The U.S. Department of Education Keeps Pushing PBIS, but PBIS Ain’t Got Nothing to Give
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Seclusions (including isolation) and physical restraints (including mechanical and chemical restraints) of students in schools across the country has been a significant national concern since at least May, 2009.
During the past two months, this concern has generated a significant level of activity and attention in Washington, D.C.
More specifically, in mid-January (2019), the U.S. Department of Education’s Offices for Civil Rights (OCR) and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) announced an initiative to “address the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion” on students with disabilities. OCR and OSERS will attend to three specific areas: (a) Increasing the number of compliance reviews in districts across the country; (b) Disseminating more legal and intervention resources focused on prevention and alternative responses; and (c) Improving the integrity of incident reporting and data collection.
Last week (February 27, 2019), an education subcommittee of the House of Representatives conducted a hearing where the number of seclusions and restraints across the country was updated, possible alternative approaches were outlined, and the role of the federal government in decreasing seclusions and restraints was discussed.
It is expected that Congressional Democrats will soon introduce legislation to ban the use of isolation and seclusion in schools, and to put major restrictions on physical restraints.
_ _ _ _ _
Given all of this, and my own professional involvement in this issue since at least 2009 (while working at a state department of education, and as an Expert Witness for a state attorney general relative to a federal Court case), this two-part Blog will discuss:
Part I
- The definitions of seclusion and restraints
- The historical and current incident levels of these actions in schools
- The U.S. Department of Education’s formal attention to this issue since 2009
- The U.S. Department of Education’s faulty advocacy of the PBIS framework as a solution to this problem
_ _ _ _ _
Part II
- My involvement, as an Expert Witness, in a number of federal court cases involving excessive numbers of seclusions and/or restraints of student with disabilities—especially those who demonstrate the most challenging behaviors. Here, we will discuss the common characteristics of these cases from a legal and student perspective.
- What state departments of education are providing (and not providing) relative to training professionals in their states in the interventions that will decrease or eliminate the need for student seclusions and restraints, and where the PBIS framework fits in
- What analyses and specific interventions state departments of education need to provide to close the PBIS framework’s gaps so that school personnel can be more successful with behaviorally challenging students
_ _ _ _ _
FOR TODAY: The primary conclusion is for—
Districts and schools to be cautious—if not wary—about the U.S. Department of Education’s (and, perhaps, your State Department of Education’s) advocacy of the PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports) Framework as a viable one to help you decrease seclusions and restraints with your most behaviorally-challenging students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Federal Definitions of Seclusion and Restraints
In order to find a “federal” definition of “seclusion” and “restraint,” one needs to do some digging. While preparing for the Federal Court case, here is what I found.
In October, 2010, the Congressional Research Service issued a report to Congress titled The Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Schools: The Legal Issues. The report focused on the legal issues regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in schools, including their use with students covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and with students not covered by IDEA. In all, the report addressed (a) the Civil Rights Data Collection definitions for seclusion and restraints; (b) constitutional issues; (c) IDEA judicial decisions related to seclusion and restraint; (d) State laws and policies; and (e) Federal legislation.
The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is an ongoing U.S. Office of Civil Rights survey involving all public schools and school districts in the United States. Initiated in 1968, the CRDC measures student access to courses, programs, staff, and other resources and issues that impact education equity and opportunity for students across the country.
Critically, the CRDC definitions for seclusion (also termed “isolation” by some) and restraints were cited in the 2010 Congressional Research Service document, and these definitions appear in many subsequent federal guidance documents (see below).
Thus, my research suggests that the CRDC definitions are currently those used in most (if not all) federal contexts.
_ _ _ _ _
In the May, 2012 U.S. Department of Education’s Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document, the following CRDC definitions were documented:
The CRDC defines seclusion as:
The involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. It does not include a timeout, which is a behavior management technique that is part of an approved program, involves the monitored separation of the student in a non-locked setting, and is implemented for the purpose of calming.
The CRDC defines physical restraint as:
A personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely. The term physical restraint does not include a physical escort.
Physical escort means a temporary touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, or back for the purpose of inducing a student who is acting out to walk to a safe location.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Historical Incident Levels of Seclusion and Restraints
In 2009, the federal government realized that there was no objective, systematically-collected information in any data-base that reported the incident levels of seclusions and restraints in our nation’s schools.
On May 19, 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report, Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers.
In a GAO Highlights document accompanying this Report, it stated:
GAO found no federal laws restricting the use of seclusion and restraints in public and private schools and widely divergent laws at the state level. Although GAO could not determine whether allegations were widespread, GAO did find hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on school children during the past two decades.
Examples of these cases include a 7 year old purportedly dying after being held face down for hours by school staff, 5 year olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses, and a 13 year old reportedly hanging himself in a seclusion room after prolonged confinement.
Although GAO continues to receive new allegations from parents and advocacy groups, GAO could not find a single Web site, federal agency, or other entity that collects information on the use of these methods or the extent of their alleged abuse.
GAO also examined the details of 10 restraint and seclusion cases in which there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. The cases share the following common themes: they involved children with disabilities who were restrained and secluded, often in cases where they were not physically aggressive and their parents did not give consent; restraints that block air to the lungs can be deadly; teachers and staff in the cases were often not trained on the use of seclusions and restraints; and teachers and staff from at least 5 of the 10 cases continue to be employed as educators.
_ _ _ _ _
Arne Duncan, then the U.S. Secretary of Education, responded to this Report in a July 31, 2009 letter to all of the Chief State School Officers across the country (significant parts of this letter are presented below).
Significantly, soon after Duncan’s letter, all state departments of education were informed that they now had to track and report, each year, the number of seclusions and restraints in their respective schools as part of the annual performance reports required to receive their next year’s federal education funding.
I know this as a fact because, when this letter was sent, I was the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education’s (ADE) State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)—a position I held for 13 years through 2015. The SPDG involved a series of five-year grants funded directly by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Our SPDG specifically focused on working statewide with our districts and schools to improve their special education leadership and efficacy, literacy and mathematical student outcomes, positive behavioral support systems and student discipline, and multi-tiered academic and behavioral systems of supports.
_ _ _ _ _
Once the states began to collect data, it was clearly recognized that the accuracy of the annual information was suspect as (a) districts were interpreting the definitions in different ways; (b) some schools were under-reporting the data; and (c) the quality of the data collection procedures and technologies at the state and local levels were insufficient.
The National 2013-2014 School Year Incident Data. Regardless of the accuracy of the data, the national 2013-2014 school year data were reported in a May 16, 2017 Education Week article, “70,000 Students with Disabilities Secluded, Restrained in School. But the Rates Can Vary Widely from District to District.”
[CLICK HERE to Link to this Article]
Based on the 2017 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) report and analysis, the Education Week article reported the following:
- One out of 5 districts have students that were restrained or secluded during the 2013-14 school year.
- Nearly 70,000 students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were restrained or secluded in 2013-14.
- Those students account for over 200,000 incidents of restraint or seclusion.
- One in every 100 students with disabilities nationally was restrained or secluded.
- Four out of 5 students with disabilities who are restrained or secluded are males.
But the Education Week article also shared data that clearly suggested that the data in the CRDC Report mostly likely under-reported the number of actual incidents of seclusions and restraints nationwide. For example, a number of large urban districts, including New York City and Chicago, were among the 80% of districts nationwide that reported no seclusions or restraints with any student with a disability.
_ _ _ _ _
The National 2015-2016 School Year Incident Data. Jumping ahead two years, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) Report with seclusion and restraint information was released on April 24, 2018 for the 2015-2016 school year. The Report summarized the experiences of more than 50.6 million students at over 96,000 public schools across the country.
During the 2015-2016 school year:
- Over 84,000 students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were restrained or secluded in 2015-16 (69% of the more than 122,000 students restrained or secluded nationally).
- 23,760 students with disabilities were secluded (66% of the 36,000+ seclusions for all students across the country).
- 61,060 students with disabilities were restrained (71% of the 86,000+ restraints for all students across the country).
- 1.3 of every 100 students with disabilities nationally was restrained or secluded.
When compared with the data from two years before (see above), it appears that—even during a time when the U.S. Department of Education was encouraging a decrease in seclusions and restraints, the actions were increasing for students with disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The U.S. Department of Education’s Historical (and Questionable) Push of the PBIS Framework as a Solution
Since 2009 (or before), it seems that the U.S. Department of Education’s sole solution for any social, emotional, behavioral, disciplinary, or related school concern (e.g., teasing and bullying, trauma, school shootings, mental health issues) is to recommend the PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports) framework developed by the National PBIS Technical Assistance (TA) Center which has been funded by its Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) since 1997.
This happened again last week (February 27, 2019) as George Sugai, the Co-Director of the National PBIS TA Center since its inception (i.e., over 22 years) was asked (presumedly by the U.S. Department of Education) to testify at the House of Representatives’ hearing on seclusions and restraints—the same hearing that I referenced at the beginning of this Blog.
Critically—over the years—any time Congress has a hearing on a significant social, emotional, behavioral, disciplinary, or related school crisis or concern, Sugai (or the Center’s other Co-Director) is there to testify.
But here is how a February 27, 2019 (i.e., last week) Education Week article described Sugai’s House subcommittee testimony:
“Nationally the use of restraint and seclusion is very rare," Nowicki (the director of education, workforce, and income security at the U.S. Government Accountability Office) said (in her testimony to the subcommittee).
But when it does happen, said George Sugai, a University of Connecticut professor, the consequences can be significant: "They do not develop or maintain positive relationships with others. They do not enhance their capacity to function in more normalized environments." Sugai also stressed that students should not be restrained or secluded to punish them or to stress the importance of following classroom rules.
While the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is not a magic bullet, he said that using the framework can help educators deal with situations that can lead to restraints and seclusions.
_ _ _ _ _
NOTE WELL: It is critical to note that Sugai did not say that the PBIS framework, based on multiple controlled and objectively implemented studies, has demonstrated its capacity to prevent or decrease (over time) school seclusions or restraints with the most behaviorally challenging students who (a) are present in many schools, and (b) are the students who are most often secluded or restrained.
He said, instead, that PBIS “can help.” Once again, he did NOT say that PBIS will or has documented its definitive ability “to help.”
And, good for Sugai !!!
I say this because, while his words regarding PBIS’s potential impact were “slippery,” at least Sugai did not “sell” something that the PBIS framework has never demonstrated.
But, here (at least, right now), Sugai is not the problem. The problem is the U.S. Department of Education.
More specifically, the problem (right now) is that the U.S. Department of Education has so resolutely advocated its PBIS framework to Congress that it will be indirectly written into the seclusion and restraint legislation soon to be (re)introduced to Congress.
How do we know this?
We know this because a large group of House Representatives plan to reintroduce—as early as this month—what was House Resolution 7124: The Keeping All Students Safe Act. This Resolution was formally introduced and filed in Congress on November 14, 2018 (yes—just four months ago), and it died at the end of the session.
This former Bill’s stated goal was “to prohibit and prevent seclusion and to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint in schools, and for other purposes.”
Critically, in the November, 2018 Bill, the term “positive behavior interventions and supports” appeared eight times, the term was defined, and grant funding was written in to support schoolwide positive behavioral support efforts to help decrease seclusions and restraints.
But even more significant is the fact that the 2018 Bill did not capitalize the “positive behavior supports and interventions” term, and it never included a “PBIS” upper-case acronym with the term.
And yet, as will be demonstrated below, if this Bill is reintroduced, passed, and funded, the U.S. Department of Education and the National PBIS TA Center will use the lower case “positive behavior interventions and supports” language in the Bill to make it appear that Congress is advocating (or even requiring) the PBIS framework. This will provide more funding to a PBIS framework that have never demonstrated its efficacy.
Indeed, let’s Remember: The National PBIS TA Center has received tens ofmillions of dollars of federal funds (i.e., your tax dollars) since 1997.
If the PBIS framework was going to successfully address seclusions and restraints in our nation’s schools, shouldn’t this have occurred already?
_ _ _ _ _
Below, we will expand on this situation by showing how the U.S. Department of Education has advocated the PBIS framework—historically and somewhat inappropriately—since at least 2009.
Then, in Part II of this Blog, we will discuss a federal Court case where one state’s PBIS program was implicated in a horrendous seclusion and restraint situation. . . and discuss what really needs to be done to help districts and schools with alternatives to seclusion and restraints in the future.
_ _ _ _ _
A Brief U.S. Department of Education/PBIS History
As reported above, on May 19, 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report, Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers where it documented a number of student deaths and injuries because of the use of seclusions or restraints in schools.
Responding to this Report in a July 31, 2009 letter to all of the Chief State School Officers across the county, then-U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated:
I was deeply troubled by the testimony, as I am sure you would have been. As education leaders, our first responsibility should be to make sure that schools foster learning in a safe environment for all of our children and teachers. Therefore, I am encouraging each State to review its current policies and guidelines regarding the use of restraints and seclusion in schools to ensure every student is safe and protected, and if appropriate, develop or revise its policies and guidelines.
My home State of Illinois has what I believe to be one good approach, including both a strong focus upon Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) as well as State regulations that limit the use of seclusion and restraint under most circumstances. The State’s requirements, which I found to be extremely helpful as chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools, were described in testimony at the hearing. Illinois prohibits the use of seclusion or restraint for the purpose of punishment or exclusion, and allows trained staff to restrain students only in narrow circumstances. The State allows the use of isolated time out or physical restraint only in situations when it is absolutely necessary to preserve the safety of self or others; includes rules that must be followed when these techniques are used; and requires documentation of each incident to be provided to parents within 24 hours. Several other States have also adopted effective seclusion and/or restraint policies, but there are many jurisdictions that have not, leaving students and teachers vulnerable.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides significant one-time resources that districts can use to implement a school-wide system of PBIS. Districts could, consistent with program requirements, use funds provided for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and State and local funds to provide professional development, develop data systems, and offer coaching to establish and sustain these programs. The Department’s Office of Special Education Programs funds the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, with a Web site where additional information and technical assistance on PBIS can be obtained free of charge.
I urge each of you to develop or review and, if appropriate, revise your State policies and guidelines to ensure that every student in every school under your jurisdiction is safe and protected from being unnecessarily or inappropriately restrained or secluded. I also urge you to publicize these policies and guidelines so that administrators, teachers, and parents understand and consent to the limited circumstances under which these techniques may be used; ensure that parents are notified when these interventions do occur; and provide the resources needed to successfully implement the policies and hold school districts accountable for adhering to the guidelines.
I encourage you to have your revised policies and guidance in place prior to the start of the 2009-2010 school year to help ensure that no child is subjected to the abusive or potentially deadly use of seclusion or restraint in a school. I have asked Fran Walter of our Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to work with staff from our regional Comprehensive Centers to contact your office by August 15, to discuss the status of your State’s efforts with regard to limiting the use of seclusion and restraint to protect our students. During this contact, we expect to discuss relevant State laws, regulations, policies, and guidance that affect the use of seclusion and restraint, and any plans for further development or revisions. We expect to post the results of these discussions on the Department’s Web site to assist in the sharing of information that will help protect our students.
_ _ _ _ _
Remember that I had a “front row seat” during these proceedings as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education’s (ADE) State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)—a grant program funded directly by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
Because of my position and the goals of this grant in Arkansas, I was—in essence—the ADE’s PBIS and RtI/MTSS lead. However, rather than use the national PBIS and RtI/MTSS frameworks, I was recruited to the ADE to facilitate the statewide implementation of Project ACHIEVE’s (www.projectachieve.info) evidence-based school improvement, PBSS, and MTSS models. These models were developed during the years when I was the Director of the School Psychology Program at the University of South Florida in Tampa.
In Arkansas, Duncan’s letter initiated not only the systematic collection of annual seclusion and restraint data from all of our districts, but it also prompted a Department of Education review and rewrite of our school-based seclusion and restraints standards. I was a member of the ADE committee that completed this latter work. The result was a published Guidance document—an outcome, parenthetically, that fell short of our goal of new state legislation.
_ _ _ _ _
Duncan’s 2009 Letter and PBIS
I quoted virtually all of Duncan’s 2009 letter to our country’s Chief State School Officers above because—from my perspective—he inappropriately referenced, singularly described, and directly encouraged districts and schools to use federal ARRA funds to implement the Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework that has, to this day, never been objectively or independently proven to decrease schools’ use of seclusions and restraints.
His inclusion of PBIS was inappropriate because:
- PBIS is a framework created by the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center that has been funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program’s since 1997.
Thus, Duncan was promoting a framework that his own Department had funded, developed, re-funded (multiple times), and was overseeing. . . and he did it by citing only PBIS—and no other positive behavioral support model or program also in existence.
His advocacy represented at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it undercut the free-enterprise and fair-market competition requirements that prohibit federal agencies from endorsing a single organization, company, model, intervention, or approach . . . .
_ _ _ _ _
- He referenced (once again) only the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center’s website—also saying that this TA Center provided free technical assistance.
This latter statement, once again, gave the TA Center an unfair competitive advantage over other (un-named) positive behavioral support national models—especially given the endorsement of the U.S. Secretary of Education.
It provided this advantage even though the National PBIS TA Center’s framework has never been independently evaluated. . . nor ever demonstrated to be or designated as “evidence-based.”
And, the statement that the TA Center’s technical assistance was “free” not only gave the TA Center a competitive advantage over other programs that needed to charge for their assistance, but it also was somewhat disingenuous as the Center’s assistance was free because it was receiving millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money.
_ _ _ _ _
- Finally, Secretary Duncan’s letter reinforced and continued an established pattern within his Department (and especially OSEP) of controlling the national discussion on positive behavioral intervention and supports—which included allowing its National PBIS TA Center to actually misinterpret federal law.
Specifically, the current Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/ESSA, 2015) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) both discuss “positive behavioral interventions and supports” as a generic approach. In fact, the term appears in both laws in lower case letter without the PBIS acronym.
This means that federal law does not require the PBIS framework marketed by the National PBIS TA Center and funded by OSEP.
And yet, on the National PBIS TA Center’s website—to this day—it cites IDEA, and states that IDEA requires PBIS.
_ _ _ _ _
The most critical issue in all of this, once again, is that PBIS had never demonstrated any objective, small- or large-scale implementation data in 2009 to warrant Secretary Duncan’s endorsement or even mention in his letter to the Chief State School Officers.
And so, the districts and schools that embraced Duncan’s recommendation by implementing PBIS were, in essence, conducting an experiment on their students and staff with an untested (relative to seclusions and restraints) approach. More critically, this experiment was being conducted with the most challenging students in the district—those whose extreme behavior put them most in line for a potential seclusion or restraint.
_ _ _ _ _
The Story Continues. . .
In May, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education published, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document.
[CLICK HERE to Link]
In its Foreword, Secretary Arne Duncan once again exclusively promoted PBIS by stating:
As many reports have documented, the use of restraint and seclusion can have very serious consequences, including, most tragically, death. Furthermore, there continues to be no evidence that using restraint or seclusion is effective in reducing the occurrence of the problem behaviors that frequently precipitate the use of such techniques. Schools must do everything possible to ensure all children can learn, develop, and participate in instructional programs that promote high levels of academic achievement.
To accomplish this, schools must make every effort to structure safe environments and provide a behavioral framework, such as the use of positive behavior interventions and supports (emphasis added), that applies to all children, all staff, and all places in the school so that restraint and seclusion techniques are unnecessary.
_ _ _ _ _
Beyond this Foreword, most of this document focused on introducing, describing, and defending “Fifteen Principles” that the U.S. Department of Education felt that:
. . . States, local school districts, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools, parents, and other stakeholders should consider as the framework for when States, localities, and districts develop and implement policies and procedures, which should be in writing related to restraint and seclusion to ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in schools does not occur, except when there is a threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, and occurs in a manner that protects the safety of all children and adults at school.
To back these Fifteen Principles up, there were 28 references to PBIS or School-wide PBIS in the document. No other framework, model, or approach was cited.
Virtually all of the PBIS citations emphasized the preventative nature of the framework. Here, the document stated:
While the successful implementation of PBIS typically results in improved social and academic outcomes, it will not eliminate all behavior incidents in a school (Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., and Leaf, P., 2010; Muscott, H., & Mann, E., in press; Lassen, S., Steele, M., & Sailor, W., 2006). However, PBIS is an important preventive framework that can increase the capacity of school staff to support all children, including children with the most complex behavioral needs, thus reducing the instances that require intensive interventions. (Page 3)
Relative to students with continuing challenging behavior, the Resource Document alluded to PBIS, but emphasized two independent approaches: Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs). More specifically, the Document offered the following:
9. Behavioral strategies to address dangerous behavior that results in the use of restraint or seclusion should address the underlying cause or purpose of the dangerous behavior. Behavioral strategies, particularly when implemented as part of a school-wide program of positive behavioral supports, can be used to address the underlying causes of dangerous behavior and reduce the likelihood that restraint or seclusion will need to be used.
Behavior does not occur in a vacuum but is associated with conditions, events, requirements, and characteristics of a given situation or setting. An FBA can identify the combination of antecedent factors (factors that immediately precede behavior) and consequences (factors that immediately follow behavior) that are associated with the occurrence of inappropriate behavior. Information collected through direct observations, interviews, and record reviews help to identify the function of the dangerous behavior and guide the development of BIPs. (Page 18)
_ _ _ _ _
Finally, from a policy perspective, beyond citing the National PBIS TA Center, the Resource Document referenced one document each from the American Association of School Administrators and the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
_ _ _ _ _
Since 2012. . . .
The issue of seclusion and restraints has received very little Congressional attention since 2012. Part of the reason is because the Republican party took control of the House of Representatives in 2011. Thus, the initial push by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan from 2009 to 2012 literally had no “legislative place to go.”
Politically, however, all of this changed this past November when the Democratic party took the House back over. This is why—as above—the education subcommittee of the House of Representatives conducted its February 27th hearing last week, and why the House Democrats are expected to reintroduce The Keeping All Students Safe Act.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
The number of seclusions and restraints in our country’s schools—whether it involves general education students or students with disabilities—is a national tragedy and embarrassment. This problem must be solved.
But the problem is being compounded by the U.S. Department of Education which continues to advocate and singularly endorse a PBIS framework that has not been successful, and—from a science-to-practice perspective—will never be successful.
See the following previous Blogs which have discussed this science-to-practice:
October 7, 2017 Improving Student Outcomes When Your State Department of Education Has Adopted the Failed National MTSS and PBIS Frameworks: Effective and Defensible Multi-Tiered and Positive Behavioral Support Approaches that State Departments of Education Will Approve and Fund (Part I of II)
_ _ _ _ _
October 21, 2017 Improving Student Outcomes When Your State Department of Education Has Adopted the Failed National MTSS and PBIS Frameworks: Effective Research-to-Practice Multi-Tiered Approaches that Facilitate All Students' Success (Part II of II)
_ _ _ _ _
February 16, 2019 Redesigning Multi-Tiered Services in Schools: Redefining the Tiers and the Difference between Services and Interventions
_ _ _ _ _
The “game” here is one of politics, power, and arrogance.
And the reason why the PBIS game has been played since the National PBIS TA Center was established in 1997 is because it is being led by the employed staff within the U.S. Department of Education—and especially the Office of Special Education Programs. . . and not by the politically-appointed staff who change from elected presidential Administration to Administration.
And while I have no need for others to validate the assertions above (because I intimately know them to be true), know that Education Week documented these concerns in an August 27, 2013 article titled, “Tensions Accompany the Growth of PBIS Discipline Model.”
This article documents the fact that (a) there are other positive behavioral support models available for districts and schools to implement; (b) I have initiated several independent investigations of OSEP and the PBIS framework and TA Center through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General; and (c) the OIG’s office’s primary response has been to allow the Director of OSEP’s Research-to-Practice Division to respond to my well-documented complaint—instead of conducting its own objective investigation.
In essence, the OIG has allowed OSEP—which is the subject of the complaint—to answer its own complaint. . . and to say, “No, we’re not doing this” without any documentation.
Not to be dramatic, but if this sounds like accepting the assurances of Putin, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and Kim Jong-un—relative to denying the mis-steps of their respective countries. . . you kind of get what I am saying.
_ _ _ _ _
Today’s primary conclusion, once again, is for—
Districts and schools to be cautious—if not wary—about the U.S. Department of Education’s (and, perhaps, your State Department of Education’s) advocacy of the PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports) Framework as a viable one to help you decrease seclusions and restraints with your most behaviorally-challenging students.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I appreciate your attention to and consideration of these messages. As always, I am trying not just to critique the current (and historical) state of our educational affairs across the country, but to suggest field-tested and proven “other ways” to help us get the student, staff, and school outcomes that we all want.
To this end, Part II of this Blog (in two weeks) will discuss:
- My involvement, as an Expert Witness, in a number of federal court cases involving excessive numbers of seclusions and/or restraints of student with disabilities—especially those who demonstrate the most challenging behaviors. Here, we will discuss the common characteristics of these cases from a legal and student perspective.
- What state departments of education are providing (and not providing) relative to training professionals in their states in the interventions that will decrease or eliminate the need for student seclusions and restraints, and where the PBIS framework fits in
- What analyses and specific interventions state departments of education need to provide to close the PBIS framework’s gaps so that school personnel can be more successful with behaviorally challenging students
Meanwhile, I hope that you are having a successful Winter—soon to be Spring.
If any school or district team would like to talk with me by phone, Skype, Google Hangouts, etc. about any of these (or other school improvement, academics or student discipline, or multi-tiered services) issues or practices, all you need to do is contact me and get on my schedule. The first conference call is totally free.
Until the next Blog, be successful and well !!!
Best,
