Commentary: Current Perspectives on School-Based Behavioral Interventions: Science and Reality of the Classroom

Abstract. The current perspectives on school-based behavioral interventions presented in this mini-series are underpinned by the authors' compelling arguments to employ these interventions primarily because they believe that they are the most effective in promoting children's academic and social competencies. Unquestionably the arguments presented in support of behavioral interventions are sound in that they are firmly based on science. However, what is amiss is why the scientifically based technology of behavior has not progressed more rapidly and gained a more dominant influence in educational practice. This commentary provides a reaction to the articles and a tenable explanation for this paradox. ********** Behaviorally based instructional strategies and practices are available that "ought to be preferred because they tend to produce desired outcomes more consistently and more often than others" (Morgan & Jenson, 1988, p. iii). One would think that the further development and use of a scientifically based technology of behavior would have progressed more quickly and gained more influence in educational practice than what has been evident. It seems that regard-less of numerous studies and meta-analyses that support the efficacy of behavioral interventions (e.g., Kavale, 1999; Stage & Quiroz, 1997) their extensive employment in school settings remains limited. Nearly 20 years ago, Witt (1986) suggested that because of this insufficient use of behavioral interventions, the promotion of academic and social development of students has been negligible. Consequently, on one hand there is a technology of behavior analysis that would purportedly improve children's academic and social competencies, and on the other, an educational community that appears somewhat resistant to its implementation. Subsequent to our reactions to the articles, we provide a tenable explanation for this paradox. Gresham (2004) argued that the child's response to intervention (RTI) should be the basis for modification of the intervention. However, and in concert with Gresham, the challenge is obtaining a reliable and valid evaluation of the child's RTI. It could be that reliable and valid assessments of RTI are more difficult to obtain than previously assumed, and this may be why interventions based on functional behavior assessments (FBA) were found to be no more effective than those that did not employ FBA (Gresham et al., 2004). Consequently, Gresham's assumption that teachable positive behaviors can be used to supplant problem behaviors may be difficult to achieve for the same reason. The challenge will also be in obtaining reliable and valid evaluations of the functions of these replacement behaviors. Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, and Little (2004) addressed the issue of whether or not the use of extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom resulted in the attenuation of student's intrinsic motivation to learn. They made a cogent argument that definitions of intrinsic motivation are really nothing other than definitions by default. They also noted that to avoid possible detrimental effects to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic rewards should be delivered (a) immediately after the desired behavior; (b) for tasks that the students have participated in, and completed at a pre-set level of quality; (c) according to a planned operant schedule to be thinned over time; (d) taking into account baseline performance levels; and (e) with generalization strategies incorporated. Whether or not teachers can reliably deliver extrinsic rewards with allegiance to these five components is questionable. Witt, VanDerHeyden, and Gilbertson (2004) addressed a very difficult and frustrating problem often faced by school psychologists--what to do with educators or placement teams that simply want to place the child outside of the general classroom. This is a daunting task in a school environment that by its nature does not permit the necessary control to allow systematic evaluation of contingencies. …