**III. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES**

######### Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

Applying Positive Behavioral Support in Schools

######## Office of Special Education Programs Technology and Media Services Program: A Focus on Implementation and Utilization

######### 

Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

"By 2000-01, 50 percent of children with disabilities ages 6 through 21
will be reported by States as being served in the regular education
classroom 80 percent of the day or more" (U.S. Department of Education,
1999, p. 82). The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) set this target as one of its Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators. The U.S. Office of
Management and Budget requires that each government agency submit a list
of goals and objectives, indicators and targets for reaching those
goals/objectives, strategies, and sources to monitor achievement toward
meeting the established goals. OSEP's objective is to increase the
percentage of children with disabilities served in settings with their
nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate by providing needed
supports and accommodations.

This objective parallels the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), which mandates that "to the maximum extent appropriate, children
with\
disabilities. . . are educated with children who are not disabled; and.
. . removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of
a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily"
(§612(a)(5)(A)). In addition, the IDEA regulations require the
availability of a continuum of alternative placements to meet the needs
of children with disabilities for special education and related services
(34 CFR 300.551).

Over the past 10 years, the percentage of students with disabilities
served in schools and classes with their nondisabled peers has gradually
increased. As the percentage of students served in settings with
nondisabled students rises, the number of special education and regular
education teachers prepared to provide inclusive services must also
increase. OSEP currently funds a significant number of grants targeting
placement issues, primarily inclusion. Many of these grants explore
methods of training both special and regular education teachers to
better serve students with disabilities in the regular classroom. For
example, the University of Wisconsin System, Waisman Center on Mental
Retardation and Human Development, through its ACTION Project, is
developing both preservice and inservice training programs to raise the
competence of regular and special education teachers and related
services personnel working with students in inclusive settings. Other
grants have focused on more systemic changes. The University of
Massachusetts recently concluded a 5-year project, the Massachusetts
Inclusion Initiative, which suggested several strategies. These
strategies included training principals on inclusive values and
emphasizing collaboration among regular education, special education,
and related service personnel. OSEP's support for these projects will
provide future direction toward meeting the educational needs of
students and serving them in inclusive settings (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2000).

This module examines the environments in which students with
disabilities received services during the 1997-98 school year and
explores factors, such as age and type of disability, that may affect
the service delivery environment. State-reported data from the past 10
years are presented to describe the extent to which students with
disabilities received special education and related services in settings
with their nondisabled peers.

# Trends in Data on Educational Environments

During the 1997-98 school year, 46.4 percent of students ages 6 through
21 with disabilities were served outside the regular classroom for less
than 21 percent of the school day, the most inclusive category in OSEP's
data collection. Another 29.0 percent were served outside the regular
classroom for 21 to 60 percent of the school day. Approximately 20
percent spent more than 60 percent of the school day outside the regular
classroom. Of the remaining students, 3.6 percent were served in either
a separate or residential facility, and 0.6 percent were served in a
home or hospital environment (see table AB2 and figure III-1).

From the 1988-89 school year to the 1997-98 school year, the percentage
of students ages 6 through 21 with disabilities who were served outside
of the regular classroom for more than 60 percent of the day decreased
3.9 percent (from 24.3 percent to 20.4 percent), and the percentage
served outside of regular school buildings declined by 2.1 percent (from
6.2. percent to 4.1 percent) (see table AB7 and figure III-1). Overall,
the data show a gradual movement of students with disabilities from
separate schools and classes to general education schools and classes.

# Factors Associated with Educational Environments

The environments in which students receive special education and related
services vary by student age and disability. In 1997-98, 97.8 percent of
students ages 6 through 11 with disabilities were served in schools with
their nondisabled peers, versus 94.7 percent of students ages 12 through
17 with disabilities and 87.2 percent of students ages 18 through 21
with disabilities. The pattern of serving more elementary-aged students
in schools with their nondisabled peers holds for all disability
categories and is most pronounced among students with other health

Figure III-1

Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 in Different Education
Environments During 1988-89 Through 1997-98

![](media/image1.wmf)Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

impairments, visual impairments, and deaf-blindness (see tables AB4,
AB5, and AB6).

Students ages 6 through 21 with speech or language impairments (87.8
percent) were more likely than students with other disabilities to
receive services outside the regular class less than 21 percent of the
school day, while students with multiple disabilities (10.0 percent) and
students with mental retardation (12.6 percent) were the least likely to
receive services in these inclusive settings. Students with multiple
disabilities (25.2 percent) and students with deaf-blindness (34.7
percent) were more likely than students with other disabilities to
receive services in separate schools or residential facilities, while
students with speech or language impairments (0.4 percent) and students
with specific learning disabilities (0.8 percent) were the least likely
to be served in these settings (see table III-1 and table AB2).

Table III-1

Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 with Disabilities Served in
Different Educational Environments During the 1997-98 School Year

  ---------------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------- ----------
                   Served                                                     
                   Outside the                                                
                   Regular                                                    
                   Classroom                                                  

                   0-21% of    21-60% of \>60% of  Separate     Residential   Home/\
                   the Day     the Day   the Day   Facilities   Facilities    Hospital

  All Disabilities 46.4        29.0      20.4      2.9          0.7           0.6

  Specific\        43.8        39.3      16.0      0.6          0.2           0.2
  Learning\                                                                   
  Disabilities                                                                

  Speech or\       87.8        7.3       4.4       0.3          0.04          0.1
  Language\                                                                   
  Impairments                                                                 

  Mental\          12.6        29.6      51.7      5.2          0.6           0.4
  Retardation                                                                 

  Emotional\       25.0        23.3      33.5      13.1         1.6           1.6
  Disturbance                                                                 

  Multiple\        10.0        17.3      45.1      22.3         2.9           2.5
  Disabilities                                                                

  Hearing\         38.8        19.1      25.4      7.4          9.2           0.2
  Impairments                                                                 

  Orthopedic\      46.6        21.3      26.2      3.7          0.3           2.0
  Impairments                                                                 

  Other Health\    41.4        33.8      18.3      1.7          0.3           4.7
  Impairments                                                                 

  Visual\          48.1        20.1      17.3      6.7          7.1           0.7
  Impairments                                                                 

  Autism           18.3        12.7      52.1      14.6         1.8           0.5

  Deaf-Blindness   13.6        11.3      39.0      19.9         14.8          1.5

  Traumatic\       29.8        26.2      30.1      9.8          1.6           2.5
  Brain Injury                                                                
  ---------------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------- ----------

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

Progress in serving students in less restrictive settings has varied by
disability over the past decade. From 1988-89 to 1997-98, in several
disability categories, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 with
disabilities who received special education and related services outside
the regular classroom for less than 60 percent of the school day has
increased considerably. In other disability categories, percentages have
remained relatively constant. The percentage of students with orthopedic
impairments served in classrooms with their nondisabled peers for most
of the school day rose 20 percent (from 47.8 percent to 67.8 percent) as
did the percentage of students with mental retardation (13.7 percent;
from 28.4 percent to 42.1 percent), and other health impairments (24.8
percent; from 50.3 percent to 75.1 percent). From 1988-89 to 1997-98,
the majority of students with speech or language impairments received
services outside the regular class less than 60 percent of the school
day; this figure was relatively unchanged.

# Summary

Progress continues to be made toward providing services to students with
disabilities in more inclusive settings. From the 1988-89 school year to
the 1997-98 school year, the number of students served outside of
regular school buildings has steadily decreased. However, the percentage
of students in different educational environments within regular school
environments remains variable across disability and age groups, with
some age and disability groups served primarily in classes with their
nondisabled peers and others served largely outside those classrooms.

# References

Council for Exceptional Children. (2000 February). *Office of Special
Education Programs discretionary grants and contracts*. Retrieved
February 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
www.cec.sped.org/OSEP/search.htm

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA),
P.L. 105-17. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). *U.S. Department of Education FY
2000 annual plan, volume 2*. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 13,
2000, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/planning.html#annual_plan

Applying Positive Behavioral Support in Schools[^1]^,^[^2]

# Introduction

On June 4, 1997, amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) became law (P.L. 105-17). These amendments
introduced a number of concepts that were new to the statute, two of
which are particularly important to the education of children whose
behaviors violate school codes of conduct and/or are outside personal or
interpersonal norms of acceptable social behavior: (a) positive
behavioral support (PBS) and (b) functional behavioral assessment (FBA).

PBS and FBA are not new. However, in the context of IDEA, they represent
an important effort to improve the quality of behavioral interventions
and behavioral support planning. As schools organize to meet these
requirements and to build their capacity to meet the behavioral needs of
all students, especially students with disabilities, attention must be
given to the definitions, features, and uses of PBS and FBA. The purpose
of this paper is to describe what is meant by PBS and FBA.

# Context

Schools are important environments in which children, families,
educators, and community members have opportunities to learn, teach, and
grow. For nearly 180 days each year and 6 hours each day, educators
strive to provide students learning environments that are stable,
positive, and predictable. These environments have the potential to
provide positive adult and peer role models, multiple and regular
opportunities to experience academic and social success, and social
exchanges that foster enduring peer and adult relationships.

Despite these positive attributes, teachers, students, families, and
community members face significant contemporary challenges in schools
(e.g., acts of school violence, drug abuse, emotional and behavioral
disorders, excessively high rates of rule- and code-violating behavior,
expulsions, dropping out). Every year, schools are being asked to do
more with fewer resources. New initiatives to improve literacy, enhance
character, accommodate rapidly advancing technologies, make schools
violence free, and facilitate school-to-work transitions are added to
the educator's workday. Schools are being asked to achieve new and more
results, yet seldom are allowed to cease work on the growing list of
initiatives.

Educators also are being asked to educate an increasingly heterogeneous
population of students. An increasing number of students in our schools
have English as a second language, limited family supports, significant
learning and/or behavioral problems, families who face major financial
barriers, and a great need for mental health, social welfare, medical,
and vocational assistance (Knitzer, 1993; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch,
1990; Stevens & Price, 1992). Although most attention has focused on
students with externalizing problem behavior (e.g., aggressive,
antisocial, destructive), students with internalizing problem behavior
(e.g., social withdrawal, depression) also represent an important
concern of families, schools, and communities (Kauffman, 1997).

In addition, challenges associated with educating students with severe
problem behavior are increasing (Biglan, 1995; Kauffman, 1997; Sprague,
Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey,
1995). Although these students represent only 1 percent to 5 percent of
a school's enrollment, often they can account for more than 50 percent
of the behavioral incidents handled by office personnel and consume
significant amounts of educator and administrator time (Sugai, Sprague,
Horner, & Walker, in press; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997). Many of these
students require comprehensive behavioral supports that involve family,
school, and community participation (Eber, 1996; Eber & Nelson, 1997;
Epstein et al., 1993; Walker et al., 1995; Walker et al., 1996).

Many schools lack the capacity to identify, adopt, and sustain policies,
practices, and systems that effectively and efficiently meet the needs
of all students (Mayer, 1995; Sugai & Horner, 1994; 1999; Taylor-Greene
et al., 1997; Walker et al., 1996). Schools often rely on outside
behavioral expertise because local personnel lack specialized skills to
educate students with significant problem behaviors. School morale is
often low because ongoing staff support is limited. Although many
students have significant social skill needs, social skill instruction
is not a conspicuous and systemic component of the school-wide
curriculum. Behavioral interventions are not based on information
obtained from assessments. In general, systems for the identification,
adoption, and sustained use of research-validated practices are lacking
(Kotter, 1995; Latham, 1988; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Todd, Horner, Sugai,
& Sprague, 1999).

In sum, the challenges facing educators are significant and persistent.
If not addressed, their impact on students, school personnel, families,
and community members can be dramatic. However, the problem is not that
schools lack procedures and practices to address these challenges.
Procedures and practices have been defined and growing over the past 30
years (Mayer, 1995; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1992; Sugai, 1998;
Walker et al., 1998). The greater problem has been that researchers have
been unable to create and sustain the "contextual fit" between what the
procedures and practices are and the features of the environments (e.g.,
classroom, workplace, home, neighborhood, playground) in which the
student displays problem behavior (Albin, Lucyshyn, Horner, & Flannery,
1996, Walker et al., 1996). The systemic solution is to create effective
"host environments" that support the use of preferred and effective
practices (Sugai & Horner, 1994, 1999; Zins & Ponti, 1990). Effective
host environments have policies (e.g., proactive discipline handbooks,
procedural handbooks), structures (e.g., behavioral support teams), and
routines (e.g., opportunities for students to learn expected behavior,
staff development, data-based decision making) that promote the
identification, adoption, implementation, and monitoring of
research-validated practices.

As a society, we look to our schools to be or become settings where our
children can learn the skills for successful adulthood (e.g., IDEA,
Goals 2000, Improving America's Schools Act). This expectation occurs in
the context of an increasingly heterogeneous student body and students
with intense patterns of chronic problem behavior. The growing
expectation is that schools will deliver socially acceptable, effective,
and efficient interventions to ensure safe, productive environments
where norm-violating behavior is minimized, and prosocial behavior is
promoted. PBS and FBA represent important efforts toward achieving these
goals.

Increasingly, efforts to establish school-linked service arrangements
for children and families are appearing around the country (Sailor,
1996). These models have been tested and described in numerous schools
(Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Dryfoos, 1997; Illback, Nelson, & Sanders,
1998; Kagan, Goffin, Golub, & Pritchard, 1995; Kearns, Kleinert, Farmer,
& Warlick, in press; Kleinert, Kearns, & Kennedy, in press).

More recently, these school, family, and community partnerships have
been described under the "community schools" rubric (Benson & Harkavy,
1997; Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997). These comprehensive systems-change
initiatives are designed to create a seamless web of supports and
services that "wrap around" children and families and to bring an end to
the current fragmentation and categorical separation of school
agency-directed programs. These systems-change efforts create a gateway
through which to integrate PBS methods into the culture of the school
and to extend effective and coordinated participation in the behavioral
support plan to family members and community agency personnel (Sailor,
1996).

# Positive Behavioral Support

Optimizing the capacity of schools to address school-wide, classroom,
and individual problem behavior is possible in the face of current
challenges but only if working policies, structures, and routines
emphasize the identification, adoption, and sustained use of
research-validated practices. In recent years, PBS has been emerging as
an approach to enable schools to define and operationalize these
structures and procedures. New journals (e.g., *Journal of Positive
Behavioral Intervention*), technical assistance centers (e.g., Beach
Center, Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), and
personnel preparation programs have established PBS as the focus of
their purpose and activities.

## *Definition*

PBS is a general term that refers to the culturally appropriate
application of positive behavioral interventions and systems to achieve
socially important behavior change. PBS was developed initially as an
alternative to aversive interventions used with students with
significant disabilities who engaged in extreme forms of self-injury and
aggression (Durand & Carr, 1985; Meyer & Evans, 1989). More recently,
the technology has been applied successfully with students both with and
without disabilities, in a wide range of contexts (Carr et al., 1999;
Horner, Albin, Sprague, & Todd, 1999), and extended from an intervention
approach for individual students to an intervention approach for entire
schools (Colvin, Kame'enui, & Sugai, 1993; Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee,
1997; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Taylor-Greene, et al., 1997; Todd,
Horner, Sugai, & Sprague, 1999).

PBS is not a new intervention package, nor a new theory of behavior but
an application of a behaviorally based systems approach to enhancing the
capacity of schools, families, and communities to design effective
environments that improve the fit or link between research-validated
practices and the environments in which teaching and learning occur.
Attention is focused on creating and sustaining school environments that
improve lifestyle results (personal, health, social, family, work,
recreation, etc.) for all children and youth by making problem behavior
less effective, efficient, and relevant and desired behavior more
functional.

The use of culturally appropriate interventions also is emphasized in
the PBS approach. "Culturally appropriate" describes interventions that
consider the unique and individualized learning histories (social,
community, historical, familial, racial, gender, etc.) of all
individuals (children with problem behaviors, families, teachers,
community agents, etc.) who participate in the PBS process and approach.
Data-based problem solving and individualized planning processes can
help to establish culturally appropriate interventions; however,
individual learning histories ultimately can affect how data are
summarized, analyzed, and used.

Haring and De Vault (1996) indicate that PBS comprises (1)
"interventions that consider the contexts within which the behavior
occurs," (2) "interventions that address the functionality of the
problem behavior," (3) "interventions that can be justified by the
outcomes," and (4) "outcomes that are acceptable to the individual, the
family, and the supportive community" (p. 116).

## *Features*

At the core, PBS is the integration of behavioral science, practical
interventions, social values, and a systems perspective (table III-2).

**Behavioral science.** An existing science of human behavior links the
behavioral, cognitive, biophysical, developmental, and
physical-environmental factors that influence how a person behaves
(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou & Baer, 1978; Schwartz, 1989; Wolery,
Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). Of particular interest are factors that affect
the development and durability of disruptive and dangerous behaviors
(Biglan, 1995; Kauffman, 1997; Mayer, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,
1992; Walker et al., 1995). To a great extent, when these behaviors are
observed in our schools, they can be traced to unintentional student,
peer, and/or teacher behavioral exchanges (Gunter, Denny, Jack, Shores,
& Nelson, 1993; Sasso, Peck, & Garrison-Harrell, 1998; Shores, Gunter, &
Jack, 1993; Shores, Jack, Gunter, Ellis, DeBriere, & Wehby, 1993).

Although learning and teaching processes are complex and continuous, and
some behavior initially is not learned (e.g., biobehavioral), key
messages from this science are that much of human behavior is learned,
comes under the control of environmental factors, and can be changed.
The strength of the science is that problem behaviors become more
understandable, and, as our understanding grows, so does our ability to
teach more socially appropriate and functional behavior. The PBS
approach is founded on this science of human behavior. Different
procedures and strategies are applied at different levels, but the
fundamental principles of behavior are the same.

Table III-2

Foundations and Features of Positive Behavior Support

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Behavioral      | Practical       | Social Values   | Systems         |
| Science         | Interventions   |                 | Perspective     |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| -   Human       | -   Functional  | -   Behavior    | -   The quality |
|     behavior is |     behavioral  |     change must |     and         |
|     affected by |     assessments |     be socially |     durability  |
|     behavioral, |     are used to |                 |     of supports |
|                 |     develop     |    significant, |     are related |
| bio-behavioral, |     behavior    |                 |     directly to |
|     social, and |     support     |  comprehensive, |     the level   |
|     physical    |     plans.      |     durable,    |     of support  |
|                 |                 |     and         |     provided by |
|   environmental | -               |     relevant.   |     the host    |
|     factors.    |   Interventions |                 |                 |
|                 |     emphasize   | -   The goal of |    environment. |
| -   Much of     |                 |     PBS is      |                 |
|     human       |   environmental |     enhancement | -   The         |
|     behavior is |     redesign,   |     of living   |                 |
|     associated  |     curriculum  |     and         |  implementation |
|     with        |     redesign,   |     learning    |     of          |
|                 |     and         |     options.    |     practices   |
|   unintentional |     removing    |                 |     and         |
|     learning    |     rewards     | -   PBS         |     decisions   |
|                 |     that        |     procedures  |     is policy   |
|  opportunities. |                 |     are         |     driven.     |
|                 |   inadvertently |     socially    |                 |
| -   Human       |     maintain    |     and         | -   Emphasis is |
|     behavior is |     problem     |     culturally  |     placed on   |
|     learned and |     behavior.   |                 |     prevention  |
|     can be      |                 |    appropriate. |     and the     |
|     changed.    | -   Teaching is |                 |     sustained   |
|                 |     a central   |    Applications |     use of      |
|                 |     behavior    |     occur in    |     effective   |
|                 |     change      |     least       |     practices.  |
|                 |     tool.       |     restrictive |                 |
|                 |                 |     natural     | -   A           |
|                 | -   Res         |     settings.   |     team-based  |
|                 | earch-validated |                 |     approach to |
|                 |     practices   | -   The fit     |     problem     |
|                 |     are         |     between     |     solving is  |
|                 |     emphasized. |     procedures  |     used.       |
|                 |                 |     and values  |                 |
|                 | -               |     of          | -   Active      |
|                 |    Intervention |     students,   |                 |
|                 |     decisions   |     families,   |  administrative |
|                 |     are data    |     and         |     involvement |
|                 |     based.      |     educators   |     is          |
|                 |                 |     must be     |     emphasized. |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |    contextually | -               |
|                 |                 |                 |   Multi-systems |
|                 |                 |    appropriate. |     (district,  |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | -   Nonaversive |    school-wide, |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |   interventions |   nonclassroom, |
|                 |                 |     (no pain,   |     classroom,  |
|                 |                 |     tissue      |     individual  |
|                 |                 |     damage, or  |     student,    |
|                 |                 |                 |     family,     |
|                 |                 |    humiliation) |     community)  |
|                 |                 |     are used.   |     are         |
|                 |                 |                 |     considered. |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 | -   A continuum |
|                 |                 |                 |     of behavior |
|                 |                 |                 |     supports is |
|                 |                 |                 |     emphasized. |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

**Practical interventions.** The science of human behavior has led to
the development of practical strategies for preventing and reducing
problem behavior (e.g., Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 1987; Kerr & Nelson, 1998; Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1996;
Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Wolery et al., 1988). "Practical" describes
strategies that emphasize the contextual fit among problem behaviors,
environments in which problem behaviors are occurring, and interventions
that are developed and implemented (Albin et al., 1996). Priority is
given to interventions that improve implementation efficiency,
intervention effectiveness, and relevance of outcomes by (1) involving
recipients of PBS in the design of behavior support plans, (2)
considering the values of recipients and implementers of PBS, (3)
considering the skills of implementers of PBS, (4) securing the
approvals and endorsements of recipients and implementers of PBS, (5)
considering the resources and administrative supports needed to
implement strategies, and (6) providing the supports needed to sustain
the use of effective strategies over time.

Although implementation details vary across age groups, contexts, and
behavior, PBS interventions have common features. Foremost among these
features is the application of FBA, but equally important are emphases
on environmental redesign (changing aspects of the setting), curriculum
redesign (teaching new skills), modification of behavior (teaching and
changing student and adult behavior), and removing rewards that maintain
problem behaviors (Carr et al., 1994; Luiselli & Cameron, 1998; O'Neill
et al., 1997).

PBS procedures emphasize assessment prior to intervention, manipulation
of antecedent conditions to reduce or prevent the likelihood that a
problem behavior will occur, development of new social and communication
skills that make problem behaviors irrelevant, and careful redesign of
consequences to eliminate factors that maintain problem behaviors and to
encourage more acceptable replacement social skills and behaviors. PBS
is an approach that emphasizes teaching as a central behavior change
tool and focuses on replacing coercion with environmental redesign to
achieve durable and meaningful change in the behavior of students. As
such, attention is focused on adjusting adult behavior (e.g., routines,
responses, instructional routines) and improving learning environments
(e.g., curricular accommodations, social networks).

Educators, parents, and community agents must "work smarter" (Kame'enui
& Carnine, 1998) by using time more efficiently and strategically
selecting instructional and behavioral strategies for which clear
evidence of their effectiveness exists. Working smarter means using what
works for all students, not just those with learning and behavioral
difficulties (Delpit, 1995). The PBS approach emphasizes the
identification, adoption, and sustained use of practices that have been
research validated. For students with serious antisocial behaviors, a
number of recent meta-analyses and descriptive literature reviews
support the use of strategies that can be applied by educators in school
environments, especially, (1) contextually targeted social skills
instruction, (2) academic and curricular restructuring, and (3)
behaviorally based interventions (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1996;
Lipsey, 1991, 1992; Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; Tolan & Guerra, 1994). Other
more specific research-validated practices include FBAs, direct
instruction, and other applied behavior analytic strategies (Carr et
al., 1999).

Finally, the PBS approach emphasizes the use of data collection and
analysis to inform decision making (e.g., direct behavioral
observations, curriculum-based measurement). A variety of data sources
(e.g., office discipline referrals, attendance and tardy reports, and
academic progress) are collected through a range of methods (e.g.,
archival review, interviews, direct observations) and from multiple
sources (i.e., students, family members, educators, community members).
In addition to behavioral factors, assessments consider cognitive,
biophysical, developmental, and physical-environmental factors to assist
in understanding problem behavior and in guiding the development of
comprehensive behavioral support plans. Collectively, these data can be
used to determine the student's current level of functioning, the impact
of the intervention on problem behavior, and/or improvements in other
lifestyle results (e.g., family, work, recreation). With ongoing data
collection, intervention and instructional modifications can be made in
a timely manner.

**Social values.** PBS emphasizes consideration of social values in both
the results expected from behavioral interventions and the strategies
employed in delivering the interventions. A central PBS tenet is that
behavior change needs to be socially significant. Behavior change should
be (1) *comprehensive* in that all relevant parts of a student's day
(before, during, and after school) and important social contexts (home,
school, neighborhood, and community) are affected, (2) *durable* in that
the change lasts for long time periods, and (3) *relevant* in that the
reduction of problem behaviors and increases in prosocial behaviors
affect living and learning opportunities (academic, family, social,
work). The goal of PBS is more than the control of problem behavior; it
also includes the enhancement of the living and learning options
available to the student and to his or her peers and family (Risley,
1996; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996).

Social values are also important in defining acceptable types of
intervention procedures. PBS emphasizes the importance of procedures
that are socially and culturally appropriate. The contextual fit between
intervention strategies and the values of families, teachers, schools,
support personnel, and community agency personnel may affect the quality
and durability of support efforts (Sailor, 1996). No intervention should
cause pain, tissue damage, or humiliation to children and their
families. Finally, careful consideration is given to lifestyle outcomes
that go beyond simple behavior reduction and enhancement. The
development of behavioral support plans and the evaluation of their
effects consider the student's current and future quality of life in all
settings and circumstances. Koegel, Koegel, and Dunlap (1996, p. xiv)
add that "interventions should strive to enhance a person's competencies
and access to desirable environments, social circumstances, and
activities" and "all people should be treated with respect and dignity
and that interventions must therefore refrain from interactions that are
degrading, humiliating, or pain inducing."

**Systems impact.** PBS is of particular importance for schools given
the emphasis on behavioral "systems" as well as individual children. A
systems perspective provides support for the adoption and sustained use
of effective school practices (Sugai & Horner, 1994; 1999). Without a
systems approach, identification of practices is limited, adoptions are
incomplete, and attention to school initiatives to address discipline is
episodic and short term (e.g., 18-24 months) (Latham, 1988; Sugai &
Horner, 1999; Zins & Ponti, 1990).

PBS implementations consider multiple contexts: community, family,
district, school, classroom, nonclassroom (e.g., cafeteria, hallways,
bus, playground, parking lot), and individual. Efforts are policy driven
to ensure accountability, maximum positive results, participation in and
progress through the general curriculum, and effective and efficient
communications. In addition, a proactive (positive and preventative)
perspective is maintained along three levels: (1) **primary**: reducing
the number of new cases of problem behavior, (2) **secondary**: reducing
the number of current cases of problem behavior, and (3) **tertiary**:
reducing the intensity and complexity of current cases (Walker et al.,
1996). A team-based approach is applied to program assessment,
development, and problem solving (Adelman & Taylor, 1997; Lawson &
Briar-Lawson, 1997). This approach enables input from multiple sources,
broader expert knowledge base, and improved sustainability over time.

At all levels in the system, active administrator support and
participation are required. Without strong leadership from school
administrators, program efforts often are inefficient, incomplete, and
ineffective (Colvin & Sprick, 1999). Similarly, when problem behavior is
chronic and intense, comprehensive linkages with other human service
agencies (e.g., juvenile justice and corrections, mental/public health,
child and family services) are considered (Eber, 1996; Eber & Nelson,
1997; Epstein et al., 1993; Walker et al., 1995; Walker et al., 1996).

Taken as a whole, a systems perspective to PBS provides a continuum of
behavioral support (figure III-2) in which prevention is emphasized, and
intensity of problem behavior and context is considered. As a continuum,
four change elements characterize PBS: (1) change of systems (policies,
structures, routines), (2) change of environments, (3) change of student
and adult (parent, teacher, staff) behavior, and

Figure III-2

Continuum of Positive Behavior Support

![](media/image2.wmf)

\(4\) change in appreciation of appropriate behavior in all involved
individuals (student, staff, family, etc.).

# Functional Behavior Assessment-based Behavior Support Planning

Among the most important changes in applied behavioral analysis in the
past 20 years has been the development of FBA (Special Issue, 1994). The
development of positive behavioral interventions and plans that are
guided by FBA is the foundation on which the PBS approach is delivered.
A central message from this advancement is that the design of successful
behavior change interventions requires identification of the events that
reliably predict and maintain problem behaviors (Carr, 1994; Horner,
1994; O'Neill et al., 1997; Repp, 1994; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan,
1998). Historically, problem behaviors have been viewed as residing
within a child, and the diagnostic emphasis has been on the type of
problem behavior or the link with disability type (i.e., within the
individual). Although all types of information may be useful in the
design of effective support, the current emphasis is on careful
documentation of the predicting and maintaining events associated with
problem behaviors.

Although useful in guiding decision making at all levels, the FBA
approach is the cornerstone of systems that address the educational
programming of students who display the most significant and challenging
problem behavior. These students require behavior support plans that are
specialized, individualized, and high intensity. Such plans must be
based on information about the nature of the problem behavior and the
environmental context in which the problem behavior is observed. The FBA
approach provides a systematic and informed means by which targeted
interventions can be developed and monitored.

Functional assessment is not new, for it can be found in a variety of
disciplines (e.g., vocational education, physical therapy, chemistry,
physics). However, in education, in particular, special education,
functional assessment had its beginning in the 1960s in applied behavior
analysis (Bijou & Baer, 1961; 1978; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968;
Bijou, Peterson, Harris, Allen, & Johnston, 1969). Initially, research
studies and applied applications of the functional assessment technology
demonstrated the value of defining variables maintaining a problem
behavior prior to constructing an intervention (Carr, 1977; Carr &
Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982; Repp &
Horner, 1999; Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985). Although most of
this work has been conducted with individuals with severe developmental
and intellectual disabilities (Blakeslee, Sugai, & Gruba, 1994;
Lohrman-O'Rourke, Knoster, & Llewellyn, 1999), a growing body of
research and applications focuses on individuals with normal
intellectual functioning (e.g., emotional and behavioral disorders,
learning disabilities) (e.g., Broussard & Northrup, 1995; Dunlap,
Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; Dunlap et al., 1993; Dunlap,
White, Vera, Wilson, & Panacek, 1996; Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, &
Falk, 1994; Lewis & Sugai, 1993, 1996a, 1996b; Umbreit, 1995; Vollmer &
Northrup, 1996).

## *Definition*

We define FBA as a systematic process of identifying problem behaviors
and the events that reliably predict occurrence and nonoccurrence of
those behaviors and maintain the behaviors across time. The purpose of
gathering this information is to improve the effectiveness, relevance,
and efficiency of behavior support plans (Carr et al., 1994;
Foster-Johnson & Dunlap, 1993; Horner, 1994; O'Neill et al., 1997;
Sugai, Horner, & Sprague, 1999; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998;
Tilly et al., 1998). Specifically, if we can identify the conditions
under which problem behavior is likely to occur (triggering antecedents
and maintaining consequences), we can arrange environments in ways that
occurrences of problem behavior can be reduced and teach and encourage
behaviors that can replace problem behavior.

A number of procedures exist for conducting a FBA (Center for Effective
Collaboration and Practice, 1998), but any professionally appropriate
assessment should, at minimum, conclude with three main results. The
first is hypothesis statements that include three key features: (1)
operational definitions of the problem behavior(s), (2) descriptions of
the antecedent events that reliably predict occurrence and nonoccurrence
of the problem behavior, and (3) descriptions of the consequence events
that maintain the problem behavior(s). The second is direct observation
data supporting these hypotheses. The third FBA result is a behavior
support plan. The importance of the link between hypotheses that are
derived from FBAs and the development of comprehensive behavior support
plans must be emphasized. Behavior support plans provide a summary of
intervention manipulations in four areas: setting event strategies,
antecedent strategies, behavior teaching strategies, and consequence
strategies. In addition, a comprehensive behavior support plan provides
implementation scripts that detail who does what strategies when, where,
how often, and why; how emergency or crisis situations will be handled;
and how implementation and effectiveness will be monitored.

In sum, FBA is not a set of forms or static products. It is a process of
understanding behavior in the context in which it is observed and of
guiding the development of positive behavioral interventions that are
relevant, effective, and efficient. FBA is a best and preferred practice
for all challenging behavior, not just for behavioral events that result
in suspensions or other disciplinary actions.

Table III-3

Overview of Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Support
Planning

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Step                  | #                     | ##### Outcome         |
|                       | #### Tools/Procedures |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1\. Collect           | Archival review,      | Descriptions of       |
| information regarding | analysis of routines, | possible setting      |
| conditions under      | interviews, direct    | events, triggering    |
| which problem         | observation           | antecedents, problem  |
| behavior is and is    |                       | behavior response     |
| not observed and more |                       | classes, maintaining  |
| appropriate behavior  |                       | consequences          |
| is required.          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Develop testable  | Team analysis of      | Testable hypotheses   |
| (manipulable)         | information from Step |                       |
| hypotheses.           | 1                     |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3\. Collect direct    | Direct observations   | Verified summary      |
| observation           |                       | statements            |
| information.          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4\. Design behavior   | Team development      | Specification of (a)  |
| support plans.        |                       | desired and           |
|                       |                       | acceptable            |
|                       |                       | alternative behavior, |
|                       |                       | (b) antecedent        |
|                       |                       | strategies and        |
|                       |                       | manipulations, (c)    |
|                       |                       | consequence           |
|                       |                       | strategies and        |
|                       |                       | manipulations, (d)    |
|                       |                       | strategies for        |
|                       |                       | teaching desired and  |
|                       |                       | acceptable            |
|                       |                       | alternative behavior, |
|                       |                       | and (e) setting       |
|                       |                       | event/establishing    |
|                       |                       | operation strategies  |
|                       |                       | and manipulations     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 5\. Develop           | Team development      | Scripts that specify  |
| implementation        |                       | how, when, where,     |
| scripts.              |                       | etc. behavior support |
|                       |                       | plan to be            |
|                       |                       | implemented and by    |
|                       |                       | whom                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6\. Collect           | Team development      | Data on student       |
| information on        |                       | progress and plan     |
| effectiveness and     |                       | implementation, and   |
| efficiency of         |                       | redesign/updated plan |
| behavior support plan |                       |                       |
| and redesign based on |                       |                       |
| evaluation            |                       |                       |
| information.          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

## *Steps of the Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Support Planning Process*

In this section, an overview of the six main steps involved in
conducting an FBA and developing behavior support plans is provided
(table III-3). Additional and specific guidelines for implementing the
process are available in O'Neill et al. (1997); Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, and
Hagan (1998); and Tilly et al. (1998).

**Step One.** Using archival review, analysis of routines, interviews,
and/or direct observations, information is gathered regarding the
conditions under which the problem behavior is and is not observed and
more appropriate behavior is required. Attention is focused on four
primary factors: setting events/establishing operations that make the
problem behavior worse (e.g., diet, medical conditions/illness, sleep,
fatigue, social conflicts), antecedent events that predictably precede
and trigger or occasion problem behavior (e.g., task demands,
instruction, peer/adult requests), problem behaviors that as a response
class or set are maintained by a common function or outcome (e.g.,
attention, escape/avoidance), and consequence events that predictably
follow and maintain problem behavior (positive or negative
reinforcement).

**Step Two.** The information collected in the first step is used to
develop testable hypotheses which best describe the conditions under
which the problem behavior is most likely to occur. A complete testable
hypothesis indicates problem behavior, triggering antecedent events,
maintaining consequence events, and influential setting
events/establishing operations (O'Neill et al., 1997).

**Step Three.** After testable hypotheses are developed, direct
observation information is collected to verify the accuracy or
predictability of these statements. Usually, multiple observations are
conducted across multiple settings and situations to determine whether
problem behavior patterns occur under hypothesized conditions and
contexts. These observations involve the careful documentation of
antecedent and consequence variables that are present or absent when
problem behaviors are and are not observed.

In cases where hypotheses are difficult to establish or where problem
behavior is particularly resistant to intervention, functional
"analysis" may be recommended. A functional analysis involves a
systematic manipulation (i.e., removal and addition) of factors that are
hypothesized as triggering or occasioning problem behavior. These
manipulations are designed to trigger problem behavior under one set of
conditions and not under others. However, in educational and clinical
applications, researchers do not recommend functional analysis without
the direct involvement of an experienced behavior analyst, consent and
collaboration by families and caregivers, and structures for maintaining
appropriate accountability (e.g., data collection, monitoring of
implementation fidelity).

**Step Four.** Based on information from verified hypotheses, behavior
support plans are developed that specify possible teaching strategies or
manipulations for desired and acceptable alternative behaviors,
antecedent events, consequence events, and setting events/establishing
operations. This plan serves as the basis for defining the actual
implementation of the behavioral intervention. Unlike more typical
single-dimension interventions that focus on reactive, consequence
manipulations (e.g., timeout, behavioral contracts), behavior support
plans that are based on FBAs consider intervention components that are
instructionally focused (i.e., teaching acceptable and desired
replacement behaviors), prevention focused (e.g., neutralizing or
eliminating the conditions that trigger problem behaviors or make them
worse or more likely), and environmentally based (e.g., rearrangement of
the problem context).

**Step Five.** Implementation scripts are developed to specify how,
when, and where the behavior support plan will be implemented and by
whom. Contingency plans for responding to emergencies, training staff,
and collecting data also are indicated. If necessary, resources and
assistance from other support individuals or agencies (e.g., mental
health, medical, vocational) are indicated.

**Step Six.** Information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the
behavior support plan is collected regularly, and the plan is redesigned
based on an evaluation of this information. A formative (direct,
frequent, regular) approach is emphasized.

# Conclusion

Schools can be great places for students, teachers, related services
personnel, families, human service practitioners, and community members
to work collaboratively to achieve meaningful results for all children
and youth. However, limited resources; diverse students, families, and
neighborhoods; increases in school violence; and increased social
responsibilities have decreased the efficiency and effectiveness of many
schools. Although the solution is multifaceted, schools can make a
significant contribution by "working smarter." This approach requires
the establishment of proactive school environments (i.e., "host
environments") that have the capacities to identify, adopt, and sustain
the use of effective policies, systems, and practices.

PBS represents an important approach to identifying and organizing
effective school practices, especially for students who present
significant problem behavior. However, many systems-level challenges
remain to be addressed. First, schools need guidelines for making the
adoption and sustained use of PBS practices efficient and relevant.
Attention must be focused on the policies, environments, structures, and
practices of PBS. For example, addressing the needs of students who
present significant problem behavior requires personnel with time,
highly specialized skills, access to resources, and administrative
supports.

Second, balancing efforts and attention between school-wide and
individual student systems is a challenge for many schools. For example,
a school-wide discipline system that operates efficiently and
effectively for the majority of students in a school can ease the high
costs associated with addressing the intense needs of the relatively
small proportion of students who present the most significant problem
behavior (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, in press). However, many
schools lack the capacity to maintain the efficient and ongoing
operation of both school-wide and individual student systems.
Increasingly, partnerships that include schools, community agencies,
businesses, and family members offer new pathways for using PBS to
change systems (Illback & Nelson, 1996; Sailor, 1996, in press).

Third, as the specialized nature of interventions increases with the
increasing intensity of problem behavior, so does the complexity of the
implementation. Schools need user-friendly ways to use PBS- and
FBA-based behavior support planning. Consideration must be given to the
unique features (e.g., cultural, geographical, demographic, physical) of
a school and its students, families, teachers, and community members.

Finally, Carr et al. (1999) noted that lifestyle results were measured
in less than 3 percent of PBS studies. Schools must develop mechanisms
for determining if their efforts at the school-wide, classroom,
nonclassroom, and individual student levels actually are associated with
meaningful outcome improvements for students, their families, and the
school. Attention to the reduction of problem behavior is
understandable; however, the impact of PBS efforts on larger lifestyle
results (e.g., peer relations, family functioning, community mobility)
also must be considered.

The PBS approach offers students, teachers, and family and community
members a process that begins to address these systems-level challenges.
The process is based on an established science of human behavior, pays
attention to important lifestyle results, works from a systems
perspective, and gives priority to research-validated practices. The
goal of PBS is to use information from FBAs to guide the design of
learning and teaching environments that support and encourage adaptive
behavior and lessen the usefulness of problem behavior.

# References

Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1999). *Applied behavior analysis for
teachers*. (5^th^ ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning:
Beyond school-linker services and full service schools. *American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry*, *67*, 408-421.

Albin, R.W., Lucyshyn, L.M., Horner, R.H., & Flannery, K.B. (1996).
Contextual fit for behavioral support plans: A model for a
goodness-of-fit. In L.K. Koegel, R.L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.),
*Positive behavior support: Including people with difficult behavior in
the community* (pp. 81-89). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions
of applied behavior analysis. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*,
*1*, 91-97.

Benson, L., & Harkavy, I. (1997). School and community in the global
society: A Neo-Deweyian theory of community problem-solving schools and
cosmopolitan neighborly communities in a Neo-Deweyian "manifesto" to
dynamically connect school and community. *Universities and Community
Schools*, *5*, 11-69.

Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of
antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. *Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *28*, 479-492.

Bijou, S.W., & Baer, D.M. (1961). *Child development I: A systematic and
empirical theory*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bijou, S.W., & Baer, D.M. (1978). *Behavior analysis of child
development*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., & Ault, M.H. (1968). A method to integrate
descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and
empirical concepts. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *1*,
175-191.

Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., Harris, F.R., Allen, E., & Johnston, M.S.
(1969). Methodology for experimental studies of young children in
natural settings. *Psychological Record*, *19*, 177-210.

Blakeslee, T., Sugai, G., & Gruba, J. (1994). A review of functional
assessment use in data-based intervention studies. *Journal of
Behavioral Education*, *4*, 397-414.

Broussard, C.D., & Northup, J. (1995). An approach to functional
assessment and analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education
classrooms. *School Psychology Quarterly*, *10*, 151-164.

Carr, E.G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review
of some hypotheses. *Psychological Bulletin*, *84*, 800-816.

Carr, E.G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem
behavior. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *27*, 393-400.

Carr, E.G., & Durand, V.M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through
functional communication training. *Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis*, *18*, 111-126.

Carr, E.G., Horner, R.H., Marquis, J.G., Turnbull, A.P.,
Magito-McLaughlin, D., McAtee, M.A., et al. (1999). *Positive behavior
support for people with developmental disabilities: A research
synthesis*. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Carr, E.G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J.I., Kemp, D.C., &
Smith, C.E. (1994). *Communication-based intervention for problem
behavior: A user's guide for producing positive change*. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.

Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (1998). *Addressing
student problem behavior: An IEP team's introduction to functional
behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans*. Washington, DC:
American Institutes for Research.

Colvin, G., & Sprick, R. (1999). Providing administrative leadership for
effective behavior support: Ten strategies for principals. *Effective
School Practices*, *17*,\
65-71.

Colvin, G., Kame'enui, E.J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and
classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management
of students with behavior problems in general education. *Education and
Treatment of Children*, *16*, 361-381.

Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R.H., III, & Lee, Y. (1997). Using active
supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an
elementary school. *School Psychology Quarterly*, *12*, 344-363.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). *Applied behavior
analysis*. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Delpit, L. (1995). *Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom*. New York: New Press.

Dryfoos, J.G. (1997). The prevalence of problem behaviors: Implications
for programs. In R.P. Weissberg, T.P. Gullotta, R.L. Hampton, B.A. Ryan,
& G.R. Adams (Eds.), *Enhancing children's wellness. Healthy children
2010*. *Issues in children's and families' lives* (Vol. 8). London: Sage
Publications.

Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F.R. (1991).
Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior
problems. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *24*, 387-397.

Dunlap, G., Kern, L., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs,
K.E., et al. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. *Behavioral
Disorders*, *18*, 275-291.

Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The
effects of multi-component, assessment-based curricular modifications on
the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral
disorders. *Journal of Behavioral Education*, *6*, 481-500.

Durand, M.V., & Carr, E.G. (1985). Self-injurious behavior: Motivating
conditions and guidelines for treatment. *School Psychology Review*,
*14*, 171-176.

Eber, L. (1996). Restructuring schools through wraparound planning: The
LADSE experience. In R.J. Illback, & C.M. Nelson (Eds.), *School-based
services for students with emotional and behavioral disorders* (pp.
139-154). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Eber, L., & Nelson, C.M. (1997). School-based wraparound planning:
Integrating services for students with emotional and behavioral needs.
*American Journal of Orthopsychiatry*, *67*, 385-395.

Epstein, M.H., Nelson, C.M., Polsgrove, L., Coutinho, M., Cumblad, C., &
Quinn, K.P. (1993). A comprehensive community-based approach to serving
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. *Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders*, *1*, 127-133.

Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using functional assessment to
develop effective, individualized interventions for challenging
behaviors. *Teaching Exceptional Children*, *25*, 44-50.

Gottfredson, G.D., & Gottfredson, D.C. (1996). *A national study of
delinquency prevention in schools: Rationale for a study to describe the
extensiveness and implementation of programs to prevent adolescent
problem behavior in schools*. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates,
Inc.

Gunter, P.L., Denny, R.K., Jack, S.L., Shores, R.E., & Nelson, C.M.
(1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions between students with
serious emotional disturbance and their teachers. *Behavioral
Disorders*, *18*, 265-274.

Haring, N.G., & De Vault, G. (1996). Family issues and family support:
Discussion. In L.K. Koegel, R.L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), *Positive
behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the
community* (pp. 116-120). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Horner, R.H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future
directions. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *27*, 401-404.

Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., & Todd, A.W. (1999). Positive
behavior support. In M.E. Snell, & F. Brown, (Eds.), *Instruction of
students with severe disabilities* (5th ed., pp. 207-243). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice-Hall.

Illback, R.J., & Nelson, C.M. (Eds.). (1996). *Emerging school-based
approaches for children and youth with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Research or practice and service integration*. New York:
Haworth Press.

Illback, R.J., Nelson, C.M., & Sanders, D. (1998). Community-based
services in Kentucky: Description and 5-year evaluation of Kentucky
IMPACT. In M.H. Epstein, K. Kutash, & A. Duchnowski (Eds.), *Outcomes
for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and their
families: Programs and evaluation best practices*. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G.S.
(1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. *Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities*, *2*, 1-20.

Kagan, S.L., Goffin, S.G., Golub, S.A., & Pritchard, E. (1995). *Toward
systemic reform: Service integration for young children and their
families*. Falls Church, VA: National Center for Service Integration.

Kame'enui, E.J., & Carnine, D.W. (1998). *Effective teaching strategies
that accommodate diverse learners*. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Kauffman, J. (1997). *Characteristics of emotional and behavior
disorders of children and youth* (6^th^ ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kearns, J.F., Kleinert, H.L., Farmer, R., & Warlick, K. (in press). The
implications of Kentucky's education reform for students with
disabilities. In W. Sailor (Ed.), *Inclusive education and
school/community partnerships*. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kern, L., Childs, K.E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G.D. (1994).
Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom
behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. *Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27*, 7-19.

Kerr, M.M., & Nelson, C.M. (1998). *Strategies for managing problem
behaviors in the classroom* (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kleinert, J.L., Kearns, J.F., & Kennedy, S. (in press). Including all
students in educational assessment and accountability. In W. Sailor
(Ed.), *Inclusive education and school/community partnerships*. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children's mental health policy: Challenging the
future. *Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders*, *1*, 8-16.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990). *At the schoolhouse
door: An examination of programs and policies for children with
behavioral and emotional problems*. New York: Bank Street College of
Education.

Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R.L., & Dunlap, G. (Eds.). (1996). *Positive
behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the
community*. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail.
*Harvard Business Review*, *73*, 59-67.

Latham, G. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational
innovations. *Principal, 68*, 41-43.

Lawson, H.A., & Briar-Lawson, K. (1997). *Connecting the dots: Progress
toward the integration of school reform, school-linked services, parent
involvement and community schools.* Oxford, OH: Institutes for
Educational Renewal.

Lewis, T.J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (in press). The effects of
pre-correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of
elementary school students. *School Psychology Quarterly*.

Lewis, T.J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Teaching communicative alternatives to
socially withdrawn behavior: An investigation in maintaining treatment
effects. *Journal of Behavioral Education*, *3*, 61-75.

Lewis, T.J., & Sugai, G. (1996a). Descriptive and experimental analysis
of teacher and peer attention and the use of assessment-based
intervention to improve the pro-social behavior of a student in a
general education setting. *Journal of Behavioral Education*, *6*, 7-24.

Lewis, T.J., & Sugai, G. (1996b). Functional assessment of problem
behavior: A pilot investigation of the comparative and interactive
effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general
education settings. *School Psychology Quarterly*, *11*, 1-19.

Lewis, T.J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior
through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support:
Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and
contextual interventions*. School Psychology Review*, *27*, 446-459.

Lipsey, M.W. (1991). The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents:
Results from meta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener
(Eds.), *Psychology and law*. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Lipsey, M.W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic
inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S.
Cordray, H. Hartman, L.V. Hedges, R.V. Light, T.A. Louis, & F. Mostellar
(Eds.), *Meta-analysis for explanation*. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological,
educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.
*American Psychologist*, *48*, 1181-1209.

Lohrman-O'Rourke, S., Knoster, T., & Llewellyn, G. (1999). Screening for
understanding: An initial line of inquiry for school-based settings.
*Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions*, *1*, 35-42.

Luiselli, J.K., & Cameron, M.J. (Eds.). (1998). *Antecedent control:
Innovative approaches to behavioral support*. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.

Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools.
*Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *28*, 467-478.

Meyer, L.H., & Evans, I.M. (1989). *Nonaversive intervention for
behavior problems: A manual for home and community*. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.

O'Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., &
Newton, J.S. (1997). *Functional assessment and program development for
problem behavior: A practical handbook*. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1992). *Antisocial boys*.
Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.

Peacock Hill Working Group. (1992). Problems and promises in special
education and related services for children and youth with emotional or
behavioral disorders. *Behavioral Disorders*, *16*, 299-313.

Reichle, J., & Wacker, D.P. (Eds.). (1993). *Communicative alternatives
to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and
intervention strategies* (Vol. 3). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Repp, A. (1994). Comments on functional analysis procedures for
school-based behavior problems. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*,
*27*, 409-411.

Repp, A., & Horner, R.H. (Eds.). (1999). *Functional analysis of problem
behavior: From effective assessment to effective support*. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Risley, T. (1996). Get a life: Positive behavioral intervention for
challenging behavior through life arrangement and life coaching. In L.K.
Koegel, R.L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), *Positive behavioral support:
Including people with difficult behavior in the community* (pp.
403-424). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sailor, W. (in press). Devolution, school/community/family partnerships,
and inclusive education. In W. Sailor (Ed.), *Inclusive education and
school/community partnerships.* New York: Teachers College Press.

Sailor, W. (1996). New structures and systems change for comprehensive
positive behavioral support. In L.K. Koegel, R.L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap
(Eds.), *Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult
behavior in the community* (pp. 163-206). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sasso, G.M., Peck, J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1998). Social interaction
setting events: Experimental analysis of contextual variables.
*Behavioral Disorders*, *24*, 34-43.

Schwartz, B. (1989). *Psychology of learning and behavior* (3^rd^ ed.).
New York: Norton.

Shores, R.E., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S.L. (1993). Classroom management
strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? *Behavioral
Disorders*, *18*, 92-102.

Shores, R.E., Jack, S.L., Gunter, P.L., Ellis, D.N., DeBriere, T.J., &
Wehby, J.H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior
disorders. *Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders*, *1*, 27-39.

Special issue: Integrating basic and applied research. (1994, Winter).
*Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *27*.

Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in
schools. In S. Watson, & F. Gresham (Eds.), *Child behavior therapy:
Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation* (pp.
451-474). New York: Plenum Press.

Stevens, L.J., & Price, M. (1992). Meeting the challenge of educating
children at risk. *Phi Delta* *Kappan*, *74*, 18-23.

Sugai, G. (1998). Postmodernism and emotional and behavioral disorders:
Distraction or advancement. *Behavior Disorders*, *23*, 171-177.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior
problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and
solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), *The Oregon
conference monograph* (Vol. 6) (p. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of
Oregon.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support:
Preferred processes and practices. *Effective School Practices*, *17*,
10-22.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., & Sprague, J. (1999). Functional
assessment-based behavior support planning:
Research-to-practice-to-research. *Behavioral Disorders*, *24*,\
223-227.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional
assessments to develop behavior support plans. *Preventing School
Failure*, *43*, 6-13.

Sugai, G., Sprague, J.R., Horner, R.H., & Walker, H.M. (in press).
Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to
assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. *Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders*.

Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T.,
Cohen, J., et al. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the
year off right. *Journal of Behavioral Education*, *7*, 99-112.

Tilly, W.D., III, Knoster, T.P., Kovaleski, J., Bambara, L., Dunlap, G.,
& Kincaid, D. (1998). *Functional behavioral assessment: Policy
development in light of emerging research and practice*. Alexandria, VA:
National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Todd, A.W., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J.R. (1999). Effective
behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based
approach. *Effective School Practices*, *17*, 23-37.

Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994). *What works in reducing adolescent
violence: An empirical review of the field*. Boulder: University of
Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Touchette, P.E., MacDonald, R.F., & Langer, S.N. (1985). A scatter plot
for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. *Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis*, *18*, 343-351.

Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1996). Group action planning as a
strategy for providing comprehensive family support. In L.K. Koegel,
R.L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), *Positive behavioral support: Including
people with difficult behavior in the community* (pp. 99-114).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular
classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. *Behavioral Disorders*, *20*,
267-278.

Vollmer, T.R., & Northup, J. (1996). Some implications of functional
analysis for school psychology. *School Psychology Quarterly*, *11*,
76-92.

Walker, H.M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). *Antisocial behavior in
school: Strategies and best practices*. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H.M., Forness, S.R., Kauffman, J., Epstein, M.H., Gresham, F.M.,
Nelson, C.M., & Strain, P.S. (1998). Macro-social validation:
Referencing outcomes in behavioral disorders to societal issues and
problems. *Behavioral Disorders*, *24*, 1-18.

Walker, H.M., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J.R.,
Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M.J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing
antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth.
*Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders*, *4*, 193-256.

Wolery, M.R., Bailey, D.B., Jr., & Sugai, G.M. (1988). *Effective
teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with
exceptional students*. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Zins, J.E., & Ponti, C.R. (1990). Best practices in school-based
consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), *Best practices in school
psychology \-- II* (pp. 673-694). Washington, DC: National Association
of School Psychologists.

Office of Special Education Programs Technology and Media Services
Program: A Focus on Implementation and Utilization

Technology applications are helpful in solving problems and improving
student results in the field of special education. Technology provides a
bridge linking students with special needs to the classroom curriculum
and environment. While support for technology to address the needs of
children with disabilities comes from many sources, including the
National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, this
module focuses only on technology activities of the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) Technology and Media Services (TMS) program.

Assistive devices have helped students with disabilities increase their
independence by learning to communicate more effectively, to control
their environments, and to achieve greater mobility (Burnette, 1990;
Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth, 1994; Todis, 1996; Todis & Walker, 1993).
Instructional applications of technology have enhanced students'
learning and meaningful participation in classroom activities by
enabling teachers to tailor instruction to their individual needs and to
supplement and/or enhance effective instruction (Higgins & Boone, 1993;
Okolo, Bahr, & Rieth, 1993; Woodward & Carnine, 1993; Woodward & Rieth,
1997).

Technology can also support practitioners in administrative and
managerial tasks related to quality programming, such as making
assessment tasks more precise and manageable (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamett,
1993). Technology also shows promise as a vehicle for delivering and
expanding professional development opportunities for practitioners and
families ( Blackhurst, Hales, & Lahm, 1998; Foegen & Hargrave, 1999;
Gallagher & McCormick, 1999; Meyen, Tangen, & Lian, 1999; Paulsen,
Higgins, Miller, Strawser, & Boone, 1998).

Congress recognized the potential of technology to enhance educational
results for students with disabilities when it passed the most recent
amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in
1997. The amendments introduced a provision requiring teams responsible
for developing an individualized education program (IEP) for a child
with a disability to consider whether the child requires assistive
technology devices and services. Section 602 of IDEA includes these
definitions related to assistive technology:

> \(1\) ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE‑ The term 'assistive technology
> device' means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether
> acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is
> used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a
> child with a disability.

\(2\) ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE‑ The term 'assistive technology
service' means any service that directly assists a child with a
disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive
technology device. Such term includes \--

\(A\) the evaluation of the needs of such child, including a functional
evaluation of the child in the child's customary environment;

> \(B\) purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition
> of assistive technology devices by such child;
>
> \(C\) selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying,
> main-taining, repairing, or replacing of assistive technology devices;

\(D\) coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services
with assistive technology devices, such as those associated with
existing education and rehabilitation plans and programs;

> \(E\) training or technical assistance for such child, or, where
> appropriate, the family of such child; and
>
> \(F\) training or technical assistance for professionals (including
> individuals providing education and rehabilitation services),
> employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or
> are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of
> such child.

Across the country, IEP team members are finding that consideration of
technology demands more than a cursory look at the technology available
in the district or at a particular technology tool for its own sake.
Rather, it involves starting with what is educationally necessary for a
child in order for him or her to receive an appropriate education and
then determining whether technology is necessary to obtain agreed-upon
educational goals (Chambers, 1997; Golden, 1998). IEP team members are
not limited by what exists in the district. Indeed, if a technology tool
is deemed necessary for a student to achieve his or her educational
goals as set forth in the IEP, the district must ensure its availability
and utilization.

To consider technology in this way assumes an understanding of a full
range of technology options\--from low-tech devices such as pencil grips
or adaptive tools, to high-tech devices such as multimedia databases or
voice recognition systems\--and how they may address a student's needs.
Consideration of technology also assumes an understanding of what it
takes to ensure that the technology is used in the intended way, by the
student and by others on behalf of the student, across educational
settings.

Research has pointed to a number of challenges in implementing
technology tools with students with disabilities (Hutinger, Johanson, &
Stoneburner, 1996; Lesar, 1998; McGregor & Pachuski, 1996; Wehmeyer,
1999). In answering the practical questions related to implementation,
technology researchers and developers have often found themselves
concerned with the task of studying practice. Specifically, they must
look at factors that limit the widespread use of technology (such as
lack of awareness, lack of training, lack of funding, lack of
administrative support, lack of time) and at strategies that may
eliminate barriers. Inquiry regarding what it takes to integrate
technology use into the educational setting\--from making sure all
parties have an awareness of effective tools, to making these tools
readily available, to ensuring that all parties have sufficient training
and ongoing support to utilize the tools\--has been at the core of
special education research in technology for nearly a quarter of a
century. This line of research shows promise for ensuring that
technology tools are available and are used to their full potential to
enhance educational results for students with disabilities.

Prior to the 1980s, research in technology for special education was
sparse. Researchers have accomplished a great deal since the middle of
that decade with support from the U.S. Department of Education, OSEP.
Research is informing current practices and making it possible for
students with disabilities to participate and learn to their potential
in classrooms across the country. To that end, this module provides a
brief review of how past Federal investments and policy initiatives have
been instrumental in advancing knowledge about implementation issues.

# Charting a National Agenda for Making Sound Investments: A Brief History of Federal Support

Beginning in the mid-1980s, OSEP began to earmark certain competitions
specifically for research and development in technology. Recognizing the
need for information about the use of technology in achieving
educational results for students with disabilities, OSEP focused
resources on programs that would study pertinent issues.

In 1990, OSEP established a strategic agenda to guide investments in the
TMS program for improving educational results that is still viable today
(OSEP, 1992). After involving stakeholders from across the nation in a
year-long agenda-building process, OSEP introduced the national
technology program agenda. The overarching goals for technology inquiry
were identified as: fostering lifelong learning; encouraging
participation in diverse educational, domestic, work, and community
environments; promoting equity in opportunity for individuals with
disabilities; and enabling individuals with disabilities to be
productive and independent. To achieve these goals, the agenda put forth
four program commitments by which the use of technology would be
advanced for all categories of disability. These commitments were:

-   Enable the learner across environments by fostering the creation of
    state-of-the-art instructional environments, both in and out of
    school;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Promote effective policy at all levels in government, schools, and
    businesses;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Foster use through professional development by training and
    supporting teachers, administrators, parents, and related-service
    personnel; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Create innovative tools by encouraging the development of varied and
    integrated technologies, media, and materials.

For nearly a decade, the agenda has served as the cornerstone of OSEP's
technology research and development. Special education researchers had
long been concerned with using their findings to improve educational
results for students with disabilities. Now, the agenda signaled the
centrality of implementation and utilization issues to the work of
technology researchers and developers. It underscored the importance of
examining and improving access to information and support.

Using the agenda as a foundation, a series of research projects began
exploring issues related to providing innovative technology tools that
would enable students to learn across educational and classroom
settings. The following examples from OSEP-funded projects exemplify the
broad range of technology applications found successful in improving
results for students with disabilities.

As these examples from OSEP-funded projects illustrate, technology can
enhance participation in classroom environments and help students with
disabilities learn challenging curricula.

## *Providing Access to Participation in Classrooms*

Rose, a ninth grader in the Pacific Northwest, is unable to speak or
walk without assistance. With the help of a motorized wheelchair and
adapted devices, such as adapted pencils, eating utensils, scissors, and
other tools, Rose is able to function quite independently at school.
Like her classmates, Rose has been using computers for several years at
school. A portable computer mounted on her wheelchair is equipped with
software for completing her academic assignments. To accommodate her
physical needs, her word-processing program includes a word prediction
feature so Rose needs only to type the first letters of a word; she then
chooses the desired word from a list. In addition, a voice-output
feature, which displays messages on a screen or through voice synthesis,
allows Rose to communicate her ideas.

An important goal of early childhood classrooms is developing
independence. For 5-year-old Sabrina, who cannot speak or point, making
choices and being able to act on them is a challenge. With the help of
an eye-gaze board\--a simple apparatus consisting of a Plexiglas frame
with Velcro tabs\--Sabrina is able to communicate with adults and other
children in her classroom. For example, during free choice time, an
instructional assistant places the eye-gaze board perpendicular to
Sabrina's wheelchair tray and fastens six pictures of her preferred
activities around its edges. The aide stands behind the board to gauge
where Sabrina's eyes are pointing. By looking directly at one of the
pictures, Sabrina chooses to read a book on the computer. The computer
is equipped with a feature that turns the pages when Sabrina "hits" a
switch, allowing for even more independence. The teacher is especially
pleased, as the eye-gaze system is quickly assimilated by Sabrina's
peers, who use it to interact with her during free time.

Technology can be used to enhance communication and mobility. When
students have significant difficulties in communicating or in moving
independently, they can be denied access to essential instruction and
classroom interactions. Research and development have shown the efficacy
of such applications as picture- and speech-synthesized communication
boards, voice recognition systems for communication, screen readers to
assist students with visual impairments in learning, and adaptive
calculators. Research has considered applications of technology to
different settings, such as the use of the Internet to deliver realtime
captioning in remote classrooms. OSEP also has supported research in the
emerging areas of computer simulation and virtual reality technology,
which have shown the potential to enable students to move more quickly
through complex material. One example is the use of technology to
provide safe mobility training to students who are physically
challenged.

## *Helping Students Master Basic Skills*

Robert, a student in an urban first-grade classroom, is struggling to
learn how to read. He has difficulty sounding out words and recognizing
vocabulary. Yet providing the type of individualized instruction and
practice Robert needs can prove challenging in a classroom of more than
30 students. In addition to his regular instruction, Robert's teacher
supplements his educational program with software that functions as an
electronic storybook. During independent reading practice time, Robert
uses the software for repeated practice in reading stories at his own
pace. The design features of the software directly address Robert's
individual needs. By clicking on individual words or phrases with the
mouse, Robert can hear them spoken by a recorded voice or can see a
picture that illustrates their meaning. With another click of the mouse,
Robert can highlight each word as he reads. This technology application
has enabled Robert to become a more confident and skilled reader.

Developing reading and decoding skills, learning math skills, and
mastering writing skills are areas of great need for students with
cognitive and learning disabilities. OSEP has supported numerous
projects that have enhanced our understanding of how technology can help
students with disabilities master basic skills. For example, researchers
have studied how computational instruction can be adapted to individual
needs with the aid of technology (e.g., systematically controlling a
presentation to ensure that the student is practicing appropriate
skills). Researchers also have considered how technology applications
such as word prediction software and speech synthesizers can help
students with writing difficulties learn skills and complete written
assignments in a timely fashion.

## *Supporting Students in Learning Complex Material* 

Ms. Brown believes that meeting science curriculum standards is
important for all of her students. She has found that technology, media,
and materials can enhance learning for her diverse group of fifth
graders. For example, the class is taking a field trip to a local pond
to study ecosystems. Students will observe different physical elements
and collect samples for further study back in the classroom. Rather than
exclude several students, who, due to their disabilities, find it
difficult to participate fully, Ms. Brown incorporates the use of a
digital camera. She takes photos of inaccessible areas for students to
review later. She also takes photos of students engaged in observation,
which she uses later to prompt recall and comprehension. Back in the
classroom, students draw what they have observed. To assist students
with visual and perceptual difficulties, Ms. Brown incorporates the use
of a projection microscope. Students put an object under the lens of the
projection microscope and trace it. To wrap up the session, Ms. Brown
uses a software program that allows students to create a web, or
cognitive organizer, of their observations. As students reflect on their
webs, they begin to see how their emerging ideas might be presented in
an outline for a science report. These technology tools allow students
to actively participate and learn in a standards-based science
curriculum.

As students increasingly access the general education curriculum, they
are expected to understand complex subject matter. Among other things,
students are expected to comprehend written text, assemble complex
information, and develop active learning skills. OSEP has funded
numerous projects that have added to the knowledge base on how
technology can help students with disabilities learn complex subject
matter. Some examples are technology applications to enhance reading
comprehension with hypertext and hypermedia software programs, improve
fluency with speech recognition applications, and help engage students
with limited math skills in higher order problem solving with the aid of
a spreadsheet. In addition, research has looked at how technology might
help engage students in instructional practices used to promote higher
order thinking (e.g., project-based instruction, inquiry-based
strategies, and curriculum-based units).

Over the years, the pattern of inquiry has evolved from looking at
technology in isolation from the complex educational environment to
exploring what it takes\--with regard to curriculum, professional
development, technical support, administrative support, and policy
issues\--to implement innovative tools and services across settings. The
next section of this module reviews how early studies set the stage for
current investigations into the complex nature of technology as an
intervention and what that means for implementation.

# Retrospective Studies

OSEP commissioned a group of researchers to review past TMS project
investments in order to improve future practice (Okolo, Cavalier,
Ferretti, & MacArthur, 1995). The researchers identified five broad
categories of research focus:

-   **Assistive technology**\--projects that look at how to compensate
    for or otherwise address special student needs;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Technology and instruction**\--projects related to instructional
    design, literacy, mathematics, social studies, science, and early
    childhood education;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Technology and assessment**\--projects about assessment of
    academic skills, videodisc assessments, behavioral assessment,
    expert systems for decision support, and eco-behavioral assessment;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Future applications**\--projects that analyze trends in hardware
    and software developments for individuals with disabilities; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Implementation and dissemination of technology applications and
    services**\--projects that examine how technology is used in
    educational and clinical settings, models of technology integration,
    centers to disseminate information about technology, and staff
    development efforts.

Within the implementation and dissemination category, which included
findings from 36 projects, the researchers cited numerous research
studies documenting the underutilization of assistive and instructional
technology in schools, clinics, and work settings. Further, they noted a
consistent finding throughout the projects: the fallacy of the belief
that simply placing an innovative technology tool in the student's
proximity would lead to improved educational results. The researchers
reported,

Just about all new developments in assistive and instructional
technology appear to have followed this pattern\--much promise, much
promotion, and little attention to factors that influence how well
technology is used and the range of effects it can have. . . . Adding a
computer to a classroom or giving a student an assistive device does not
guarantee that these tools will be used appropriately, or that they will
have any effect on teaching or learning. (Okolo et al. 1995, p.54)

Okolo and colleagues synthesized several elements related to
implementation that projects identified as keys to success. These were:

-   Administrative leadership and the need for adequate funding;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technical support and collaboration; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teacher preparation and released time to implement technologies.

    The researchers concluded that technology was only one part of a
    complex microeducational environment that includes many interacting
    variables. Lack of attention to these variables, in deference to
    simple solutions, would impede the effective use of technology.

This reference to the complex nature of implementing technology became a
theme throughout many subsequent OSEP technology research projects. It
surfaced again in a review of five collaborative technology research
projects that was initiated by OSEP in 1995 (TAM Connector, 1999). These
projects set out to study technology strategies that support access to
the general education curriculum. Each project implemented
technology-based strategies that helped students achieve meaningful
participation and independence across various educational environments;
promoted effective policy, planning, and practice to ensure
accessibility, availability, and effective application for the full
range of technology; and fostered the use and integration of technology
through professional development.

A unifying framework emerged through cross-project analysis. Components
of the framework, each of which was considered vital to effective
technology utilization and integration, were:

-   Technology planning;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Professional development;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Planning for individual students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integrating technology and curriculum;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technical assistance to staff, students, and families;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Student outcomes;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Evaluating technology initiatives;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sustaining and institutionalizing change; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integrating instruction about technology into special education
    teacher education programs.

It is important to point out the interrelatedness of each component.
Each component is necessary to promote best practice, to support the
seamless integration of technology across educational environments, and
to sustain innovation and growth for the teaching and learning
experience.

These projects demonstrated that technology as an educational
intervention is complex. Its implementation requires more than attention
to one or two elements if enduring change is to be realized. It is not
enough to look only at gaining the support of the administrator, or to
training a teacher. While each element is essential, each is also part
of a more comprehensive framework of related elements that must be
addressed in the course of implementation. In most cases, the full
implementation of technology requires a comprehensive and complex look
at integrating the technology into the curriculum, into instruction, and
into the educational setting with substantive policy and professional
development support.

# Innovative Activities

While research and development efforts have provided considerable
evidence to document the positive results of technology and have
suggested implementation approaches, questions remain regarding
utilization of technology.

To address these issues, a number of OSEP's current investments are
building upon past work in their exploration of technology as an
intervention. Technology-based strategies that assist students in
achieving meaningful participation and independence are being considered
across various educational settings. These strategies emphasize how
technology is integrated into the full range of school-related
activities\--its use, the effects of using assistive and instructional
technology on a broad range of results, and how the environment of
schools either facilitates or hinders the use of technology. This means
looking at change on multiple levels\--not just in the classroom, but
throughout the entire educational system, including at the school,
district, State, and Federal levels (Means et al., 1993). At the local
level, this may include the perspectives of curriculum, professional
development, and technical assistance. Systemic factors may include the
extent to which policy and planning support accessibility, availability,
and effective application of the technology.

The pattern of looking at technology as an intervention has emerged in
current projects in a variety of ways. The following are examples of
innovative OSEP-funded efforts that hold promise for shaping the future.

## *Stepping Stones of Technology Innovation for Students with Disabilities*

A grant competition under this priority category has been conducted
annually since 1998. Projects in this priority are designed to focus
research on implementation as well as effectiveness and sustained use of
a technology-based approach. The stepping stone framework embodies the
notion of technology as a complex intervention by building into its
design an understanding of implementation and the work that needs to be
done to ensure utilization.

There are three phases of possible work:

-   **Phase 1\--Development.** Projects develop and refine a
    technology-based approach and test its feasibility for use with
    students with disabilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Phase 2\--Research on Effectiveness.** Projects select a promising
    technology-based approach that has been developed in a manner
    consistent with Phase 1 and subject it to rigorous field-based
    research and evaluation to determine effectiveness and feasibility
    in educational or early intervention settings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Phase 3\--Research on Implementation.** Projects select a
    technology-based approach that has been evaluated for effectiveness
    and feasibility and study its implementation in multiple settings to
    acquire an improved understanding of the range of contexts in which
    the approach can be used effectively and the factors that determine
    the effectiveness and sustainability of the approach in that range
    of contexts.

Projects funded under this competition have the potential to chart a new
course of inquiry as it relates to implementation issues.

## *The Center To Link Urban Schools with Information and Support on Special Education and Technology (LINKUS)*

In previous years, the approach to dissemination and follow-up support
was primarily one of supplying information, in print, media, and
electronic formats, to the targeted audience. The current approach
revolves around providing schools with sufficient technical assistance
to support large-scale implementation efforts. The complex nature of the
present activities typically includes integrating technology into the
curriculum through professional development and ongoing professional
support.

An example of this emerging pattern of work is the LINKUS center at the
Education Development Center, Inc., a 5-year project funded by OSEP. The
overall project goal is to improve outcomes for students with
disabilities by having general and special education teaching personnel
integrate a range of technology tools into a standards-based curriculum.
LINKUS provides key school district personnel with technical assistance
to design, conduct, and evaluate ongoing professional development.
Technical assistance is guided by the following principles:

-   All professional development activities must be aligned with key
    district initiatives (e.g., language and literacy improvement).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All activities must be directed at improving results for students.

    Collaboration between general and special education teaching
    personnel is encouraged. Such collaboration is supported by district
    facilitators, administrators, and related service providers.
    Collaborative school-based teams design, implement, and reflect on
    the best methods and procedures to integrate technology into ongoing
    instruction. Teams use an established process for looking at the
    work of three focal groups of students (students with IEPs, students
    at risk for failure, and typically developing students) over time.
    The process involves determining each student's abilities and needs,
    identifying clear goals related to standards, generating
    instructional strategies that meet the needs of diverse learners,
    determining how technology can support learning, and designing
    assessments. The project will determine the extent to which teachers
    institutionalize this process and sustain the use of technology over
    time.

## *Family Center on Technology and Disability* 

As technology is implemented across settings, the perspectives of
multiple stakeholders regarding its usability may affect success. As
researchers and developers create new technology approaches, the needs
and abilities of every individual whom the child will encounter while
using the technology must be addressed.

One of the most significant stakeholder groups is the child's family.
The potential of technology may be hindered when families are not
trained to integrate use of the assistive device in naturally occurring
activities. Professionals are responsible for helping children and their
families select and acquire assistive technology devices and services,
as well as instructing them in their use.

The Family Center on Technology and Disability, housed at the United
Cerebral Palsy Association, is an example of an OSEP center designed to
support families by providing readily accessible information about
technology. At the core of the center's approach is a partnership with
other national organizations who serve families of children with
disabilities. Rather than serving families directly, the center's
emphasis is on identifying partners who, through their ongoing work with
families, can serve as intermediaries in dissemination. These partners
disseminate information and provide support to their constituents,
thereby broadening the reach of the center.

## *Additional OSEP Efforts*

OSEP is undertaking a variety of tasks to study how technology is being
used, or might be used, for students with disabilities. Following are
examples of selected initiatives.

-   **Children From Birth to 3.** Technology can play a significant role
    in early intervention programs and services for children from birth
    to age 3. IDEA has promoted the use of assistive technology services
    to young children through the Infants and Toddlers Program (Part C).
    Technology enables children to engage in the same activities as
    their peers who do not have disabilities. As a result, technology
    acts as an equalizer and further enhances opportunities for children
    with disabilities to be educated in less restrictive settings. A
    major initiative being undertaken in this area is the Birth to 3
    Project. In addition to looking at effective technology for this age
    group, researchers also will look at the feasibility of using such
    technologies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Futures Studies.** OSEP conducted the first "futures" study in
    1984 to investigate how technologies from other sectors (e.g.,
    medical, business, military) might be adapted to benefit students
    with disabilities. This initiative has been revisited every 3 to 5
    years in order to identify trends and plan new directions. In the
    current initiative, the emphasis is on the near future. Papers are
    being commissioned that focus on how technology may affect students
    with disabilities in typical settings. These papers will be given to
    global futurists who will be asked to draw implications for research
    and practice.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Synthesis on the Selection and Use of Assistive Technology.** To
    ensure that research is disseminated fully to the field, an
    initiative is being undertaken to synthesize information from
    projects that have developed and/or studied approaches to selecting
    and using assistive technology, training parents, and providing
    local programs to support the appropriate uses of assistive
    technology. Information from the synthesis will form the basis for a
    video-based package that will be disseminated to both professional
    and nonprofessional audiences.

# Summary

The IDEA provision to consider assistive technology reflects a growing
body of knowledge demonstrating the power and potential of technology to
enhance the lives of children with disabilities by providing them with
access to the classroom and to learning. However, to guarantee that
technology will be used consistently and effectively for its intended
purposes often requires much more than simply recommending a particular
tool, putting the tool into the student's or educator's hands, or
providing an afterschool staff development workshop for teachers. In
many cases, particularly with more high-tech applications, technology
implementation takes considerable effort and knowledge. The
consideration of technology assumes an understanding of how those
technologies will interact with myriad contextual factors, including
stakeholders, the environment, policies, curriculum, families, and the
students themselves.

The TMS program has produced a strand of inquiry that has evolved from a
focus on usefulness\--the potential of technology to alleviate a student
need\--to a focus on usefulness and utilization. TMS research has
followed a pattern that is illuminating many of the contextual factors
that both impede and facilitate its use. The success of technology in
helping students progress ultimately will be contingent on how well
these contextual factors are addressed. With OSEP's support, appropriate
technology and media have been and continue to be researched, developed,
demonstrated, and made available in timely and accessible formats to
parents, teachers, and other personnel who provide services to children
with disabilities.

# References

Blackhurst, A.E., Hales, R.M., & Lahm, E.A. (1998). Using an education
server software system to deliver education coursework via the World
Wide Web. *Journal of Special Education Technology, 13*, 78-98.

Burnette, J. (1990). *Assistive technology design in special education*.
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Chambers, A.C. (1997). *Has technology been considered?: A guide for IEP
teams*. Reston, VA: The Council for Administrators of Special Education
and the Technology and Media Division of The Council for Exceptional
Children.

Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Rieth, H. (1994). A survey of assistive
technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice.
*Journal of Special Education Technology, 13*, 62-80.

Foegen, A., & Hargrave, C.P. (1999). Group response technology in
lecture-based instruction: Exploring student engagement and instructor
perceptions. *Journal of Special Education Technology, 14*, 3-17.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamett, C.L. (1993). Technological advances
linking the assessment of students' academic proficiency to
instructional planning. *Journal of Special Education Technology, 12*,
49-62.

Gallagher, P.A., & McCormick, K. (1999). Student satisfaction with
two-way interactive distance learning for delivery of early childhood
special education coursework. *Journal of Special Education Technology,
14*, 32-47.

Golden, D. (1998). *Assistive technology in special education: Policy
and practice**.*** Reston, VA: The Council for Administrators of Special
Education and the Technology and Media Division of The Council for
Exceptional Children.

Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1993). Technology as a tutor, tool, and agent
for reading. *Journal of Special Education Technology, 12*, 28-37.

Hutinger, P., Johanson, J., & Stoneburner, R. (1996). Assistive
technology applications in educational programs of children with
multiple disabilities: A case study report on the state of the practice.
*Journal of Special Education Technology, 13*, 16-35.

Lesar, S. (1998). Use of assistive technology with young children with
disabilities: Current status and training needs. *Journal of Early
Intervention, 21*, 146-159.

McGregor, G., & Pachuski, P. (1996). Assistive technology in schools:
Are teachers ready, able, and supported? *Journal of Special Education
Technology, 13*, 4-15.

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz,
A.R., & Zorfass, J. (1993). *Using technology to support education
reform*. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Meyen, E., Tangen, P., & Lian, C.H.T. (1999). Developing online
instruction: Partnership between instructors and technical developers.
*Journal of Special Education Technology, 14*, 18-31.

Okolo, C.M., Bahr, C., & Rieth, H. (1993). A retrospective view of
computer-based instruction. *Journal of Special Education Technology,
12*, 1-27.

Okolo, C.M., Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & MacArthur, C.A. (1995
January). Projects funded by the Technology, Media, and Materials
Program, 1986-1994: What have we learned? Unpublished manuscript.

Paulsen, K.J., Higgins, K., Miller, S.P., Strawser, S., & Boone, R.
(1998). Delivering instruction via interactive television and videotape:
Student achievement and satisfaction. *Journal of Special Education
Technology, 13*, 59-77.

Supporting access to and progress in the general curriculum. Promising
practices in technology. (1999, November). *TAM Connector*, *12*, 1-3.

Todis, B. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive
technology in educational settings. *Journal of Special Education
Technology, 13*, 49-61.

Todis, B., & Walker, H. (1993). User perspectives on assistive
technology in educational settings. *Focus on Exceptional Children, 26*,
1-16.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(1992). *The technology, educational media, and materials strategic
program agenda for individuals with disabilities*. Washington, DC:
Author.

Wehmeyer, M.L. (1999). Assistive technology and students with mental
retardation: Utilization and barriers. *Journal of Special Education
Technology, 14*, 48-58.

Woodward, J., & Carnine, D. (1993). Uses of technology for mathematics
assessment and instruction: Reflection on a decade of innovations.
*Journal of Special Education Technology, 12*, 38-48.

Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology
research in special education. *Review of Educational Research, 67*,
503-536.

[^1]: The contents of this module reflect the work of George Sugai and
    Robert H. Horner and have been adapted from Technical Assistance
    Guide #1, "Applying Positive Behavioral Support and Functional
    Behavioral Assessment in Schools," which was prepared by the Office
    of Special Education Programs Center on Positive Behavioral
    Interventions and Supports and approved by the U.S. Department of
    Education. For a complete copy of Technical Assistance Guide #1, go
    to http://www.pbis.org.

[^2]: The OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
    is supported by a grant from OSEP, with additional funding from the
    Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education.