is the Incidence Increasing? Psychology
in the Schools, 41(8), 861-865.
Kern, L., & Clemens, L. C. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate
classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 65-75.
Kern, L., Gallagher, P., Starosta, K., Hickman, and George, M. (2006). Longitudinal
outcomes of functional behavior assessment-based intervention. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(2), 67-78.
Kovacs, M. (2010). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems Inc.
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., and Lynn, N. (2006). School-based mental health: An
empirical Guide for decision makers. Tampa, FL: Research and Training Center for
Children’s Mental Health.
REFERENCES
99
Lee, Y., Sugai, G., and Horner, R. (1999). Effect of component skill instruction on math
performance and on-task, problem, and off-task behavior of students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1,
195–204.
Lines, C., Miller, G. E., & Arthur-Stanley, A. (2011). The power of family-school partnering
(FSP): A practical guide for school mental health professionals and educators. New
York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lynch, E. W. (2004). Developing cross cultural competence. In E. E. W. Lynch & M. J.
Hanson (Eds.)., Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with
children and their families (3rd ed., pp.19-40). Baltimore: Brookes.
March JS. Manual for the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC). MultiHealth Systems, 1997.
McConaughy, S. (2006). Clinical interviews for children and adolescents: Assessment to
intervention. New York: Guilford.
Merrell, K.W. (2008). Social-Emotional Assets and Resilience Scales. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing.
Merrell, K. W., & Walker, H. M. (2004). Deconstructing a definition: Social
maladjustment versus emotional disturbance and moving the EBD field forward.
Psychology in the Schools, 41, 899–910.
Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004) Functional behavioral assessment: An
investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based
interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 168-181.
Ortiz, S. O. (2006). Multicultural issues in school psychology practice: A critical analysis.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, (22)2, 151-167.
Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., Dynda, A. M. (2008) and Burke, C. R. (2008). Best practices
in working with culturally diverse children and families. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-V (pp.1721-1738). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
REFERENCES
100
Peacock, G. G., & Collett, B. R. (2010). Collaborative home/school interventions: Evidencebased solutions for emotional, behavioral, and academic problems. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Preciado, J. A., Horner, R. H., Scott K., and Baker, S. K. (2009). Using a function-based
approach to decrease problem behaviors and increase academic engagement for
latino english language learners. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 227-240.
Position statement on students with emotional and behavioral disorders. (2005).Retrieved July
20, 2010, from National Association of School Psychologists.
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sebd.aspx
Reid, J. B., Patterson, H,. and Snyder, J. (2002) Antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior assessment system for children (2nd
ed.). Circle Pines, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Reynolds, C.R., Richmond, B.O. (2008). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale;
RCMAS-2 (2nd ed.).Western Psychological Services, Torrance, CA.
Ringwalt, S. (2008). Developmental screening and assessment instruments with an emphasis
on social and emotional development for young children ages. The National Early
Childhood Technical Assistance Center
Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of Children: Behavioral, Social and Clinical
Foundations (5th ed). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publishers, Inc.
Sharp, L. K., & Lipsky, M. S. (2002). Screening for depression across the lifespan: A
review of measures for use in primary care settings. American Family Physicians,
66(6), 1001–1008.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2001). Focus on math achievement: Effects of family and
community involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Anaheim, California.
REFERENCES
101
Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting
family-school connections and interventions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer
Publishing.
Simpson, R., et al. (2005). Autism Spectrum Disorders: Interventions and treatments for
children and youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sosna, T. & Mastergeorge, A. (2005). Compendium of screening tools for early childhood
social-emotional development. California Institute for Mental Health.
Sprague, J., Cook, C., R., Browning Wright, D., and Sadler, C. (2008). RTI and behavior: A
guide to integrating behavioral and academic supports. Horsham, PA: LRP
Publications.
Squires, J., Bricker, D., & Twombly, E. (2002). The ASQ: SE User’s Guide for the Ages &
Stages Questionnaires®: Social-Emotional: A parent-completed, child-monitoring system
for social-emotional behaviors. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., and Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007).
Three-tier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive
Interventions, 9, 239-252.
Tansey, J. (2004). Risk as politics, culture as power. Journal of Risk Research, 7(1), 17-32.
Twyman, K. A., Saylor, C. F., Saia, D., Macias, M. M., Taylor, L. A., & Spratt, E. (2010).
Bullying and ostracism experiences in children with special health care needs.
Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 1-8.
Utah State office of Education (2004). Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions
Guidelines. Positive Behavioral Supports and Selection of Least Restrictive
Behavioral Interventions.
Walker, H. M., Nishioka, V. M., Zeller, R., Severson, H. H., and Feil, E. G. (2000). Causal
factorsand potential solutions for the persistent underidentification of students
having emotional or behavior disorders in the context of schooling [Special
issue]. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(1), 29-39.
REFERENCES
102
Walker , H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders
(SSBD): User’s guide and administration manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Walker, H. M., & Sylvester, R. (1991). Where is school along the path to prison?
Educational Leadership,49, 14-16.
Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency (2004). Social Maladjustment: A
Guide to Differential Diagnosis and Educational Options.
Weist, M.D. (2003). Challenges and opportunities in moving toward a public health
approach in school mental health. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 77-82.
Webster-Stratton, C. and M. J. Reid (2003). The Incredible Years Parents, Teachers and
Child Training Series: A multifaceted treatment approach for young children with
conduct problems. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. A. E.
Kazdin and J. R. Weisz. New York, Guilford Press: 224-240.
Yell, M. L., Shriner, and J. G. Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA Regulations of 2006: Implications
for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children,
39(1), 1-24.