Break-Out Session I-C: Special Education

Break-Out Session I-C:
Special Education
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Formal State Complaint
Negotiated Settlement Agreement
Stopping the School to Prison Pipeline
Expectations for Schools
Medicaid Coverage of School-Based
Mental Health Services
Individual and Class Administrative
Complaint
Ninth Circuit Amicus Curiae for
Bonta v. Katie A.
Way to Go: School Success for Children
with Mental Health Care Needs
October 1, 2008
BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Bambi Lockman, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Exceptional Education
and Student Services
614 Turlington Building
325 W. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Re:
Formal State Complaint on behalf of P.R., N.S., B.J.S.F., K.R. and
all students similarly situated in schools operated by the
School Board of Palm Beach County
Dear Ms. Lockman:
I.
INTRODUCTION
This complaint is being filed, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415(a)-(b) and 34
C.F.R. §§ 300.151-153, by the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County,
Southern Legal Counsel and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s School-toPrison Reform Project on behalf of P.R., N.S., B.J.S.F., K.R. and a class of all
students similarly situated in schools operated by the School Board of Palm
Beach County and by the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, as an
organizational complainant. The class consists of all students of the Palm Beach
County public school system with emotional/behavioral disabilities, or who
manifest behavioral issues, and who have been, or are being, subjected to
repeated disciplinary removals totaling more than ten school days (including inschool suspensions, court referrals, out-of-school suspensions, and
undocumented, illegal removals from school, e.g., “cool-off removals”).
Complainants contend that the School Board of Palm Beach County
(PBCS) has systematically and pervasively denied the class their rights under
the IDEA by failing:
•
to provide students with disabilities with sufficient related services,
such as counseling services, social work services, psychological services and
parent counseling and training, and assistive technology that would enable
such students to benefit from their special education program;
•
to provide educational services in the least restrictive environment;
•
to comply with IDEA’s discipline requirements, including the
development and implementation of positive behavioral intervention plans
targeting positive behavioral change;
•
to provide special education and related services in such a way as to
confer on the class meaningful educational benefit; and
•
to provide necessary and appropriate transition services.
The complainants request that the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) investigate
the School Board of Palm Beach County’s (PBCS) provision of special education and related
services to students with emotional and learning disabilities and behavioral difficulties for
violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 – 1482,
and order the PBCS to institute a remedial plan designed to correct, as set forth in this
Complaint, each and every violation found.
II.
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
In 2006, the NAACP and the Advancement Project completed a study of zero tolerance
policies in Florida schools.1 The report found that such policies had a disparate impact on
minorities and students with disabilities. 2 In reaching its conclusions, the report noted as
follows:
•
Statewide there were 26,990 school-related referrals to the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice during the 2004-05 school year. Over three-quarters of schoolbased referrals (76 percent) were for misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly
conduct, trespassing, or assault and/or battery, which is usually nothing more than
a schoolyard fight.
•
In addition to turning to police as disciplinarians, Florida schools increasingly
utilize internal discipline methods that focus on isolation and removal instead of
addressing the underlying behavioral problem. In fact, the growth in the number
of out-of-school suspensions has outpaced the growth of the student population by
almost two-to-one. Out-of-school suspensions rose from 385,365 during the 199900 school year to 441,694 in 2004-05, a 14 percent increase, even though the
student population increased by only 8.4 percent.3
1
Arresting Development: Addressing the School Discipline Crisis in Florida (hereinafter, “Arresting
Development”), A Report Prepared by the Florida State Conference NAACP, the Advancement Project, and
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (Spring 2006)
2
Id. at 10.
3
Id. at 15.
2
In Palm Beach County in fiscal year 2006-2007, 10 percent of all juvenile court referrals
were school-based.4 While this represents an overall two-percent decline from 2004-05,5 similar
to the statewide trend in gradually declining school-related referrals, it is not clear whether or not
it represents a decline in the school-related referrals of students with disabilities.
PBCS does not routinely disaggregate school-related referral data by students’ disability
status. PBCS was required, however, to provide such statistics in the context of discovery in a
case filed in 1997.6 The data, now over ten years old, showed that students with disabilities
received school-related referrals to the juvenile justice system at more than five times the rate of
students without disabilities. At that time, more than 80 percent of the students with disabilities
referred to the juvenile justice system were black males.
PBCS also has a documented history of systemic IDEA violations in the placement of
special education students in alternative education. The IDEA violations included changes in
placement without any IEP meetings or parental participation; changes in IEPs to “fit” what is
provided or absent in the alternative education site, by removing or reducing the frequency and
intensity of related services and program accommodations and modification; and systemic
violations of IDEA’s disciplinary scheme requiring manifestation determinations and the
development of positive behavior intervention plans.7 As a result, PBCS had on-site monitoring
by FDOE staff for a period of approximately two years.
As demonstrated by the cases of the individual student complainants, the PBCS engages
in a number of policies, practices and procedures which violate the IDEA and contribute
significantly to these high rates of suspension, expulsion and juvenile court referrals.
PBCS systematically and pervasively fails to provide specialized instruction and related
services that address the inherent behavioral characteristics and issues associated with the
classification of Emotional Disturbance8 and which adversely affect such students’ educational
performance. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (26) (A), § 1412 (a)(1), § 1414 (d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34, §
300.101, and § 300.320-328. Specifically, it has furnished complainants and all other similarly
4
Greenwald, Mark A. & Cooper, Ann E., Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Program
Accountability, Research and Planning, Delinquency in Florida Schools: A Three Year Analysis (January 2008).
5
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Research and Planning, Research and Evaluation Unit,
Analysis of FY 2005-06 School-Related Referrals (April 2006).
6
Shoemaker v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Case No. 9:97-cv-08036-FAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 17,
1997).
7
See Commissioner’s Order, DOE Case No. 99-440-FOF.
8
IDEA includes children and youth with “emotional disturbance” in the definition of “child with a
disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1402(3)(A)(i). In Florida, the current eligibility category for Emotional Disturbance is
emotional/behavioral disabilities (E/BD). Prior to July 1, 2007, the eligibility categories were Emotionally
handicapped (EH) and severely emotionally disturbed (SED). Compare Rule 6A-6.03016, effective date 7/1/07, Fla.
Admin. Code with Rule 6A-6.03016, effective date 3/10/85, Fla. Admin. Code.
3
situated students with either no services at all, or with woefully inadequate levels of social work,
counseling, psychological services, and parent counseling and training. Moreover, the provision
of related services appears unrelated to the students’ individual needs and are instead either nonexistent or a connect-the-dots related service between an eligibility category and related service,
i.e., all students eligible for E/BD and attending school in a cluster site automatically get group
counseling once a week without regard to whether the student needs a different type of therapy,
different setting or different frequency.
PBCS systematically and pervasively fails to provide students with E/BD and all other
similarly situated special education students who manifest behavioral issues a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as required by IDEA. It also
fails to provide students placed in restrictive alternative programs with sufficient education and
related services to enable them to progress into less restrictive programs. The IDEA requires that,
to the maximum extent possible, students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive
environment. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a) (5); and 34 C.F.R. § 300.114-117. There is no evidence
in any of the student complainants’ records that PBCS ever attempted to increase the amount of
counseling, social work, parent education and training, or psychological services or to implement
any of the previously described supplemental aids and services in order to enable the students to
access and succeed in a less restrictive general education setting. This demonstrates PBCS’
systemic failure to provide the appropriate supplemental aids and services, accommodations,
supports, and modifications necessary to enable the petitioners and similarly situated students to
participate in general education.
PBCS systematically and pervasively violates IDEA’s discipline provisions for students
with disabilities who have been removed from their educational placement for more than 10
school days in a school year. These provisions require PBCS staff to conduct manifestation
determinations within 10 days of the change of placement to determine whether the student’s
behavior that has led to a recommendation of suspension is related to his or her disability or a
result of the school’s failure to provide sufficient services to the student; to provide on-going
educational services that enable students with disabilities to continue to participate in the general
education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in their IEPs; to have IEP
teams conduct appropriate functional behavioral assessments; and to draft, review, or modify as
necessary behavior intervention plans that also include positive behavioral interventions,
strategies, and supports so that the behavior at issue does not recur. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k) (1)
(A)-(H); 34 C.F.R. § 300.121; 34 C.F.R. § 530-536.
PBCS systematically and pervasively denies the complainants and all other similarly
situated students FAPE by failing to confer meaningful educational benefit as required by IDEA.
PBCS’ failure to provide appropriate educational and related services for the complainants and
other similarly situated students has resulted in the denial of an education that confers
meaningful educational benefit as required under IDEA. The pervasive reality for a significant
portion of E/BD students in the PBCS is that even though they are of average intelligence, by the
time they reach middle school, they are typically performing years behind their chronological
grade level and that of their same-age peers. One result is that E/BD students are typically
placed in restrictive self-contained settings, which greatly reduces the proportion of these
4
students who ultimately receive a high school diploma.9 This reality reflects an obvious and
systemic practice of providing inappropriate special education and related services to students
with emotional or behavioral disabilities.
By its own account, verified by the FDOE, the PBCS systematically and pervasively
violates IDEA by failing to provide the necessary transition services that will prepare these
students for postsecondary education, vocational education, employment, independent living and
community participation.10 Specifically, PBCS violates the transition services requirement of
IDEA wholesale: it routinely fails to give the required notices to parents that the purpose of the
IEP meeting is to discuss postsecondary goals and transition services; it also routinely fails to
follow-up with outside agencies who may pay for some transition services; the IEPs also fail to
have the requires measurable annual goals for education, training, employment, independent
living and community participation.11 The high drop-out rate for E/BD students and the dismal
graduation rates would indicate that significant improvement in transition planning for these
students is required.12
III.
COMPLAINANTS
The Florida State Conference of the NAACP
The Florida State Conference of the NAACP joins this State Complaint as an
organizational complainant on behalf of all students with disabilities similarly situated to the
individual students named below. See §§ 34 C.F.R. 300.151(a)(1) and 300.153(a) (state
complaints may be filed by an organization). One of the principal objectives of the Florida State
Conference of the NAACP is to ensure educational equality for minority students and to
eliminate barriers that lead to inequity. The continued punitive discipline of students with
disabilities, rather than the provision of positive behavioral services and other related services,
appears to occur more frequently with students of color and contributes to the statistically
significant racial disparity in the Palm Beach County Schools for out-of-school suspensions.13
9
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) graduation rate, which calculates high school graduation with a
standard diploma, is based on the number of first-time ninth graders enrolled four years prior to the projected
graduation date, including incoming transfer students and subtracting students who leave to enroll in a private
school, home school or adult education. For students with disabilities in 2006-07 in PBCS, the NCLB graduation
rate was 33%. 2008 LEA Profile for Palm Beach County Schools at 2; online FDOE/BEESS report at
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp. This represents about half of the graduation rate for all students (67%), and
has declined over the past three years. Id. Students with E/BD also had a 13 % dropout rate in the 2006-07 school
year, which is more than four times the rate of all students, and 5% greater than the general group of students with
disabilities. Id. at 3.
10
ESE Self Assessment 2007-08, Palm Beach District Summary Report: Findings of Noncompliance by
Standard, Attachment 1 at 2-4.
11
Id., referencing 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(a)(2) and (b)(1)-(2), 300.321(b)(3), 300.322(b)(2), 300.324(c)(1)
and Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), (7)(i) and (8)(d), Fla. Admin. Code.
12
See footnote 9, supra.
13
See Arresting Development: Addressing the School Discipline Crisis in Florida at 39.
5
This Complaint is being filed by the following individual students on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated students with disabilities:
Student A:
P.R., DOB 1/15/96, 7th grade for 2008-09 SY at Crestwood Middle School14
P.R. is a twelve-year old African-American male. He is eligible for ESE services in the
area of Gifted and E/BD.
As set forth in this complaint, PBCS has violated his IDEA rights by failing to provide
him with any special education or related services whatsoever during the majority of the 2007-08
school year. The IEP that was written on November 2, 2007 at Jeaga Middle School lists only
monthly consultation in all of his academic classes as the sum total of his special education and
related services. See Attachment A-1 (hereinafter “Att. A-1”). He had a social/emotional goal
on his IEP, but no means to achieve the goal, as he had no special education services, no
program accommodations or modifications and no related services.
Jeaga Middle School did not implement the IEP from the sending elementary school
dated May 17, 2007 – May 16, 2008. The May 17th IEP included program modifications and
accommodations of crisis intervention support, de-escalation techniques, a behavior monitoring
system and the related service of group counseling. See Att. A-2. The November 2, 2007 IEP
developed at Jeaga Middle School was written to remove all special education and related
services from the IEP. The meeting notes on the November 2nd IEP state “they [the sending
elementary school] put crisis intervention support and group counseling, which Jeaga does not
have.” So, instead of providing the needed related services, or considering a placement at a
school that had the needed services, school personnel merely removed those services from P.R.’s
IEP. From the beginning of the school year until November 2, 2007, Jeaga just ignored his IEP.
After November 2nd, they rewrote it to reflect the total absence of special education and related
services PBCS was providing to him.
Due to the lack of necessary accommodations and related services, P.R. was excluded
from his regular classes for 33 school days during the 2007-08 school year. The frequent
discipline referrals and an incident on a school bus resulted in P.R.’s mother coming to Legal
Aid for assistance in getting the necessary special education and related services for her son. By
the time of an interim IEP meeting, requested by Legal Aid on behalf of P.R.’s mother, on April
29, 2008, P.R. had received 10 days of out-of-school suspension and 18 days of in-school
suspension. At no time prior to April 29th, did the IEP team meet to provide any special
education or related services to P.R.; nor did school staff recommend a functional behavioral
assessment or behavior intervention plan. Following the April 29th interim review, P.R. had
received 5 additional days of in-school suspension. P.R. had yet to be provided with any positive
behavioral intervention or special education and related services. P.R. did not receive a free
appropriate public education during the 2007-08 school year.
Although PBCS is providing compensatory education to P.R. to remedy the lack of
services provided to him for the 2007-08 school year, the policies, practices and procedures he
14
Refer to Appendix A for the full names and addresses of the individual student complainants.
6
was subjected to last year, and which resulted in an unlawful denial of a free appropriate public
education to him, still exist this year. On information and belief, there are many other students,
at Jeaga Middle School and other schools in the PBCS, who are identified as E/BD, who are
being excluded from their assigned classrooms for disciplinary reasons, and who do not have
meaningful behavior intervention plans or the necessary related services on their IEPs.
P.R. has yet to be provided a meaningful behavioral intervention plan. At the request of
P.R.’s mother, following the interim review on April 29, 2008, two staff members at Jeaga
completed a Functional Behavioral Assessment (“FBA”). There is no corresponding Behavior
Improvement Plan (BIP), however, as a result of the FBA. PBCS personnel continue to aver that
by merely completing a form entitled “Functional Behavior Assessment Report and Behavior
Intervention Plan”, that they have developed a meaningful behavior intervention plan. See Att.
A-3. To be meaningful, however, behavioral intervention services “designed to address the
behavior violation so that is does not recur” are to be provided. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(ii).
There should be an actual plan developed for the teachers and staff working with P.R., or any
similarly situated student, that can be disseminated.15
Student B: N.S., DOB 3/1/93, 9th grade for 2008-09 SY at Palm Beach Gardens High School
N.S. is a fifteen-year-old white male. In September 2003, N.S. was determined to be
eligible for special education due to Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Language
Impaired (LI). He was dismissed from the language impaired program once he was placed in
alternative education in April 2005. In spring 2008, he was also determined to be eligible for the
E/BD program.
As set forth in this complaint, PBCS has violated the rights of N.S., as guaranteed by the
IDEA, by failing to provide him with sufficient related services to enable him to benefit from his
special education program, by failing to provide his program of special education and related
services in the least restrictive environment, by failing to comply with IDEA’s discipline
requirements and by failing to provide special education and related services in such a way as to
confer on him meaningful educational benefit.
N.S. has had a difficult time academically, socially and emotionally for his whole school
career.16 He was retained in kindergarten. He began receiving special education in late
September 2003, in fourth grade. His initial IEP indicates his decoding skills were a year below
grade level. His reading comprehension was mildly delayed. He also began receiving 90
minutes per week of language therapy. He clearly had difficulty attending to task and getting
15
Complainants specifically request that the FDOE address their allegation that merely completing the form
“Report” does not meet the federal statutory requirements of a behavioral intervention plan.
16
N.S.’s records are replete with references to behavioral problems with an emotional component. In his first
year of kindergarten (1998-99) behavioral interventions were reportedly implemented to reduce the number of times
he tried to hurt himself. A Social History, completed on February 15, 2005, notes that when frustrated, N.S. will
“smack self in head, belittle self saying ‘I’m so stupid.’” Also noted is his total lack of friends and his wish to be
invisible.
7
along with peers and adults. He had no related services to address his behavioral difficulties.
See Att. B-1.
N.S. continued to have difficulty completing his work and managing his behavior. He
was placed at a different elementary school for fifth grade, but no related services were added to
his IEP to help him with his behavioral problems. After less than a full school year at Palm
Beach Gardens Elementary, he was sent to an elementary school alternative education class for
those same behavioral problems. The alternative education program is a more restrictive
program where N.S.’s access to the general curriculum is far more limited. This particular
elementary alternative education “program” was actually one or two classrooms of students
segregated from the rest of the elementary school.
Prior to being placed in the more restrictive alternative education program, he was
dismissed from the language impaired program and his language therapy was discontinued. The
language therapy was discontinued despite the fact that his IEP stated that N.S.’s written
expression was “significantly below average.” See Att. B-2. Furthermore, his performance on
the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) during the Speech and Language Re-evaluation,
was actually slightly below his initial scores on the OWLS when he was placed in the language
impaired program. Compare Att. B-3 with Att. B-4. The dismissal from language therapy had
far more to do with the shortage of speech and language pathologists in alternative education
than it did with N.S.’s individual needs. In addition, no related services were added to his IEP to
help N.S. with his behavioral problems and would have allowed him to continue at Palm Beach
Gardens Elementary School.
N.S. spent the next 2 ½ years in alternative education, although alternative education is
designed to return students to a comprehensive school campus after one semester, or a school
year at the most. He was frequently suspended from alternative school, without any meaningful
positive behavioral interventions. The only FBA in his file was completed by the staff at Palm
Beach Gardens Elementary School. There is no evidence in his file that an individualized
behavioral intervention plan was developed, implemented or revised based on the FBA while he
was in alternative education.
The more time N.S. spent in alternative education, the less special education and related
services he received. He first went to an alternative education elementary class at Eisenhower
Elementary. From there, he went to Gold Coast School, an alternative education school, for 6th
grade. Within a month of arriving at Gold Coast, he had been removed from special education
classes completely and was receiving regular education “pull-out” services “when needed”. See
Att. B-5 at 3.
By April 4, 2006, his individualized behavior plan was deleted from his IEP. See Att. B6 at 3. He had no special education and no related services. His IEP was not reasonably
calculated to provide N.S. with a FAPE or allow him to move from a more restrictive to a less
restrictive program. His behavior had not improved, or he never would have been placed at the
Excel alternative education site. His academic skills were regressing as evidenced by continually
declining scores on the FCAT.
8
At Excel, N.S. was subjected to continuous discipline referrals and suspensions without
any positive behavioral interventions. In fact, after he was transferred from one alternative
education site (Excel West) to another (Excel Central)17 in early December 2007, he was
suspended for four days on his first day of attendance. This suspension was at least his 11th day
of out-of-school suspensions. No manifestation determination was held. No related services or
special education was provided. His mother ultimately pulled him out of the PBCS to homeschool him for the rest of the school year.
N.S. began the 2007-08 school year at Palm Beach Marine Institute (PBMI), which is an
alternative education contract site. Some of the students who attend PBMI are court-ordered to
that site, although the School Board also has a number of slots. N.S. attended PBMI through a
School Board slot. His IEP, however, provided him with no special education or related
services. See Att. B-7. Despite the mention in the notes that PBMI has a behavior management
program and counseling, N.S. did not receive any positive behavioral interventions while at
PBMI. He did not have counseling. No FBA was completed, nor BIP developed by either PBMI
staff or PBCS staff. He had a very difficult time academically and behaviorally. He had Ds and
Fs in all of his courses.
N.S. was not provided with a FAPE at PBMI. He was suspended out-of-school for at
least seven recorded days, but that does not begin to capture his exclusion from school. He was
frequently sent home early, or he became frustrated and walked off campus to go home. Of the
79 days he was registered at PBMI, he attended only 45. Many of the 33 days he missed were
unrecorded out-of-school suspensions.
Due to the absolutely dismal experience at PBMI, an IEP meeting was held at the District
office on November 29, 2007. His school placement was not immediately recommended at that
meeting. It took a few weeks for the District to select his placement. He remained at home
through the winter holidays, while the District determined his placement. Once he began
Duncan Middle School on January 7, 2008, he was supposed to be in the E/BD cluster program.
However, since the District neglected to forward his IEP, he was placed in the dropout
prevention program, again without any FBA, behavior improvement plan or even special
education or related services. He was suspended again for two days, and had a series of inschool suspensions.
N.S. was re-evaluated twice during the 2007-08 school year. In October 2007, his overall
grade level in reading on the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement was ending third grade
(3.9). His broad math scores on the same instruments was 4.2 and his written expression score
17
Excel Alternative Schools (also known as Arbor Education & Training) is a private for-profit corporation
that includes the provision of alternative education services to school districts. PBCS contracted with Excel (in a
few different iterations and names) for at least three school years. PBCS ceased contracting with Excel for
alternative education services in July 2007 for Excel’s failure to adhere to the contract. Excel’s record-keeping in
basic attendance to out-of-school suspensions was non-existent. Rarely, if ever, did Excel personnel follow IDEA’s
statutory or regulatory scheme when it came to disciplinary matters. Excel personnel did not appear to have the
knowledge, understanding or training to complete any FBAs or BIPs. PBCS entered into an Early Resolution
Agreement for a State Complaint alleging widespread violations of IDEA, particularly the disciplinary requirements,
on behalf of special education students enrolled in Excel school sites for the 2006-07 SY. See Case No. BEESS2007-031-ER.
9
was 4.7. N.S. had basically not learned any measurable skills while in alternative education. He
was evaluated again in January 2008. He was administered the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test-II. His reading comprehension scores were higher (6.9) than in October, but
his reading decoding skills were lower (2.9). His Math reasoning scores were also higher than in
October (5.2), but his computation skills were about the same. His spelling and written
expression were measured at early third grade levels. The lack of special education and related
services while in alternative education left N.S. far below grade level and more than likely
contributed to his behavioral problems.
In March, the District agreed to a diagnostic placement of N.S. at a residential psychiatric
hospital for children, SandyPines. At SandyPines, N.S. was appropriately identified as an E/BD
student. He got the individualized therapeutic treatment that he needed to allow him to benefit
from education. He and his mother also received family therapy, which benefitted the family
and N.S. immediately in addressing family issues that had been impeding N.S.’s academic
performance. The family therapy also assisted his mother in setting boundaries for N.S., which
has assisted N.S. to follow adult directions and obey authority figures.
Following this extreme intervention after years of ongoing school failure with
increasingly serious behavioral sequelae, N.S. was finally provided the services he needed to
make educational, social and emotional progress. Following the successful completion of
treatment at SandyPines, N.S. was able to enroll in his home high school. He is trying out for the
football team and is a member of the ROTC program. His stated goal upon graduation is to join
the military. He will need continued support to maintain this progress.
The policies, practices and procedures to which N.S. was subjected still exist and still
continue to be implemented by the PBCS.
Student C: B.J.S.F., DOB 5/28/94, 7th grade for the 2008-09 SY at Bear Lakes Middle School
B.J.S.F. is a 14-year-old African-American/Haitian-American male who has been
diagnosed with ADHD. He is eligible for special education in the following categories: E/BD,
SLD, Other Health Impaired (OHI), Speech Impaired (SI) and Language Impaired (LI). He has
been eligible for special education and related services since May 2001, the school year in which
he repeated kindergarten while living in Georgia. He came to PBCS in the middle of first grade,
and has been in PBCS ever since. He repeated third grade in PBCS. B.J. has a long history of
behavioral and academic difficulties, and a relatively high level of absenteeism.
As set forth in this Complaint, the PBCS has violated, and continues to violate, the rights
of B.J.S.F., as guaranteed by IDEA, by failing to provide him with sufficient related services to
enable him to benefit from his special education program, by failing to provide his program of
special education and related services in the least restrictive environment, by failing to comply
with IDEA’s discipline requirements, and by failing to provide special education and related
services in such a way as to confer on him meaningful educational benefit.
There is very little in his ESE folder in the way of educational, behavioral or anecdotal
documentation from B.J.’s fifth grade year at North Palm Beach Elementary School. His IEP
10
from that year indicates that he was supposed to have a daily behavior plan, but there is no plan
attached to the IEP, or even one in his file. Indeed, there is not an FBA, or even parental consent
for an FBA, until the middle of this past school year, during his 6th grade year. There is
definitely not an individualized behavior improvement plan. He has the related service of group
counseling, but no duration other than “weekly” is noted. He received language therapy for one
hour per week, which represents a reduction of 30 minutes per week from his previous IEP. See
Att. C-1 at 3-4 and Att. C-2 at 3. No improvement in skills was noted to support this reduction
in services.
During school year 2006-07, B.J. was consigned to a self-contained emotionally
handicapped (EH) class18 at North Palm Beach Elementary School. At no time during the 200607 school year did B.J. receive an appropriate educational program. The classroom teacher went
on a maternity leave sometime during the school year. There was a series of substitute teachers
in the class – some certified teachers, others uncertified. The classroom had obviously spiraled
out of control by the second semester.
As the result of a lack of appropriate education and related services, including a complete
absence of positive behavioral intervention and planning, B.J.’s behavior escalated. During the
spring, the School Board Police Officer assigned to North Palm Beach Elementary School
arrested him three times.
The first incident occurred on January 9, 2007. B.J. spent the morning being called the
“N” word, and other racially derogatory slurs, by another student in the class. A teacher who had
been in the class early that afternoon stated that the other student continued the verbal abuse and
threw tape at B.J. The teacher left the classroom after also being verbally abused by the other
student. It is unclear whether there were any adults in the room after she left. At around 1:00
pm, B.J. went over and slapped the other student. The School Board Police Officer filled out a
probable cause affidavit charging B.J. with battery. When a redacted copy of the probable cause
affidavit was shown to the Minnesota Department of Education’s Violence Prevention Specialist,
she compared the school’s response to prosecuting the victim of a hate crime.
The second incident occurred on February 15, 2007. The substitute teacher for B.J.’s
class was not a certified teacher. The Behavioral Intervention Assistant (BIA), who assists
teachers and students with behavior management difficulties, was absent that day. There were
about 6-8 elementary school students in B.J.’s class. The students were in control of the
classroom, not the adults. There were no principles of positive behavior management in use by
the adults. The Principal and Assistant Principal were manning the windows of a one-story
building to try and keep the students from climbing out of the window. The substitute teacher
was spread-eagled across the door at the Principal’s instruction, so that the substitute could keep
the students from leaving the classroom through the door. B.J. is alleged to have kicked the
substitute teacher in the groin when he was trying to leave the classroom.
The last incident occurred on April 27, 2007 with a different substitute teacher. The
teacher was physically “escorting” B.J. to the BIA’s office and B.J. was reportedly trying to step
on the teacher’s feet. When they got to the BIA’s office, B.J. is reported to have kicked the
18
See footnote 8, supra.
11
teacher. B.J. was arrested for this incident and taken to the Palm Beach County Juvenile
Detention Center. He was at the Detention Center for three school days. He did not, however,
return to North Palm Beach Elementary School for the rest of the school year. There is a total
absence of documentation in his file regarding suspension, recommendation for expulsion, or a
manifestation hearing following this incident. His mother states that she was told to keep him
home. Without following any discipline requirements in IDEA, the North Palm Beach
Elementary School excluded B.J. for 21 school days without any educational services at the end
of the 2006-07 school year.
B.J. started 6th grade during the 2007-08 school year. He was unable to read material
more difficult than that written at the first grade level, although his measured reading
achievement level in 2001 was in the average range. His reading level significantly declined
over the course of his elementary school career. His written language skills have been similarly
affected. His math skills have never progressed beyond a third grade level, despite being
measured as being on grade level in 2003. Despite this deficit in skills, no additional special
education services or increased related services were provided to him. See Att. C-3 at 3-4.
By the end of the first semester in 6th grade, he had Ds and Fs in all of his classes and
significantly challenging behavior. He had already been suspended for six days out-of-school.
Despite the series of incidents that occurred in the prior school year, and the continuation of
those behaviors into the 2007-08 school year, he still did not have an FBA or an individualized
behavior plan.
At the interim IEP meeting held on February 25, 2008, B.J. was represented by an
attorney for the first time. His regular education P.E. teacher discovered for the first time that
B.J. was ADHD. The P.E. teacher and the IEP team brainstormed ways to deal with his ADHD
to increase his positive participation in class, since he was already dressing out, participating in
sports, liked by his peers and was not disrespectful to the teacher. His difficulties occurred
during the first 5 minutes of class and involved difficulty staying in one place and sitting down.
B.J. was also placed in a class where the Wilson reading program, which is based on the OrtonGillingham program, is taught. By the end of the year, he told his speech language pathologist
that he was finally learning to read. After the February meeting, an FBA and behavior
management/prevention plan was developed. It appears that the plan has been initially
successful. At the end of the school year, B.J.’s grades and behavior had improved, although his
academic skills are still significantly below grade level. His high absenteeism rate has yet to be
adequately addressed.
Lastly, B.J. had also joined the school band and remains motivated and enthusiastic about
playing the drums. None of the positive outcomes that occurred, however, would have occurred
without the presence of an educational advocate or attorney, even though the members of the IEP
team knew what to do to provide B.J. with a FAPE.
The policies, practices and procedures to which B.J.S.F. was subjected still exist and still
continue to be implemented by the PBCS.
Student D., K.R., DOB 6/30/95, 8th grade for the 2008-09 SY at Indian Ridge School
12
K.R. is a 13-year-old white male who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD
and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. He is eligible for special education and related services
through the E/BD program. He was determined to be eligible for the EH program in early 2002,
when he was in the first grade. K.R. has a significant abuse and neglect history, both for
physical and sexual abuse. He was removed from the custody of his biological parents in 2000
and adopted by his paternal grandmother in July 2002. He also has a history of challenging
behaviors, inappropriate language and difficulties in getting along with peers and adults.
By the end of elementary school in 2005-06, K.R. was academically on, or above, grade
level. He still had difficulty with peer interactions and with behavioral control during
unstructured school time. The IEP team recommended that he begin middle school in regular
education classes with one special education class (social/personal) and no related services. See
Att. D-1 at 3.
After one month at Carver Middle School, K.R. had been suspended for a total of 5 days
out-of-school. On October 6, 2006, he was again suspended for 10 days out-of-school for
making a threat. A manifestation determination was completed by the school and the team
determined that the behavior was not a manifestation.
Since the team conducting the manifestation determination had no current data at the time
of the manifestation determination, K.R. was re-evaluated.19 The re-evaluation found that he
was still functioning in the superior range of intelligence, and that his academic skills were
strong in reading, math concepts and spelling. He had some weaknesses in math computation
and in the mechanics of writing. See Att. D-2 at 3-4, 6-7. His teachers reported that he didn’t
exhibit many behavior problems in class, but had behavioral difficulty during unstructured times.
Id. at 1. The evaluator found that he continued to have significant emotional concerns and
recommended that K.R. be provided with counseling services, an affective curriculum and more
structure. Id. at 9.
Instead of providing more intensive related services at Carver Middle School, K.R. was
transferred to Boca Middle School to a self-contained EH class. He began attending Boca
Middle School on January 9, 2007. By January 15, 2007, his file was being reviewed by PBCS
alternative education personnel. Boca Middle School staff were successful in moving K.R. to an
alternative education placement following a meeting that involved actually removing the related
service of group counseling, removing the social/personal class and refusing to acknowledge his
significant mental illness despite documentation provided at meetings by his targeted case
manager and psychiatrist from South County Mental Health Center. See Att. D-3.
19
K.R. had not been re-evaluated since his initial evaluation was completed in December 2001. There is no
documentation in the file that a re-evaluation had ever been considered and determined unnecessary. Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, a re-evaluation every three years was mandatory. Subsequent to the 2004 Reauthorization, a re-evaluation must be completed every three years unless parents and school district agree it’s
unnecessary. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.303. Here, K.R. should have been re-evaluated by
December 2004, or there should have been a notation that such a re-evaluation was determined unnecessary by his
mother and PBCS. In these circumstances, PBCS’ failure to re-evaluate K.R. by December 2004 violates both
versions of IDEA.
13
It appears that the Boca Middle School staff merely documented K.R.’s behavioral
difficulties with the goal of an alternative education placement. Boca Middle staff did gather
data, but no positive behavioral intervention plan was designed with the data. There is no
evidence of implementing, reviewing and revising, in a meaningful and effective manner, any
positive behavioral interventions specifically designed to intervene with K.R.’s continuing
behavioral problems. It is highly likely that Boca Middle School staff were completely
unprepared to successfully intervene with K.R. to positively change his behavior. There is no
indication, however, that the staff tried to find an expert in positive behavioral intervention with
whom to consult; not did they increase his related services. Instead, the staff randomly removed
special education and related services and sent K.R. to alternative education.
Prior to sending him to alternative education, the Boca Middle IEP team did recommend,
on March 2, 2007, that K.R. have a psychiatric evaluation. That recommendation, however, was
not pursued while K.R. was in alternative education.
At the same time, K.R.’s mother and targeted case manager were requesting that K.R. be
placed in a special school for students with severe mental illness, rather than alternative
education, because they believed that he needed intensive therapeutic services in order to
improve emotionally and behaviorally and to be able to function academically and socially.
K.R. was sent to an alternative education setting, Excel Alternatives, in April 2007 for the
rest of the school year. The referring behaviors were the same behaviors he was exhibiting at
Carver Middle School at the beginning of the school year, and to a lesser extent throughout his
elementary school career.
There are no records available from Excel (see footnote 17 supra), but his family reports
that he received very little academic instruction, had no homework, and was frequently sent
home for disciplinary reasons that were never documented or recorded. K.R. failed the 6th grade.
K.R. began his second year in 6th grade at a different alternative school, South Area
Intensive. He received no related services, not even the related service of transportation although both group counseling and specialized transportation were on his IEP. Att. D-3 at 4.
His uncle provided K.R. with transportation, both to and from school. The special education
class K.R. was in was composed of both middle school and high school students. There was a
very basic classroom management plan, but no individualized positive BIP. At this point, his
mother sought legal representation.
At an interim IEP meeting held on October 22, 2007, PBCS finally agreed to consider
intensive therapeutic services for K.R. PBCS, however, has developed a long, involved process
for “referring” E/BD students to the special school, Indian Ridge. The referral involves an
updated psycho-educational evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation with the PBCS’ contracted
psychiatrist. That process took four months for K.R.
While he was waiting for the Indian Ridge referral process to run its course, K.R. was
placed at another comprehensive middle school, Lake Worth Middle School. At Lake Worth
Middle School, K.R. did have individual and group counseling. He was supposed to have a
14
highly structured behavior management plan, but that plan was never developed. He was also
receiving academic work at least three years below his measured ability level. He was
suspended for five days out-of-school. He had numerous bus referrals and 21 days of bus
suspensions. Despite being suspended from the bus for more than 35% of the time he attended
Lake Worth Middle School, no FBA or BIP was developed for the bus, despite it being
repeatedly requested.
He was finally placed at Indian Ridge, the special school, on February 20, 2008, about a
year after his mother had requested such a placement. The intensity of special education and
related services that K.R. receives at Indian Ridge has helped him make progress socially,
emotionally and academically. He has been able to demonstrate mastery of 6th and 7th grade
academic skills since he has been at Indian Ridge. His progress has been sufficient for him to be
promoted to 8th grade with his age-level peers.
The policies, practices and procedures to which K.R. was subjected still exist and still
continue to be implemented by the PBCS.
IV.
SYSTEMIC RELIEF REQUESTED
The Florida State Conference of the NAACP and the student complainants are requesting
District-wide prospective relief as a remedy for any violations of IDEA found. See id. at
300.151(b)(2) (remedy for denial of appropriate services includes the “[a]ppropriate future
provision of services for all children with disabilities”). The Parties request that the FDOE
appoint an independent team of experts to investigate and make findings regarding PBCS’
compliance with the requirements of the IDEA within the statutory timeline for the investigation
of State Complaints, i.e., sixty (60) days. Should any violations of IDEA be found, the
complainants request that FDOE issue a corrective action plan requiring PBCS to remedy the
systemic IDEA violations and each and every individual violation with all deliberate speed.
Complainants request that the corrective plan include, at a minimum, the following:
1.
Appoint a nationally-recognized expert in the education of emotionally and
behaviorally disabled children and youth, with specialized expertise in positive behavioral
interventions, to oversee the development and implementation of the corrective action plan.
2.
Ensure that a nationally-recognized expert (either the same expert identified in #1
above, or a different expert with special expertise in positive behavioral interventions) develops
and monitors the implementation of a systemic positive behavioral intervention services and
modifications training program that includes, but is not limited to, strategies, objectives, and
timelines for students for implementing positive behavior intervention services in a district-wide
and school-wide program; the development of effective FBAs; and the development,
implementation and necessary revisions of BIPs; and the mechanics of conducting manifestation
determinations. The positive behavioral intervention training program shall include all pupil
appraisal staff (i.e., child study team members, including school psychologists and related
services personnel), teachers, paraprofessionals, disciplinarians, school administrators, and other
educational service providers working at schools that serve students with disabilities and shall
also include bus drivers who transport students with disabilities to such schools. The training
15
protocol shall also include the active use of pupil appraisal staff for ongoing follow-up with staff
in the above-designated schools.
3.
Ensure that the expert, within 60 days of his or her appointment, conducts a
review and audit of the PBCS education programs for students with E/BD and all other students
with disabilities who manifest behavioral issues and are subject to repeated disciplinary removals
or placement in alternative school settings in the PBCS and issues a report with specific
recommendations for systemically addressing these students’ behavioral programming needs.
4.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with the PBCS, develops specific school
system policies that are disseminated by the Superintendent to all school building administrators
including principals, vice-principals, and disciplinarians outlining and mandating strict
compliance with IDEA’s discipline requirements, including the requirements of manifestation
determinations; provision of IEP services upon reaching the 11th cumulative day of out-of-school
suspensions; development of appropriate FBAs; development of BIPs involving positive
behavioral supports, strategies, and services; review and modification of BIPs after every 10
days of suspensions; elimination of illegal and undocumented “cool-off” removals and provision
of due process rights (including written notice of and justification for the removal) for parents
and students upon suspension from school.
5.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with the PBCS, creates and monitors the
implementation of a reliable central administrative electronic tracking system for recording the
number of disciplinary referrals and removals from school for special education students in the
PBCS.
6.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with the PBCS, develops and monitors the
implementation of specific strategies and objectives for significantly reducing the number of
suspensions of students with disabilities.
7.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with the PBCS, develops and monitors the
implementation of specific annual strategies and objectives for significantly reducing the number
of E/BD students and other special education students who manifest behavioral issues who are
placed in self-contained classroom settings and concomitantly significantly increasing these
students’ access to the general education curriculum and classrooms.
8.
Compel the PBCS to place certified special education teachers in all of its selfcontained classrooms and in its alternative schools, and compel the PBCS to provide all IEPrequired special education and related services at its alternative schools;
9.
Compel the PBCS to significantly increase the frequency and duration of the
related services of social work services, counseling services, psychological services, recreation
services, rehabilitation counseling and parent counseling and training, as well as other necessary
related services provided to E/BD students and all other students who are subject to repeated
disciplinary removals or placement in alternative school settings in PBCS and also ensure that
decisions involving such related services are based upon individual need and not staff
availability or other reason unrelated to individual student need;
16
10.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with PBCS and other nationally-recognized
experts in curriculum, develops specific strategies and objectives for implementing intensive
reading and math remediation programs at all elementary schools serving E/BD students to
ensure that they are reading at or within one year of chronological grade level by the time they
move onto middle school; and ensure that the expert(s), in conjunction with PBCS, develops and
implements reading and math remediation strategies for E/BD students who are determined to be
three years or more behind their chronological grade level in middle school or high school based
on either standardized test scores and/or curriculum based assessments;
11.
Ensure that the expert, in conjunction with PBCS, develops and monitors the
implementation of a district-wide training initiative involving all middle school and high school
counselors, special education coordinators, and a “lead” special education and regular education
teacher at each of these schools regarding post-secondary education preparation as well as
vocational courses/programs available in the district, and addressing the admission criteria for
these programs, their availability to students with disabilities, and the responsibility of these
programs to provide IEP services including implementation of student BIPs.
12.
category.
V.
Require the PBCS to disaggregate arrest data by School Board Police by disability
INDIVIDUAL RELIEF REQUESTED
The complainants are requesting individual relief for B.J.S.F. for the lack of a free
appropriate public education he endured for at least a full academic school year. The
complainants are requesting: a.) individualized tutoring in reading, using the Wilson program,
and in individualized tutoring in math; b.) individualized instruction in the use of assistive
technology, both in text-to-speech technology and the use of word processing software with
word prediction capabilities; c.) the addition of the related services of social work services to
address the absenteeism, parent counseling and training to address the same issue; d.)
monitoring, review and any necessary staff training regarding his individual behavior
management plan by an expert identified by the FDOE who is not employed by the PBCS; and
e.) any other relief that the FDOE finds just and proper in this situation.
Respectfully submitted by,
______________________________
Barbara Burch Briggs
Staff Attorney
Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County
423 Fern Street, Suite 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561)822-9749 (phone)
(561)655-5269 (fax)
Florida Bar No. 0978670
17
Jodi Siegel, Executive Director
Southern Legal Counsel
1229 NW 12th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601-4113
(352)271-8890 (phone)
(352)271-8347 (fax)
Florida Bar No. 511617
Ronald K. Lospennato, Director
School-to-Prison Reform Project
Southern Poverty Law Center
4431 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504)486-8982 (phone)
(504)486-8947 (fax)
Admitted to practice law in New Hampshire;
Louisiana Bar Membership pending
18
Stopping the School to Prison Pipeline
By Ronald K. Lospennato
The struggle for access to meaningful educational opportunities has been central to the broader
struggle for civil rights. In 1954, the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, held that the
segregation of public schools on the basis of race “is a denial of the equal protection of the
laws,” saying that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments.”1 The Court concluded that “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.”2
The struggle for educational opportunities has extended beyond race. In 1975, faced with
evidence showing that the educational needs of millions of children with disabilities were not
being met, Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.3 This statute, now
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), focused on correcting two
evils: the exclusion of children with disabilities from public schools and the provision of
inadequate education to children already admitted to the classroom.4 The IDEA requires states
and local school districts to provide a free appropriate public education and a broad array of
procedural protections to all children with disabilities.5
Despite Supreme Court decisions, legislative mandates, and widespread recognition of the
pivotal role education plays in our society, the denial of appropriate education to children
because of their race or disability persists.6 When race and disability intersect, the extent of
1
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
2
Id.
3
Section 1 of Act Nov. 29, 1975, P.L. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).
4
In 1975, Congress found that the majority of disabled students were "either totally excluded
from schools or sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough
to drop out." H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, at 2 (1975). To address this issue, Congress passed the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975). Although its primary goal has remained
the same, it is has been amended several times since then and been renamed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1420 (2006); 34 C.F.R. 4000.340-.350 (2006).
5
The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory scheme establishing “an enforceable substantive right to
a free appropriate public education” for children with disabilities. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S.
992, 1010 (1984)
6
See e.g. Libero Della Piana, Reading, Writing, Race and Resegregation: 45 Years After Brown
v. Board of Education, 4 ColorLines (Spring 1999),
http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=319; Florida State Conference NAACP Advancement
Project, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Arresting Development: Addressing the
School Discipline Crisis in Florida (2006); Patrick Pauken & Philip T.K. Daniel, Race
exclusion is profound.7 Indeed, the exclusion of children of color and disabilities from public
education and pushing them into the juvenile or criminal system is so common that it has been
given a name--the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Here I suggest and advocate multi-faceted
strategies that will fundamentally reverse the school-to-prison pipeline.8
II.
The Problem: The School-to-Prison Pipeline
The school-to-prison pipeline is the product of the policies of school districts, law enforcement
agencies, and courts that criminalize in-school behavior or otherwise push many disadvantaged,
underserved, and at-risk children from mainstream educational environments into the juvenile
justice system and, all too often, into the criminal justice system. Although many factors
contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline, “zero tolerance” policies are primary among them.9
A.
Zero Tolerance Policies Defined
Zero tolerance policies are “school or district-wide policies that mandate pre-determined,
typically harsh, consequences or punishments (such as suspension and expulsion) for a wide
degree of rule violation.”10 School authorities have often “rigidly and unnecessarily extended
what might have been a necessary, fair, limited, and specific response to school violence into
areas not contemplated when such policies were initially conceived.”11 Schools too often apply
such policies to “frequent and usual student behaviors—minor, disruptive behaviors, such as
tardiness, class absences, disrespect, and noncompliance,” that years ago would simply have
Discrimination and Disability Discrimination in School Discipline: A Legal and Statistical
Analysis, 139 EDUCATION LAW REPORTER 759 (West 2000).
7
Anna C. McFadden et al., A Study of Race and Gender Bias in the Punishment of Handicapped
Children, 24 THE URBAN REVIEW 239 (1992).
8
These suggestions build on the approaches advocated in Monique Dixon, Combating the
Schoolhouse-to-jailhouse Track Through Community Lawyering (hereinafter, “Community
Lawyering”), 39 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 135 (July-Aug. 2005).
9
See Avarita L. Hanson, Have Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Turned into a
Nightmare? The American Dream's Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity Grounded in
Brown v. Board of Education, 9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS JOURNAL OF JUVENILE
LAW AND POLICY 289, 301 (2005).
10
The National Association of School Psychologists, Zero Tolerance and Alternative Strategies:
A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers,
www.nasponline.org/educators/zero_alternative.pdf.
11
Zero tolerance policies began with the Gun Free School Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 8921(b)(1)
(1994 & Supp. 2000)., which required all states receiving Elementary and Secondary Education
Act funds to adopt a policy to suspend from school for at least one year any student who brings a
weapon to school. The Act was repealed and re-enacted as 20 U.S.C. § 1751(b)(1) (2002) under
No Child Left Behind. Hanson, Have Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Turned into a
Nightmare, supra note 9, at 308-09.
resulted in a detention, a visit to the principal’s office, or a meeting between the child’s parents
and teacher.12
Such policies are misguided and harmful. They disproportionately push children of color and
children with disabilities out of public education and fall far short of achieving their purpose.13
Moreover, they do not result in safer, more orderly classrooms or a more productive learning
environment for other students. As a recent report points out:
Schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to
have less satisfactory ratings of school climate, less satisfactory school
governance structures, and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on
disciplinary matters. Perhaps more importantly, recent research indicates a
negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion
and school-wide academic achievement, even when controlling for
demographics such as socioeconomic status. 14
B.
The Consequences of Zero Tolerance
Despite overwhelming evidence that zero tolerance policies do not work, school districts
continue to use them. In 1974, 1.7 million children were suspended from school; in 2001, the
number jumped to 3.1 million.15 In some states, zero tolerance policies have caused a staggering
number of students to be excluded from school. Alabama, for example, has an average of 417
out-of-school suspensions and seven expulsions every day, and it is far from the worst, placing
eighth in the nation in its rate of out-of-school suspensions in 2006.16 Between the 2000-2001
12
Hanson, supra note 9, at 321-22 (citing Russell J. Skiba, Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An
Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice, Indiana Educ. Policy Ctr., Policy Research Rept.
#SRS2, 6 (Aug. 2000)), http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf
13
See Hanson, supra note 9, at 332-33; Shi-Chang Wu, et al., Student Suspensions: A Critical
Reappraisal, 14 THE URBAN REVIEW 245, 247 (1982).
14
Russell Skiba et al., A Report by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and
Recommendations (August 9, 2006) at 4-5, www.apa.org/ed/cpse/zttfreport.pdf.
15
Johanna Wald & Daniel Losen, The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Defining And
Redirecting A School-To-Prison Pipeline, at 2,
http://www.justicepolicycenter.org/Articles%20and%20Research/Research/testprisons/SCHOOL
_TO_%20PRISON_%20PIPELINE2003.pdf
16
With offices that do educational and juvenile justice work in Alabama and Mississippi, the
Southern Poverty Law Center has completed briefing books for these states that extensively
discuss suspension and expulsion data. EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE FOR STUDENT SUCCESS:
REDUCING STUDENT AND TEACHER DROPOUT RATES IN ALABAMA and
MISSISSIPPI JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM BRIEFING BOOK. The data I cite in this article
is derived from those briefing books, which are located on SPLC’s website,
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/publications/pub.jsp
and 2006-2007 school years, Alabama's enrollment increased by 2.1 percent, yet the number of
out-of-school suspensions increased by 33 percent and the number of expulsions by 75 percent.17
In 2004, Mississippi had the nation’s sixth highest rate out-of-school suspension. The number of
students who were suspended in the 2006-07 school year increased by 23 percent over the
previous two years, and expulsions rose by 32 percent.18
Suspensions and expulsions correlate strongly with the drop-out rate, with suspended or expelled
students more likely to drop out of school.19 Students who are retained in grade—an almost
inevitable consequence of multiple suspensions—are also more likely to drop out.20 These
failures place the student at great risk for involvement in juvenile court and the correction
system.21
Such data led the American Bar Association (ABA) to oppose zero tolerance policies “that have
a discriminatory effect, or mandate either expulsion or referral of students to juvenile or criminal
court, without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense or the student's history.”22 An
ABA committee report concluded that:
When the cost appraisal of the impact of zero tolerance includes impacts
on an entire community, the financial benefits of suspension and expulsion
may completely disappear. If the students who are suspended or expelled
do not re-enter school right away, they are likely to fall further behind
academically and are at increased risk of falling into criminal activity in
the community. Their likelihood of being incarcerated increases
accordingly.23
17
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2006 Data Collection (2008),
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/ocr2006rv30/ (May 6, 2008) (calculations based on 180 school days).
18
Id.
19
Virginia Costenbader & Samia Markson, School Suspension: A Study with Secondary School
Students, 36 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 59–82 (1998); Russell Skiba et al., The Dark
Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?, 80 PHI DELTA KAPPAN 372
(1999).
20
HIGH STAKES: TESTING FOR TRACKING, PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION 129 (Jay P. Heubert &
Robert M. Hauser, eds., 1999).
21
Peter E. Leone et al., The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice, School
failure, race and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for
involvement with the juvenile delinquency system (2003).
22
Resolution of the American Bar Association on Zero Tolerance Policies, Feb. 2001,
www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/jjpolicies.html#zero.
23
Report to the American Bar Association, Criminal justice Section, February 2001,
www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/zerotolreport.html
In sum, zero tolerance policies have ostracized whole groups of students, with unfortunate
consequences. “Zero tolerance enforcement is clearly a civil rights issue - perhaps the most
compelling issue to be addressed in the context of Brown in the new millennium.”24
III. The Solution: Challenging the School-to-Prison Pipeline
The school-to-prison pipeline implicates a continuum of settings. Zero tolerance or similar
policies push children out of schools into alternative schools, juvenile courts, juvenile detention,
mental health facilities, and, too often, the adult correctional system. Regardless of the setting in
which the child is found, the greatest need for advocacy is at one or more of the following focal
points: the public school system, the juvenile court system, or the juvenile correctional system.
Changing what happens in our public schools is critically important given that, absent system
reform, children and youth will continue to be pushed into the other two systems. In addition,
without education reform, students caught up in the juvenile system will be much less likely to
obtain the services and skills they need upon return to their communities—services and skills
that will prevent them from being funneled into the pipeline again and, ultimately, into the adult
correctional system.
A.
The Louisiana Effort
In 2005 the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Southern Disability Law Center began using
the administrative complaint resolution system under the IDEA to address systemic issues related
to zero tolerance policies.25 The initiative began with an administrative class complaint filed
against the Louisiana Department of Education, after a yearlong investigation revealed that the
Jefferson Parish School System was systematically violating the rights of emotionally disturbed
students, most of whom were poor, African-American children. In August 2005 we reached a
settlement agreement with the department; the agreement required the appointment of a special
master to oversee a corrective action plan that directly benefits as many as 1,000 children in
Jefferson Parish.26
Shortly after filing the complaint in Jefferson Parish, we filed administrative complaints against
the East Baton Rouge, Calcasieu Parish, and Caddo Parish school districts in Louisiana seeking
class-wide relief under the IDEA. We reached settlement agreements with East Baton Rouge in
September 2006, with Calcasieu in October 2007, and with Caddo in March 2008. These four
school districts serve approximately 25 percent of Louisiana’s student population.27
Previously, these school districts routinely suspended or expelled students with disabilities for
minor offenses. Jefferson Parish even segregated students with disabilities in self-contained
classrooms or trailers, in violation of federal and state regulations. The school districts
24
Hanson, supra note 9, at 336-37.
25
See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-300.153 (2006). The complaint resolution regulations implement the
General Education Provisions Act, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to promulgate
regulations “governing the manner of, operation of, and governing the applicable programs
administered by the Department [of Education].” 20 U.S.C. § 1221e-3.
26
The complaint, settlement agreement, and other documents are available at
www.splcenter.org/legal/schoolhouse.jsp.
27
Documents in these cases are also available at www.splcenter.org/legal/schoolhouse.jsp.
consistently failed to provide appropriate levels of related services (social work, counseling, and
psychological services) and vocational training to emotionally disturbed children. As a result, by
the time they reached junior high or high school, the vast majority of these students were
performing several years behind their peers. This in turn led to abysmal graduation rates,
alarmingly high dropout rates, and for too many students, incarceration in juvenile or even adult
correctional facilities.
The settlement agreements mandate major systemic changes, including:






Implementing district-wide use of positive behavioral interventions and supports;
Increasing the frequency and duration of social work and psychological and counseling
services;
Improving students' academic progress at all grade levels;
Eliminating many harsh and illegal disciplinary practices and policies;
Increasing access to less restrictive general education environments; and
Expanding access to vocational training.
The litigation strategy in Louisiana is part of a carefully considered and coordinated set of
strategies designed to decrease suspensions, expulsions, and drop-out rates, while increasing
graduation rates. The core of this strategy involves using the IDEA-mandated administrative
complaint process as the lever to get school districts to adopt school and district-wide positive
behavioral intervention and support, with litigation in federal court as a backup if necessary,.
Jefferson Parish, where a settlement agreement has been in place longest, is showing impressive
results, with significant reductions in the number of students being removed from the classroom
for disciplinary reasons.28 The number of special education students who were removed from
school for more than ten cumulative days—an important indicator for dropping out—plunged 90
percent over two years (from 235 students in 2005-06 to just 21 students in 2007-08). The
overall out-of-school suspension rate dropped 29 percent after the first year of implementation;
for regular students, the reduction was 24 percent.29
B.
Implemention of Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support
Unlike zero tolerance policies, positive behavioral intervention focuses on teaching children
new, positive behaviors and on changing the way adults interact with children. The approach is
research-based, comprehensive and data-driven.30 Schools implementing this approach teach
social skills, set clear expectations for behavior, acknowledge and reward appropriate behavior,
28
Of the four settlement agreements in Louisiana, the Jefferson Parish agreement has been in
place the longest. It is too early to definitively gage the success of PBIS in the other three
districts.
29
See school district performance profiles for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years at
www.doe.state.la.us/lde/eia/2115.html
30
To ensure correct implementation, schools rely on data, tracked most easily through office
referrals, which schools use to design specific interventions to head off problem behavior and to
confirm that the interventions were effective.
and implement a consistent continuum of consequences for problem behavior.31 Positive
behavioral intervention and support is employed throughout the entire school, including the
cafeteria, the buses, and the hallways. All school personnel are trained and continually supported
in implementing the approach.
Consistent with the results in Jefferson Parish, evidence from elsewhere indicates that positive
behavioral intervention and support, when implemented properly, works. Schools using it have:






Substantially reduced office referral rates (and suspension and expulsion rates);32
Improved attendance and school engagement;33
Improved academic achievement;34
Reduced dropout rates;35
Reduced later delinquency and drug use;36 and
Improved school atmosphere.37
Approximately 7,100 schools across the country are using positive behavioral intervention and
support.38 IDEA regulations and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education
31
Positive behavioral intervention and support is designed for a diverse student body. Tertiary
interventions are intensive strategies used to address chronic academic and behavioral difficulties
of the most challenging students (about 5 percent). Secondary interventions address difficult
behavior that limits academic and social success of about 15 percent of students. Universal
interventions, which apply to all students, prevent the development of problem behaviors through
the implementation of school-wide activities.
32
Jeffrey R. Sprague & Robert H. Horner, School Wide Positive Behavioral Supports, in THE
HANDBOOK OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND SCHOOL SAFETY: FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE (Shane
R. Jimerson & Michael J. Furlong, eds., 2007).
33
Id. at 18, citing O’Donnell et al, Preventing School Failure, Drug Use, and Delinquency
Among Low-Income Children: Long-Term Intervention in elementary School, 65 AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY 87 (1995).
34
Id. at 19.
35
Josie Danni Cortez, New Hampshire’s APEX Model at Work, 3 BIG IDEAS: DROPOUT
PREVENTION STRATEGIES 1 (2006), http://www2.edc.org/ndpc-sd/vol6.htm; JoAnne Malloy,
ACHIEVEMENT IN DROPOUT PREVENTION AND EXCELLENCE I AND II (APEX II): A
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO DROPOUT PREVENTION AND RECOVERY (May
2008), http://www.ndpcsd.org/documents/NSTTAC/NSTTAC_2008_Forum/APEX_II_Presentation-JoanneMalloy.pdf
36
Sprague & Horner, supra note 33, at 18.
37
Horner et al, School-wide positive Behavior Support: An Alternative Approach to Discipline in
Schools, in INDIVIDUALIZED SUPPORTS FOR STUDENTS WITH PROBLEM BEHAVIORS: DESIGNING
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR PLANS (L. Bambara & L. Kern, eds., in press).
38
Glen Dunlap, Keynote Address at the 5th International Conference on Positive Behavior
Support: Positive Behavioral Support: Roots, Ruts, and Recipes, (Mar. 27, 2008).
Programs specifically encourage its use.39 On a state level, PBIS is recommended or required by
statute in three states and is the subject of statewide initiatives or school-university partnerships
in every state. PBIS has shown positive effects in elementary, middle and high schools, and has
proven to be effective with at-risk students.40
C.
Class Administrative Complaints
The IDEA complaint resolution system has been central to our litigation strategy. The IDEA
gives the state education agency primary responsibility for ensuring that children with disabilities
receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.41 To fulfill its
obligation, the state agency must ensure that educational agencies find and evaluate children with
disabilities.42 It must also make certain that an adequate number of well-trained personnel are in
place and must coordinate the efforts of other governmental agencies that provide special
education and related services.43 The IDEA requires state education agencies to monitor local
education and other public agencies to determine their compliance with federal and state special
education laws.44 States must afford children with disabilities and their parents the right to an
impartial due process hearing.45 Furthermore, when obtaining compliance from the local agency
is not possible, the state agency must, under certain circumstances, provide educational services
directly to an eligible child.46
The complaint resolution system is the most efficient and, potentially, the most effective means
of challenging school district policies and practices that violate the IDEA and contribute to the
school-to-prison pipeline. Complaints must be filed in writing with the state education agency, or
39
See 34 C.F.R § 300.324(a)(2) (2006) (“In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the
child’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and
supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior”); OSEP’s National Technical Assistance
Center on PBIS, www.pbis.org.
40
Stephen R. Lassen et al., The Relationship of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support to
Academic Achievement in an Urban High School, 43 Psychology in the Schools 701, 712 (2006).
41
20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416 (2006); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.41, 300.149-.150, 300.175; 300.600602 (2006). The only exception is that states may shift its responsibilities for children with
disabilities who have been convicted as adults and are confined to adult prisons to another state
agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(C).
42
20 U.S.C. § 1412(a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.100, 300.125, 300.111(a)(i), 300.101-.122, 300.114. A
state education agency’s supervisory obligations extend not only to local school districts but to
other state agencies. 20 U.S.C. § 1416(a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33, 300.145, 300.600(a)(2).
Numerous courts have enforced this obligation; see e.g. Parks v. Pavkovic, 557 F. Supp. 1280,
1288 (N.D. Ill. 1983), aff'd, 753 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1985); Kruelle v. New Castle County School
District, 642 F.2d 687, 697-698 (3d Cir. 1981); Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. 171, 224 (D.
N.H. 1981); Kerr Center Parents Association v. Charles, 897 F.2d 1463, 1470-72 (9th Cir. 1990).
43
20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12) & (14); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.156 & 300.154 (a)(4).
44
20 U.S.C. 1412(11); 34 C.F.R. 300.600.
45
20 U.S.C § 1415(f); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511-300.515.
46
20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A).
with another public agency, as long as the state education agency retains authority to review the
public agency's decision on the complaint.47
Complaints may involve a single student or a class of students adversely affected by systemic
violations of the IDEA.48 If noncompliance is found, the state education agency (or public
agency) must order an appropriate remedy, which may include corrective action such as
compensatory services or monetary reimbursement.49 The remedy may also include the
“[a]ppropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities.”50
The complaint resolution process has numerous advantages over other litigation methods,
including the IDEA’s due process system.51 First, complaint resolution involves no filing fees or
other court costs and thus is far less expensive. Second, it is faster; states must, within sixty
calendar days after a complaint is filed, issue a written decision that addresses each allegation and
contains findings of fact, conclusions, and the reasons for the state education agency's final
decision.52 Third, since the state agency is generally required to conduct an independent on-site
investigation, review relevant information, and determine whether the public agency is violating
the IDEA, the complaint process can be a source of vital information regarding school district
policies, practices, and procedures in the event litigation becomes necessary.53 Finally, unlike
traditional litigation or the IDEA due process procedures, which allow only a parent, student, or
47
34 C.F.R. § 300.151 (a)(1).
48
See Memorandum of Kenneth R. Warlick, Office of Special Education Programs, to Chief
State School Officers (July 17, 2000), at 4.
49
34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b)(1).
50
Id. § 300.151(b)(2).
For clients of Legal Services Corporation-funded (LSC) programs, the process has an
additional advantage. While LSC regulations prohibit participation in class action litigation (45
C.F.R. § 1617.3), the regulations define a class action as “a lawsuit filed as, or otherwise
declared by a court” to be a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or comparable state statute. 45 C.F.R. § 1617.2(a). Therefore, the regulations do not
appear to prohibit representation in class administrative complaints.
51
Regarding the IDEA due process system, see Memorandum of Warlick, supra at note 48, at 5.
(describing the relationship between state administrative complaint procedures and due process
system). According to the Office of Special Education Programs, parents may use the complaint
procedures—in addition to the due process hearing system—to resolve disagreements with
public agencies over any matter relating to the provision of a free appropriate public education
to the child, as well as any other allegation that a public agency has violated Part B of the IDEA.
Id. at 4. More importantly, according to the directive, a state may not adopt a procedure that
removes complaints of IDEA violations from the jurisdiction of its state complaint resolution
system. Id. A similar directive was issued in 2006 to track the 2004 amendments to the IDEA.
See Federal Policy and Guidance-State Complaint Procedures (8/23/2006). This Guidance can
be found at https://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/revpolicy/tpprosafe.html?exp=8
52
34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a).
53
Id. §§ 300.152(a)(1) and (5).
public agency to initiate a hearing, any organization or individual may file a complaint alleging that
a public agency has violated the IDEA.54
It should be noted that the complaint resolution process brings disadvantages as well. Success
depends largely on the state’s ability and willingness to investigate effectively and to order
appropriate corrective plans when violations are found. The process has no discovery or pleading
requirements, and the complainant generally has less control as the investigation unfolds.
Finally, seeking review of an adverse decision on an administrative complaint can be more
complicated for complainants.55
On balance, however, the advantages of the complaint resolution system far outweigh the
disadvantages. The weight of authority supports the proposition that complainants have recourse
if the state’s investigation, findings, or orders of compliance are inadequate. In addition, there are
a number of federal court cases upholding the state’s obligation to ensure that school districts or
other public agencies comply with the IDEA and pointing to the state’s failure to resolve
complaints or monitor school districts timely or effectively as evidence of a breach of that
obligation.56
54
Id. §§ 300.517, 300.507(a), 300.662.
55
In the Ninth Circuit, courts have generally recognized that the complaint resolution process
provides an independent means of challenging school district decisions and policies. Lucht v.
Molalla River School District, 225 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2000); S.A. v. Tulare County Office of
Education, 2009 WL 20298 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Other courts, however, have held that the IDEA
complaint resolution process does not give children with disabilities a private right of action to
enforce or contest a state education agency’s findings or compliance orders. R.K. v. Haywood
Unified School District, 2007 WL 4169111 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Virginia P&A v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, 262 F.Supp.2d 648 (D. Va. 2003). However, these cases do not consider that the IDEA
does clearly provide a private right of action to address the denial of free appropriate public
education and other procedural safeguards. Thus, plaintiffs challenging a state’s shoddy
complaint resolution practices might do better to claim that the state, in breaching its duty to
exercise supervisory authority over school district noncompliance with the IDEA, violated their
rights to a free appropriate public education or other similar statutory rights.
56
For federal court decisions see, Beth V. v. Carrol, 87 F.3d 80 (3rd Cir. 1996); Corey H. v.
Chicago Board of Education, 995 F. Supp. 900 (N.D. Ill. 1998);New Jersey Protection &
Advocacy, Inc., et al., v. New Jersey Department of Education, 563 F.Supp.2d 474 (D. N.J.
2008).
In terms of state court oversight, the comments to the federal regulations recently promulgated to
comply with IDEA 2004 indicate that it is up to state law to determine whether there is the right
to appeal a State Complaint decision. 71 Federal Register 46607 (August 14, 2006). Virtually
every state has a procedure in either common or statutory law for challenging state
administrative decisions. There are also two Minnesota appeals court decisions, both favorable
to students, which rely on certiorari jurisdiction to review State Education Agencies complaint
resolution determinations. Independent School District 192 v. Minnesota Dept. of Ed., 742
N.W.2d 713 (Minn. App. 2007); Robbinsdale, v. Minnesota Dept. of Ed., 743 N.W.2d 315
(Minn. App., 2008)
Furthermore, while complainants have no explicit right to become directly involved in the
investigative process, they can influence the process in several ways in addition to threatening
litigation. Complainants can use the media to bring attention to their concerns and subject the
state to scrutiny. Complainants can open a dialog with influential state officials to convince them
that, as state officials, they too have an interest in improving the lives of all students, and that
resolving the complaint is one way for the state to achieve this goal.
Beyond attempting to exercise political clout, other actions can maximize the chance of a
successful outcome. The complaint should include all (or most) of the documents necessary to
establish the violations. Complainants can provide a list of persons who should be interviewed,
with contact information. Finally, complainants can give the state education agency a detailed
outline of what is necessary to investigate the complaint, including information about adequate
sample sizes and target groups for file reviews and student interviews.
D.
Other Strategies
While administrative complaints can be a powerful tool in dismantling the school-to-prison
pipeline, no single strategy is sufficient. Advocates should use and coordinate strategies that
focus on multiple points along the school-to-prison pipeline continuum—e.g., in the school, in
the juvenile court , and in juvenile or adult correctional facilities—to obtain the maximum
benefit given the resources available. For example, the administrative complaint process may be
very effective at causing a school to change its policies or to implement positive behavioral
intervention and support, but less effective, at least in the short-term, in reducing referrals to
court. In such a case, advocates contemplating an administrative complaint strategy may want to
organize efforts in juvenile court to resist the filing of complaints for school-related behavior.
Nor can a single organization end the pipeline by itself. Far too few advocacy resources are
available to parents and children, and so work with coalitions is required.57 Parent groups, civil
rights organizations, public defender and legal aid programs, protection and advocacy programs,
and some juvenile court judges are already on the front line in advocating for children caught up
in the pipeline.58 Other organizations, such as teachers’ unions and other professional educators,
probation officers, and parole officers also must play a role.
Another possibility is to file a State Complaint against the State itself. The comments indicate
that in such a case the SEA may either appoint an independent investigator or investigate the
complaint itself. See 71 Federal Register 46602 (August 14, 2006). .
57
The Department of Education has been urged to fund more lawyers and to create a national
back-up center and self-advocacy training programs for students with disabilities and their
parents. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, BACK TO SCHOOL ON CIVIL RIGHTS: ADVANCING
THE FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND (2000), Recommendation VII.7, at
217-18.
58
Advocacy by parents has long played a significant role in seeing that schools address the needs
of students with disabilities. Martin A. Kotler, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A
Parent’s Perspective and Proposal for Change, 27 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF LAW
REFORM 331, 362 (1994). Regarding involvement of civil rights organizations, in 2007 the
ACLU Racial Justice Program, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Juvenile Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center
Even cases on behalf of an individual child lend themselves to a collaborative approach. There
are models that address the simultaneous need for adequate juvenile court representation and for
meeting the child’s educational or social services needs that may underlie juvenile court
involvement. TeamChild in Washington State involves close collaboration between juvenile
public defenders and legal aid attorneys to address all of a juvenile’s needs in one comprehensive
approach.59 Variations on this model involve collaboration between juvenile defenders and social
workers or other social service professionals. The consensus is that these programs are an
extremely positive and promising development in the field of youth advocacy and are highly
cost-effective.60
1.
Juvenile Court Pushback
With the advent of zero tolerance policies, the juvenile court has become what the principal’s
office used to be: the place where punishment for school offenses is meted out.61 Instead of
detention, however, the penalties include incarceration, stigma, and the denial of educational
opportunities. Given this reality, the juvenile court must be a forum for challenging the schoolto-prison pipeline. Community lawyers, public defenders, and other advocates can resist the
overuse of the courts by school districts.62
jointly launched a website to serve as a virtual community for advocates to share resources and
exchange ideas on challenging the school-to-prison pipeline. See
https://www.schooltoprison.org/ In June 2007, the National Disability Rights Network devoted a
full day at its national conference to the “School-to-Prison Pipeline Reform Institute,” where
many of the strategies I discuss were covered. The National Disability Rights Network and
protection and advocacy programs, along with parents and parent groups, have been leaders on
special education issues. See www.ndrn.org.
Regarding judges’ involvement, see, e.g.,
www.childwelfarepolicycenters.com/page/page/2260730.htm. In Clayton County, Georgia,
Judge Steven C. Teske has helped to develop cooperative agreements among social service
providers, law enforcement personnel, school districts, and the juvenile courts to reduce the
number of children referred.
59
See www.teamchild.org/
60
See The Federal Byrne Grant Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention Program Cross-Site
Evaluation 2003-2004 Program Year (January 2005),
www.teamchild.org/pdf/ByrneEval2004.pdf.
61
See Dixon, supra note 8, at 141, n.43.
62
Id. at 141-143. The University of District of Columbia law school clinic uses special education
law as a tool in advocating for children in juvenile court proceedings (see
www.law.udc.edu/?page=JuvenileClinic). See also Joseph B. Tulman, Disability and
Delinquency: How Failures to Identify, Accommodate, and Serve Youth with Education-Related
Disabilities Leads to Their Disproportionate Representation in the Delinquency System, 3
WHITTIER JOURNAL OF CHILD & FAMILY ADVOCACY 3 (2003); SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCACY
UNDER THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) FOR CHILDREN IN THE
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY SYSTEM (Joseph B. Tulman & Joyce A. McGee eds., 1998).
In Morgan v. Chris L., the court ruled that a school district, before it files a petition in juvenile
court against a student with a disability, must afford the student the same special education
procedural safeguards as would be required for an expulsion or suspension in excess of ten
days.63 The school district had not given notice of its decision to remove the student from his
education placement by petitioning the juvenile court beyond a makeshift multidisciplinary
meeting. The court affirmed a due process decision that ordered the school superintendent to
seek dismissal of the juvenile court petition and awarded the parent attorney's fees. The court
rejected the argument that the hearing officer was interfering with juvenile court jurisdiction. The
order ran against the superintendent, not the court, and the state’s juvenile courts were bound to
follow federal and state special education law. The Sixth Circuit stressed that the school district
had failed to comply with IDEA procedural requirements in timely determining whether the
child was eligible for special education, giving proper notice of an individualized education
program meeting, and initiating juvenile proceedings that would lead to a change of placement.
In 1997, Congress amended the IDEA to allow education agencies to report, to appropriate
authorities, a crime committed by a child with a disability; the authorities are not prohibited from
exercising their law enforcement responsibilities.64
However, ample opportunity remains, in juvenile court proceedings, to raise school districts’
failure to comply with the IDEA. Despite the amendment, nothing in the IDEA restricts the
discretion of the juvenile court, in appropriate cases, to consider the school district’s wrongdoing
in determining whether the charge should be upheld, to divert the case, or to look to the IDEA in
determining disposition.65 Neither is counsel precluded from initiating the special education
process (e.g., evaluation, individualized education plan (IEP) meeting, due process hearing,
complaint resolution) or trying to persuade the juvenile justice agency or prosecuting attorney
not to prosecute or, at a minimum, to place charges on file (i.e. agree not to prosecute if the child
stays out of trouble for a period of time) until the special education process runs its course.66
Significantly, despite the 1997 amendment, the IDEA still requires a school district to provide an
appropriate education and to comply with its procedural protections, including limits on the
length of suspensions, manifestation determinations, and functional behavioral assessments. 67
63
Morgan v. Chris L., 927 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Tenn. 1994), affd, 106 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 1997)
(table; citation disfavored).
64
20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(6)(A).
65
See Eileen L. Ordover, Center for Law and Education, When Schools Criminalize Disability:
Education Law Strategies for Legal Advocates (2002),
www.cleweb.org/Downloads/when_schools_criminalize_disabil.htm at 54-55; Marsha L. Levick
& Robert G. Schwartz, Changing The Narrative: Convincing Courts To Distinguish Between
Misbehavior and Criminal Conduct in School Referral Cases, 9 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 53, 62-63 (Winter 2007).
66
In re Trent N., 212 Wis.2d 728, 738-39, 569 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1997) (both case law and
statutes support the proposition that the IDEA continues to apply even when child is involved in
juvenile court proceedings).
67
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k); 34 C.F.R §§ 300.324(a)(2), 300.518, 300.530-531.
Furthermore, while the IDEA amendment certainly applies to delinquency proceedings, nothing
makes it applicable to status offenses. In such cases, Morgan v. Chris L. should apply.68
Finally, state law may result in dismissal of the juvenile case or needed educational services for
the child. In New Hampshire, in certain circumstances, a school district must be joined as a party
to the juvenile case to recommend placement, determine whether the child is educationally
disabled, or review the services offered or provided to a minor already determined to be
educationally disabled.69 The mere fact that a child is subject to juvenile proceedings does not
relieve a school district from its IDEA obligations.70
Similarly, the New York Court of Appeals noted that the legislature
expressly contemplated some overlap between the Family Court and the
committee on special education. Education Law § 4005(1) requires that “[w]hen
the placement of a child is being considered by the family court … and such child
is thought to have a handicapping condition and may be placed in a child care
institution, the family court judge … shall request the school district of residence
to provide that the committee on special education of such district evaluate such
child and make written recommendations.71
2.
Federal and State Legislation
Any effective strategy for ending the school-to-prison pipeline must include a legislative
component. At the federal level, advocacy is needed to reverse recent amendments to the IDEA
and court decisions that make it substantially easier to remove children with disabilities from
their placements or weaken parents’ ability to access critical procedural protections.72 Provisions
that should be reversed include those that:

Allow school districts, under certain circumstances, unilaterally to remove children with
disabilities (weapons, illegal drugs, or the “infliction serious bodily injury”) and to impose
an interim placement, regardless of the circumstances or whether the alleged behavior is a
manifestation of a disability;73
68
See In the Matter of Beau II, 738 N.E.2d 1167 (N.Y. 2000), rejecting a “blanket rule” in
Morgan v. Chris L., but recognizing that the IDEA may apply to person-in-need-of-supervision
cases if the determination is “case specific.” But see Larson v. Independent School District No.
361, 2004 WL 432218, 40 IDELR 231 (D. Minn. 2004) (district did not violate IDEA by
referring parents to social worker who initiated child-in-need-of-protection petition and testifying
at proceeding).
69
N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 169-B:22, 169-C:20, 169-D:18. See generally, Ellen Shemitz,
Protecting Children at Risk in New Hampshire: The Partnership Between the Juvenile Justice
and Special Education Systems, 38 NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR JOURNAL 61 (Dec. 1997).
70
Ashland School District v. New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families, 145 N.H.
45, 49 (1996).
71
In the Matter of Beau II, supra note 69, at 241, n. 4.
72
See Paolo Annino, The Revised IDEA: Will It Help Children with Disabilities?, 29 MENTAL &
PHYSICAL DISABILITY LAW REPORTER 11 (February 2005).
73
20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)-(7).




Expand the time limit on interim placement from “45 days,” to “45 school days;”74
Reduce the school district’s obligation to children in alternative settings from providing
services that will enable the child “to meet the goals” in the individualized education plan,
or IEP, to merely allowing the child “to make progress” toward meeting IEP goals;75
Substantially weaken the requirements for manifestation determinations and the criteria for
changing a child’s placement; and
Make it more difficult for parents to obtain attorney’s fees if they settle a dispute rather than
take it to a full due process hearing and prevail.
State legislation should promote positive behavioral interventions and supports and other
programs that limit or mitigate the effects of zero tolerance laws, with the goal of keeping
children in school. In many instances, these legislative efforts will have to be long-term and
focus on educating public officials, since the attitudes that favor punitive sanctions are deeply
rooted.
Another approach to reform would be changing juvenile statutes to enable courts to dismiss
school related referrals or to ensure that school districts adhere to their obligations to provide
appropriate educational services. Obviously, advocates should craft such statutes carefully, so as
not to make juvenile courts an attractive alternative to schools for obtaining necessary services
and not to widen the net of children being referred to the juvenile courts.
3.
Juvenile Justice Reform
Zero tolerance policies have pushed far too many children—disproportionately children of color
and children with disabilities—into the juvenile justice and adult correctional systems.76 An
effective strategy for ending the school-to-prison pipeline must focus on both reducing the
number of children who are detained and ensuring full enforcement of incarcerated children’s
education rights.
Reducing the Number of Children in Detention. There are good reasons beyond disproportion
to reduce the numbers of children in correctional facilities. Reducing juvenile detention makes
74
Id. §1415(k)(1)(G).
75
Id. §1415(k)(3)(B)(i).
76
In recent years, the adult jail inmate population under the age of eighteen has increased
substantially. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Key
Facts at a Glance: Jail Populations by Age and Gender 1990-2006,
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/jailagtab.htm. Custody rates are much greater for African
American and Latino youth than for White youth. Eleanor Hinton Hoytt, et al., Reducing Racial
Disparities in Juvenile Detention, at 10-11.
www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/reducing%20racial%20disparities.pdf. Children in the
juvenile justice system are disproportionately children with disabilities—as many as 70 percent
of residents of youth correctional facilities. Peter E. Leone, et al., Understanding the
Overrepresentation of Youths with Disabilities in Juvenile Detention, 3 UNIVERSITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 389-401 (Fall 1995). An even higher percentage (90
percent) have a mental health diagnosis. Randy K. Otto, et al., Prevalence of Mental Disorders
among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, RESPONDING TO THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF
YOUTH IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM (J.J. Cocozza, ed., 1992).
school push-out a less viable and attractive option for teachers and school administrators because
the students, as they should, will be returning to school. Many detained juveniles are merely
status offenders—youth whose actions bring them under juvenile court jurisdiction only because
they are minors (usually under age 18); relatively few are detained for violent offenses.77
Overcrowding in juvenile detention centers leads to increased levels of violence and suicides;
most public detention facilities where children are detained operate above capacity.78 Finally, the
cost to taxpayers of operating such facilities is exorbitant.79
Currently, a number of detention reform initiatives around the country—e.g., the Annie E. Casey
Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative—offer opportunities for advocacy and
input.80 The Casey initiative is underway in approximately seventy sites.
Another advocacy opportunity is the Models for Change initiative, the purpose of which “is to
accelerate progress toward a more rational, fair, effective, and developmentally appropriate
juvenile justice system.”81 While it focuses on Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington,
Models for Change also recruits other state and local agencies into networks that work on
“reducing racial disparities in the juvenile justice system, finding better ways to identify and treat
court-involved youth with mental health needs, and improving juvenile defense policy and
practice.”82
Educational Advocacy in Detention Facilities. Education advocacy for incarcerated students is
very difficult, particularly if the goal is to establish a right to education for all school-aged
prisoners in adult facilities.83 Not surprisingly, challenges to the adequacy of education programs
in adult prisons have met with mixed success.84 Even where the entitlement to education is clear,
77
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006
National Report (2006).
78
Sue Burrell et al., National Juvenile Detention Association and Youth Law Center, Crowding
in Juvenile Detention Facilities: A Problem Solving Manual (1998); Bill Rust, Documenting
Programs that Work for Kids and Families, AdvoCasey, Fall/Winter, 1999-2000,
www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/advocasey_fall1999.pdf.
79
See Annie E. Casey Foundation, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: About JDAI,
www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative/AboutJDAI.aspx .
80
See www.jdaihelpdesk.org
81
See www.modelsforchange.net/.
82
Id.
83
See Christine D. Ely, A Criminal Education: Arguing for Adequacy in Adult Correctional
Facilities, 39 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 795 (Summer 2008).
84
See Handberry v. Thompson, 92 F. Supp. 2d 244 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d in relevant part and re’vd
in part, 436 F.3d 52, 70 (2d Cir. 2006); Paul Y. v. Singletary, 979 F. Supp. 1422 (S.D. Fla.
1997); New Hampshire Dep't of Educ. v. City of Manchester, N.H. School Dist., 23 IDELR 1057
(D.N.H. 1996); Green v. Johnson, 513 F.Supp. 965, 973 (D. Ma. 1981). Recent IDEA
Amendments limit somewhat the state’s obligation to provide special education in correctional
facilities, but the obligation in juvenile facilities remains. See also 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(C),
which allows states to restrict who is eligible to receive services, who takes general assessment
such as in juvenile detention facilities, resolution of claims can take many years and face many
procedural obstacles. To complicate things, there are only a few published judicial opinions
which provide guidance to advocates that are concerned about conditions and the right to
education in such facilities.85 Nevertheless, a number of class actions over the years have been
filed challenging the adequacy of special education services and many of these cases have settled
before trial resulting in consent decrees or settlement agreements.86
Despite these difficulties, educational advocacy in this context plays an important role in
stopping the school to prison pipeline. Agencies responsible for educating incarcerated youth,
whether the agencies be local school systems, juvenile justice agencies, private contractors, or
state education departments, too often fail to meet IDEA requirements—making the strategies
outlined here even more important.87 Making all agencies accountable for ensuring that all
children receive an appropriate education means that there is not an easy or cheap way out and
makes it more likely that those released from incarceration will be reintegrated into their home
communities.
In the juvenile court context, moreover, ensuring the provision of appropriate educational
services makes it more likely that the juvenile will be provided with an opportunity for earlier
release or less restrictive placement since juvenile court judges often retain broad discretion in
placement and ensuring that appropriate services for the child. Depending on state law, the
continued involvement of the school district maintains the student’s connection to his home
community. In addition, placement through the juvenile court may not absolve the school district
of financial responsibility for the education of the child, thus giving the district a monetary stake
tests, and who gets transition services, and 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(7)(A), (B) which allows states to
modify IEP’s “to accommodate bona fide security or compelling penological interests.”
85
See Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773 (D.S.C. 1995) (requiring state officials to instruct
children's school districts to send individualized education plans and school records immediately
after the children arrive, without waiting for parental consent, in order to ensure prompt
identification, evaluation, and placement of the children eligible for special education); Smith v.
Wheaton, 29 IDELR 200 (D. Conn. 1998) (awarding declaratory relief in suit over conduct of
juvenile facility in following IDEA procedures); Edward B. v. Brunelle, 662 F. Supp. 1025, 1035
(D. N.H. 1986) (Certifying a class consisting of all educationally handicapped students in New
Hampshire who are or were placed in a facility pursuant to proceedings under New Hampshire
juvenile justice statutes, and who are not receiving, or did not receive, a free appropriate public
education).
86
See, e.g. Peter E. Leone & Sheri Meisel, National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile
Justice, Improving Education Services for Students in Detention and Confinement Facilities,
www.edjj.org/Publications/list/leone_meisel-1997.html.
87
Robert B. Rutherford, Jr. et al., Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice: Recommended
Practices 15 (2002); Joe-Anne Corwin, Juvenile Correctional Educational Standards Approved,
67 Corrections Today, Feb. 2003, at 83.
in preventing future placements and ensuring that the student receives appropriate services and
returns to his home community as soon as possible.88
4.
Media and Public Education
Media shape the way everyone, including policy-makers, understands the world. Used properly,
media can create demand for and acceptance of reform, and can strongly influence those in
power. Consequently, any effort to change public opinion or influence public policy must
involve “media activism.”89
By employing a media strategy, advocates can leverage litigation, legislative, and other strategies
to improve their chances of success and to create a new understanding of vulnerable youth.
Media can, at the same time, work to discredit the current discipline practices in schools.
A media strategy offers varied opportunities, and the effectiveness of a tactic will vary with the
circumstances. 90 In the school-to-prison context, advocates can publicize litigation or other
efforts through news conferences and contacts with reporters, op-eds, editorials, and letters to the
editor. 91 Publicity can make the make the case that a school district’s or state’s zero tolerance
policies are unjust and make little sense, while advocates highlight data to illustrate the benefits
of alternatives such as positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Ultimately, in any media strategy, hard facts alone will not effect change. To use media
successfully to combat the school-to-prison pipeline, advocates must put a human face on our
narrative, frame a core, simple message—based on progressive values—and repeat it over and
over, while ensuring that our facts and stories always support that message.
IV. Conclusion
88
See A.C.B. v. Denver Dep't of Social Servs., 725 P.2d 94 (Colo. App. 1986); Ashland School Dist. v. New
Hampshire Division for Children, Youth, & Families, 141 N.H. 45, 681 A.2d 71 (N.H. 1996).
89
Robert Bray, SPIN WORKS!: A MEDIA GUIDE FOR COMMUNICATING VALUES AND SHAPING
OPINION 2 & 38-84 (2000). See generally Randy Shaw, RECLAIMING AMERICA 251-287 (1999)
(mobilizing strategies through media and internet); Michael S. Wald, Comment: Moving
Forward, Some Thoughts on Strategies, 21 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR
LAW 473, 475 (2000).
90
“Tactics that have regularly proven successful in a particular context are not guaranteed to
work under other circumstances; even objectively foolish strategies have achieved their desired
ends. Tactical activists must therefore be open to creativity, innovation, and provocative,
controversial, or even dubious ideas.” Randy Shaw, THE ACTIVIST’S HANDBOOK 274 (1996).
91
For example, a press conference coincided with administrative complaints filed recently in
Florida, and coverage was extensive. See, e.g.,
www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/10/01/1001complaint.html
; www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article834237.ece;
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/01/011442/complaint-alleges-hillsborough-withheldservices-6/ (newspaper coverage); www.wptv.com/news/local/story/Group-says-disabledstudents-left-behind/1jYE1tnzEECqqBNBf4tikw.cspx;
www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/10/1/387539.html (television coverage).
Under the pretense of creating safer schools and communities, school districts have implemented
zero tolerance policies. These failed policies are re-segregating our schools by pushing out
minority children and children with disabilities. Such policies have created high suspension and
expulsion rates, reduced graduation rates, increased school drop-out rates, and caused far too
many children to be incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities.
The school-to-prison pipeline can be stopped, if progressive community and advocacy
organizations, as well as individuals working in concert with each other, institute well-planned,
coordinated, and multifaceted strategies. These might include:






Litigation, both administrative and judicial proceedings;
Community lawyering or advocacy aimed at creating juvenile court pushback;
State and federal legislation to repeal zero tolerance laws and promote alternatives;
Juvenile justice reform;
Public education; and
Organizing and coalition building
It is time for a new strategy and vision to emphasize education over punishment. Rather than
fostering punitive approaches that do little to enhance children’s educational opportunities and
move us farther from the vision of Brown v. Board of Education, it is time for school districts to
implement promising evidence-based practices that promote learning, fairness, inclusion, and a
positive environment for all children.
Ronald K. Lospennato
Director, School-to-Prison Reform Project
Southern Poverty Law Center
4431 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70115
504-486-8982
[email protected]
VISION
1. Excellent Education. Students with disabilities get an excellent education.
2. Success. Students with disabilities become successful adults, holding good jobs, living
independently, and engaged in their community.
3. Inclusion. Students with disabilities are educated in classrooms with their non-disabled peers
and participate fully in school life.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
IEPs.
4. Ambitious Goals. Ambitious goals are set for the academic achievement and personal growth
of students with disabilities. Individualized Education Plans enable students to gain the skills
they need to graduate and seek further schooling, hold a good job, live independently, and be
engaged in their community.
5. Effective Instruction. Students with disabilities are taught by competent staff using effective
instructional practices.
6. Effective Planning. Individualized Education Plans are based on the student’s strengths,
needs, interests, and preferences. Team members use both qualitative and quantitative
information to develop a shared understanding of the student’s strengths, needs, interests and
preferences and a shared plan of interventions and supports. Teams regularly assess progress
and modify plans when desired progress is not being made. Any member of the team, including
a parent, may convene a team meeting to consider modifications to the plan.
7. Differentiated Instruction. Teachers and service providers hone in on students’ short- and
long-term goals and individualize academic and therapeutic strategies to meet those goals.
8. Central Role of Parents. Parents are respected members of the IEP team whose insights and
recommendations are valued. Parents receive the support they need to participate as team
members, including transportation, child care, interpreter services and pre-meeting briefings.
9. Transitions. IEPs anticipate and prepare students for transitions, including between schools
and from the school system. IEP teams ensure that students in nonpublic placements are able to
maintain ties with their home school and community.
Early Intervention
10. Early Identification. Students having academic or behavior problems are identified and
provided the services and supports they need.
11. Student Support Teams. Student Support Teams meet and discuss students identified by
parents or school staff as experiencing academic or behavioral difficulties. Student Support
Teams develop a shared understanding of the student’s strengths, needs, interests and preferences
and a shared plan of interventions and supports. Any member of the team, including a parent,
may propose modifications to the plan. The parents and school may agree to modifications
without the team holding a meeting.
12. Referral. As desired by the parents, students with suspected disabilities are evaluated for
eligibility for special education.
13. Wraparound Services. Students whose behavior issues are beyond the competence of the
Student Support Team or other in-school supports will be referred for wraparound services.
School Climate
14. Positive Climate. School-wide positive behavior support is used to create a safe and
respectful learning environment.
15 Advocates for Learning. Teachers and service providers empower students to become
advocates for their own learning, including by modeling and connecting them to school and
community supports.
16. Family Involvement. Parents are deeply involved in the school, including in implementing
positive behavior support. Family advocacy is welcome and supported.
17. Student Tenure. Students receive needed services and supports to avoid suspension,
expulsion, arrest, and dropping out.
AYP
18. AYP. Students with disabilities participate in statewide academic achievement assessments
such as the DC Comprehensive Assessment (DCCAS), with appropriate accommodations. In
exceptional cases, students with disabilities participate in an alternate assessment.
School Infrastructure
19. Unified Purpose. Principals, school staff, and service providers work together to ensure
implementation of these guiding principles.
20. Highly-Skilled Teachers and Service Providers. Teachers and service providers with proven
records of helping students with disabilities meet ambitious goals through school, community,
and family-based interventions are hired and rewarded.
21. Professional Development. School staff receive coaching and training to enable them to
educate children consistent with these guiding principles.
22. Adequate Staff. There is sufficient staff to ensure timely development and implementation
of individualized plans, including SST plans, IEP plans, and wraparound service plans.
23. Access to Services. Schools have timely access to services needed to implement IEP plans,
SST plans, and wraparound service plans.
24. Interagency Collaboration. When a student is involved in other public service systems,
representatives of those systems are encouraged and supported to participate in the SST, IEP, and
wraparound services planning process. Information will be shared as desired by the parent.
25. Dispute Resolution. Schools timely and collaboratively resolve disputes with parents
concerning instruction or services.
26. Monitoring. Schools actively monitor and evaluate the quality of instruction and services
provided students with disabilities, and actively participate in district-wide performance
evaluation activities. Schools use the information gained to improve instruction and services.
MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Introduction
Medicaid covers a broad range of services for children with emotional, behavioral
and mental health needs and their families. These include services to improve a child’s
behavior, including wraparound services and therapeutic foster care for high-needs
children; services to build a child’s social, communication, and life skills; education of
parents about their child’s needs and teaching them the skills to meet those needs (family
psychoeducation), and coordination of services. Medicaid permits these services to be
provided in a variety of community locations, including at schools and in a child’s home.
Most states cover these services as either rehabilitative services or case management
services.
General Rules Regarding Medicaid Coverage
The categories of service covered by Medicaid – listed at 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a) –
are very broad, and many individual services fall within each service category. See, e.g.,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Using Medicaid to Support Working Age Adults with Serious
Mental Illness in the Community: A Handbook (“Using Medicaid”), January 2005, at 52.
An individual service need not be expressly listed in § 1396d(a) to be covered by
Medicaid.
In the case of children, Medicaid’s “[e]arly and periodic screening, diagnostic and
treatment services” (“EPSDT”) mandate, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r), requires states to provide
children any and all needed (medically necessary) services that are Medicaid
reimbursable. Thus, states must provide to children any and needed all services that fit
within § 1396d(a) to children.1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services, A Primer on How to Use Medicaid to Assist Persons
Who are Homeless to Access Medical, Behavioral Health, and Support Services
(“Medicaid Primer”), January 2007, at 43. This is true regardless of whether the needed
service is included in that state’s Medicaid plan. Id.
Medicaid covers health services, including mental health services, provided to
Medicaid-eligible children in schools, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(“CMS”)2 has provided technical assistance regarding reimbursement. See, e.g., U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Agency, Medicaid
and School Health: A Technical Assistance Guide (August 1997) (“Medicaid and School
Health”). While the general rule under Medicaid is that it is the payor of last resort, this
general rule does not apply to services provided pursuant to a child’s Individualized
Education Plan (“IEP”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
Section 1903(c) of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(c), specifically provides that
Medicaid reimbursement is available for covered Medicaid services that are included in a
child’s IEP.3 For children who do not have an IEP, Medicaid will pay for medically
necessary covered Medicaid services as long as there are no other third parties liable to
1
In contrast, some categories of services listed in the Medicaid Act are optional for adults.
2
CMS was formerly the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA).
3
This section also allows for reimbursement of Medicaid-covered services provided to infants and toddlers
under an individualized family service plan (“IFSP”) under the IDEA. 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(c).
2
pay. See generally Jan. 2001 SMDL; The State Medicaid Manual, § 4302.2. Providers
of school-based Medicaid services must meet all Medicaid provider qualifications, which
are for the most part set by states, not the federal government.
Rehabilitative Services
42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(13) provides for coverage of “other diagnostic, screening,
preventative, and rehabilitative services . . . for the maximum reduction of physical and
mental disability and restoration of an individual to the best possible functioning level.”
This category is known as “rehabilitative services.” Rehabilitative services cover a broad
range of community-based services, such as diagnosis and comprehensive assessments;
team-based treatment planning; coordinating the delivery of rehabilitative services to
individuals; crisis services; basic life skills and social skills training and support across a
variety of community living dimensions; medication education and management; illness
and disability management that is designed to increase a person’s ability to recognize and
respond to symptoms; supported employment to assist individuals in overcoming barriers
to employment that stem from their mental illness; substance abuse services4; and
community support services.5 See, e.g., Medicaid Primer, at 58-59; Using Medicaid, at
52.
4
Substance abuse services covered as rehabilitative services include therapy, counseling, training in
communication skills, recovery training, relationship skills, and employability skills. Medicaid Primer, at
60.
5
Many states cover the individual component services of wraparound services and therapeutic foster care
as rehabilitative services, such as wraparound immediate crisis stabilization and crisis planning,
3
Rehabilitative services includes support services to the families of children with
emotional, behavioral and mental health needs. While Medicaid does not cover services
provided to non-Medicaid family members for their sole benefit, Medicaid does cover
services provided to non-covered family members that are for the benefit of the
Medicaid-eligible child. Family psychoeducation, which are services to enlist a person’s
family in addressing and managing the person’s mental illness, are covered rehabilitative
services. Medicaid Primer, at 58-59. CMS has identified family psychoeducation as an
evidence-based practice and described the Medicaid-covered activities of family
psychoeducation to include “individual family counseling – time to review illness history,
warning signs, coping strategies, and concerns and developing goals; family treatment
planning – active involvement of family members in the planning and input of setting
goals and treatment; [and] family supports – helping families support their loved ones
who have mental illness in their recovery.” U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid Support of EvidenceBased Practices in Mental Health Programs (italics in original).
Rehabilitative services can be provided in a variety of community locations,
including in schools and in the child’s home. See Medicaid Primer, at 58; Using
Medicaid, at 54; Medicaid and School Health, at 10-11. A wide range of mental health
providers can deliver rehabilitative services, including non-clinicians such as mental
health professionals, community workers, and peer specialists, as well as mental health
wraparound team formation; development and implementation of a wraparound or therapeutic foster care
treatment plan; and wraparound or therapeutic foster care transition. Some of these components can also be
covered as case management services. See infra at n. 7.
4
clinicians. A Primer, at 58; Using Medicaid, at 54. Providers of school-based Medicaid
services must meet the same provider qualifications as other Medicaid providers.
Medicaid and School Health, at 15-16.
Case Management Services
Medicaid case management services, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(19), are services that
assist Medicaid-eligible individuals in gaining access to needed medical, social,
educational, and other services. Deficit Reduction Act, P.L. 109-171, § 6052(a)(2) (Feb.
8, 2006) , codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(g). Covered case management services include
assessments to determine service needs, care plan development, referral and related
activities to help an individual obtain needed services, and monitoring and follow-up
activities. Id. Specific assessment activities include taking client history, identifying the
needs of the individual, completing related documentation, and gathering information
from other sources such as family members, medical providers, and educators. Jan. 2001
SMDL.6 Care planning activities include working with the individual and others to
develop goals and identify a course of action to respond to the assessed needs, including
medical, social, education and other services needed by the Medicaid-eligible individual.
Id. Referral and linkage includes activities that help link Medicaid eligible individuals
6
The Jan. 2001 SMDL was sent to State Medicaid Directors to clarify HHS policy on case management
services as it relates to an individual’s participation in other social, education, or other programs. The
moratorium on the recent case management rules specifically provides that the policies set forth in this
letter are the current law on case management services. See Section 7001(a)(3)(B)(ii) of Public Law 110252 (H.R. 2642), Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008.
5
with provider and programs, such as making referrals to providers for needed services
and scheduling appointments. Id. Monitoring and follow-up activities ensure that the
care plan is effectively implemented and adequately addressing the needs of the
Medicaid-eligible individual, including whether services are being furnished in
accordance with the plan, whether the services in the plan are adequate, and whether
there are changes in the needs or status of the individual, and if so, making necessary
adjustments.7 Id.
As with rehabilitative services, case management services cover activities that
include families for the benefit of the Medicaid eligible child. Case management may
include contacts with non-eligible individuals that are directly related to the identification
of the eligible individual’s needs and care, for the purposes of helping the eligible
individual access services, identifying needs and supports to assist the eligible individual
in obtaining services, providing case managers with useful feedback, and alerting case
managers to changes in the eligible individual’s needs. Jan. 2001 SMDL; accord Interim
Final Case Management Services Rules, 72 Fed. Reg. at 68092.8
7
Some states cover some of the components of wraparound services and therapeutic foster care as case
management services, such as wraparound and therapeutic foster care treatment plan development and
tracking and adapting the wraparound or therapeutic foster care treatment plan. Case management of
rehabilitative services can be covered as rehabilitative services. See The State Medicaid Manual, § 4302;
Medicaid Primer, at 58.
8
The case management regulations, which are currently subject to a moratorium until April 1, 2009, see
Section 7001(a)(3)(B) of Public Law 110-252 (H.R. 2642), Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008,
placed some additional limitations on the provision of case management services to children with IEPs.
6
A Sampling of Covered Services
States have used Medicaid to cover a variety of services to support children with
emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs and their families, including:
•
Initial and comprehensive assessments;
•
Service planning, including engagement of the child and family, team
formation, service plan development and modification, crisis planning,
and transition planning;
•
Crisis response services, including mobile crisis services and crisis
stabilization;
•
Community-mental health interventions, including wraparound services,
intensive home-based services, therapeutic foster care, family education
and training, individual and family therapy, medication management,
social and living skills training, behavioral/therapeutic aide services,
mentoring, school-based day treatment, multi-systemic therapy, intensive
outpatient substance abuse services, integrated substance abuse services
These rules provide that Medicaid will not cover case management activities required by the IDEA but not
needed to assist students in gaining access to needed services, such as the work for developing, reviewing
and implementing a child’s IEP. The rules also prohibit the billing of Medicaid case management for
administrative functions such as scheduling an IEP meeting or providing written notice. Even under these
rules, Medicaid case management can be billed once an IEP is written that includes case management as a
necessary service.
7
for individuals with co-occurring disorders, supported education, and
supported employment;
•
Care coordination services, including case management and case
consultation.
Conclusion
Schools can use Medicaid to cover a wide range of services for students with
emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs. The District of Columbia should take
advantage of this source of funding as part of its Blackman system reform effort.
8
CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER, INC.
“a non-profit legal service center for children”
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Bluegrass Office
772 Winchester Road,
Suite 1115
Lexington, KY 40505
Phone (859) 253-0152
Fax (859) 2530162
February 24, 2009
Lowell Schechter, Esq.
President
J. David Bender, Esq.
Vice President
Donald G. Benzinger, Esq.
Treasurer
Brooke E. Hiltz, Esq.
Secretary
Paul Alley, Esq.
Kendra Bach
Jessica L. Birkenhauer, Esq.
Naima R. Clarke, Esq.
Mary Ellen Elsbernd
Cathy M. Jackson, Esq.
Jennifer Lawrence, Esq.
Kevin L. Murphy, Esq.
Kristi P. Nelson, Esq.
Gwen Pate
Nancy B. Perry
Jeffrey Raines, Esq.
Jamie M. Ramsey, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
Peggy St. Amand
Rasheed Simmonds, Esq.
Alice Sparks
Shanda L. Spurlock, Esq.
Kathryn Stephens
Andrew Stout, CFA
Rachel Votruba
Stephen Walker, Ed.D.
John F. Winkler II, Esq.
Rev. Jerry Zehr
Kentucky Department of Education
Division of Exceptional Children’s Services
ATTN: R. Larry Taylor, Director
500 Mero Street, 8th Floor CPT
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
In Re: Individual and Class Administrative Complaint on behalf of 12
Individual Petitioners and a Class of All Similarly Situated and/or
Similarly Treated Middle and High School Students in the Fayette
County Public Schools
Dear Mr. Taylor,
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Barbara D. Bonar, Esq.
Richard Cullison, Esq.
Janet L. Graden, Ph.D.
Stacey L. Graus, Esq.
Eric Haas
Lambert Hehl, Esq.
Nadine Hellings
Charles Johnson, Esq.
Philip K. Lichtenstein, M.D.
W. Robert Lotz, Esq.
Rudi Megowen
Marc Mezibov, Esq.
Col Owens, III, Esq.
Christine Vissman, Esq.
Kim Brooks Tandy, Esq.
Executive Director
Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto, Esq.
Litigation Director
Robyn M. Rone Esq.
Staff Attorney
The undersigned counsel are filing this Individual and Class Administrative
Complaint on behalf of 12 Individual Petitioners, who are or have been students
in the Fayette County Public School System (Child One – Child Twelve), and all
similarly situated students regarding violations by the Fayette County Public
Schools (hereinafter “FCPS”) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (hereinafter “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. and the
corresponding Kentucky state statutes and federal and state regulations.
Petitioners request that the Kentucky Department of Education appoint an
independent team to investigate FCPS’s provision of special education and
related services to students who have been identified or should have been
identified as students with disabilities for violations of the IDEA, and order
FCPS to institute a remedial plan designed to correct, as set forth in this
Complaint, each and every violation found.
A United Way Agency Partner
PART ONE: FCPS HAS VIOLATED THE IDEA’S CHILD FIND, REFERRAL,
AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
The first set of class claims are brought on behalf of eight Petitioners (hereinafter the
“Child Find Petitioners”) and all middle and high school students who are or may be
eligible for special education and related services from the Fayette County Public Schools
but who, as a result of the failure of the school district to implement Child Find and
referral and evaluation procedures that are reasonably calculated to ensure that all
students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, have not been
evaluated or referred for, and have not received a timely written determination of, their
eligibility to receive a free appropriate public education as guaranteed by the IDEA and
in many instances have been penalized, marginalized and alienated from the school
system that should have been designed to serve their needs.
On behalf of the Child Find Petitioners and all similarly situated students within FCPS,
the undersigned counsel make the following class claims:
1. FCPS has failed to fulfill its obligations to establish and implement
appropriate Child Find procedures under the IDEA;
2. FCPS has failed to fulfill its obligations to create and maintain a referral
system that explains how referrals from non-district sources will be accepted
and acted upon in a timely manner;
3. FCPS has failed to implement appropriate evaluation procedures that are
reasonably calculated to ensure that Petitioners and all similarly situated
students have been timely evaluated to determine their eligibility to receive
special education and related services;
4. FCPS has chosen to use punitive approaches to discipline and failed to use
positive behavior interventions with children in the FCPS who should have
been identified as children at risk of needing special educational services.
The IDEA ensures that all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate
public education (“FAPE”) designed to meet their unique needs and protects the rights of
children with disabilities to receive a FAPE.1 The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that
IDEA obligations are met, including the requirements under Child Find, rests with the
state education agency. See, 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(11). The state agency in this matter is
the Kentucky Department of Education. Regulations adopted to implement IDEA require
each responsible state agency to ensure that each local educational authority establishes
and implements all obligations dictated by IDEA. 34 C.F.R. §300.350. For the purposes
of this Class Complaint, FCPS is the local educational agency (“LEA”) in question.
I.
CHILD FIND REQUIREMENTS
FCPS has violated the rights of the Child Find Petitioners and of all other similarly
situated students under the IDEA by failing to implement appropriate Child Find
1
20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq.
procedures reasonably calculated to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a free
appropriate public education as guaranteed by the IDEA.
The IDEA requires state and local school districts to develop and implement policies and
procedures to ensure that youth within their jurisdiction who may have disabilities are
identified, located and evaluated; and that a practical method is developed and
implemented to determine which children are receiving needed special education2 and
related services.3 See, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A) and 1413(a)(1); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111
(2007).4 Appropriate Child Find policies and procedures also must include children who
are suspected of being a child with a disability under 34 C.F.R. §300.8 and in need of
special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade. 34 C.F.R. §§
300.111(c)(1)(2007).
For purposes of the IDEA, the term ‘child with a disability’ means:
A child with mental retardation, hearing impairments including deafness,
speech or language impairments, visual impairments including blindness,
serious emotional disturbance …., orthopedic impairments, autism,
traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning
disabilities… who by reason thereof needs special education and/or related
services.5
Federal and state regulations implementing the IDEA define each of the conditions which
may qualify a child as a ‘child with a disability.’6 Specifically, the regulations include a
variety of chronic or acute health problems including, but not limited to, attention deficit
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and diabetes, as examples of conditions
that may trigger IDEA eligibility under the category of “other health impaired.”7
2
“Special Education” is defined as “specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a child with
a disability.” 20 U.S.C. §1401(25), emphasis added; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.26(2005).
3
“Related services” are defined as transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive
services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological
services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work
services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate
public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services,
including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that
such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a
child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and
assessment of disabling conditions in children. 20 U.S.C. §1401(26)(A).
4
This obligation is commonly referred to as the “Child Find” requirement and will be referred to similarly
as “Child Find requirement” throughout this complaint.
5
20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.8 (2007).
6
See, 34 C.F.R. 300.8 (c) (2007).
7
See, 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(9)(i) (2007).
3
Under federal and state statutes and regulations, FCPS is required to have appropriate
policies and procedures in place to locate, identify and evaluate students suspected of
having a disability in compliance with the Child Find requirement of the IDEA.8
707 KAR 1:300 Section 1, provides in full:
An LEA shall have in effect policies and procedures that plan and implement a
child find system to locate, identify and evaluate each child:
(a)
Whose age is three (3) to twenty-one (21);
(b)
Who resides in a home, facility or residence within the LEA’s
geographical boundaries, children who are highly mobile such as migrant
children, homeless children as described in 707 KAR 7:090, children who
are wards of the state or are in state custody, and students who are
advancing grade to grade resulting from a passing grade but who may still
have a disability;
(c)
Who is either in or out of school; and
(d)
Who may need special education and related services.9
FCPS has continually failed to locate, identify and/or evaluate the Child Find Petitioners
and all other similarly situated middle and high school students. In each case, the school
district had notice or should have had notice that these students may have a disability due
to chronic poor academic performance, difficulty transitioning from grade to grade, the
manifestation of behavioral issues, disciplinary referrals to juvenile court, and/or
placement in disciplinary alternative school settings.
State regulations acknowledge that an LEA shall be deemed to have knowledge that a
child is a child with a disability if (a) the parent of the child has expressed concern in
writing (or orally if the parent cannot express it in writing) to personnel of the appropriate
LEA that the child is in need of special education and related services; (b) the behavior or
performance of the child demonstrates the need for these services in accordance with 707
KAR 1:280; (c) the parent of the child has requested an evaluation pursuant to the
requirements in 707 KAR 1:300; or (d) the teacher of the child, or other personnel of the
LEA, has expressed concern about the behavior or performance of the child to the
director of special education or to other personnel in accordance with the LEA’s child
find or special education referral system.10
In accordance with state regulations, it is clear that FCPS had notice or should have been
on notice that the Child Find Petitioners were students who may be eligible for special
education and related services. However, FCPS has continually failed to provide
federally mandated special education and related services to these students without
proper justification and, indeed, has instead chosen to punish and isolate many of the
Petitioners in a punitive environment away from both their classmates and from the
support services and extracurricular opportunities available in the regular school setting.
8
See, 707 KAR 1:3000 (1)
707 KAR 1:300 Section 1
10
See, 707 KAR 1:330 Section 13.
9
4
II.
REFERRAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to 707 KAR 1:300(1), “[a]n LEA shall have a referral system that explains how
referrals from…non-district sources will be accepted and acted upon in a timely manner.”
FCPS has no such clearly demarcated and understandable referral system in place, efforts
are not made to routinely educate FCPS parents about the availability of the services or
their right to refer their child for special education and the stated method offered by
FCPS when inquiry is made is cumbersome and not suited to a parent referral process.
Thus, in effect, FCPS’s failure to develop these required referral policies and procedures
and publicly and routinely inform parents of such has prevented the Child Find
Petitioners’ parents from beginning the special education referral process for their
children. If these policies and procedures had been in place then, even though FCPS
violated its Child Find and Evaluation obligations under the IDEA, the Petitioners’
parents could have initiated the referral process for special education for their children.
III.
EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
FCPS has violated the IDEA by failing to implement appropriate evaluation procedures
that are reasonably calculated to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a free
appropriate public education, are appropriately evaluated, and receive a timely written
determination of, their eligibility to receive a free appropriate public education as
guaranteed by the IDEA.
FCPS is required to ensure that a full and timely individual evaluation is conducted prior
to a child being considered for specially designed instruction and related services. 11 See
34 C.F.R. 300.301 (2007); 707 KAR 1:300(4). FCPS’s evaluation practice and
procedures are woefully inadequate and systematically serve as a barrier to students who
may be in need of special education and related services. In fact, it is clear that FCPS
continually disregards and has ignored students who may have a disability which would
require specially designed instruction or services for years.
In 71 Federal Register 46,637 (2006), the Education Department articulated the following
guidelines regarding Child Find requirements:
[I]t would generally not be acceptable for an LEA to wait several months
to conduct an evaluation or to seek parental consent for an initial
evaluation if the public agency suspects the child to be a child with a
disability. If it is determined through the monitoring efforts of the
Department of a State that there is a pattern or practice within a particular
State or LEA of not conducting evaluations and making eligibility
11
Evaluation means procedures used in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§300.304 through 300.311 to
determine whether a child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related
services that the child needs. 34 C.F.R. 300.15(2007)
5
determinations in a timely manner, this could raise questions as to whether
the State or LEA is in compliance with the Act.
It is apparent that FCPS has systematically failed to adequately identify, refer, or conduct
special education and related service evaluations in an expedited manner as required by
the state regulations for Petitioners. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit concluded that identification and evaluation of children suspected to be disabled
must occur “within a reasonable time after school officials are on notice of behavior that
is likely to indicate a disability.” W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 501 (3d. Cir. 1995). The
Third Circuit inferred this reasonable time requirement because without such a
requirement, the Child Find duty would be essentially meaningless. Id.
Truancy has been clearly identified as one of the early warning signs of students headed
for potential delinquent activity, social isolation, or educational failure via suspension,
expulsion, or dropping out. See
http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resour
ces/40.pdf; Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T. P. & Cothern, L. (2000, November).
Co-occurrence of delinquency and other problem behaviors. Juvenile Justice Bulletin,
OJJDP; Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., & Thornberry, T. P. (1994, March). Urban delinquency
and substance abuse: Initial findings.
In accordance with the state regulations, it is clear that FCPS has been on notice and/or
should have been on notice that Petitioners may be students with disabilities for a period
of time ranging from six months to ten years; however, despite this basis of knowledge,
FCPS continually failed to evaluate Petitioners and all similarly situated students with
potential disabilities.
IV. FACTUAL BASIS FOR CHILD FIND PETITIONERS’ INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMS AND CLASS COMPLAINT
A. CHILD ONE
For the 2008-2009 school year, Child One is in the seventh grade at Crawford Middle
School. He received special education for a developmental delay from pre-kindergarten
through a portion of his third-grade year. In November 2004, Child One was exited from
special education as it was asserted that he met the exit criteria for developmental delay.
Thus, since that time, Child One has not received any special education services. Child
One has been diagnosed with mood disorder and oppositional defiance disorder and he
has been hospitalized twice for suicidal ideations.
FCPS had notice or should have been on notice that Child One was a child with an
emotional and behavioral disability since March 2007, when Child One was in the fifth
grade. At that time, he was hospitalized after a teacher overheard him tell another student
that he wanted to kill himself. (Ex. A, 3/26/07 Discharge Summary) Child One was also
hospitalized in the Fall of 2008, during his seventh grade year, after he told his mother he
6
was going to hang himself and refused to remove a belt that he had placed around his
neck. (Ex. B., 10/27/08 Discharge Summary)
In his sixth grade year at Crawford Middle School, Child One was suspended four times
- one suspension was for physical aggression and two were for bullying. In the first half
of his seventh grade year, Child One was suspended twice – once for disruptive behavior
and once for physical aggression. He was also placed in in-school suspension (“SAFE”)
six times. Additionally, Child One was failing four of his five classes at the end of the
first term of his seventh grade year and had been referred to the juvenile justice system
for habitual truancy.
FCPS also violated Child One’s rights under the IDEA by failing to have a referral
system in place that explains how referrals from non-district sources will be accepted and
acted upon in a timely manner. Because no such referral system was clearly in place,
Child One’s mother did not know to begin the special education process for Child One.
Not knowing what else to do, both at the end of Child One’s sixth grade and at the
beginning of his seventh grade, his mother called Crawford Middle School’s school
psychologist. The psychologist, however, never returned her calls and, therefore, the
referral process was not initiated until January 2008 after Child One’s case was referred
to Children’s Law Center by a Family Court Judge. And, even after the Children’s Law
Center contacted FCPS on Child One’s mother’s behalf to begin the referral process,
FCPS sent Child One’s mother a complicated form (Ex. C) which was full of questions
she did not and could not know how to answer. FCPS did not offer to assist Child One’s
mother in filling out the form or suggest a meeting wherein Child One’s mother could
discuss her concerns. Nonetheless, following the intervention of the CLC, FCPS has now
begun the evaluation process.
In sum, FCPS violated Child One’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to identify Child One as a child to be evaluated based on his behaviors
at school;
• By failing to have an understandable and publicized referral system in place that
parents could access;
• By requiring Child One’s parents to fill out a complicated form not intended for
parents to complete before considering Child One for evaluation;
• By failing to conduct a timely evaluation of Child One to determine if he qualifies
for special education services.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
One may be a child with a disability since March 2007. However, due to FCPS’s failure
to comply with the identification, referral, and evaluation requirements of the IDEA,
Child One has been deprived of his right to a free and appropriate public education since
that date.
7
B. CHILD TWO
Child Two is now attending Day Treatment in Fayette County. Prior to securing a place
in that program, Child Two was enrolled for the 2008-2009 academic year in the eighth
grade at Leestown Middle School.
Child Two was identified at-risk from birth. When Child Two was one day old, she was
identified as a child at-risk of neglect because her mother had used narcotic pain killers
throughout the pregnancy. Though her mother continued to have significant substance
abuse problems, Child Two was placed in her mother’s custody on October 9, 1985. As a
result of her mother’s continued drug addiction and abuse, however, Child Two was often
in the care of her father or her grandparents. Child Two’s mother was convicted of
trafficking in cocaine when her daughter was eighteen months old, leaving most of the
care of the child to her father.
Child Two attended Meadowthorpe and Deep Springs for elementary school. One teacher
during those years had concern about her progress in reading. Additionally, her S.R.I. test
scores for reading identified her as at risk in third grade. Child Two appears to have made
some progress in school until she reached sixth grade. Child Two had difficulty
controlling her behavior during her middle school years. Child Two’s mother died in the
spring of Child Two’s seventh grade year from the effects of substance abuse.
Discipline reports from Leestown Middle School going back to academic year 2006-2007
reflect that Child Two was being referred to SAFE (“in-school suspension”) for failure to
obey staff, verbal conflict with peers and then escalating to physical aggression during
sixth grade. These externalizing behaviors continued to manifest from the beginning of
seventh grade across settings in her educational environment. During the 2007-2008
school year, she missed 44 days of school and multiple discipline referrals, resulting in 20
suspended days. At this time, one teacher noted that Child Two threw a pencil at another
student and had “fifteen referrals to the office-continual problems with behavior while in
class.” (Ex. D). She was suspended for fifteen days for this behavior. And although Child
Two’s father asked the school if his daughter might receive any counseling or
intervention, the record and facts according to Child Two and her father, reflect no effort
at appropriate supportive educational assistance, positive behavior intervention, or
referral for special education. Her father met with school personnel to consider special
education services at Leestown but the school staff stated she did not need services. Since
the school was unresponsive to his daughter’s needs, Child Two’s father did seek mental
health counseling for his daughter through his health insurance company.
On June 2, 2008, Child Two and her father were ordered to appear in Family Court in
Fayette County to face the charge of being a habitual truant. The Family Court Judge was
well aware of the extended family since Child Two’s mother had appeared before the
judge with three children born subsequent to Child Two through a relationship with
another man. The judge was also aware that Child Two’s mother had passed away from
drug addiction in the spring of 2008. The judge urged school personnel to have Child
Two evaluated to see if she needed special education services.
8
By the end of the first term of her eighth grade year, Child Two had missed five days of
school, had been suspended for two days, and had been placed in in-school suspension
(“SAFE”) eight times. She was also failing eight of her ten classes. (Ex. E).
In fact, instead of providing Child Two with any positive behavioral support, FCPS
placed Child Two in a “Voyager” classroom for several months. She was given no
instruction. Only computer based lessons were offered. Yet the computers were often not
in working order. She was in this environment for the entire school day at Leestown
Middle School. This classroom was stifling at best.
Child Two’s history and her behavior at school had now been more than sufficient for
three years to alert FCPS to the need to evaluate Child Two as a child with a suspected
disability. On January 5, 2009, with the assistance of the Children’s Law Center, Child
Two’s father again beseeched the FCPS for assistance to have his daughter evaluated.
However, the school system has stated that a determination was already made that his
child was not in need of services.
In sum, FCPS violated Child Two’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to consider Child Two’s repeated behavioral problems as manifesting a
possible disability;
• By failing to respond to the recommendation by the Family Court Judge that
Child Two be evaluated for services;
• By failing to reconsider Child Two for special education services upon the
explicit request of Child Two’s father.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Two may be a child with a disability since at least the 2006 – 2007 academic year.
However, due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the identification, referral, and evaluation
requirements of the IDEA, Child Two has been deprived of her right to a free and
appropriate public education since the spring of her sixth grade year of education.
C. CHILD THREE
Child Three was repeating the ninth grade at Dunbar High School when CLC became
involved in his representation in December of 2008. Child Three has had school anxiety
since third grade. He had difficulty settling down and concentrating in kindergarten,
difficulty controlling behaviors, staying on task and completing daily work in third grade.
Though scores on tests showed good cognitive abilities, he was recommended for
retention in third grade and his fourth grade report indicated he should be doing better
than his grades reflected. Child Three’s anxiety about attending school continued from
third grade forward. Either his older brother or his mother had to ensure that he got on the
school bus or to school.
Child Three was referred for special education in 2001, at the age of eight based upon a
specific learning disability in math. However, the psychologist stated in her report that he
9
was referred for ADHD and a suspected communication disorder in language. (Ex. F).
His mother expressed to those involved in teaching and evaluating her son that they were
evaluating Child Three for the wrong disability. However, she cooperated and gave
consent for a full evaluation. A number of recommendations were made by the
psychologist to assist Child Three in improving his performance. His mother felt that the
school system made promises of additional assistance and promised to provide Child
Three with access to artistic and gifted classes but then reneged on their commitment.
The school system’s records reflect a lack of follow-through with positive behavior
intervention after the evaluation. In 2002, FCPS had a second ARC and determined Child
Three would no longer be identified as needing special education. From his mother’s
memory and experience, her son received none of the special services proffered
In October 2008, during the first semester of his second ninth grade year, Child Three
was referred to the juvenile justice system on a charge of being beyond control of the
school. The school filed additional charges in December 2008. At that time, Child Three
was failing all of his classes, had more than 20 unexcused absences, and had been
suspended for 17 days. An At-Risk Assessment & Action Plan for Child Three reflected
that the interventions the school would seek were MLK and Day Treatment.(Ex.G). No
suggestion was made by school personnel that Child Three be evaluated for EBD.
When Child Three appeared before the Family Court Judge, he expressed his enormous
frustration with being in school and said he could not cope with returning. He chose to go
to jail rather than continue in the environment that he felt was so negative. Frustrated
with no assistance for him, the judge appointed CLC lawyers to represent him.
With the assistance of CLC, Child Three’s mother wrote a letter in December 2009 to the
special education director for the high schools asking for her son to be evaluated. She
then called to follow-up with her correspondence. She was given a complicated form (Ex.
H), not intended for parents and told to complete it so that it could be determined if her
son could be evaluated. Ultimately, a meeting was held on January 21, 2009, and it was
determined that her son should be evaluated for EBD or other disabilities. (Ex. I, ARC
Summary).
In sum, FCPS violated Child Three’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to listen to and consider the input of Child Three’s mother regarding
the nature of his disabilities when he was in primary and middle school;
• By failing to follow-up with agreed upon positive behavior interventions
following the first evaluation of Child Three;
• By failing to re-evaluate Child Three once he began having great difficulty with
the adjustment to high school and only seeking to punish him using beyond
control charges in the court system.
• By requiring Child Three’s mother to complete a complicated form not
appropriate for a parent before agreeing to meet concerning her original written
request for services.
10
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Three may be a child with a disability at least since his freshman year of high school in
2007. However, due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the identification, referral, and
evaluation requirements of the IDEA, Child Three has been deprived of his right to a free
and appropriate public education from that date until the school system met concerning
Child Three in January 2009.
D. CHILD FOUR
Child Four is in the tenth grade at Martin Luther King Academy for Excellence
(hereinafter “MLK”).12 She has been at MLK since the seventh grade, except for one
brief stint at a Day Treatment and another at a school system in another county. Child
Four’s problems in school began when she was in kindergarten when she would jump on
her teacher’s back and pull her teacher’s hair. When Child Four was in third grade, she
threw a chair at her teacher. When she was in fourth and fifth grade, she often fought
with other girls and cussed out her teacher. She reports that in sixth grade, when she
attended Winburn Middle School, she would get in a fight with another student almost
every day. Thus, Child Four was moved to Leestown Middle School for the second half
of sixth grade. In seventh grade, Child Four was moved to Morton Middle School where
she pushed a teacher. It was at this time that Child Four was moved to MLK. When
Child Four was thirteen years old, she was hospitalized at Good Samaritan Hospital for
for depression and anger issues. She remained in the hospital for seven days. ”Child
Four’s court records from May 2007 reflect that Child Four’s mother wanted her to be
identified as “’Behavior Disordered” so that the school would help Child Four work
through her anger issues.
Child Four has spent more than two years at MLK. Child Four reports that some of the
students would rather attend MLK than a regular high school because MLK is “so much
easier.” She says that in most of her classes, she is given one worksheet to work on each
day and that she never has homework. Nonetheless, Child Four is currently failing all of
her classes. (Ex. J). During the 2007-2008 school year, Child Four was suspended for 21
days. Her discipline records from the 2008-2009 school year are equally troubling. (Ex.
K). At some point, according to her court records, MLK personnel even referred Child
Four for counseling “due to anger issues.” These records, in themselves, establish a basis
for evaluating Child Four for special education services and positive behavior
intervention. 13
Instead of receiving positive behavioral intervention, Child Four has found the
environment at MLK to be verbally, physically and emotionally abusive. Child Four also
reports that physical confrontation between the staff and students are common at MLK.
12
MLK was established as an A-5 program by FCPS where “students are placed because of behavior issues
at other schools.” http://www.fcps.net/schools/others/martin-luther-king-jr-academy
13
CLC requested all of Child Four’s educational records on January 26, 2009 but was only provided with
2008-2009 disciplinary records pertaining to her time at MLK and 1997 special education records for
preschool. The secretary at MLK, responsible for records retrieval, advised CLC that she could not secure
any other records.
11
She states that MLK staff members often provoke students to get them into trouble. For
example, an MLK staff member once pushed Child Four out of her desk for no reason.
When Child Four explained that she had not done anything wrong and asked him why he
had done that, she was told that he could punish her just because she was a student at
MLK. She also reports that another student was taken to the emergency room for a neck
injury after she was restrained and sat on by MLK staff. Child Four also reports that
MLK staff members tease and taunt her and encourage the other students to taunt her as
well. For example, on February 19, 2009, a staff member told the other students that they
should not touch Child Four’s coat because it was roach-infested. Child Four has been
treated this way at MLK even though she has been hospitalized for depression and anger
issues.
In sum, FCPS violated Child Four’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to evaluate Child Four despite evidence that Child Four may suffer
from an emotional or behavioral disability;
• By failing to use any positive behavior interventions with Child Four and instead
punishing her by sending her to MLK and establishing no plan for her release and
no consideration of her need for special education services.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Four may be a child with a disability since Child Four was in kindergarten in 1988.
However, due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the identification, referral, and evaluation
requirements of the IDEA, Child Four has been deprived of her right to a free and
appropriate public education since that time.
E. CHILD FIVE
The earliest records provided to the Children’s Law Center regarding Child Five begin
when he was in the fifth grade. Child Five received multiple discipline referrals during
this 2003-2004 school year. One such referral was for having an “explosive fit” in the
classroom. His other referrals that year were for disrespect, defiance, and profanity.
During the 2006-2007 school year, when Child Five was in the eighth grade, he was
suspended 22 days.14 At some point during his eighth grade year, Child Five was moved
from Winburn Middle School to MLK. There is no evidence suggesting that any positive
interventions were put in place either before Child Five was transferred to MLK or while
he was there.
Child Five was enrolled in 9th grade at Dunbar High School. During his first semester at
Dunbar, Child Five failed four of his eight class. During his second semester there, he
failed every class. (Ex. L). For the 2008-2009 school year, Child Five was re-enrolled in
the ninth grade at Lafayette High School. During the first semester of that year, Child
Five again failed every class in which he was placed. (Id.). When the Children’s Law
Center requested special education records for Child Five, it was informed that no such
records existed.
14
There is a gap in the records provided to CLC regarding Child Five. The CLC received no records prior
to his fifth grade year and no discipline records for his sixth and seventh grade years.
12
Child Five has been referred to the juvenile justice system for habitual truancy and for
being beyond control of school. According to Child Five’s court records, a mental health
professional who treated Child Five stated that the reason that he often does not attend
school is because he has a cognitive disability and has not been placed in “appropriate
classes.”
In sum, FCPS has violated Child Five’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to identify, refer or evaluate Child Five as a child with a suspected
disability despite Child Five’s manifestation of severe behaviors, at least since the
since the fifth grade, and his consistently failing grades.
• By failing to put in place any positive behavior interventions to assist Child Five
and instead only filing charges against him through the court system.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Five may be a child with a disability. Due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the
identification, referral, and evaluation requirements of the IDEA, Child Five has been
deprived of his right to a free and appropriate public education since the 2003 – 2004
school year.
F. CHILD SIX
Child Six is in the ninth grade and is enrolled in an FCPS alternative program called
AIM. He receives special education under the designation of Other Health Impairment.
Child Six has been diagnosed with ADHD, Tourette’s Syndrome with Obsessive
Compulsive features, and Social Anxiety. His treating psychiatrist also believes he has an
undiagnosed reading disability. These disabilities impact Child Six’s maturity level and
make him even more susceptible than the average teen to peer influence.
Child Six attended elementary school at Breckinridge. Though the teachers frequently
complained to Child Six’s mother about his inability to stay on task, she was not told of
any additional assistance that might be provided to help her son and no positive
interventions were put in place.
Child Six’s mother first sought special education assistance for her son when he was in
eighth grade at Edith J.Hayes Middle School in the spring of 2007. Child Six had ten
disciplinary referrals resulting in in-school suspensions, after-school detentions, and outof school suspensions while at Edith J. Hayes. In April of 2007 he was charged with
Assault 4th and consequently hospitalized at Good Samaritan for uncontrollable rage.
It was only at the behest of his mother, after her son was hospitalized and staff at Good
Samaritan urged Child Six’s mother to seek special education assistance, informing her
of her son’s rights under federal law, that Child Six’s mother pled with the school for
help. Initially, her requests in the spring of 2007 were rebuffed by the assistant principal
at Edith J. Hayes. This administrator’s primary form of intervention with Child Six was
to yell at him a lot. Despite the fact that Child Six’s behavior must have frustrated the
13
assistant principal such that he lost his temper frequently with the middle-schooler, he
never suggested that Child Six’s mother seek to have her son evaluated, never made a
referral himself, and in fact, thwarted her efforts to have her son helped. Consequently,
Edith J. Hayes and FCPS did not begin the evaluation process for Child Six until the end
of his eighth grade year. Because the school year was close to an end, FCPS
administrators said they would wait until Child Six was in high school to develop and
implement an IEP.
Yet, during the 2007-2008 academic year, when Child Six was enrolled at Henry Clay
High School, his mother again encountered a delay. The high school knew nothing of
what had been done at Edith J. Hays. No IEP was put in place. Child Six encountered
significant challenges in performing according to the expectations of the school and
unnecessarily started out on very bad footing in his new environment. Administrators
quickly turned against the student as they lacked any understanding of his disabilities.
Child Six’s mother persisted despite these obstacles and finally an Integrated Report was
prepared December 4, 2007 and an IEP was established for her son, though a great deal
of damage was done to his reputation with this delay.
As a result of bringing a prescription bottle of his own medicine to school upon the
repeated badgering of a classmate for Child Six to share his prescription drugs, Child
Six’s mother sought the assistance of the Children’s Law Center and the child was
ultimately transferred to AIM. He is succeeding in this academic environment.
In sum, FCPS violated Child Six’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to identify and evaluate Child Six given his difficulties in school from
elementary school through high school and failing to provide positive behavior
interventions during that time frame when he was not identified but should have
been;
• By failing to timely conclude the evaluation process for Child Six from the time
his mother sought an evaluation in April of 2007 to the completion of the
Integrated Report in December 2007 and the subsequent creation of an IEP.
Based upon federal and state law and regulation, FCPS was on notice that Child Six was
a child with a disability in need of services at least since his middle school years.
However, due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the identification, referral, and evaluation
requirements of the IDEA, Child Six has been deprived of his right to a free and
appropriate public education since at least 2002.
G. CHILD SEVEN
Child Seven is seventeen years old and lives with his grandmother. He is in the ninth
grade for the second consecutive year at Martin Luther King Jr. Academy for Excellence.
Child Seven was retained in the third and sixth grades as well. He was moved to the 9th
grade after working on PLATO. He has struggled significantly with reading during his
academic career. His records and the reports of his grandmother and medical doctor
reflect that Child Seven has evidenced traits of ADHD all through his school years. Child
14
Seven has also exhibited behavioral difficulties across a spectrum of environments which
have impacted his success at school. His grandmother and his teachers indicated that he
exhibited oppositional defiant disorder, cognitive problems, inattention and hyperactivity.
Though his records reflect that he was evaluated in October 2006, when he attended
Lexington Traditional Magnet School (LTMS), and that it was determined that Child
Seven should receive special education, no action was taken because his guardian was not
at the meeting. The records do not reflect any follow-up with his grandmother who had
custody of her grandson. As a result, no eligibility for special education was determined,
and Child Seven never received any services.
Child Seven was placed at Lafayette High School for ninth grade. While at Lafayette,
Child Seven got in a fight with another student and was immediately transferred to MLK.
No effort was made to hold an ARC or consider positive behavioral interventions at the
time of transfer. In the fall of 2007, after he was placed at MLK, Child Seven’s
grandmother had Child Seven evaluated by a psychiatrist at Bluegrass Regional Mental
Health-Mental Retardation Board. The psychiatrist explained what special education was
to Child Seven’s grandmother and encouraged her to seek services from the FCPS. The
grandmother approached staff at MLK about her grandson’s need for intervention. MLK
had no information about the earlier evaluation and no paperwork. The grandmother had
a copy of the evaluation done of her grandson while at Lexington Traditional Magnet and
brought that to the Special Education staff at MLK and asked for a meeting in September
2007. (Ex. M).
Subsequently, two months later a meeting was held on November 12, 2007, at which it
was determined that Child Seven qualified for special educational services under the
designation of OHI. Had the school system made an effort to reach out to Child Seven’s
grandmother and explain how Child Seven could benefit from special educational
services, Child Seven’s grandmother would have consented to these services. Instead,
the school system took the first opportunity available to it to transfer Child Seven to its
disciplinary school (“MLK”) and kept him in that program without a plan to return him to
his regular school.
In sum, FCPS has violated Child Seven’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to make an effort to communicate with Child Seven’s guardian after
the evaluation at LTMS;
• By failing to pursue positive behavior interventions when Child Seven was
involved in one fight at Lafayette and instead automatically transferring him to
MLK in violation of FCPS own school code of conduct;
• By failing to locate and review Child Seven’s earlier evaluation at LTMS once
Child Seven was transferred to the disciplinary program at MLK;
• By delaying unnecessarily for an additional two months from the date Child
Seven’s guardian brought his earlier Integrated Report and papers reflecting his
earlier identification to MLK to the date an ARC meeting was held and he was
determined to qualify for special education services.
15
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Seven may have been a child with a disability. Due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the
identification, referral, and evaluation requirements of the IDEA, Child Seven was
deprived of his right to a free and appropriate public education since the 2006-2007
academic year.
H. CHILD EIGHT
Child Eight is eighteen years old. She has spent her last four years in the ninth grade at
Martin Luther King Academy for Excellence. Child Eight’s grandmother and guardian
describes her child as “slow” with respect to her education. Child Eight recalls that when
she was in elementary school, she would often be pulled out of class for math and
reading. When Child Eight was in the sixth grade, she began having behavior problems at
school. Her grandmother believes that Child Eight’s behavior problems were related to
Child Eight’s frustration with her academic difficulties. Child Eight’s grandmother
moved Child Eight to Day Treatment for seventh and eighth grade.
Child Eight began ninth grade at Bryan Station High School. At that time, Child Eight’s
grandmother advised Bryan Station of Child Eight’s academic and behavioral history and
expressed concern that Bryan Station would overwhelm Child Eight. She asked that a
plan be put in place to help Child Eight transition from the small and highly structured
environment of Day Treatment to the large public high school. Despite her repeated
requests, Child Eight’s grandmother does not believe that anything was done to support
Child Eight in this transition and, shortly after school began, Child Eight was involved in
two fights. FCPS then placed her at MLK.
During Child Eight’s four years in the ninth grade at MLK, she has witnessed much.
According to Child Eight, only one of her teachers actually taught – the others simply
passed out work to be completed during class. Child Eight has also seen a student
slammed into a wall by the staff at MLK and another student’s head slammed against a
bus mirror by MLK staff. When Child Eight, herself, was eight months pregnant, an
MLK staff person slammed Child Eight up against the wall and pinned her arms back
because she had offered to place her cousin’s coat in her locker since her cousin was a
new student with a developmental disability, who did not yet have her own locker. Child
Eight has also heard the principal of MLK tell students they “are never going to amount
to anything” and that they all “might as well go home.” She has seen MLK staff
deliberately agitate students so that the students would erupt and could then be
suspended. She has heard teachers tell students to “get the f—k out of” of their class.
Child Eight turned eighteen on December 28, 2008. On the first day of school following
Christmas break, Child Eight was called into the office at MLK. She was told that she
had to withdraw from school since she had turned eighteen. At this meeting, a withdrawal
form was handed to Child Eight and she was told to initial it. She did as she was told and
then left the school. Neither she, nor her grandmother had received prior notice of this
forced dismissal.
16
Thus, after spending four years in the ninth grade at MLK, Child Eight was told that she
could no longer attend school. Further, despite Child Eight’s grandmother’s frequent
requests for “help,” and the fact that Child Eight remained in the ninth grade at MLK for
four years, Child Eight never received any special education services at MLK. Child
Eight and her mother are now working without the assistance of FCPS to secure a GED
for Child Eight.
In sum, FCPS has violated Child Eight’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to identify, refer, and evaluate Child Eight for special education despite
evidence that Child Eight may suffer a disability;
• By failing to use any positive behavior interventions with Child Eight and instead
punishing her by sending her to MLK and establishing no plan for her release and
no consideration of her need for special education services.
• By requiring Child Eight to withdraw from school when she turned eighteen.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Eight may have been a child with a disability. Due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the
identification, referral, and evaluation requirements of the IDEA, Child Eight was
deprived of her right to a free and appropriate public education since at least the
beginning of her high school experience in the 2005-2006 academic year.
PART TWO: FCPS HAS VIOLATED THE IDEA BY FAILING TO ENSURE
THAT MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES WHO MANIFEST BEHAVIORAL ISSUES ARE
RECEIVING A FREE AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION
The second set of claims against FCPS include individual and class wide claims on behalf
of six Petitioners (hereinafter “the FAPE Petitioners”) and all similarly situated FAPE
students currently enrolled in a FCPS middle or high school, or the MLK alternative
program who manifest behavioral issues which subject them to repeated disciplinary
action including, but not limited to, court referrals, in-school suspensions, out of school
suspensions, placement in alternative schools.
Children with disabilities who manifest behavioral issues are far more likely than other
children to end up in juvenile detention facilities –and eventually adult prison. Seven of
every 10 children in the juvenile justice system nationwide have some kind of
educational disability. Indeed, children with an emotional disability are three times more
likely than their peers to be arrested before leaving school. Further, emotionally disabled
students drop out of school at alarmingly high rates and almost three-fourths of those who
drop out are arrested within five years. It is imperative that we serve these children as the
law requires. See Quinn, Mary Magee, Rutherford, Robert B., Leone, Peter B., Osher,
David M. Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, Vol 71,
No. 3 (Council for Exceptional Children 2005).
Part Two of this complaint is brought on behalf of individuals in FCPS middle and high
schools or alternative programs who have been identified as having a disability, who
17
manifest behavioral issues and who have not received consistent positive behavioral
intervention and who, instead, have been subjected to repeated and/or harsh,
unproductive disciplinary actions, including placement in a disciplinary alternative
program (Martin Luther King, Jr. Academy for Excellence) and repeated referrals to the
juvenile justice system.
I. CLASS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF FAPE PETITIONERS AND ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED DISABLED STUDENTS
FCPS has engaged in an on-going and systemic pattern of violating the procedural and
substantive rights of the Petitioners and similarly situated disabled students by failing to
provide them with a “free and appropriate education” (“FAPE”) under the IDEA.
The IDEA ensures that all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate
public education (“FAPE”) designed to meet their unique needs, and protects the rights of
children with disabilities to receive a FAPE.15 The ultimate responsibility for ensuring
that IDEA obligations are met rests with the state education agency. See, 20 U.S.C.
§1412(a)(11). The state agency in this matter is the Kentucky Department of Education.
Regulations adopted to implement IDEA require each responsible state agency to ensure
that each local educational authority establishes and implements all obligations dictated
by IDEA. 34 C.F.R. §300.350. For the purposes of this Class Complaint, FCPS is the
local educational agency (“LEA”) in question.
On behalf of the FAPE Petitioners and all similarly situated middle and high school
special education students, undersigned counsel make the following class claims:
1. Failure to Comply with the IDEA’s Disciplinary Provisions, including the
development of positive behavioral intervention plans targeting positive
behavioral change
2. Failure to Provide Education Services in the Least Restrictive Environment
3. Failure to Provide Program Options
4. Failure to Provide Nonacademic Services
5. Failure to Develop an Appropriate IEP
6. Failure to Provide Sufficient Related Services
7. Failure to Confer Educational Benefit
A. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IDEA’S DISCIPLINE PROVISIONS
FCPS has denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated FAPE students, their
right to a free and appropriate public education by failing to comply with the IDEA’s
disciplinary regulations requiring specific protocol to be followed when imposing any
disciplinary action, including in-school discipline and court referrals, against exceptional
students with obvious and inherent emotional and/or behavioral problems that adversely
affect the students’ educational performance. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(6); 34 C.F.R. §§
300.107, 300.121, 530-536; 707 KAR 1:340.
15
20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq.
18
FCPS middle and high schools are required to comply with the IDEA’s discipline
provisions involving students with disabilities who have been removed from their
educational placement for more than 10 school days within a school year.16 These
provisions require FCPS middle and high schools to conduct Manifestation
Determinations within 10 days of such referrals and/or removals; to conduct the
Manifestation Determinations in good faith; to furnish on-going educational services that
enable students with disabilities to continue to participate in the general education
curriculum and to progress toward meeting their individual IEP goals; to have IEP
committees conduct appropriate functional behavior assessments (hereinafter FBA); and
to draft, review, and/or modify behavior intervention plans, as necessary, to include
positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports, as necessary. See 20 U.S.C. §
1415(k)(1)(A)-(H); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107, 300.121, 530-536; Bulletin Subpart A §519;
707 KAR 1:340.
The FAPE Petitioners’ educational records establish that FCPS middle and high schools
are skirting the IDEA’s disciplinary prohibitions by placing students in alternative
programs and the juvenile justice system to punish students with disabilities since the
schools themselves cannot impose long-term suspensions or expulsions on such students
under the IDEA. FCPS’s use of its punitive alternative program and the juvenile justice
system in this manner is a violation of rights of the Petitioners, and all similarly situated
students, under the IDEA. Indeed, the records of the FAPE Petitioners establish that their
placements in MLK and/or their referrals to juvenile court were disciplinary actions
taken after the Petitioners had engaged in misbehavior and reflect the choice of action
taken, rather than any effort at positive behavioral intervention, functional behavioral
assessment or other intervention. As such, FCPS violated the IDEA’s disciplinary
provisions each time it placed an FAPE Petitioner in an alternative educational setting
(MLK) and/or referred him/her to juvenile court without first conducting a Manifestation
Determination. If a Manifestation Determination had been conducted and it was
concluded that the Petitioner’s misbehavior was substantially related to his/her disability,
then the Petitioner could not have been removed from his/her current placement and into
an alternative program. Such a finding would also have meant that FCPS was required to
conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment and to develop a positive behavioral
intervention plan targeting positive behavioral change.
Another related alarming fact is that despite the IDEA’s protective disciplinary
provisions, an August 2008 Suspension Matrix Report by the Fayette County Schools
Equity Council shows that while special education students made up only 7.08% of the
high school student population during 2006-2007 school year, they accounted for
12.85% of high school suspensions; and, similarly, while special education students made
up only 9.42% of the of middle school student population, they accounted for 16.56% of
16
MLK students, former staff and parents report that MLK has a pattern of sending children home during
the school day and do not record the directive as a suspension. Frequently, they do not notify the parents
when the child is sent home. The child is given a token, called “jingle jangle” by staff to ride the city bus
home mid-day.
19
middle school suspensions.17 These disparities reflect that rather than adjust its behavioral
programming for students with disabilities, FCPS chooses to suspend such students
and/or transfer them to MLK and send them to the juvenile justice system. (See Ex. N).
Further review of the data, reveals that MLK reported no data on special education
suspensions for the last school year of the study, further skewing the data and leading one
to consider that the disparity may be even larger than reflected in the numbers in the
Suspension Matrix report.
B. FAILURE TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN THE LEAST
RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT
It is presumed that FCPS will contend that the FAPE Petitioners who were removed from
their placements in regular middle and high schools and moved to MLK after
misbehavior were not moved there as part of a punitive, disciplinary action, but because
MLK was the most appropriate placement for the FAPE Petitioners. If so considered,
these “placement decisions” nonetheless violate the Least Restrictive Environment
provisions of the IDEA.
FCPS middle and high schools have denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly
situated Special Education students their right to a free and appropriate public education
by failing to educate these students in the Least Restrictive Environment ( hereinafter
LRE) as required by the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(5); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107,
300.114-117; Bulletin 1706, Subpart A § 446, 448; 606 KAR 1:350.
The IDEA requires that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,
including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated
with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other
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.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(5). Further, each public agency must ensure that “a
continuum of placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for
special education and related services.” 34 C.F.R. §300.115(a). This continuum must
include instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction,
17
This report was initiated in part because the Kentucky Center for School Safety had released a report
showing that Fayette County had one of the highest suspension rates for African American students in the
state and the highest suspension rate for African American students among large school districts. (See Ex.
M). Special attention should be paid to these statistics when you cross-reference them with the racial
breakdown of students in the various public schools in Fayette County. According to data on FCPS
website, MLK has a racial breakdown of 66% African American and 30 % White. Court staff involved with
the school noted to counsel that these numbers include not only those students sent to MLK for behavioral
problems but also all the older students who attend MLK night school and work during the day but want to
secure a high school diploma as well as those students who attend MLK’s credit recovery program. If the
racial breakdown was considered for those involuntarily placed at MLK, the disparity would be even
greater. These numbers contrast with 16% African American at Lafayette, which includes the School for
the Creative and Performing Arts, 18 % African American at Dunbar, 25% African American at Tates
Creek and 44% African American at Bryan Station. The analysis is further complicated by MLK numbers
merging its program for middle school students with its program for high school students.
20
and instruction in hospitals and institutions and make provision for supplementary
services (such as a resource room and itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction
with regular class placement. 34 C.F.R. §300.115(a)-(b). Finally, in determining the
educational placement of a child with a disability, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.116, each public
agency must ensure that:
(a) the placement decision
1. Is made by a group of persons, including the parents and other persons
knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, the
placement options, and
2. Is made in conformity with LRE provisions of this subpart, including §§
300.114-300.118
(b) the child’s placement is
1. Determined at least annually
2. Is based upon the child’s IEP; and
3. Is as close as possible to the child’s home.
(c) unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the
child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if non-disabled;
(d) in selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the
child or on the quality of the services that he or she needs; and
(e) A child with a disability is not removed from education in an age-appropriate
classroom solely because of needed modifications in the general curriculum.
Additionally, in interpreting the “least restrictive provisions” of the IDEA, the Sixth
Circuit has held that even where a segregated institution is considered better for a
disabled student based upon the services that it provides, a disabled student’s placement
at such an institution violates the IDEA if the services which supposedly make the
segregated placement superior for the student “could be feasibly provided in a nonsegregated setting.” Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6th Cir. 1983).
Thus, based on these provisions, a disabled child’s placement at MLK violates the IDEA
if the placement decision is not based upon the needs of the child as determined by
his/her evaluation and upon his IEP. A disabled child’s placement at MLK also violates
these provisions if the child’s home school cannot show that it has taken sufficient steps
to accommodate the child by providing supplementary aids and services in the continuum
of placements that are less restrictive than MLK. A disabled child’s placement at MLK
violates the IDEA if an ARC has not considered the harmful effect of the placement upon
1) the child; and 2) the quality of services that he or she needs.
The FAPE Petitoners’ records reflect that FCPS’s decisions to place them at MLK were
not based upon the each Petitioner’s IEP but upon each Petitioner’s misconduct. Once
placed at MLK it has traditionally become very difficult for the child to be permitted to
leave and return to the school of origin. Though MLK reports that it has just recently
begun to review its process for student returns to regular schools, students report that
over fifty percent of their classmates have been present during their tenures at MLK.
Indeed, not one of the Petitioner’s IEP’s requires that the child be educated at MLK.
Further, there is no evidence that any consideration was given to the harmful effect that
21
MLK would have upon both the Petitioners and the quality of services he or she was
entitled to receive under the IDEA. There is also little to no evidence that FCPS
attempted to improve the support and services that each Petitioner was receiving prior to
his/her transfer to MLK. Indeed, the FAPE Petitioners records do not suggest that FCPS
either initiated or increased the accommodations, modifications, or related services –
such as counseling or social work – that each Petitioner was receiving prior to placing the
students in its most restrictive setting - MLK.
By all accounts, MLK is a highly restrictive educational setting and a child’s placement
at MLK has an extremely harmful effect upon both upon the child and the education and
services that the child receives. The students at MLK are not allowed to participate in
regular high school athletics, extra-curricular activities, or clubs. During the school day,
the students at MLK never interact with students who have not been identified as
behavior problems – almost every student at MLK was placed there for a behavioral
reason. Additionally, parents, counselors, social workers, and individuals associated with
the Fayette County Family Court have expressed concerns that MLK personnel are
extremely confrontational with the students and that verbal confrontations between staff
and students often lead to physical confrontations where students are slammed against
walls, forcibly restrained, and often injured. Indeed, MLK even employs two brothers ––
who are professional wrestlers and who reportedly take down students on a daily basis.
Further, one former School Resource Officer has stated that he was told by the principal
to arrest a child after the principal had deliberately agitated the child so that the child
would react. The principal advised the officer ahead of time of his intentions and strategy
to agitate. Other former staff members and administrators have affirmed that this type of
“baiting” routinely occurs at MLK. It has also been reported that after such physical
altercations between staff and students occur, administrators alter the reports to show that
that “proper” restraint techniques were used. Thus, understandably, many parents and
students have expressed fear of the staff at MLK.
These same individuals have also expressed concern that the staff at MLK has extremely
low expectations for their students and, thus, the students there do minimal class work
and rarely have homework. Another concern is that community social workers and
therapists are not allowed to work with their students in the classrooms at MLK, even
though they are allowed into the classrooms at regular middle and high schools. This
denial of admission and refusal to cooperate has jeopardized the ability of the Cabinet for
Health and Family Services and local social service agencies to secure Impact Plus
services for these needy, at–risk children, as one requirement of Impact Plus is that the
counseling services are provided to the child across environments. Finally, because MLK
is not defined as a “school,” but an A5 “program,” it has no Site-Based Decision-Making
Council, so parents have no input into how the facility is run, how their children are
treated or how the budget for the school is created or managed. Simply, put no external
accountability mechanisms exist to protect these children.
Our schools are to serve as the “principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural
values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
22
normally to his environment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
Alternative programs run by school systems share this obligation.
C. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROGRAM OPTIONS TO CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES PLACED IN ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS
Students, teachers and administrators at MLK acknowledge that none of the students at
MLK have the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities or clubs. FCPS has
also denied FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated Special Education students who have
been placed in alternative programs in Fayette County, their right to a free and appropriate public
education by failing to ensure that they have available to them “the variety of educational
programs, services, and curriculum as described in the Kentucky Program of Studies…that is
available to children without disabilities. These educational services may include art, music,
industrial arts, consumer and family science education, career and technical education, and other
educational services.” 707 KAR 1:290, Section 4; see also 34 C.F.R. 300.110.
Based on these provisions, a disabled child’s placement at MLK violates the IDEA and state
regulations because the students at MLK are not permitted access to the variety of education
programs, services, and curriculum as described in the Kentucky Program of Studies and
available to all students who attend FCPS’s regular middle and high schools.
D. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NONACADMIC SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITES PLACED IN ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS
FCPS has denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated Special Education students who
have been placed in alternative programs, their right to a free and appropriate public education by
failing to ensure that, as children with disabilities, they are provided an equal opportunity to
participate in the nonacademic and extracurricular activities provided to children without
disabilities.34 C.F.R. 300.107; 707 KAR 1:290 Section 5. Examples of the services and activities
that must be provided to children with disabilities include athletics, recreational activities, and
special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the LEA. Id.
Based on these provisions, a disabled child’s placement at MLK violates the IDEA because there
are no athletic programs, recreational activities, or special interests or groups or clubs available to
the students at MLK.
E. FAILURE TO DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE IEP
FCPS middle and high schools have denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated
Special Education students, their right to free and appropriate public educations by failing to
provide valid and appropriate Individualized Education Plans (hereinafter IEP) to meet
Petitioners’ individual educational needs as required by the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9);
1401(14); 1412(a)(4); 1414(d)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.22, 300.107, 300.112, 707 KAR 1:320.
A student’s IEP is required to set forth the student’s educational needs arising from their
disability and the services, strategies, and support required to provide specifically designed
instruction and related services to the students. However, as demonstrated herein, it is evident
that the Petitioners’ IEP’s were inadequate and inappropriate as so many members of the class
continued to receive frequent disciplinary referrals, and even court referrals, based on their
behavioral needs, even though this was the very issue their IEP’s were ostensibly designed to
23
address. Further, as set forth below, the FAPE Petitioners’ IEP’s were also inadequate and
inappropriate in that they failed to provide the FAPE Petitioners with any form of counseling,
social work, or psychological help specifically designed to address the emotional and/or
behavioral needs.
F. FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT RELATED SERVICES
FCPS has denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated Special Education students,
their right to a FAPE by failing to provide specially designed instruction and related services that
address the obvious and inherent behavioral characteristics and issues associated with the
classification of Emotionally and Behavior Disturbed and/or Other Health Impairment which
adversely affect the students’ educational performance. See, 20 U.S.C. §1401 (a)(26); §1412
(a)(1); §1414 (d); 34 C.F.R. §§300.34, 300.107, 300.320-324 (2006); Bulletin 1706, Subpart A
101, §440-446; 707 KAR 1:290.18
FCPS has consistently failed to provide FAPE Petitioners, and all other similarly situated FAPE
students, with appropriate behavioral programming which includes both specialized instruction
and sufficient and necessary related services such as social work, counseling, and school
psychology services tailored to address identified behavioral issues that adversely affect their
education. Indeed, FCPS has furnished Petitioners and all other similarly situated FAPE students
with woefully inadequate levels of social work, counseling, and psychological services. If
services are provided to these students, they are not tailored to the students’ individual needs, but
are instead cookie-cutter in nature. Indeed, the “available” services are often provided and/or
determined based upon the limited availability and or skill of the personnel at the school. And as
previously mentioned, the policies of FCPS with respect to MLK, keep out community and
Cabinet based social workers and result in a cut-back of services to these very children who are
most at risk.
Ultimately, the FAPE Petitioners’ academic and disciplinary records establish that FCPS failed to
provide the Petitioners, and all similarly situated students, with related services sufficient to
address the behavioral issues adversely affecting the Petitioners’ academic performance. FCPS’s
failure to provide sufficient related services has also denied them an opportunity to avoid repeated
disciplinary removals from the classroom.
G. FAILURE TO CONFER EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FCPS has denied the FAPE Petitioners, and all similarly situated FAPE students, their rights to a
FAPE by failing to provide them with an education that confers meaningful educational benefits,
as required by the IDEA. See, 20 U.S.C. §1401 (9); 34 C.F.R. §300.107, 34 C.F.R. §104.33;
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Center School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102
18
The ‘related services’ definition in the federal regulations implementing IDEA includes ‘such
developmental, corrective and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to
benefit from special education’ services and includes a list of services that are widely recognized to be
essential in assisting children with mental health and/or behavioral needs to remain in school and receive
the benefit of an education. Those services include, but are not limited to, speech-language pathology,
psychological services, psychiatric services for diagnostic and evaluation purposes, therapeutic recreation,
counseling services, school health services, social work services and parental counseling and training. 34
C.F.R. § 300.24 (2001). This list is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative, of the services schools shall
provide to a student with a disability. 34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A (2001).
24
S.Ct. 3034 (1982). All of the Petitioners are significantly behind grade level, and most if not all
Petitioners have not made meaningful academic or behavioral progress.
As set forth above, it is apparent that Petitioners and all similarly situated students are not being
given appropriate IEPs and sufficient related services in order to provide these students with an
appropriate education. In addition, the continual disciplinary action taken by FCPS against these
students often results in the students being removed from school, placed in an inappropriate
educational setting, or sentenced to juvenile detention facilities. FCPS’s treatment of these
students violates the substantive provisions of the IDEA because they have failed to educate these
students; indeed, in lieu of providing them with an appropriate education, they have suspended
them, placed them at MLK, and referred them to the juvenile justice system.
II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAPE PETITIONERS’ INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMS AND CLASS COMPLAINT
A. CHILD SEVEN
The facts concerning Child Seven in Part One in Section IV-G of the Complaint above
are incorporated herein.
Child Seven has been in the ninth grade for three years and he attends Martin Luther
King, Jr., Academy for Excellence. He has been diagnosed with ADHD and receives
special education under the designation of Other Health Impairment. Child Seven’s
cognitive functioning is in the low average range. Child Seven was moved to MLK after
a fistfight at his neighborhood high school.
FCPS violated the IDEA when it failed to consider whether Child Seven’s placement at
MLK was the least restrictive environment for him. As noted above, special education
services began for Child Seven as the result of an ARC meeting convened on November
12, 2007. This ARC, however, failed to consider whether MLK was the “least restrictive
environment” for Child Seven. There is no evidence in Child Seven’s records suggesting
that Child Seven could not succeed in a regular high school with a special education
program designed to address both his behavioral and academic needs. No evidence exists
that he was receiving any positive behavior intervention or support to help him succeed at
his regular high school.
Further, while Child Seven was at MLK, FCPS has failed to make the variety of
educational programs, services, and curriculum as described in the Kentucky Program of
Studies available to Child Seven and failed to provide nonacademic services to Child
Seven.
FCPS has also failed to develop an appropriate IEP for Child Seven. An IEP was first
developed for Child Seven on November 12, 2007 by the faculty at MLK. This IEP
contained a reading goal and a behavioral goal. During the implementation period of this
IEP, Child Seven failed Algebra, English, General Biology, and Physical Science and
was not able to transfer back to his home school. Nonetheless, when an annual review of
his IEP was conducted on November 11, 2008, his IEP was not revised in any way. (Ex.
O and P).
25
FCPS has failed to ever conduct an FBA and/or to develop a BIP for Child Seven. Child
Seven was placed at MLK after he was involved in a fight at his home school. However,
his record contains no FBA or BIP that would explain why Child Seven engaged in this
behavior or how another occurrence might be prevented. There are also no FBA’s or
BIP’s in his record designed to understand and prevent the misbehaviors at MLK that are
apparently prohibiting him from returning to his home school.
Finally, there is no evidence that Child Seven has made any meaningful academic or
behavioral progress since the development and implementation of his IEP at MLK. To
the contrary, the fact that he has been in the ninth grade for two years and his continued
placement at MLK establish that Child Seven has not made any academic or behavioral
progress.
In sum, FCPS has failed to provide Child Seven with a free appropriate education under
the IDEA :
• By failing to develop an appropriate IEP for Child Seven;
• By failing to provide education services in the least restrictive
environment;
• By failing to provide sufficient related services;
• By failing to conduct a functional behavior assessment and develop a
positive behavior intervention plan targeting positive behavioral change;
• By failing to provide program options to Child Seven at MLK;
• By failing to provide nonacademic services to Child Seven at MLK;
• By failing to confer educational benefit upon Child Seven.
B. CHILD NINE
`
Child Nine is a sixth grader who has been placed at Martin Luther King Academy by
FCPS. Child Nine has been diagnosed with pervasive development disorder and anxiety
disorder. He is regularly seen by a psychiatrist and receives services through Impact Plus.
Child Nine began receiving special education services for a developmental delay in 2003.
. However, in 2006, when he was in the third grade, Child Nine was exited from special
education for this disability because he met the exit criteria. However, at this time, he was
placed in a highly structured classroom following six instances of physical aggression.
Shortly thereafter, in March 2006, Child Nine was re-evaluated and it was determined
that he was eligible to receive special education as a child with an emotional and/or
behavioral disability. The integrated report stated that Child Nine had “difficulty with
transitioning among tasks and environments, attention to task, and proper behavior.” It
also stated that Child Nine was “easily distracted by auditory stimuli in the environment,
so he learns best in a small group or one-on-one.” The report also revealed that Child
Nine “needs warning ahead of time for any schedule changes and preparation for
transitions.” The report also indicated that Child Nine’s Full Scale IQ was 60 which is in
the Extremely Low range of functioning. Further, according to the BASC-Teacher Scale,
Child Nine’s behaviors were in the Clinically Significant Range for Adaptability,
26
Aggression, Attention Problems, Atypicality, Anxiety, Hyperactivity, and Learning
Problems. (Ex. Q, Integrated Report).
Thus, from third grade through fifth grade, Child Nine spent most of his school days in a
highly-structured classroom. However, as his behavior improved, Child Nine was
allowed to participate in some regular education classes.
When Child Nine moved to Bryan Station Middle School for the sixth grade in August
2008, Child Nine’s Impact Plus therapist advised staff members there that Child Nine
had emotional and behavioral issues and that he had been in a highly structured
classroom in elementary school. The therapist expressed her concern that Bryan Station
Middle School would overwhelm Child Nine unless appropriate supports were put in
place for him. Despite her warnings and requests, and in spite of the FCPS integrated
report which stated that Child Nine needed to be in a small group and prepared for any
transitions, Child Nine was placed in regular education classes at Bryan Station Middle
School with minimal support. As predicted by his therapist, Child Nine reacted to the
vastness and uncertainty of his new school with fear-based aggression. After Child Nine
poked another student with a pencil and pushed a staff member while upset and
attempting to leave a classroom, FCPS placed him at MLK.
Since Child Nine has been at MLK, he has repeatedly expressed his fear of the other,
“bigger” students. He has said that he is afraid the other students will hurt his teacher. He
has not, however, had one disciplinary referral since being placed in a small, highly
structured classroom at MLK.
FCPS first violated Child Nine’s rights by failing to develop and implement an
appropriate IEP for Child Nine upon his transition from elementary school to high school.
FCPS also failed Child Nine by failing to provide adequate supports and related services
to Child Nine in a continuum of less restrictive placements before placing him at MLK.
Indeed, at an ARC meeting convened following the CLC’s intervention on Child Nine’s
behalf, Child Nine’s special education teacher at MLK stated that his IEP was inadequate
and the school psychologist said it was clear that Bryan Station Middle School had failed
Child Nine. As noted above, Child Nine had succeeded in a regular elementary school
for many years because he had been placed in a classroom where he received the services
and supports that he needed. Indeed, because Child Nine received the supports and
services that he needed in that highly structured classroom, he was able to attend some
regular education classes during his school day. Indeed, because FCPS did not respond to
the information regarding Child Nine provided by his therapist and contained in his
Integrated Report, FCPS set Child Nine up for the failure that eventually occurred at
Bryan Station Middle School.
Child Nine’s placement at MLK also violates Child Nine’s rights under the IDEA
because, since he has been there, Child Nine has not received the same educational or
nonacademic opportunities that he would have received at Bryan Station Middle School.
27
Finally, although Child Nine’s movement to MLK was ostensibly a “placement”
decision, Child Nine was promptly moved to this disciplinary setting after engaging in
behavior that was undeniably a manifestation of his disability.
In sum, FCPS has failed to provide Child Nine with a free appropriate public education
under the IDEA :
• By failing to develop an appropriate IEP for Child Nine at Bryan
Station Middle School;
• By failing to provide sufficient supports and related services to Child
Nine at Bryan Station Middle School;
• By failing to provide education services in the least restrictive
environment;
• By failing to provide a variety of program options to Child Nine at
MLK; and
• By failing to provide nonacademic services to Child Nine at MLK.
C. CHILD TEN
Child Ten is a tenth grader at Lafayette High School. He has been diagnosed with
generalized anxiety disorder and school phobia. During his ninth and tenth grade years,
he often had severe panic attacks which prevented him from either attending school at all
or remaining for a full day. In Spring 2008, Lafayette referred Child Ten to the juvenile
justice system for habitual truancy. Since that time, Child Ten’s mother has attempted to
work with FCPS in the hopes that an educational program could be developed that was
designed to meet Child Ten’s emotional and educational needs. Because such a program
was never developed, Child Ten’s mother withdrew him from school in December 2008
on the day after his sixteenth birthday.
FCPS has failed to ensure that Child Ten receives a free appropriate public education.
Child Ten began receiving special education for a specific learning disability in
elementary school. However, during his ninth grade year, Child Ten was also diagnosed
with generalized anxiety disorder and school phobia. The severe panic attacks that
accompanied Child Ten’s school phobia often resulted in Child Ten being unable to
attend school and, because his mother worked, she could not take Child Ten to the doctor
to obtain a note every time this occurred. As a result, on April 8, 2008, Child Ten’s
mother received a Final Notice from the Fayette County Public Schools stating that Child
Ten could be summonsed to court because he had accumulated excessive unexcused
absences. On April 11, 2008, Child Ten’s mother advised Child Ten’s school that Child
Ten had serious problems with his GI system and with severe anxiety and that she had
been working with both Child Ten’s physician and a therapist to “come up with a more
effective treatment plan” so he would not miss so much school. At that time, she also
asked if there were any educational alternatives for Child Ten including the possibility of
home instruction.
On May 15, 2008, Child Ten’s mother sent Child Ten’s school another email stating that
his anxiety had gotten so bad that his panic attacks started either the night before school
28
or around 4 a.m. on the morning of school. Because Child Ten’s mother was so worried
that both she and Child Ten would get in trouble if Child Ten continued to miss school,
even though he had been diagnosed with school phobia, Child Ten’s mother submitted an
application for Home Instruction on May 23, 2008. (Ex. R). The form stated that Child
Ten could not attend school due to his generalized anxiety disorder and his severe panic
attacks and that he was being treated with both counseling and medication. The form was
signed by Child Ten’s physician. Child Ten’s mother’s Home Instruction application
was rejected because there were “not enough days left in the school year” and, thus,
Child Ten completely missed the last three weeks of school. (Ex. S). With the rejection of
the Home Instruction application, the child’s treating physician recommended that she
apply for Child Ten’s placement in Day Treatment for Fall 2008. However, she was told
that Day Treatment was already full for the fall semester.
Frustrated and uncertain of what she should do, Child Ten’s mother contacted the
Kentucky Department of Education, Division of Exceptional Children. An individual
there advised Child Ten’s mother that Child Ten’s IEP could and should be revised to
include accommodations for his anxiety disorder. No one at Child Ten’s school ever
mentioned or explained this important right to Child Ten’s mother. However, after
speaking to KDE, she contacted his school and asked that an ARC meeting be convened
so that Child Ten’s IEP could be revised. An ARC was convened the week before school
started. The ARC agreed that Child Ten could attend school for half-days and stay in one
special education classroom since his anxiety increased in large groups.
Despite these accommodations, however, Child Ten’s anxiety and panic attacks
continued and both his doctor and his therapist recommended that Child Ten be
hospitalized. Child Ten was admitted to The Ridge on August 29, 2008 and stayed for
one month. Upon release, Child Ten was advised that he should receive home instruction
for a period before he returned to school. The Ridge sent FCPS an application for Home
Instruction on Child Ten’s behalf but for two weeks no one from FCPS ever contacted
the family. The Ridge then resubmitted the application to FCPS. At that time, Child Ten
began receiving one hour of instruction per week for two weeks. Thus, during the four
weeks following his release from The Ridge, Child Ten received two hours of instruction
from FCPS.
Child Ten re-entered school in November, but his severe panic attacks recurred. At that
time, Child Ten’s doctor and his therapist advised Child Ten’s mother that Child Ten’s
anxiety was so severe that he could not attend school. Thus, on November 21, 2008,
Child Ten’s mother submitted another application for Home Instruction that was signed
by Child Ten’s treating physician. This application, however, was rejected because it was
deemed deficient as it had not been signed by a psychiatrist. This rejection conflicted
with
the
FCPS
policies
found
on
the
FCPS’s
website
at
http://www.fcps.net/administration/board-of-education/policies. The policy referencing
Home/Hospital Instruction states that “[b]efore granting an exemption for homebound
instruction, a signed statement from a licensed physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist, or
public health official must be submitted verifying the condition of the child that prevents
29
or renders inadvisable attendance at school or application of study for an extended time
of five (5) or more consecutive school days.”
Upon receiving this rejection, and fearful of what could happen to Child Ten or herself in
the juvenile justice system since Child Ten could not attend school and had twice been
rejected for Home Instruction, she withdrew Child Ten from school on his sixteenth
birthday – December 7, 2008.
These facts establish that FCPS has failed to develop an IEP for Child Ten which is
designed to ensure that he receives a free and appropriate public education. Although
Child Ten’s mother, physician, and therapist all recognized that Child Ten’s anxiety was
so disabling that he could not attend school and twice sought that he receive Home
Instruction, FCPS not only failed to design a special education program which included
this placement, they twice rejected Child Ten’s mother’s application for such a program
and placed Child Ten before a Family Court Judge, asserting in a court of law that Child
Ten had no defense to a charge of truancy, and that he and his mother should be held in
contempt and suffer a loss of liberty, when in fact, if the school district had met its legal
obligations, Child Ten would have received an appropriate education suitable to meet his
special needs.
In sum, FCPS has failed to provide Child Ten with a free appropriate public education
under the IDEA:
• By failing to develop an appropriate IEP for Child Ten; and
• By failing to provide sufficient related services to Child Ten.
D. CHILD ELEVEN
Child Eleven is in the ninth grade and she attends Martin Luther King Academy. She has
been diagnosed with mood disorder and bipolar disorder. She is entitled to receive special
education for an emotional-behavioral disability.
Child Eleven entered ninth grade at Bryan Station High School after spending two years
in the positive, highly structured environment of the Lexington Day Treatment facility.
Her mother believed that Child Eleven needed a great deal more support than FCPS was
willing to offer when she entered high school. After only a few months at Bryan Station,
Child Eleven was hospitalized for mental illness. Only a week after her release from the
hospital, approximately three months after beginning her ninth grade year at Bryan
Station, Child Eleven was placed at MLK. She was involuntarily transferred after she
accidentally struck a teacher when the teacher was physically redirecting Child Eleven to
make her go to the office. In resistance, Child Eleven swung her arm around and grazed
the teacher’s chin. FCPS asserted that it did not need to do a manifestation hearing prior
to her transfer because movement to MLK was not disciplinary in nature and not a more
restrictive environment. Child Eleven was not offered any other school or program to
attend.
30
Since Child Eleven has been placed at MLK, she has not received any related services,
such as counseling, and she has not had access to the range of curriculum available at a
regular Kentucky high school. She also has not had the opportunity to participate in any
of the extracurricular activities available at a regular Kentucky high school even though
she has repeatedly expressed a desire to play high school softball.
Indeed, there appear to be no positive supports in place for Child Eleven at MLK. And,
although she has had no behavioral referrals while at MLK, Child Eleven has stated that
she is too afraid to misbehave there because she has seen students physically assaulted for
misbehavior by the MLK staff, including a student being thrown against the window of a
school bus.
Child Eleven’s grades reflect little to no educational progress. The failure of FCPS to
assist Child Eleven has left her mother hopeless.
In sum, FCPS has failed to provide Child Eleven with a free appropriate public education
under the IDEA:
• By failing to develop an appropriate IEP for Child Eleven
• By failing to provide education services in the least restrictive
environment
• By failing to provide sufficient related services to Child Eleven
• By failing to provide a variety of program options to Child Eleven at
MLK
• By failing to provide nonacademic services to Child Eleven at MLK.
E. CHILD TWELVE
Child Twelve is in the eighth grade at Beaumont Middle School. He receives special
education services for a mild mental disability. In the first semester of his eighth grade
year, Child Twelve was referred to the juvenile justice system for habitual truancy and
this charge was amended to beyond control of school.
FCPS has failed to develop and implement an appropriate IEP for Child Twelve. On
November 5, 2008, a psycho-educational report was completed on Child Twelve’s behalf.
(Ex. T, Integrated Report). This report indicates that Child Twelve is not making any
progress in math in the general education curriculum. Indeed, the report states that Child
Twelve earned a higher score on the math subtest of the KTEA-II when he was in the
fifth grade.
The report also states that Child Twelve’s “low cognitive and academic ability affect his
inability to complete grade level work. Therefore, Child Twelve frustrates easily in the
regular classroom and will sometimes be disruptive and make inappropriate comments to
staff.” Despite this observation, however, Child Twelve has been placed in all regular
education classes with a special education teacher in the room for support (“collaborative
classrooms”).19 This placement, however, was not sufficient to meet Child Twelve’s
31
special education needs. Indeed, the report also notes that when Child Twelve was
observed in his regular eighth grade language arts classroom, “Child Twelve was on task
only 20% of the time and was unable to read the grade level material.” It is unclear why
Child Twelve was placed in a grade level language arts class when he can only read on a
starting first grade level.. Additionally, Child Twelve was “removed” from his regular
education collaborative pre-algebra class and moved into a “tech-ed class” because Child
Twelve’s “inability to participate successfully in that class …caus[ed] him to act out
inappropriately, creating daily disturbances…” (12/5/08 Email, Annette Wittenmyer,
math teacher). Again, it is unclear why Child Twelve was placed in pre-algebra since he
can only “minimally count money or recite multiplication facts and will often count on
his fingers for simple addition/subtraction problems.” (11/7/08 IEP). Indeed, his IEP also
states that “Child Twelve is easily frustrated by the difficulty of classroom assignments
and [has] difficulty controlling his anger….[Child Twelve] realizes that he has anger
control problems…[and he] wishes to be pleasing at school and to work hard for
assignment completion but his low academic functioning level prevents him from this
goal.” (Id.)
FCPS has also failed to provide Child Twelve with an education that confers meaningful
educational benefit. Child Twelve’s November 7, 2008,. psycho-educational evaluation
establishes that Child Twelve’s performance in math reasoning, math computation, and
written expression was lower than what he had earned three years ago. Thus, from
November 2005 through November 2008, FCPS failed to confer any educational benefit
upon Child Twelve in these areas. The same report indicates that Child Twelve had only
made “limited progress’ in reading.
FCPS also failed to conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment or to develop a
Behavior Intervention Plan for Child Twelve. Child Twelve had 11 discipline referrals in
the 2007-2008 school year and six discipline referrals in the beginning of 2008-2009
school year. A large number of these referrals were for “disruptive behavior.” However,
despite the consistency and frequency of these disciplinary referrals, there is no evidence
in Child Twelve’s school records that a Functional Behavior Assessment was ever
conducted or that Behavior Intervention Plan was developed. Nonetheless, a beyond
control of school charge was filed against Child Twelve in juvenile court for his frequent
misbehavior, which both his psycho-educational report and his IEP identify as being
caused by his placement in regular education classes which were too difficult for him.
In sum, FCPS has failed to provide Child Twelve with a free appropriate public education
under the IDEA:
• By failing to develop and implement an appropriate IEP for Child
Twelve
• By failing to confer meaning educational benefit; and
• By failing to conduct a functional behavioral assessment and develop a
positive behavior intervention plan targeting positive behavioral
change for Child Twelve.
F. CHILD SIX
32
The facts concerning Child Six in Part One in Section IV-F of the Complaint above are
incorporated herein.
When Child Six was charged at his school with transferring his prescription medicine to
another student, Henry Clay High School had a hearing to transfer him to MLK. Child
Six’s mother was advised by her psychiatrist to contact CLC for legal assistance. At the
mandatory meeting at Child Six’s school, school personnel advised that his case would be
referred to the school board for expulsion. No mention was made of the necessity for a
manifestation determination prior to taking disciplinary action. Counsel for Child Six
raised the necessity of a manifestation determination and provided citation to the relevant
regulations and FCSB policy. The special education coordinator for Henry Clay High
School, after a moment of reflection, acknowledged the need to hold this subsequent
meeting. If the assertion of this right had not been made, Child Six would have been
denied the manifestation hearing and the case would have gone to the school board for
expulsion. It took the intervention of counsel for a manifestation hearing to be held where
his actions were found to be a manifestation of his disability.
In sum, FCPS would have failed to provide Child Six with a free appropriate public
education but for the intervention of CLC and the assertion of his right to a manifestation
hearing.
PART THREE: RELIEF SOUGHT
I.
PETITIONERS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMIC RELIEF
FROM THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE
OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN, TO REDRESS FCPS’S IDEA
VIOLATIONS DELINEATED IN THIS COMPLAINT:
Petitioners are requesting district-wide and individually based relief for any violations
of IDEA found. Petitioners request that KDE appoint an independent team of experts
to investigate and make findings regarding FCPS’s compliance with the requirements
of the IDEA within the statutory timeline for the investigation of State Complaints,
i.e. sixty (60) days. Should any violations of the IDEA be found, the Petitioners
request that KDE issue a corrective action plan requiring FCPS to remedy the
systemic IDEA violations and each and every individual violation with all deliberate
speed. Petitioners request that the corrective plan include, at a minimum, the
following:
1. Appoint a nationally-recognized expert (national expert) in special education for
children who manifest behavioral issues, with expertise in positive behavioral
interventions, to oversee the development and implementation of the corrective
action plan. The national expert shall be agreed upon by undersigned counsel for
Petitioners;
2.
Ensure that the nationally-recognized expert develops and monitors the
implementation of systemic positive behavioral intervention services and
33
modifications training program that includes, but is not limited to, strategies,
objectives, and timelines for students for implementing positive behavior
intervention services in a district-wide and school-wide program; the development
of effective FBAs; and the development, implementation and necessary revisions
of BIPs; and the mechanics of conducting manifestation determinations. The
positive behavioral intervention training program shall include all pupil appraisal
staff (i.e., child study team members, including school psychologists and related
services personnel), teachers, paraprofessionals, disciplinarians, school
administrators, and other educational service providers working at schools that
serve students with disabilities and shall also include bus drivers who transport
students with disabilities to such schools. The training protocol shall also include
the active use of pupil appraisal staff for ongoing follow-up with staff in the
above-designated schools.
3. Ensure that the national expert or a team of experts reporting to the national
expert, develop a systemic Child Find program/protocol that shall include, but not
be limited to, strategies, objectives, behavioral and academic triggers (including
truancy), and timelines to identify students who may be class members and are in
need of special education and/or related services;
4. Ensure that the national expert or a team of experts reporting to the national
expert, conduct a review and/or audit of FCPS student files to identify those
students who are members of the class. Upon the expert’s identification of a
student as a member of the class, the expert(s) shall then ensure that an ARC is
convened within 30 days to determine if a referral for special education and/or
related services is warranted. Any decision made by an ARC not to evaluate a
student identified during the review and/or audit, shall be reviewed by the
expert(s), who shall then meet with the ARC separately to determine if the
decision not to evaluate the student was warranted;
5. Ensure that FCPS, with the assistance and oversight of the national expert or a
team of experts reporting to the national expert, develop and implement written
policies and procedures in accordance with the Child Find requirements of IDEA
to disseminate to faculty and staff at all FCPS schools regarding identifying,
locating, and reporting circumstances for which they must refer a student for
evaluation based upon the above-referenced Child Find protocol;
6. Ensure that FCPS, with the assistance and oversight of the national expert or a
team of experts reporting to the national expert, develop and implement written
policies and procedures in accordance with the Referral System requirements of
the IDEA to disseminate to parents and other non-district sources who may seek
to refer a child for special education. These policies and procedures should
clearly explain to parents and other non-district sources 1) that they have a right to
refer their child for special education; and 2) how they should begin the referral
process;
34
7. Ensure that the expert, or a team of experts reporting to the national expert work
with FCPS, to develop specific school system policies that are disseminated by
the Superintendent to all FCPS administrators, all school building administrators,
including principals, vice-principals, disciplinarians, special education
administrators and special education teachers, outlining and mandating strict
compliance with IDEA’s Referral and Child Find requirements, discipline
requirements, including the requirements of manifestation determinations;
provision of IEP services upon reaching the 11th cumulative day of out-of-school
suspensions; development of appropriate FBAs; development of BIPs involving
positive behavioral supports, strategies, and services; review and modification of
BIPs after every 10 days of suspensions; elimination of informal and
undocumented suspensions;
8. Compel FCPS, within sixty (60) days of the completion of the above-referenced
policies, to train all FCPS faculty and staff on the appropriate manner of
implementing the policies and procedures, as well as the federal and state law and
regulations, pertaining to the substantive and procedural requirements of IDEA;
9. Ensure that the expert or a team of experts, reporting to the national expert, in
conjunction with FCPS, within 60 days, conducts a review/audit of FCPS’s
Special Education programs for students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities and all students with disabilities who manifest behavioral issues and
are subject to repeated disciplinary actions and/or removals, including all students
placed at MLK, and to issue a report with specific recommendations for
systemically addressing these students’ behavioral programming needs;
10. Ensure that the expert or team of experts, reporting to the national expert, in
conjunction with FCPS, within 60 days, reviews and/or audit the due process and
cumulative educational files of all middle and high school students with
disabilities who have five or more disciplinary referrals this academic year or
have been referred to court for school- based misbehavior including truancy and
ensure that an ARC is convened within ninety (90) days to review, and if
necessary, amend the students’ IEPs in order to provide appropriate special
education and related services. Any decision to not convene an ARC and/or
decision by an ARC to not review and revise a student’s IEP during the review
and/or audit, shall be reviewed by the independent expert(s), who shall then meet
with the ARC separately to determine if the decision was warranted;
11. Compel FCPS to review the files and histories of all students who are currently or
have been, in the past two academic years, enrolled at MLK to determine if these
students should be evaluated pursuant to the state and federal Child Find
requirements and report the finding of these reviews to KDE;
12. Compel FCPS to significantly increase the frequency and duration of social
work/counseling/psychological related services provided to EBD students and all
other students who are subject to repeated disciplinary referrals, removals, and/or
placement in alternative school settings;
35
13. Compel FCPS to permit access by social workers and therapists, including
Impact-plus workers to students assigned such workers at MLK and any other
alternative program or school within the school system so that wrap-around
services may be provided and the students’ needs met;
14. Compel FCPS to develop with an independent expert specific strategies and
objectives for implementing intensive reading and math remediation programs for
all middle school EBD students to ensure that they are academically functioning
within one year of chronological grade level by the time they move to high
school;
15. Compel FCPS to develop appropriate disciplinary procedures in compliance with
the federal and state requirements under IDEA to timely and properly conduct
manifestation determinations;
16. Compel FCPS to develop and implement written policies and procedures that
fairly and consistently ensure that parents, guardians and/or representatives of the
parent, guardian and/or student are timely provided with a copy of the student’s
educational records when requested.
II. PETITIONERS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
FROM THE KENTUCKY BOARD OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN TO REDRESS FCPS’S INDIVIDUAL IDEA
VIOLATIONS DELINEATED IN THIS CLASS COMPLAINT:
1. Compel FCPS, within ten (10) days, to convene an ARC to refer all Child Find
Petitioners identified in this class complaint for evaluations in order to determine
whether such Petitioners qualify for special education and related services. As
undersigned counsel has been retained to represent Petitioners, FCPS shall
provide adequate notice to the undersigned for all meetings;
2. Compel FCPS to conduct expedited evaluations on Child Find Petitioners and to
immediately convene an ARC to develop and implement an appropriate IEP, in
accordance with 707 KAR 1:320, section 1, for each student determined to qualify
for special education and related services;
3. Compel FCPS to provide compensatory education, to be agreed upon by all
parties, to Child Find Petitioners, who are determined to qualify for special
education and related services, for failing to provide necessary special education
and related services during the time periods articulated herein;
4. Compel FCPS to make every effort to withdraw and/or cease any and all juvenile
court proceedings and/or disciplinary referrals against all Petitioners for any inschool behavioral issues which are or may be related to Petitioners’ suspected or
identified disabilities.
36
5. Compel FCPS, within ten (10) days, to convene an ARC to review and, if
necessary, amend each of the FAPE Petitioners’ IEPs in order to determine
appropriate special education and related services for each individual student’s
needs. As undersigned counsel has been retained to represent Petitioners, FCPS
shall provide adequate notice to the undersigned for all meetings;
6. Compel FCPS to conduct appropriate and complete functional behavioral
assessments for each FAPE Petitioner in order to develop appropriate behavior
intervention plans to address the specific behavioral challenges demonstrated by
each of the named Petitioners;
7. Compel FCPS to provide compensatory education, to be agreed upon by all
parties, to FAPE Petitioners, who have been denied appropriate special education
and/or related services during the time periods articulated herein; and
8. FCPS shall not employ any disciplinary procedures against class members which
could constitute a change in placement, including, but not limited to, referrals to
MLK or other alternative placements and/or referrals to juvenile court for
behavior which may be relevant to and/or a function of the student’s disability
and/or suspected disability during the pendency of this complaint process;
9. Compel FCPS to convene an ARC and/or manifestation determination to review
any prior disciplinary action taken against class members which were not
previously conducted.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto
Litigation Director
Children’s Law Center
Suite 1115
772 Winchester Road
Lexington, Kentucky 40505
___________________
Robyn M. Rone
Staff Attorney
Children’s Law Center
Suite 1115
772 Winchester Road
Lexington, Kentucky 40505
37
ADDENDUM 1 – CHILD EIGHT
Revised and/or updated information is in bold type and italicized.
Child Eight is eighteen years old. She has spent her last three years in the ninth grade at
Martin Luther King Academy for Excellence. Child Eight’s grandmother and guardian
describes her child as “slow” with respect to her education. Child Eight recalls that when
she was in elementary school, she would often be pulled out of class for math and
reading. When Child Eight was in the sixth grade, she began having behavior problems at
school. Her grandmother believes that Child Eight’s behavior problems were related to
Child Eight’s frustration with her academic difficulties. Child Eight’s grandmother
moved Child Eight to Day Treatment for eighth grade.
Child Eight began ninth grade at Bryan Station High School. At that time, Child Eight’s
grandmother advised Bryan Station of Child Eight’s academic and behavioral history and
expressed concern that Bryan Station would overwhelm Child Eight. She asked that a
plan be put in place to help Child Eight transition from the small and highly structured
environment of Day Treatment to the large public high school. Despite her repeated
requests, Child Eight’s grandmother does not believe that anything was done to support
Child Eight in this transition and, shortly after school began, Child Eight was involved in
two fights. FCPS then placed her at MLK. At the time, in November 2006, a social
worker from Day Treatment contacted MLK and told them that Child Eight needed to
be assessed for mental health issues. (Ex. A-1).
During Child Eight’s three years in the ninth grade at MLK, she has witnessed much.
According to Child Eight, only one of her teachers actually taught – the others simply
passed out work to be completed during class. Child Eight has also seen a student
slammed into a wall by the staff at MLK and another student’s head slammed against a
bus mirror by MLK staff. When Child Eight, herself, was eight months pregnant, an
MLK staff person slammed Child Eight up against the wall and pinned her arms back
because she had offered to place her cousin’s coat in her locker since her cousin was a
new student with a developmental disability, who did not yet have her own locker. Child
Eight has also heard the principal of MLK tell students they “are never going to amount
to anything” and that they all “might as well go home.” She has seen MLK staff
deliberately agitate students so that the students would erupt and could then be
suspended. She has heard teachers tell students to “get the f—k out of” of their class.
In the spring of 2008, Child’s Eight’s grandmother made a written referral for Child
Eight for a suspected learning disability. However, on April 25, 2008, an ARC declined
to accept Child Eight’s grandmother’s referral for special education because Child
Eight “had missed 105.5 days in the past three years and had attended three schools.”
(Ex. A-2). The ARC made this decision despite the fact Child Eight’s Alg. I reported
that her academic performance and cognitive functioning was “well below average”
(Ex. A-3) and that her Sociology teacher reported that while Child Eight “is not an
illiterate child,…I don’t think she understands a lot.”(Ex. A-4). Another teacher
stated: “[Child Eight] demonstrates great cognitive difficulties. She seldom remembers
38
from one day to the next information related to content or behavioral expectations.”
(Ex. A-5). Another document assembled at this time states that Child Eight is “hyper,”
“demonstrates great difficulty in reasoning,” and “does not seem to connect her
behavior with consequences or outcomes.” (Ex. A-6). And yet another document from
the same period states that Child Eight’s “math skills are way below average” and her
cognitive functioning is “very poor.” (Ex. A-7). The ARC also failed to note that the
reason that Child Eight had missed 40 days during the 2007-2008 school year was
because she had given birth to a baby and that these were excused absences. In sum, it
should have been clear to the ARC that even though Child Eight’s two years of failing
grades could have been explained by Child Eight’s absences if there was not evidence
establishing that Child Eight probably suffered from extremely low cognitive
functioning.
The ARC also failed to consider whether Child Eight should be identified and referred
for special education based upon an Other Health Impairment for ADHD. The meeting
minutes reflect that Child Eight was diagnosed with ADHD in 2003 and that she had
been on medication for this condition as recently as the 2006-2007 school year.
However, the meeting minutes do not reflect that two of Child Eight’s teachers had
reported that her attention in class, work habit, and work completion were “very poor.”
(Ex. A-5, A-8).
Finally, the meeting minutes reflect that the ARC noted that Child Eight had attended
three schools in three years and that she had 33 discipline referrals. Indeed, she had
been suspended for 24 days during the 2006-2007 school year. And, although Child
Eight’s behavior was severe enough to warrant this number of suspended days– which
undoubtedly had an impact on her academic progress - the ARC did not consider
whether Child Eight should be identified, referred, and evaluated as a child with a
suspected emotional-behavioral disability.
Child Eight turned eighteen on December 28, 2008. On the first day of school following
Christmas break, Child Eight was called into the office at MLK. She was told that she
had to withdraw from school since she had turned eighteen. At this meeting, a withdrawal
form was handed to Child Eight and she was told to initial it. She did as she was told and
then left the school. Neither she, nor her grandmother had received prior notice of this
forced dismissal.
Thus, after spending four years in the ninth grade at MLK, Child Eight was told that she
could no longer attend school. Further, despite Child Eight’s grandmother’s frequent
requests for “help,” and the fact that Child Eight remained in the ninth grade at MLK for
three years, Child Eight never received any special education services at MLK. Child
Eight and her mother are now working without the assistance of FCPS to secure a GED
for Child Eight.
In sum, FCPS has violated Child Eight’s rights in the following ways:
• By failing to identify, refer, and evaluate Child Eight in November 2006 for a
suspected Other Health Impairment (“OHI”) or Emotional and/or Behavioral
39
•
•
•
Disability (“EBD”) after being informed by Day Treatment that Child Eight
needed such an evaluation.
By failing to identify, refer, and evaluate special education despite evidence that
Child Eight may also suffer from a specific learning disability (“SLD”) or a
mild mental disability (“MMD”).
By failing to use any positive behavior interventions with Child Eight and instead
punishing her by sending her to MLK and establishing no plan for her release and
no consideration of her need for special education services.
By requiring Child Eight to withdraw from school when she turned eighteen.
Based upon federal and state law and regulations, FCPS has been on notice that Child
Eight may have been a child with a disability. Due to FCPS’s failure to comply with the
identification, referral, and evaluation requirements of the IDEA, Child Eight was
deprived of her right to a free and appropriate public education since at least the
beginning of her high school experience in the 2006-2007 academic year.
40
41
Way to Go
School Success
for Children with
Mental Health
Care Needs
A REPORT BY THE
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
WASHINGTON DC
MAY 2006
1101 15the Street NW
Suite 1212
Washington DC 20005-5002
202-467-5730
fax 202-223-0409
www.bazelon.org
©Copyright Washington DC 2006, Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law. Reproduction of significant portions of this report is
prohbited without explicit permission for use in advocacy or education.
Way to Go consists of this book and a folder with six fact sheets for state
and local action on behalf of school success for children with mental
health care needs. Both are available for purchase online at www.bazelon.
org/publications. The cost is $30 for the set (or separately, $25 for the
report and $10 for the folder of fact sheets) plus shipping; add $4.50
administrative charge if billing is requested. Bulk discounts are shown on
the website or email [email protected] for ordering information.
Contents
Acknowledgments
v
Introduction
1
Chapter 1: Rationale & Methodology
3
Rationale
Methodology
Chapter 2: Summary of Practices & Research Base
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
What is Positive Behavioral Support?
The Three-Tiered Approach
Functional Behavioral Assessments
Monitoring and Evaluation
Factors that Ensure PBS Success
Mental Health Systems of Care, Wraparound Services and
School Support
What Are Systems of Care?
Systems of Care: Effective Response for Children and Families
Factors that Ensure the Success of Mental Health Intervention
Schools and Mental Health
Integrating Mental Health Systems in PBS Schools
Conclusion
3
6
11
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
18
19
20
21
23
24
Chapter 3: Lessons Learned
29
Chapter 4: Making Strides: Policies for Implementation
61
Building Education-Mental Health Collaborations
Planning
PBS Implementation in Schools
Integrating Mental Health with School-Wide PBS
Systems of Care and Wraparound Services
Students with High Needs
Family Role
Improving School-Family Relationships
Family Liaisons
Family Organizations’ Role
Measuring Family Engagement
Funding Family Involvement
Student Role
Working With The Community
Training and Technical Assistance
Outcome Measurement and Reporting
Funding
Sustainability
Social Marketing
Conclusion
Step 1: Getting Ready
Interagency Collaboration
PBS as Education Policy
Mental Health System of Care Expansions
Furnishing Effective Services
30
32
34
36
39
40
40
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
47
50
53
54
56
57
62
63
64
65
65
Step 2: Building a Foundation
Building Local Expertise
Local Collaborations
Family Role
Financing
Step 3: Early Implementation
Training
Demonstration of Commitment
Policy Statement of Requirements for Local Implementation
PBS Implementation Tools
Mental Health Service Needs
Family Liaisons
Engagement of Families and Youth
Resources
Report Cards
Other Measures
Step 4: Ongoing Implementation Issues
Teacher Training
Training on Quality Mental Health Services
Self-Assessments/Quality Improvement
Funding
Engaging the Community
Report Cards and Evaluation
Step 5: Sustainability
Public Awareness
Have Patience
Role of the Federal Government
OSEP Manual
SAMHSA Manual
Financing
Outcomes
Additional Collaborators
66
67
68
68
68
69
71
71
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
75
76
78
78
79
79
79
80
80
81
82
82
85
85
86
86
86
Chapter 5: Financing
89
Conclusion
99
Action Steps on Funding
Reliable Funding Streams
Table 1
Supplemental Funding from Time-Limited Discretionary Programs
Table 2
90
91
92
94
94
Appendix 1: Site-Visit Reports
103
Appendix 2: PBS Training Tools
123
Appendix 3: Matrix of Federal Entitlements and
Block Grants
129
1. Bitterroot Valley, Montana
2. Illinois
3. Maryland
4. New Hampshire
5. New York State
6. Travis County, Texas
Schools Visited During Site Visits
PBS Policy Retreat Participants
103
105
109
112
115
117
121
122
Acknowledgments
Way to go —this report and the associated fact sheets—was
prepared by Chris Koyanagi, policy director of the Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law, policy analyst Elaine Alfano and policy associate
Elizabeth Lind, with assistance by policy intern Katy Blasingame.
Publications director Lee Carty edited and designed Way to Go.
The research for this report was funded by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. We thank them for their support and acknowledge that the
findings and conclusions presented in both this report and the fact sheets
are those of the Bazelon Center, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the foundation. Additional funding for publication of Way to Go was
supplied by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation through their generous and
much-appreciated support for the Bazelon Center’s general program.
Picture Credits
The cover photograph is by Bonnie Jacobs, from istock.com. The
drawings throughout the report are by students at two programs operated
by Washington Very Special Arts: the School for Arts in Learning (SAIL),
a public charter school in downtown Washington DC that serves children
K-12, including those with learning differences, and the ARTiculate
employment training program, where students work at least six hours
weekly in a fully functioning art studio.
We asked WVSA to invite students in both programs to create
illustrations for Way to Go. Their drawings appear throughout the
publication:
Aslan, SAIL grade 3: “I know the answer!”
Robert Blackiston, ARTiculate
Jacqueline Coleman, ARTiculate
Christine Herring, ARTiculate
Isis Hudgins, SAIL grade 3: “I love to read!”
Mark Stanton, SAIL grade 1: “I am singing with the computer.”
Jamal Williams, ARTiculate
The Bazelon Center
The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law is the
nation’s leading legal advocacy organization representing people with
mental disabilities. Since its founding in 1972, we have successfully
challenged the barriers facing adults and children who have mental
illnesses, emotional or behavioral disorders or developmental disabilities,
opening the doors to public schools, workplaces, housing and other
opportunities for life in the community.
In addition to pursuing precedent-setting litigation and national policy
reform, the Bazelon Center’s attorneys and policy staff provide technical
assistance and training to local advocates and conduct research and report
on innovative programs addressing needs of people with disabilities, such
as the positive behavior-support initiatives described in Way to Go. We also
publish a wide variety of materials explaining and interpreting federal laws
and regulations that protect the rights of and make resources available to
children and adults with mental disabilities. Many of our publications are
available on www.bazelon.org and all may be ordered through our online
bookstore.
WAY TO GO
School Success for Children
with Mental Health Care Needs
Introduction
ay to Go — praise for a child and a roadmap for policymakers. A
combination of school-wide positive behavior support and the
provision of mental health services that have strong evidence
of effectiveness (and are based on mental health system of care values) can
have a dramatic effect on children’s lives.
W
This is a policy report, laying out a new direction for child mental
health systems linked to a new movement in education. School-wide
positive behavior support (PBS), when coupled with effective mental health
services, can reduce discipline problems, improve academic performance
and enhance the school experience for all children. It can help children
who have mental health care needs function better in school and can help
schools meet the needs of children who have serious mental disorders,
including those in special education.
While the results can be impressive, implementation of such policies is
not simple. It requires both the education system and the mental health
system to use approaches that are different from usual practice. Some costs
are involved, and considerable training and technical assistance. These
approaches are best implemented through a state-level commitment, even
as they may be phased in around the state in stages.
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this report is to encourage the merging of these two
extremely positive approaches for improving children’s lives. It is
designed to enable those concerned with education policy to understand
some of the critical elements of mental health policy that will make
school-wide PBS more effective, especially for children with higher needs.
It can also help those focused on mental health policy to understand and
appreciate the value of school-wide PBS.
The recommendations in this report are based on a six-state study
of implementation of school-wide PBS integrated with mental health
system support and on the recommendations of a meeting of experts on
PBS and mental health (including families). It provides:
a rationale for using school-wide positive behavioral support
integrated with mental health services (explaining why schools,
mental health agencies and families find PBS with integrated mental
health services so helpful and effective);
a description of the methodology for this study;
a summary of the research on school-wide PBS and effective
community mental health services;
details on the lessons learned about implementing this approach from
the six case-study states; and
specific policy steps for state, local and federal governments, including
information on funding sources.
Also available is a packet of six four-page fact sheets for state and local
action, briefly summarizing:
why states and communities should implement school-wide PBS
integrated with mental health;
what PBS is and why it works;
effective mental health services integrated with schools—what
works;
the critical role of families in PBS integrated with mental health;
policies for implementation at the state level; and
policies for implementation at the local level.
2
Mark Stanton
The intent of
this report is to
encourage the
merging of two
extremely positive
approaches
for improving
children’s lives.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Chapter 1
Rationale & Methodology
Rationale
chool-wide positive behavior support (PBS) integrated with mental
health services will be adopted only if it benefits all key actors:
families and their children, schools and education systems, mental
health authorities and providers. Current research, experience and the
results of this study suggest that such initiatives can indeed be relevant
and helpful to all players. The integration of school-wide PBS with
mental health is an approach that, when done in a family-supportive
manner, can help both families and systems achieve their goals.
S
Schools
Schools must provide an environment that is safe and conducive
to learning. That is the foundation on which other programming and
support can be built so that students thrive.
Schools today face two significant needs: 1) to improve students’
academic achievement, which includes meeting the requirements of the
No Child Left Behind Act, and 2) to foster a school environment that is
conducive to learning by supporting positive connections between and
among students and adults and by addressing students’ emotional and
behavioral needs. The two challenges are linked. Addressing one will
immediately address the other and the result will, over time, significantly
improve the school environment and the job satisfaction of all who work
in the school.
Both teachers and the general public cite lack of discipline in school
as the number-one problem (including a perceived increase in drugs,
violence, gangs and weapons).1 Teachers say they feel unprepared and
need technical assistance to help them manage problem behavior.2
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
3
CHAPTER 1—RATIONALE & METHODOLOGY
In many schools, officials react to fears of violence and frustration
with the general school climate by attempting to remove persistent
troublemakers. Often these are students with serious mental disorders
who require, but do not receive, mental health services and supports.
The recent surge in zero tolerance for behavioral problems in schools3
leads many such students to lose access to quality education through
expulsions and suspensions.4 Moreover, while traditional forms of
discipline may effectively moderate some students’ behavior, others
respond to punishment by increasing the very behavior that was targeted
by the get-tough policies.5 This makes punitive discipline approaches
counterproductive. In fact, a coercive and punitive environment and
inconsistent rule-setting and applying of consequences are major
factors contributing to the persistence of problem behaviors.6 Reliance on
punishment as a management tool can promote, for example, vandalism
and disruption.7
Rigid and inflexible approaches to discipline, accordingly, do not
work. Moreover, they tend to impose disproportionate harm on students
of color and students with disabilities. In contrast, positive and relational
approaches to discipline tend to motivate students to comply with
behavioral norms.8
An emphasis on functional assessments and positive, preventive
behavioral interventions, such as school-wide PBS, reduces discipline
problems. PBS is both an alternative to traditional disciplinary measures
for students who have aggressive or self-harming behaviors, and a
proactive approach to promote positive behavior in an entire school
population. School-wide PBS has now emerged as a successful strategy
to prevent school violence, the use of alcohol and drugs, possession of
firearms and general disruptive behavior.9 The literature summarizing
studies of school-wide PBS suggests that, on average, schools with
PBS programs experience a 20- to 60-percent reduction in disciplinary
problems as well as improved social climate and academic performance.10
There is more time for student instruction and a reduction in hours
spent by teachers and administrators addressing problem behavior.11
As schools seek to meet the standards of the No Child Left Behind
Act, it is important to remember that academic, social and behavioral
problems are so connected that interventions targeting one frequently
affect the others.12 Eight of the top influences on learning relate to social
issues, including student-teacher social interactions, social-behavioral
attributes, peer groups, school culture and classroom climate.
An emphasis
on functional
assessments and
positive, preventive
behavioral
interventions
reduces discipline
problems.
Four essential elements that have been identified for a successful
school are: 1) a caring school community, 2) instruction in appropriate
behavior and social problem-solving skills, 3) positive behavior support
4
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
and 4) academic instruction.13 Effective schools foster and support high
academic and behavioral standards, making achievement in these schools
both a collective and individual phenomenon.14 Youngsters also need
to become more skilled in self-management. They need to learn how
to monitor their behavior, recognize its purpose and understand how a
chain of events can lead to escalation of negative behavior.15 PBS creates
an environment where students can learn to manage their behavior and
develop socially as well as academically. Interventions should start early.
Antisocial behavior becomes more durable and resistant to intervention
after the age of about eight.16
Aslan
PBS creates an
environment where
students can
learn to manage
their behavior
and develop
socially as well as
academically.
From the education perspective, school-wide PBS integrated with
mental health services can meet many of the objectives of policymakers,
school administrators and teachers, and make life a great deal better
for everyone in school. School-wide PBS, when backed up by effective
mental health services for children who need them:
improves the school’s learning environment;
addresses the social-emotional needs of all children;
has demonstrated that it will significantly reduce disciplines
problems;
can lead to improved academic outcomes and improved test scores,
helping schools meet the standards of No Child Left Behind;
helps children who cause frequent problems in school and for whom
no one has found an effective approach;
reduces bullying and assists its victims; and
often leads to greater family participation in school and in the child=s
education.
Mental Health
Children are an underserved group in the mental health system, with
perhaps two thirds of those in need not getting necessary treatment.17
In 1999, the U.S. Surgeon General found that schools are the largest
provider of mental health services to children and adolescents and that,
for many of those children, school is the only source of mental health
care.18 Working with schools is the best way for mental health systems to
reach children in need. Yet collaboration between mental health systems
and schools has not been easy to forge.
For mental health systems, collaborating with education around the
implementation of school-wide PBS can:
reach children who need care;
readjust the mental health system=s focus to include children at risk of
serious mental disorders as well as those already exhibiting significant
problems;
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
5
CHAPTER 1—RATIONALE & METHODOLOGY
further the goals of state and local mental health systems for
interagency collaboration through systems of care;
reduce the number of children with less severe problems who come
in for care (because prevention and early intervention practices have
worked) and allow mental health to focus attention on children with
or at risk of having significant mental health service needs;
provide an incentive for governors and legislators to fund evidencebased practice, and training and technical assistance to support it; and
provide a vehicle for supporting children served by mental health
systems whose behavior in school is disruptive to learning or
otherwise a problem.
Families
For families, school-wide PBS with integrated mental health services
can:
produce a change in attitude among school personnel with respect to
families, leading to better partnerships;
have a positive effect on their child;
reduce the number of times schools will discipline the child and
decrease referrals from school to juvenile justice;
give families guidance in addressing their child’s behavioral problems
in other settings;
strengthen interagency collaboration, ensuring that all systems with
which a child with serious mental health problems is engaged are
working in a coordinated way, with a single plan of care; and
bring in community resources, in addition to mental health, when
needed to support their child.
School-wide PBS
with integrated
Methodology
This report is based on information obtained from a literature review,
individual conversations and a meeting with experts in the field, as well
as site visits to examine initiatives selected for six case studies.
As a first step, the Bazelon Center conducted a literature review about
school-wide PBS, with a particular focus on what had been written
about collaborations between schools and mental health systems and
the integration of mental health in PBS at the state and local levels.
We also spoke with experts in the field to learn about PBS initiatives
across the country and to determine which ones fit our criteria for the
study. In addition, we e-mailed state mental health program directors
to ask if their agency had been involved in PBS and whether they had
recommendations about site visits and people to approach in their state.
6
Isis Hudgins
mental health
services can give
families guidance
in addressing their
child’s behavioral
problems in other
settings.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
In selecting the initiatives for this project, we used three criteria.
Each must be: 1) implementing PBS on a school-wide basis, 2) have
mental health system involvement in the initiative, and 3) be strongly
committed to fully implementing PBS for all children (that is, at all three
PBS levels, see Chapter 2). We looked for geographic diversity, a mix of
urban and rural schools, and some variation in the scale of initiatives.
In two of the six states we visited, Montana and Texas, we focused
on regional initiatives (with some discussion about how these fit with
the state initiative). In the other four statesCNew Hampshire, Illinois,
Maryland and New YorkCwe examined large-scale statewide initiatives,
talking to both state-level officials and those at the regional/district and
school levels.
Our objectives were
to determine what
services were offered
to children in and
out of school, and
to ascertain the
underlying dynamics
of the system change
represented by PBS.
In addition, our project team spoke with officials in a number of other
states, including Oregon, Washington, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky,
Iowa, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida and Vermont. Project staff
attended a State Leadership Forum that included national PBS experts
and leaders from nine states, a state training for new schools starting
school-wide PBS and a training focused on PBS implementation for
students with the most severe problems (Tier Three). These additional
activities helped us write the overview about school-wide PBS initiatives
nationwide and set the context for our analysis of our case-study sites.
Our objectives for the site visits were to understand better schoolwide PBS collaborations involving education and mental health,
to determine what services were offered to children in and out of
school, and to ascertain the underlying dynamics of the system
change represented by PBS. The case studies were based on individual
interviews and group meetings. Our selection criteria for informants
to interview were tailored to the sites, taking into account such factors
as the scope of the PBS initiative and the collaborative relationships
encompassed. Generally, informants included leadership at various
levels, including state-level mental health and education officials, local
mental health agencies, school-district administrators, special education
and administrative leadership in individual schools, parents, youth
and leaders of family groups such as state and local chapters of the
Federation of Families for Children=s Mental Health and parent/teacher
organizations. In our interviews, we sought to learn:
the origin and impetus for the initiative;
the roles and responsibilities of mental health;
the roles and process for engaging families and advocates;
financing arrangements;
the role for government at state, regional/district and school levels;
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
7
CHAPTER 1—RATIONALE & METHODOLOGY
infrastructure and resource needs to make PBS a durable, sustainable
initiative;
the perspectives of various stakeholders in how school-wide PBS
brought significant change to schools; and
outcomes that have been measured and how they have affected
stakeholder attitudes about discipline and disability.
From the interviews we compiled a profile of each site, and we used
the extensive information from our site visits as the basis for much of
the material in this report. In addition, we convened a two-day meeting
of:
individuals from the case-study sites, representing various stakeholder
groups, to provide the perspective from the field;
academic experts in school-based mental health, community mental
health, special education and general education;
national experts on PBS;
representatives from state and local government; and
families and advocates, including some from the study sites and some
representing national associations.
We discussed findings from the site visits, but were primarily focused
on:
recommendations for state, local and federal policies to strengthen
and support adoption and implementation of school-wide PBS
integrated with mental health;
specific roles for the mental health system to strengthen school-based
mental health prevention and intervention;
recommendations and strategies for strengthening and supporting
family involvement in PBS planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation; and
strategies that can be used to finance school-wide PBS and mental
health-school collaboration.
Way to Go presents
our perspective
as an advocacy
organization
interested in
promoting effective
practices to
ensure that schools
successfully educate
all students.
Way to Go represents the culmination of our study and presents our
perspective as an advocacy organization interested in promoting effective
practices to ensure that schools successfully educate all students,
including those with significant behavioral and emotional disorders.
8
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Notes
1
Elam, S. M., Rose, L.C. & Gallup, A.M. (1996). The third Phi Delta Kappa poll of
teachers’ attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 78(3), 244-250; and Elam,
S.M., Rose, L.C. & Gallup, A.M. (1996). 28th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of
the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 78(1), 41-59.
2
Horner, R.H., Diemer, S.M. & Brazeau, K.C. (1992). Educational support for students
with severe problem behaviors in Oregon: A descriptive analysis from the 1987-1988
school year. The Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(3), 154169.
3
Sugai, G. & Horner, R.H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive
behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130136.
4
Sugai, G. & Horner, R.H. (1999). Discipline and behavior support: Practices, pitfalls,
and promises. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10-22.
5
Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of
responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189-212; and Sugai &
Horner (1999).
6
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.
7
Ibid.
8
Osher, D., Dwyer, K. & Jimerson, S. Safe, supportive and effective schools: Promoting
school success to reduce school violence, chapter submitted for publication in The
Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: From Research to Practice, Jimerson, S. &
Furlong, M. J., Eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9
Sugai & Horner (2002).
10 Horner, R., Todd, A., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. (2004). The
school-wide evaluation tool: A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive
behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 6(1), 3-12.
11 Eber, L. (2005). Illinois 2003-2004 PBS Evaluation Report. La Grange Park: Illinois
State Board of Education, Illinois PBIS Network.
12 Barton, P. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; Skinner, C. H. & Smith, E.S. (1992).
Issues surrounding the use of self-management interventions for increasing academic
performance. School Psychology Review 21, 202-210; and Slavin, R.E. & Fashola, O.S.
(1998). Show me the evidence: Proven & promising programs for America’s schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13 Osher, D., Dwyer, K. & Jackson, S. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools:
Step by Step. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
14 Osher et al., submitted.
15 Mayer (1995).
16 Ibid.
17 Mandersheid, R.W., & Sonnenschein, M.A. (Eds.) (1996). Mental Health, United
States, 1996. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental
Health Services.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
9
18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A Report
of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental
Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.
10
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Chapter 2
Summary of Practices & Research Base
he policies presented in this report have three elements:
1) implementation of school-wide positive behavior support
(PBS) in schools (preferably including all schools in the district—
elementary, middle and secondary);
2) implementation of a system of care approach and philosophy (such
as strengths-based, culturally competent, family-driven services) using
mental health interventions that have strong evidence of effectiveness;
and
3) collaborations between state special and general education and mental
health authorities and between local mental health systems and schools.
T
Before considering these elements, it is important to understand
school-wide positive behavior support and mental health systems of care
and the research that underpins them.
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
School-wide PBS is not a specific practice, curriculum or model, nor is
it a segregated problem-solving program or intervention applicable only
to special-needs students. It is a systematic approach that transforms
the way schools operate. PBS is based on behavioral and biomedical
research into human behavior over many decades.1 The research suggests
that, when PBS is applied in the school setting, teachers and schools can
proactively reduce the incidence of problem behavior and successfully use
alternatives to punishment.
PBS is also embedded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), the federal special education law. Federal regulations
require behavioral assessments and appropriate interventions prior
to disciplining children with disabilities whose behaviors are a
manifestation of their disability. The law also requires the school to
consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and support and
other strategies to address that behavior.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
11
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
What is Positive Behavioral Support?
In general terms, PBS improves student behavior by reinforcing
desired behavior and eliminating inadvertent reinforcements for problem
behavior. For students with significant behavior problems, this requires
understanding the reason for the behavior and addressing the underlying
cause. Once problem behaviors no longer achieve their intended
purposes, schools find that individual students and groups of students
typically abandon them.
Avoid DuEling Models
PBS acknowledges that student functioning in school, home and
community requires an array of behavioral skills and competencies that
can be effectively taught. Even if ample clinical office time is available,
however, these skills are not readily learned in a clinical setting. It may
be more effective to teach them in the school, home and community,
where there are opportunities for ongoing reinforcement and practice—
two crucial ingredients for success.
excited about school-wide
PBS involves a broad range of systemic and individualized strategies
for achieving important social and learning outcomes.2 It provides a
general approach to preventing problem behavior and an organizing
framework that is deliberative and reliant on a data-driven decisionmaking process. It assumes that the majority of students will behave
well if we take the trouble to teach them and supervise them in a
consistent manner.3
PBS can be seen as the platform on which other important and
related programming is built. For example, programs that promote socialemotional learning and youth development can be more effective in a
school with a climate of respect.
Key features of effective programs include:4
a prevention-focused continuum of support;
proactive instructional approaches to teaching and improving social
behaviors;
conceptually sound and empirically validated practices;
systems change to support effective practices; and
data-based decision-making.
Mental health advocates
and policymakers are
PBS because it holds the
potential for schools to
address children’s socialemotional development and
mental health needs.
PBS is a promising approach
that can facilitate integration
of several school initiatives
(or programs) that provide
social-emotional learning
or specific, individualized
services for children who
have difficulties.
But PBS, if implemented
narrowly, can leave
significant gaps in terms of
children’s social-emotional
development and skills.
Instead of viewing the various
programs in these areas as
competing, schools should
look to design a holistic
approach that meets the
needs of all school children.
Applied school-wide, PBS creates sustainable team-based systems
that rely on collaboration. Assessment, decision-making and strategy
implementation involve all adults in the school. PBS thus promotes the
view that the school is an inclusive community of instructors.
All school personnel become aware of the school’s behavioral
expectations and all students know these expectations and possess the
requisite skills to meet them. Expected behaviors are defined, taught
12
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
and supported and students who display these expected behaviors
receive recognition.5 The emphasis on respect is particularly useful in
ensuring that students with challenges are not targeted for bullying.
Teachers recognize and reinforce expected behavior or correct violations
immediately, using positive reinforcement. They must also enforce rules
consistently and keep students engaged.6 All staff provide consistent
feedback, something that is particularly important for students with
emotional and behavioral problems. Some students receive individualized
interventions as needed.
Preparing for
School-Wide PBS
In preparing to implement
PBS, the behavior support
team develops:
z a statement of purpose;
z school-wide expectations;
z procedures for teaching
school-wide expectations;
z a continuum of procedures
for encouraging school-wide
expectations;
z a continuum of procedures
for discouraging problem
behaviors; and
z procedures for monitoring
the impact of school-wide PBS
implementation.
Critical to implementation at the school level is the school-wide
leadership team, also known as the behavior-support team. This group
includes special and general education teachers, educational assistants,
support staff, administrators, parents, youth, guidance counselors
and school psychologists. In an integrated model, the team will have
representatives from community mental health to help guide the process.
The team is responsible for planning, policies and procedures for action
(see sidebar), and problem-solving. The team meets regularly, identifies
problem areas and designs universal interventions to prevent undesirable
behavior.
This group is also responsible for organizing a team to address the
needs of students who require more support (students in Tier Two,
described below) and for creating a process to convene an individualized
team for the small number of students who require individual behaviorsupport plans (students in Tier Three, described below).
PBS initiatives require provision of significant training and technical
assistance. School districts or states can tap into a network of national
resources for this support. Schools also need specially trained personnel
(in-school coaches) to help them translate their training experience into
practice. These individuals are generally drawn from existing school staff,
and each district or region typically has group-training and peer-learning
opportunities for the in-school coaches. The in-school coach (sometimes
called the school PBS coordinator) helps to guide PBS implementation,
ensuring that it is implemented with integrity and that the school is
engaged in self-assessment and is using data to guide decisions. The
coach is also alert to emerging needs for outside consultation and
training and helps to facilitate that process.
External coaches are also utilized. A key concept in school-wide
PBS is the need for ongoing training and technical assistance for school
personnel. External coaches are generally assigned to a number of schools
in a district or a region. They have had special training and are connected
to either a statewide or a district coaching network, established by
state or district leaders in PBS implementation. With a multi-school
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
13
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
perspective, they collaborate with the in-school coaches and provide
feedback to state, regional and district teams and guidance for individual
schools.
Desired outcomes for students include improved academic success,
fewer discipline problems, increased participation in community life,
improved social relationships and increased personal competency. These
objectives are accomplished through strategies such as person-centered
planning and mobilizing natural supports through effective teamwork.7
Achievement of good outcomes depends on the school’s organizational
working structures, policies and guiding principles, operating routines,
resource supports, staff/professional development and administrative
leadership.8
PBS can reach beyond the school domain, affecting how families
interact at home. Families who are involved in and educated about PBS
and the expectations about student behavior may change ineffective
disciplinary approaches when they see how well a positive approach has
worked in school. Although having consistent messages and expectations
in both school and home environments is important to all students,
consistency can be particularly important for students with behavioral
problems and/or learning disabilities.
PBS can—and
should—reach
beyond the
school domain,
affecting how
The Three-Tiered Approach
families interact
PBS uses an approach adapted from the public health field: a
three-tiered system of prevention and support, each tier more focused
and intensive than the previous level.9 PBS can therefore address the
behavioral needs of all students, including those who are at risk and
those already exhibiting challenging behaviors.
at home.
For the general student body (Tier One)—roughly 80 percent of
students—school-wide PBS, if implemented effectively, will be sufficient.
However, the children who do not respond to universal methods
need more specialized attention. Five to 15 percent of students (Tier
Two) respond to additional group strategies. Another 3 to 7 percent of
students who present the most challenging behavior (Tier Three) should
be involved in a home, school and community plan for individualized
services and techniques.10 Often these are children with serious mental
disorders and extreme functional impairment.11
Tier One, the universal level, assumes that every child will benefit
from behavioral support.12 PBS teaches appropriate behavior and creates
a social environment that reinforces positive behaviors and discourages
unacceptable behaviors. All adults in the school are involved in
monitoring and support, and all children are targeted.
14
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
The Functional
Assessment
The functional assessment
process includes:
z a clear description of the
problem behaviors;
z events, times and
situations that predict when
behaviors will and will not
occur;
z consequences that
maintain the problem
behaviors;
z summary statements or
hypotheses; and
z direct observations to
support the hypotheses.17
With PBS in place school-wide, it becomes easier to identify students
who require early interventions to keep problem behaviors from
becoming habitual. Tier Two, the targeted intervention level, serves
students who have behavioral problems, including those in special
education classrooms,13 but who do not need the most intensive,
individual interventions. These students may have social histories that
place them at risk (such as poor academic performance, limited support
from family and community, poverty and disability) and are less likely
to have garnered protective supports that may help them better weather
the risks.14 Without effective secondary prevention interventions, they
may progress to needing intensive interventions. Assessment, decisionmaking and strategy implementation are undertaken, generally for small
groups but sometimes for individuals. The team responsible for targeted
group interventions meets regularly within the school and with students
and parents to make sure that the intervention is appropriate and
consistent.15
Tier Three targets students with the most intensive behavioral
support needs and for whom the primary and secondary strategies have
proved insufficient. To meet these students’ needs effectively, schools
must partner with mental health and other child-serving agencies
and with the child’s family. For students in Tier Three, PBS must be
coupled with intensive wraparound services and functional behavioral
assessments.
Through these multiple levels all students can receive appropriate
attention, improve their behavior and benefit from their education.
Functional Behavioral Assessments
Functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) are a critical part of PBS
for students with significant problems. Behavioral research suggests
that individuals engage in a behavior because it is functional—i.e., the
behavior is expected to avert an undesirable consequence or result in
something that is desired. Past experiences inform, selectively reinforce
and guide these behaviors. Traditionally, schools respond to problem
behavior with punishments that are neither systematic nor effective.
A first step in changing this paradigm is to understand the events that
trigger and maintain problem behavior.16 An FBA considers who, what,
when, where and why problems exist.
To conduct an FBA, a team is assembled to understand the student’s
motivation and develop a plan that addresses the student’s unique
strengths and needs.18 The plan typically consists of identification of
the triggers for positive and negative behaviors, strategies for increasing
the positive-behavior triggers and reducing those that result in negative
behavior, learning of new skills to avoid problem behavior, positive
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
15
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
reinforcers, and elimination of inadvertent support for problem behavior.
The student and family are integrally involved on the team, which
also includes professionals with expertise in areas of need identified
collaboratively by the family and school.
While FBAs were designed for individual students with significant
behavior problems, the rigorous methodological approach can be applied
to problems that arise at the universal level (such as excessive noise in
hallways).
Monitoring and Evaluation
PBS is data-driven. At the school level, PBS teams first collect
baseline data and then regularly collect and analyze data to determine
whether progress is being made and what further modifications may be
needed. Proprietary software packages, like the web-based School-Wide
Information System (SWIS), are used to manage the data. They can
track the behavior of the group as a whole as well as that of individual
students.19
The information collected through SWIS tracks the nature of the
behavior problem, where it took place and the consequences. These data
are then used both to guide individual behavior-support plans and to
improve PBS implementation school-wide. Attendance records, officediscipline referrals, suspensions, alternate placements, expulsions and
direct-observation reports are some of the main sources of information.
Many research-validated tools have been developed to measure
schools’ progress in implementing critical elements of PBS. Process
measures, such as implementation checklists, allow school teams to
gauge whether they are implementing all the essential components
of PBS. A more formal process-measurement tool is the School-Wide
Evaluation Tool (SET). SET consists of 28 items, organized into seven
subscales, to measure whether the following key features of PBS are in
place:
School-wide behavioral expectations are defined.
The expectations are taught to all children.
Rewards are provided for following expectations.
A consistently implemented continuum of consequences for problem
behavior is put in place.
Problem behavior patterns are monitored and the information is used
for ongoing decision-making.
An administrator actively supports and is involved in the effort.
The school district provides support to the school in the form of
functional policies, staff-training opportunities and data-collection
options.
16
Among key
features of PBS,
school-wide
behavioral
expectations
are defined and
the expectations
are taught to all
children.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Outside trained observers (often an external coach or a district
PBS coordinator) gather SET data, and teachers and students are also
questioned about their opinions. At least an 80% on SET subscales is
recommended for schools implementing PBS systems.20
SET has been tested for validity and is shown to be a reliable tool for
determining the effectiveness of PBS.21 However, it is important to keep
in mind that SET primarily evaluates the universal tier (Tier One) of the
three-tiered system; it is not designed to evaluate implementation levels
of Tiers Two and Three.
In addition to SET, many PBS initiatives use the Effective Behavior
Support (EBS) survey, which provides initial baseline data for schools and
then is updated annually to assess the effectiveness of behavior-support
systems. The survey examines school-wide discipline systems, nonclassroom management systems, classroom management systems and
systems for individual students with chronic problem behaviors.
Factors that Ensure PBS Success
Successful PBS
programs require
administrative
leadership, effective
planning, a team
approach and
participation by all
faculty and staff.
Successful PBS programs require administrative leadership, effective
planning, a team approach and participation by all faculty and staff. Key
characteristics include the following:22
Decisions about the behavior-support system are made by a team
composed of representatives of the entire school building and
including families).
Desired outcomes are clearly defined and include both broad school
goals and goals for individual students.
Community standards (social, cultural and ethnic) are taken into
consideration.
Providing effective behavioral support is one of the school’s top
priorities, and both school and community members take ownership
of the behavior-support system.
The school places more emphasis on teaching pro-social behavior
through a continuum of behavioral supports than on trying to reduce
problem behavior.
There is continual monitoring and changes are made by the team
based on analysis of the data.
A strong role for families is also critical to success at all three levels
of PBS. In addition, programs must be sensitive to cultural ideas,
integrating multi-cultural educational approaches and principles by
focusing on developing positive relationships among students of diverse
backgrounds and by changing stereotyped perceptions of individual
differences and similarities.23
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
17
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
Unfortunately, even as PBS continues to be adopted by more
schools, the secondary-level (Tier Two) and tertiary-level (Tier Three)
approaches are not always fully implemented. As a result, students
with higher needs are not fully benefiting. Many of them are entitled to
additional assistance through the IDEA, including a functional behavioral
assessment. However, often these students are not identified for special
education programs; as a result, appropriate measures to support them
are not in place.
Although the PBS process includes significant training and technical
assistance for teachers and other school staff, teacher-training programs
for the most part do not focus on social and emotional learning or on
working with families as partners, working as part of a multi-agency
team, managing behavior in the classroom or using data-driven systems
to guide instructional practices. Improved training for teachers in
behavioral issues would strengthen PBS implementation.
System of Care
Principles
Access to a comprehensive
array of services that address
the child’s physical, emotional,
social and educational needs
Individualized services guided
by an individualized plan of
care
Clinically appropriate services
in the least restrictive, most
Mental Health Systems of Care, Wraparound Services and
School Support
Mental health services are provided to children both in school and
through community programs run by local mental health systems.
Today, mental health systems are increasingly focused on developing
interagency collaborations and systems of care for children with serious
mental disorders. These initiatives have been encouraged through federal
programs and by states and are supported by national organizations and
foundations.
What Are Systems of Care?
Systems of care furnish a comprehensive spectrum of mental health
and other necessary services, organized into a coordinated network, to
meet the changing needs of children and adolescents. However, a mental
health system of care is more than a network of service components.
Rather, it is an approach for how services should be delivered to children
and their families.24
In accordance with its core values, a system of care is:
child-centered and family-focused, with the needs of the child and
family dictating the types and mix of services provided; and
community-based, with both the locus of services and the
responsibility for management and decision-making at the
community level.
Systems of care operate by a set of principles that govern how services
are delivered (see sidebar)
18
normative setting
Family involvement in all
aspects of planning and
delivery of services
Service integration, with
linkages between child-care
agencies and programs and
mechanisms for planning,
developing and coordinating
services
Case management to ensure
that multiple services are
delivered in a coordinated
and therapeutic manner
Early identification and
intervention
Smooth transitions to the adult
service system
Protection of children’s rights
and effective advocacy
Culturally competent services
provided without regard to
race, religion, national origin,
sex, physical disability or other
characteristics
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
This approach was first developed in the 1980s with a specific
population in mind: children with the most serious mental disorders
who often received uncoordinated services from multiple agencies, used
a significant amount of high-level services and resources, and still had
poor outcomes. More recently, a number of states and communities have
expanded the philosophy to the population of youngsters with mild or
moderate mental health disorders for whom interagency collaboration
(e.g., between mental health agencies and schools) is advisable.
In a system of care, mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice,
education and other agencies strive to work together to ensure that
children with mental disorders and their families have access to needed
community services and supports. A system of care is a partnership
between agencies, service providers, families and youth. Individualized
services are the key, building on the unique strengths of each child and
family. Typically, the various stakeholders function as a multi-agency
case team.25
Systems of care
have been found
to reduce the
cost of services
The array of services and supports offered to children through
systems of care is often termed “wraparound.” Wraparound includes
a defined planning process involving the child and family, resulting in
a unique set of individualized supports, services and interventions to
achieve a positive set of outcomes.26 A full array of community-based
care is offered. Commonalities with person-centered planning and groupaction planning processes mean that wraparound works well within a
PBS model.27
in other systems,
particularly
juvenile justice,
child welfare and
special education.
Systems of Care: Effective Response for Children and Families
A strong research base supports the efficiency of systems of care.
They eliminate duplicative services (such as multiple case managers),
provide a range of treatment, rehabilitation and family support, and
ensure that children engaged with more than one public agency have
a single plan of care. Systems of care also have been found to reduce
the cost of services in other systems, particularly juvenile justice, child
welfare and special education.28
The federal government has funded and evaluated local systems of
care for more than 10 years. It has found that systems of care increase
the number of children served and that:
Children’s emotional strengths increase and their emotional problems
diminish.
Children’s behavioral problems decrease.
Children improve in their overall functioning and interaction with
others
Out-of-home placements decrease.
Law-enforcement contacts decrease.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
19
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
School-related measures improve (see sidebar).
Fewer youths use alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana.
Other evaluations of systems of care have found similar reductions
in out-of-home placements, improved clinical status and improved
functioning.29
Unfortunately, in many of the communities where mental healthsponsored systems of care exist, participation by education has been
marginal and cautious.30 Schools and other education agencies generally
have been less involved than child welfare or juvenile justice agencies.31
Factors that Ensure the Success of Mental Health Intervention
Mental health systems of care strive to furnish access to appropriate
services. Early studies of systems of care found that without the
implementation of evidence-based and best-practice services, children’s
clinical status did not improve when compared with controls (although
other factors, such as family satisfaction, did improve).32 As the evidence
base for the treatment of childhood mental disorders continues to grow,
systems of care are adapting to ensure the adoption of such practices.
Even in areas that do not have systems of care, there are similar
expectations that all mental health providers will adopt services with
proven effectiveness.
Outcomes of Federally
Funded Systems of Care
The U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Center
for Mental Health Services
found, through a national
evaluation of federally funded
systems of care, a number of
outcomes related to school
issues. The following data are
from 2005, but similar findings
have been recorded in other
years:
In 1999, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report on mental health
that highlighted the scientific research base for mental health services.
More recently, the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health reported on additional evidence-based and best practice services,
as did leading child mental health researchers.33 With respect to specific
conditions, there are many well-established or probably efficacious
interventions for disruptive behavior, anxiety, ADHD and depression.34
School attendance improved,
According to these sources, the following child mental health services
have a strong research base:
intensive home-based services;
intensive case management;
specific therapies (family-based cognitive behavioral therapy,
functional family therapy, parent-child interaction therapy);
family education and support (providing information and education
on the child’s disorder and specific information on how to manage
crises and day-to-day problems);
multi-systemic therapy;
assertive community treatment;
therapeutic foster care;
multi-modal treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder;
integrated treatment for mental disorders and substance abuse;
expelled rose from 51 to 58%.
20
with over 80% of children
attending regularly 12 months
after entering services.
Disciplinary actions in
school were reduced and
the number of children who
were neither suspended nor
School performance
improved, with an increase
in the percentage of children
receiving a “C” or better and
a decrease in the percentage
receiving a failing grade.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
medications and medication management; and
supported employment (relevant for adolescents).
SCHOOL-BASED
Mental health -related
SERVICES
School-based services with an
evidence base are:35
targeted classroom-based
contingency management for
ADHD (successfully reduces
aggression);
cognitive behavior therapy—
group or individual;
teaching social problem
solving skills;
cognitive group interventions;
and
behavioral aides.
Also promising but as yet insufficiently supported by published
controlled research studies:
crisis services;
respite; and
mentoring and behavioral aides.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, these effective mental
health interventions are neither available nor accessible due to a
shortage of trained professionals and programs. Too often community
mental health programming is traditional (medications and limited
psychotherapy, not always in the most effective form) and is not
guided by system of care principles, which prescribe strengths-based,
culturally relevant and child- and family-driven services. As a result,
schools typically find that children referred for treatment show little
improvement in their school functioning.
As with teacher training, training of mental health professionals
often fails to prepare them for working as part of a multi-agency team
or for using family-centered approaches, school-based mental health and
evidence-based practices. Improved training programs would enhance the
delivery of effective services for youngsters in school.
Schools and Mental Health
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
while schools cannot and should not be expected to address children’s
mental health issues by themselves, a coordinated school-health model
effectively addresses the physical, emotional, intellectual and social wellbeing of both students and staff.36 CDC recommends counseling and
psychological services to improve students’ mental, emotional and social
health, access to primary health care and a school environment that
promotes health and well-being, and family/community involvement.
While schools are not responsible for meeting all of students’ mental
health needs, education systems should address social-emotional
competence, character education and civic engagement.37 School-wide
PBS integrated with mental health can help schools achieve these aims.
There are advantages to school-based or school-linked mental health
services:38
Access is improved and students and families are more likely to avail
themselves of services.
Students who internalize problems are more likely to be identified.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
21
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
Mental health professionals can see students in multiple settings over
longer periods of time.
Educational needs are more effectively addressed by reducing
inappropriate special education referrals.
Students’ social/emotional and academic success is positively affected.
Schools have been reluctant to engage in interagency systems of care
in part for fear that the individualized, wraparound approach to mental
health and behavioral issues might force them to include in school a
population of students they are not currently prepared to accept in
integrated settings.39 Schools are also concerned about financing and
liability issues, fearing that any increased identification of disorders and
needs will overtax available resources.40 At the same time, families are
dissatisfied with school responses to children with significant mental
disorders, finding both a failure to identify students who qualify for
special education and inadequate teaching and services to meet the needs
of those who are identified.41
However, there are many advantages for schools, and for children and
their families, in the interagency system of care approach. School-based
mental health services ease access to services and help overcome the
stigma and intimidation of seeking mental health care. Linkages between
schools and mental health offer the potential to improve the accuracy of
diagnoses and the effectiveness of treatment, and make mental health
professionals available to consult with teachers and administrators.
School personnel can also provide important information to the mental
health provider about a student’s behavior and functioning in various
school settings.
Linkages between
schools and
mental health
offer the potential
to improve the
accuracy of
diagnoses and the
effectiveness of
treatment.
In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and other national organizations
endorse such approaches. For example, the American Academy of
Pediatrics Policy Statement on School-Based Mental Health Services
calls for pediatric health care professionals, educators and mental health
specialists to work in collaboration to develop and implement effective
school-based mental health services.42 The Academy’s policy statement
includes 19 recommendations to support the goal that primary health
care providers, mental health providers and educators work together
more closely. More than 50 national organizations have endorsed
the School Mental Health Alliance statement supporting schoolbased mental health services. (This statement is available at www.
kidsmentalhealth.org.)
Research shows that youngsters who receive services from mental
health agencies and those receiving mental health services in schools
are different children, although the two groups have similar levels of
22
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
functioning and experience with life stress, violence, inadequate family
support, poor self-concept and emotional/behavioral problems, indicating
comparable needs. Few receive services in both locations.43 Collaboration
between these systems is needed to deliver appropriate services to all of
these children.
One issue that must be addressed from the beginning of the initiative
is privacy. This is not an insurmountable barrier to collaboration, but
mental health professionals must adhere to state and federal privacy
rules, while schools follow the less strict Family Education Rights Privacy
Act. Collaborating agencies can generally develop appropriate processes
and arrangements that address information-sharing needs, while assuring
family/child input and consent.
Integrating Mental Health Systems in PBS Schools
Mark Stanton
PBS is especially
effective for
students who
display emotional
and behavioral
disorders.
An integrated PBS initiative enables mental health to develop a more
environmentally focused perspective that is oriented to child and family
strengths. Mental health agencies are able to share their expertise and
assist educators in understanding youth with serious and multiple needs
and in developing effective interventions for them. The cross-disciplinary
learning that occurs as a result of collaboration among professionals is
important to the professional development of both educators and mental
health professionals.
The American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledges the value of an
integrated approach and recommends that mental health agencies be
involved in all three tiers of PBS.44 Where mental health agencies have
been involved, research has shown that these collaborations have proven
effective.45
Families also appreciate this linkage. Children with intensive needs
may have one behavioral plan developed through special education and
another developed with a mental health provider, but if the plans are not
connected and consonant with each other, the family may reasonably
doubt that the outcomes of these interventions will be effective. When
mental health, education and other relevant agencies are brought
together with the student and family, and when they collaborate on a
common plan and strategies, families are more satisfied that the plan is a
thoughtful, evidence-based approach.
PBS is especially effective for students who display emotional and
behavioral disorders46 —the very children and youth who are targeted for
services by public mental health systems using a wraparound approach.47
While PBS and certain mental health approaches—particularly FBA
and wraparound—have evolved separately through different systems,
there are many similarities. Wraparound and PBS share a set of common
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
23
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
assumptions, features and outcomes48 that support the process of
building strong and positive social behavior across life domains, while
preventing disruptions and discipline problems in schools.49 In the
context of PBS, FBA and wraparound might be thought of as a screening
and treatment system that creates a triage model for distribution of
support services and personnel, providing consistent collaboration and
analysis across settings, times and individuals.50
Wraparound has also been used successfully to improve social,
behavioral and school functioning and to prevent more restrictive
placements for students identified by schools as emotionally disturbed.51
As a result, there is a natural interface between PBS and mental health
wraparound.52
One area where mental health wraparound approaches need to be
tailored for schools is support for school staff.53 Consultation for teachers
on behavior management and in understanding of mental disorders is an
essential component of an effective integrated approach. Such services
were funded in the past through the federal community mental health
center grants and were described as “consultation and education” (C&E).
C&E improves educators’ ability to work with all children, but especially
those with serious emotional and behavioral problems.
Unfortunately, over the past two decades, mental health resources
have been more narrowly focused and restricted only to direct treatment
of children with the most severe disorders. While the resource issue is
more critical than ever, there is renewed interest in C&E as mental health
providers realize that their services are less effective—or ineffective—
when not delivered as part of a holistic approach. As caseloads increase,
policymakers and providers see that their ability to provide adequate
levels of service will only diminish and that high-end intensive services
need to be supplemented with lower-cost and earlier interventions that
can, in time, lower demand for high-cost services.
Consultation
for teachers
on behavior
management and
in understanding
of mental disorders
is an essential
component of an
effective integrated
approach.
Conclusion
In summary, there is a strong rationale for coupling school-wide PBS
and mental health systems of care and promoting services and practices
that are supported by research. Children spend a considerable part of
their life in school, and school is where social, sociological, psychological
and academic factors come together. But while school is an ideal setting
for addressing children’s development, it will typically lack the resources
to address mental health concerns appropriately. For this reason,
implementation of Tiers Two and Three of PBS is often weak. If schools
are to meet higher academic standards for all students, they need the
24
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
support of mental health systems. Melding these two initiatives—PBS
and systems of care—holds great promise.
Notes
1
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002). The evaluation of discipline practices: School-wide
positive behavior supports. Behavioral Psychology in Schools. The Haworth Press, Inc.
24(½) p. 23-50.
2
Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson, C.M., et al.
(2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in
schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131-143.
3
Nelson, J. R., Crabtree, M., Marchand-Martella, N. & Martella, R. (1998). Teaching
good behavior in the whole school. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(4), 4-9.
4
Sugai, G. & Horner, R.H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive
behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130-136.
5
Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H. F. (2000). A schoolwide approach to student
discipline. The School Administrator, 2 (57), 20-23.
6
Lewis, T. J. & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavioral support: A systems approach to
proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1-24.
7
Kincaid, D. (1996). Person Centered Planning. In Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R.L. &
Dunlap, G. (Eds.), Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the
community (pp.439-465). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
8
Sugai & Horner (2002).
9
This report generally uses the phrasing “Tier One, Tier Two and Tier Three” to
describe these levels. Sometimes these levels are referred to as universal, targeted and
intensive, and some refer to the levels as green (for universal), yellow and red.
10 Eber et. al. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and supports in
the schools. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 171-181.
11 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (1999).
Positive Behavioral Support (PBS) in Action, Positive Behavioral Support Research
Connections. Available at: http://ericec.org/osep/recon4/rc4sec2.html (accessed
6/8/04).
initiatives—PBS
12 Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Todd, A., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support. In Bambara, L. & Kern, L. (Eds.), Individualized supports for students
with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359-370). New York:
Guilford Press.
and systems of
13 Eber et al. (2002).
Melding these two
care—holds great
promise.
14 Horner et al. (2005).
15 Scott, T. & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systematic
school processes: Primary, secondary and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 131-143.
16 Demchak, M. & Bossert, K. W. (1996). Assessing problem behaviors. Innovations:
American Association on Mental Retardation Research to Practice Series, Number 4.
American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington, DC.
17 O’Neill, R., Horner, R.H., Albin, R., Sprague, J., Storey, K., & Newton, J. (1997).
Functional assessment for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
25
CHAPTER 2—SUMMARY OF PRACTICES & RESEARCH BASE
18 Eber et. al. (2002).
19 Sugai & Horner (2002).
20 Horner et al. (2004). Schoolwide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument of
assessing schoolwide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12.
21 Ibid.
22 Lewis, T. J. Decision making about effective behavioral support: A guide for
educators. Available at http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech25.
html (accessed 12/10/04).
23 Utley, C., Kozleski, E., Smith, A., & Draper, I. (2002). PBS: A proactive strategy for
minimizing behavior problems in urban multicultural youth. Journal of Behavior
Interventions, 4(4), 196-207.
24 Stroul, B.A., & Friedman, R.M. (1986), A System of Care for Severely Emotionally
Disturbed Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child
Development Center.
25 For more information on the federal system of care program, see Technical Assistance
Resource Guide for the Comprehensive Community Mental Health for Children and
Their Families Program, available at www.samhsa.gov.
26 Burns, B.J., & Goldman, S. K. (1999). Promising practices in wraparound for children
with serious emotional disturbance and their families: Systems of care. In B.J. Burns
& S. K. Goldman (Eds.), Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998 Series:
Vol. IV. Washington, DC: American Institute for Research, Center for Effective
Collaboration and Practice.
27 Kennedy, C.H., Long, T., Jolivette, K., Cox, J., Tang, J., & Thompson, T. (2001).
Facilitating general education participation for students with behavior problems by
linking positive behavior supports and person-centered planning. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 161-171.
28 Foster, E.M., & Connor, T. (2005). Public costs of better mental health services for
children and adolescents. Psychiatric Services, 56(1), 50-55.
29 Duchnowski, A.K., Kutash, K. & Friedman, R.M. (2002). Community-based
interventions in a system of care and outcomes framework. In B.J. Burns & K.
Hoagwood (Eds.), Community treatment for youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe
emotional and behavioral disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
30 Lourie, I. (1994). Principles of local systems development for children, adolescents
and their families. Kaleidoscope, Chicago, IL.
31 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (2003). Matching for Sustainability.
Washington DC: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
32 Bickman, L., Noser, K., & Summerfelt, W. T. (1999). Long-term effects of a system
of care on children and adolescents. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services &
Research, 26 (2), 185-202; and Pires, S.A., Behar, L., Friedman, R.M., Lourie, I., et al.
(1996). Lessons learned from the Fort Bragg demonstration. The 9th Annual Research
Conference Proceedings, A system of care for children’s mental health: Expanding
the research base. Available from http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu/Proceed9th/9thprocindex.
htm.
33 New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). Achieving the Promise:
Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report, p. 68. DHHS Pub. No.
SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD; and Hoagwood, K., Burns, B., Kiser, L., et al. (2001).
Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health services. Psychiatric
Services. 52(9), 1179-1189.
34 Burns, B. (2002). Reasons for hope for children and families: A perspective and
overview. In B.J. Burns & K. Hoagwood (Eds.), Community treatment for youth:
26
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders. New York:
Oxford University Press.
35 New Freedom Commission (2003); Hoagwood et al (2001).
36 Center for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Healthy Youth! Coordinated School Health Program. What is a
CSHP? www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/CSHP/ accessed 2/27/2006.
37 Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., O’Brien, M.U., et al. (2003). Enhancing schoolbased prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional and
academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-474.
38 Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L.. (2000). Shaping the Future of Mental Health in Schools.
Psychology in the Schools, 37(1), 49-60.
39 Eber, L. (1996). Restructuring schools through wraparound approach: The LADS
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.
40 Ibid.
41 Kutash, K. & Duchnowski, A. (2004). The mental health needs of youth with
emotional and behavioral disabilities placed in special education programs in urban
schools. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 235-248; Nelson, M. (2003). Through a
glass darkly: Reflections on our field and its future. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 212-216;
and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (2003). Issue Brief: Failing to qualify: The
first step to failure in school.
42 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2004). Policy statement, School-based mental
health services. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1839-1845.
43 Weist, M., D., Myers, C. P., Hastings, E., Ghuman, H., and Han, Y. L. (1999). Psychosocial functioning of youth receiving mental health services in the schools versus
community mental health centers. Community Mental Health Journal, 35(1), 69-81.
44 American Academy of Pediatrics (2004).
45 Scott, T. M., and Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic
school processes: Primary, secondary and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 131-143.
46 Sugai & Horner (2002).
47 For a discussion of wraparound, see Burchard, J.D., Bruns, E.J. & Burchard, S.N.
(2000). The wraparound approach. In B.J. Burns & K. Hoagwood (Eds.), Community
treatment for youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral
disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
48 Carr, E.G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R.H., Koegel, R.L., Turnbull, A.P., Sailor, W., et al.
(2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 4, 4-16; and Clark, H.B. & Heinemann, M. (1999). Comparing
the wraparound process to positive behavior support: What can we learn? Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 183-186.
49 Scott & Eber (2003).
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid; and Eber, L. & Nelson, C.M. (1997). Integrating services for students with
emotional and behavioral needs through school-based wraparound planning. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 385-395.
52 Weist, M.D., Paternite, C.E., & Adelsheim, S. (2005). School-based mental health
services. Report to the Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Care Services, Crossing
the Qualify Chasm: Adaptation to Mental Health and Addictive Disorders Committee.
Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
27
53 Poduska, J., Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2004). Coordinated and individualized
services within systems of care. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration
and Practice, American Institutes for Research; Woodruff, D., W., Osher, D., Hoffman,
C.C., et.al. (1999). The role of education in a system of care: Effectively serving
children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Washington, DC: Center for
Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.
28
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Chapter 3
Lessons Learned
number of common themes emerged from our six-state review
of school-wide positive behavior support integrated with mental
health. Major findings from our case studies were:
In five of the six initiatives, school-wide PBS was tied to
implementation (at state or local level) of a mental health interagency
system of care following the principles outlined in Chapter 2.
Five of the six initiatives were led by state agencies (education
and mental health at a minimum) that collaborated to design the
initiative, plan its implementation locally and support the local
schools and districts that were engaged.
Because PBS is too complicated for a school to implement without
external support, all of the six initiatives involved a collective effort
at the district level. In most cases there was also close collaboration
between the state and the school district.
Families played a critical role at all levels, and in some sites a person
was hired to act as family liaison within the school.
Training and technical assistance were sustained and ongoing.
There were some strong examples of mental health system
integration into the school—i.e., where the local mental health
agency was involved in all levels of PBS and provided consultation
and education for teachers and other school staff.
Outcomes were measured and continuous improvements and
adjustments were made as more was learned about how well the
initiative was working.
A
The following is a summary of our findings, with examples of how
these initiatives were implemented in six different places. This summary
focuses on the integration of mental health with a school-wide PBS
initiative and on how to serve children with mental health needs.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
29
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
Building Education-Mental Health Collaborations
The first step to building a school-wide PBS initiative integrated with
mental health is to forge a collaboration between the education and
mental health systems at the state level that will, in time, also occur
at local levels. Collaborations succeed, we were told, when there is a
commitment on the part of agency leaders to:
sustain regular communications;
recognize, discuss and respect cultural differences between the mental
health and education systems in terms of mission, priorities and
professional practice;
identify shared goals and desired outcomes; and
identify risks and benefits for each system.
All the initiatives stressed the importance of committed leaders at
high levels in both the education and mental health authorities and
the involvement of agency officials with the ability to affect agency
programs, budget, organizational structure, funding streams and policy
priorities.
In addition to agency heads, line staff in these two agencies (and
other child-serving agencies involved) are needed for day-to-day planning
and oversight of the initiative. These interagency partners should
identify areas of overlapping interests and mutual needs. Both systems
have similar goals and benefit significantly from working together, even
though they have different objectives, pressures and requirements in dayto-day operations.
Instead of adding
to the workload
burden, a good
collaboration can
lead to working
“smarter, not
harder.”
In a statewide initiative, the state leaders’ major responsibilities with
respect to PBS include:
the provision of technical assistance, training and support for PBS at
all levels;
strategies to addresses barriers to effective implementation;
tools to track outcomes and establish a system of accountability; and
ongoing planning to assure that funding and other essential features
of PBS can be sustained.
It is common for both mental health and education agency staff to
feel overburdened by demands and expectations. However, those we
talked to reported that instead of adding to the workload burden, a
good collaboration can lead to working “smarter, not harder” and bring
more rewarding results. While there is no doubt that a collaborative
PBS-mental health initiative requires significant effort, experienced state
and local staff explained that the initial investment pays off in the long
run. Time and resource limitations are, in fact, a strong inducement for
collaboration.
30
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Time pressures can make it difficult for agency staff to keep focused
on a collaborative initiative like PBS integrated with mental health.
One way to ensure that momentum is not lost between meetings is to
appoint or hire an individual to act as a liaison between agencies. This
person needs to have a strong working relationship with each agency and
then can build programmatic links between them.
Using mental health system of care funds, New Hampshire hired a parttime consultant to facilitate the education and mental health collaboration.
This individual had worked in education for over 20 years as both a special
education teacher and state administrator, and had experience collaborating
with the mental health agency. Her knowledge of state government and her
understanding of the cultures of both education and mental health positioned
her well in the state’s efforts to foster successful interagency collaboration.
The state agency leadership teams, we found, all include family
representatives. Following the PBS model, leadership teams approach
family involvement in a systematic way and are committed to the vision
of families as equal partners at all levels. State (and local) interagency
teams develop plans for family involvement, coordinate training for
family representatives and contract with family organizations so they
can play an informed role in implementation. States also establish
accountability standards and monitor local family engagement.
The New York state affiliate of the Federation of Families for Children’s
Mental Health has been at the forefront, guiding the design and
implementation of PBS at the school, district/county and state levels. It is part
of the statewide PBS leadership team and receives a grant from the state
(through an agreement between the state mental health and education
agencies).
Leadership teams
approach family
involvement in
In addition, representation from district or regional levels may aid the
state-level leadership team.
A New York team recommends adding district and regional
representation (education, mental health and families) to the state team to
get the ground-level perspective and to ensure a regular forum for dialogue
between state and regional leadership. Local strengths and challenges need
to be in the foreground when the PBS team is making decisions about policy,
planning and implementation.
a systematic
way and are
committed to the
vision of families
as equal partners
at all levels.
The infrastructure for interagency collaboration and family
engagement must also be established and sustained at the regional/
county/district (whichever applies) and school levels. Leadership
is critical at these levels as well. Leaders must commit time to the
implementation of the initiative, seek out resources and continually
support school staff. They must, most importantly, be fully committed
to the underlying principles of school-wide PBS and the value of
integrating mental health into the initiative.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
31
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
It is not always easy to launch these local initiatives. We learned
that building acceptance of the concept, recognition of the benefits
and ultimately enthusiasm for school-wide PBS integrated with mental
health can take time, creativity and incentives. Past experiences or
assumptions, we were told, can lead to snap judgments. For example,
educators who have no experience with PBS may believe mental health
professionals will “enable” unwelcome student behavior by allowing
some students to avoid responsibility for their behavior. Others may
believe that mental health professionals are exclusively focused on longterm therapeutic goals, ignoring the immediate need for improvement
in school functioning and behavior, and/or are too wedded to outmoded
and unproven therapies.
Educators develop a different view once they fully understand that
through PBS students will be accountable for their behavior and receive
a consistent response—a vast improvement over the unsystematic
approach that often exacerbates behavior problems.
A New Hampshire school principal described how some teachers were
initially uncomfortable with the idea that children should expect rewards for
good behavior. After experience with PBS, however, these teachers came to
understand that it was positive recognition that reinforced good behavior,
not simply the promise of a reward. As the school year wore on, the school
found that behaviors that become more firmly ingrained did not have to be
reinforced as often as newly acquired ones.
Mental health agency staff may be wary of collaborations with
education because of past experiences, when schools have seemed
unwilling to work with them or have appeared too ready to consign
challenging students to alternative settings or to hand them off to
mental health or juvenile justice.
Local agencies, however, may find mutually beneficial objectives for
collaboration, in addition to the ultimate goal of helping children.
For example, a special education director frankly admitted that the
reason mental health had been brought into the schools was so that Medicaid
dollars, instead of school monies, could be used for services. The mental
health agency had its own rationale and the partnership was sustained
because it aided both agencies in their mission to serve children and families.
a different view
once they fully
understand that
through PBS
students will be
accountable for
Planning
Any collaboration takes time. In the early stages, collaborating
across agencies is more time-consuming than if the education system
were to implement PBS on its own. Building on prior investments in
infrastructure and knowledge is strategic, demonstrating thoughtful
32
Educators develop
their behavior and
receive a consistent
response.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
planning and a commitment to the wise use of resources. Our sites urged
thoughtfulness and the need to move deliberately to do it right.
We found that a statement of purpose was generally in place, along
with procedural guidelines and expectations, ensuring a common
understanding between schools and local mental health agencies. School
staff were committed to and trained in PBS; mental health agency
consultation, services and engagement with PBS teams were arranged.
As schools
develop mastery
of the process,
many realize
The planning for a school-wide PBS initiative integrated with mental
health can be made easier by tapping into a considerable body of research
and technical assistance. The U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs funds a national network of technical
assistance centers devoted to helping states and school districts. There
are web sites with action plans, blueprints, worksheets, assessment tools
and surveys to help plan and implement PBS. Definitions and guidelines
are available for every stage, including the planning process. (A list of
technical assistance resources is in the appendix).
that PBS is the
The School-Wide Implementation Blue Print, developed by the National
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(www.pbis.org), includes a sample planning template that gives the state-wide
team six months’ lead time before the first cohort of schools is trained. It also
includes sample timelines for schools and districts. These are just estimates,
however, and practitioners and experts advise that it is critical to phase in PBS
in stages and avoid the failures and dissatisfaction that come from a hurried
and poorly implemented initiative.
cornerstone of all
of their schoolimprovement
programs.
Because schools have seen many initiatives come and go, state leaders
understand the importance of distinguishing PBS from educational
fads. Schools that accept the challenge of PBS describe it as being a
framework instead of a program. They see that there is a clear long-term
commitment to PBS and that it comes with a full plan for execution and
ongoing support for schools.
At the outset, a school may have a more limited vision of the system
change that PBS represents, but as schools develop mastery of the
process and reflect on their experience, many realize that PBS is the
cornerstone of all of their school-improvement programs.
The administration at an elementary school in Chicago viewed PBS as
the fabric of the school and a foundation from which to grow, instead of a
program that may come and go. This school, like others, has a number of
programs for academic and behavior support underway. PBS is their vehicle for
integrating these programs and the framework for school transformation.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
33
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
PBS Implementation in Schools
School administrators and teachers we spoke with underscored that
PBS implementation requires a level of training and support that no
individual school could provide on its own. Whether undertaken as an
initiative at the state, regional or district level (or a coordinated effort of
two or three levels), a school was able to adopt PBS only because of the
efficiency that an external PBS infrastructure brought to the process.
Schools, already facing limits on resources and time, appreciated having
“packaged” system components so they could focus on the roles and
responsibilities that could only rest with the schools. They were gratified
that PBS, unlike many other initiatives, came with adequate support
structures and fully developed guidelines and tools for implementation.
One of the benefits of school-wide PBS is that it has demonstrated
the ability to reduce discipline problems among children with mental
health disorders that often contribute to high dropout rates and
escalating involvement in juvenile justice. Common factors that led to
safer and more effective learning environments and reduced discipline
problems were:
established standards for behavior, known to all children, and positive
support to enable them to achieve those standards;
commitment to behavior standards by everyone in school—teachers,
students, administrators and other staff;
an approach to discipline applicable to both regular and special
education students that includes positive behavioral support (not just
for students in special education, for whom it is mandated under the
IDEA);
school-wide interventions combined with early intervention for
those at risk and individualized interventions for those with serious
problems; and
the school working with and seeing itself as part of the larger
community.
Aslan
While PBS comes
with a lot of prebuilt features and
best-practice
guidelines, it is far
from a cookiecutter approach.
While PBS comes with a lot of pre-built features and best-practice
guidelines, it is far from a cookie-cutter approach. Practitioners describe
building the initiative as both art and science, requiring creativity,
flexibility, translational ability (understanding an underlying principle
and applying it to a new situation) and leadership. One state PBS team
member described it as “building the ship as you sail.” This is particularly
true when adapting PBS in a collaborative effort with another agency,
such as mental health.
We also saw interesting results from cross-disciplinary teaming as
concepts and strategies migrated from one discipline to the other. For
34
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
example, a process like FBA—which is a systematic process for behavior
analysis that is used as the foundation for a behavior-support plan
for a child with the most challenging behavior—has been adapted as
an approach to analyze problem behavior before any intervention is
designed, whether universal, targeted or intensive.
Leadership at the school level is important, but existing demands on
staff time may make it hard to find the right person to coordinate the
effort. During our site visits, we heard about more than one instance
of a school’s persuading a retired staff member to return to lead the
implementation. Bringing in retired staff is advantageous in that they
know and understand the school and have established relationships with
teachers and administrators. If possible, they should understand mental
health issues and resources in the community.
The PBS coordinator at a Chicago elementary school worked in the
school for 35 years before retiring. An experienced school psychologist, she
understood the school and the way it operated. The principal persuaded her
to come back to lead the PBS initiative. The fit was perfect. She had a mental
health background, was a respected figure in the school community and was
thoroughly familiar with school culture and operations.
PBS initiatives have been successful in a number of school settings,
including residential schools, juvenile justice schools, alternative schools
and pre-schools
In New Hampshire, there was consensus that the school climate had
noticeably changed in all the schools we visited. This was true for a pre-school
Head Start program and an Easter Seals School serving youth with special
needs who were placed outside of the public school.
Instead of looking
at new initiatives
PBS is cited as a major system reform because it changes the way
schools operate. Instead of looking at new initiatives individually, PBS
schools take a holistic approach.
In New York, PBS school staff said they did not look at a charactereducation program in isolation, but examined how it would fit under their PBS
structure and be consistent with PBS goals and priorities. Viewed in this light,
it was seen as a program to enhance what the school was trying to achieve
with PBS, promoting the values of civility, strength-based approaches, youth
development and civic engagement.
individually, PBS
schools take a
holistic approach.
PBS can also be reinforced at home. This is especially important for
students who need greater consistency and support, such as those with
mental health problems. A school may offer assistance directly, either
through a parenting program or through individual conferences.
A tip sheet from New York urges parents to model the kind of behavior
they would like to see the child display. In the case of respect, it suggests that
the “best way to teach respect is by example,” and that “if you treat your child
lovingly and fairly, he’ll learn that this is the way to behave.”
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
35
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
PBS can alter parents’ behavior. An assistant school superintendent
and former principal at a PBS school in New York told us that she had
“talked to numerous parents who have changed the way they parent”
after learning how well a positive approach had worked in school.
A family resource specialist in an elementary school described a
family that was headed by single parent who had very limited parenting
skills, a mental illness and difficulty in maintaining household functioning. The
household’s chaotic environment made life more difficult for the child, who
had some serious emotional problems. The resource specialist and a mental
health professional involved with the family understood that accomplishing
some environmental changes in the home could make a big difference in
this child’s life. These efforts have paid off. The child is functioning better in
the school and home and the parent has a place to turn, other than the
emergency room, if he feels things are escalating to a crisis situation.
Students also carry PBS principles home with them.
A fourth-grade student interviewed in New Hampshire described how he
used PBS at home with his four brothers, who were older and had not attended
PBS schools. He felt the household was too chaotic and PBS has given him a
strategy for improving relationships at home.
Integrating Mental Health with School-Wide PBS
Schools have varying levels of in-house mental health expertise,
provided by school psychologists, guidance counselors, social workers,
behaviorists and other specialists. While guidance counselors and, in
some cases, social workers or school psychologists serve only a single
school, most of these individuals are consultants to more than one school
and are spread thin. In many areas, school mental health professionals
find they must do so much testing that they have little time for
providing services to children.
Some schools have dealt with this by making specific efforts to bring
treatment providers into the school to provide individualized child and
family counseling services. In other areas, school health centers have
found that unmet mental health needs are so great that they have
devoted significant resources to in-school mental health services.
In some cases schools may contract for services, simply providing
space to their local community mental health provider. Under these
arrangements, individual services are provided, but there is little
interaction between the school and the mental health providers.
PBS can alter
parents’ behavior
as a result of what
they learn about
how well a positive
approach had
worked in school.
Most of the PBS sites we visited have a more integrated approach.
Mental health professionals are not only co-located in the school, but are
fully incorporated into the school and are indistinguishable from other
36
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
staff. They serve on PBS teams and participate like other faculty and
staff in the operations of the school.
In Montana, PBS schools in the Bitterroot Valley area have a licensed
mental health therapist as well as a behavior consultant. The therapist writes
the treatment plan for a child, works with the family, and provides individual,
group and family therapy. The therapist and behaviorist serve on PBS teams
(universal, targeted and intensive), are a resource for school personnel, and
are fully integrated into the school community.
Students, families
and staff all
appreciate the
experience of
Proximity and integration lead to increased communication, increased
understanding and far better collaboration. When working as a team in
the same school building, there are formal and informal opportunities
for information sharing. Educators learn more about emotional and
behavioral disorders and effective interventions, and mental health
practitioners develop a better understanding of school practices, culture
and operational requirements. This results in both groups’ acquiring
new skills and expertise. Students, families and staff all appreciate the
experience of working as a team.
working as a
Three years ago, the system of care in Chicago allocated funds
to support a comprehensive care coordinator (CCC), a mental health
professional who provides direct services to children and families, and a family
resource developer (FRD), who assists families in seven PBS schools. The CCC
is responsible for: 1) initial assessments to determine eligibility for system of
care services; 2) child and family teams; 3) case management, group and
individual counseling; and 4) consultation and training for school personnel
on mental health and behavior-management strategies. The FRD and CCC,
located at the schools but under the aegis of the mental health agency, work
in partnership with the school to help families access needed services and
supports, facilitate parent leadership in PBS, participate in universal, targeted
and intensive team activities, and assist with linkages and referrals to other
agencies.
team.
Practitioners who are genuinely integrated in the school have a
different perspective from those who just use a school office to furnish
mental health services. In integrated settings, such as Chicago’s, they
feel better able to understand behavioral motivations and psychosocial
needs because they can observe a student in school (compared to reading
a written account). They have the flexibility to check in with students
frequently, are able to interact informally with the student and family in
ways that would not occur in an office setting, and find, compared to an
office-based practice, that it is easier to establish effective alliances.
PBS provides a framework for this integration, allowing mental health
professionals not only to use their expertise to assist the school in all
phases of PBS implementation, but also to meet the students’ behavioral
health needs.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
37
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
However, while an integrated model has numerous advantages, PBS
schools must contend with the community resources that exist. In
addition, some schools do not favor the integrated approach, preferring
a referral model. In these situations, mental health providers can still be
invited to join the PBS teams and to provide consultation and support to
teachers and administrators.
A shortage of community mental health resources may also require
creativity. Two sites took different approaches to this problem.
One New York school PBS team tried to get services for a child and
family but found the local community mental health agency had a six-month
waiting list. The school then approached a private therapist and enlisted her
to fill some of the gaps in access. Increasingly, private mental health providers
restrict their practices to private-pay clients or those with insurance. They are
often unwilling to accept Medicaid or treat people who are uninsured. The
school was able to engage this therapist because it agreed to refrain from
overwhelming her with referrals.
In the mid-1990s, teachers in the Bitterroot Valley (Montana) asked
for support to deal with challenging student behaviors. The local special
education cooperative, the Bitterroot Valley Cooperative (BVC), hired a
behavior consultant to partner with the schools and the community mental
health agency. Due to overwhelming demand for the services, the BVC
applied for status as a community mental health center, which would allow
the co-op to bill Medicaid for services. In 1997, the BVC became a licensed
community mental health center with funds from the IDEA, a grant from the
Office of Public Instruction to serve students with intensive-level needs, and
reimbursement for services billable to Medicaid, S-CHIP and private health
insurance.
Whether fully integrated on site or not, one of the most important
roles community mental health providers can play in a school-wide
PBS initiative is to provide mental health support to teachers and other
school personnel, whether consulting about individual children or about
behavior-management issues.
Our sites reported that consultation and education services from
mental health can be of great benefit to school-wide PBS. PBS provides
training and practical experience in effective approaches so non-clinical
staff can help maintain, educate and support children with significant
behavioral and emotional difficulties in school. When supplemented
with ongoing consultation about individual challenging students and
consultation targeted to specific issues and teacher needs in a particular
school, the entire PBS initiative is significantly enhanced.
Isis Hudgins
PBS provides
training and
practical
experience
in effective
approaches so
non-clinical staff
can help maintain,
educate and
support children
with significant
behavioral
and emotional
difficulties in
school.
All of the initiatives we studied had access to consultation and education,
whether it was provided by a mental health professional located in the school
or by behavioralists and psychologists available through the school district or a
regional school support center.
38
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Systems of Care and Wraparound Services
In communities where mental health systems have adopted the
system of care model, schools will have a stronger foundation on which
to build their PBS effort. But if the system of care effort has been weak
and ineffective, PBS also has the potential to jump-start an interagency
collaboration based on system of care principles. Four case studies—New
Hampshire, New York, Travis County (TX) and Illinois—involved
mental health systems of care that had received funding from the federal
government (see Chapter 2). Federal (SAMHSA) system of care grants
are available to any agency, not just mental health agencies. School
districts and state education authorities are eligible applicants.
These sites found that PBS and systems of care are complementary
and that they share core values — i.e., services should be communitybased, child-centered, family-focused, strengths-based and culturally
competent. More than an enhancement to one or the other, these
partnerships have a synergistic effect on a community’s ability to
promote success for every child in the domains of family, school and
community.
A mental health
system of care
can provide many
advantages for the
PBS initiative.
A mental health system of care can provide many advantages for the
PBS initiative: a network of agencies for school support, possible funding
for school-based mental health and family-support services, and expertise
in wraparound and multi-agency teaming. Federal system of care grants
can be used by states and localities for training and technical assistance
for both mental health staff and educators, and can also fund a range of
services, including consultation and education to schools, family-support
services not covered by third-party payers (such as Medicaid) and
services for children who do not qualify for Medicaid.
We found that system of care-funded support of PBS has produced
some exciting and innovative collaborations.
In Travis County, Texas, the Children’s Partnership is a system of care
established within the county health and human services agency. It has
built strong support for a local school-wide PBS initiative. Each school has an
IMPACT Team, a multi-disciplinary group that develops strategies to address
the needs of students at risk of dropping out, expulsion, residential placement
or school failure. When the team—composed of school personnel such as
the vice principal, general and special education teachers, and the school
counselor—identifies a child who needs intensive services, it mobilizes the
Partnership. The child and family participate in individualized care planning
that may lead to mental health evaluation, treatment, care coordination,
education and training support, community-based out-of-home care and
flexible funding for various supports. The Partnership also started the trend of
placing care-coordination staff in the Travis County schools.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
39
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
Students with High Needs
The importance of universal school-wide PBS should not be
underestimated. While students in Tiers Two and Three may need
additional services, they nonetheless benefit significantly from the
change in school climate affected by PBS tier-one strategies. With PBS,
lower-level interventions can be tried first, even for students assumed to
be in Tier Three. Indeed, these interventions may, in the end, supplement
or even obviate the need for higher levels of specialized service.
An elementary school in Maryland uses the Check & Connect
intervention for students who need more than the universal level of behavioral
support. Each student has an adult in the school to check-in and connect
with each morning. This regular focus on the student’s social, emotional and
academic needs serves as a kind of early warning system that helps the
school, the student and the family focus on problem solving before the student
gets in trouble. The extra contact each morning builds a positive relationship
with an adult and reduces the student’s need to resort to problem behavior in
order to attract attention. While the PBS team was advised that this intervention
was not likely to help a student in Tier Three, the team decided that it would
try the intervention anyway. They found that Check & Connect had a positive
result even with a child thought to have the most intensive service needs.
Nonetheless, students with the most serious mental disorders
generally will need more support. Schools have found that even with
school-wide PBS, they must have assistance with this group of students.
In this study, we found several targeted approaches to meeting these
students’ mental health needs. For example, Illinois has adapted the
mental health wraparound approach into school-based planning for
students with identified needs. Illinois foregoes the usual requirement
that the student be enrolled in special education or served by multiple
agencies.
Illinois recognized that wraparound has the potential to help students who
are at risk of developing more serious emotional/behavioral problems. The
strength-based wraparound approach, along with positive behavior-support
plans and effective academic interventions, are integrated through early
intervention teams. By using this approach at the targeted (Tier Two) level,
teams ensure that the family, student and school are engaged as partners
in the design and early implementation of a plan. The team identifies areas
of strength, needs and concerns and links these to behavioral, social and
instructional interventions that may include planning for community-based
mental health services and other supports.
The importance
of universal
school-wide PBS
should not be
underestimated.
Family Role
Family engagement—the partnering of families with professionals
to help children develop to their potential—and family-driven service
plans are core practices in mental health systems of care. Families,
40
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
however, often report that schools do not view these practices in such a
positive light. PBS initiatives have made a concerted effort to change that
outmoded outlook. PBS considers as best practice the inclusion of family
members on statewide, district and school-level teams and treats families
as equal partners in policy, planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation activities.
Mark Stanton
PBS treats
families as equal
partners in
policy, planning,
implementation,
The PBS initiatives we studied were very focused on improving family
involvement. They seek to ensure:
a family-friendly school that actively solicits family input and
participation;
regular communications with parents about PBS expectations,
systems and practices;
regular feedback and opportunities for school personnel and parents
to discuss a student’s behavior and school functioning, using a
strength-based approach that recognizes assets as well as areas
targeted for improvement; and
effective efforts to solicit parent and youth views that help inform
the decisions of PBS teams.
To facilitate this level of involvement, school-wide PBS initiatives:
provide information and training for parents so that they can teach,
advocate and support their child;
provide or facilitate leadership training so parents of children with
behavior problems can participate in PBS and other community and
school initiatives and can support and mentor other parents; and
provide youth-leadership training so youth can develop the
knowledge and skills to support other youth and participate
meaningfully in PBS and other school and community efforts.
monitoring
and evaluation
activities.
Specific school-level roles include:
meaningful family and youth involvement on the leadership team
that designs, implements and evaluates PBS;
full family involvement on PBS teams that develop, implement and
monitor an individualized behavioral plan for targeted and intensive
interventions and support;
family-liaison positions in the school; and
input from and support for family organizations so they can help
shape all aspects of school-wide PBS integrated with mental health
and provide specific services, training and technical assistance.
Improving School-Family Relationships
The sites we visited reported that PBS had helped them achieve
better relationships between families and schools. As a result, they had
improved parent attendance at teacher conferences and school open
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
41
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
houses, increased the number of volunteers for school activities, created
vibrant parent organizations and built more effective alliances between
families, schools and community agencies when students required
intensive level services.
Schools that are alert to the transformative powers of PBS
communicate regularly with parents about PBS. They discuss PBS in
newsletters and at orientation, open houses and other events. Parents are
exposed to PBS regularly, often in creative ways—e.g., through games,
songs or skits—that are enjoyable to students and family members.
Two inner-city schools we visited in Chicago had proactive strategies to
create a family-friendly environment. Both schools had a large population of
economically disadvantaged families, including some who were homeless
and others who were non-English speakers or uncomfortable with class and
cultural differences that contributed to their feelings of isolation from school
and community. Family resource developers, who come from the school
community and have personal experience with the children’s mental health
system, help to overcome negative expectations, showing how community
and school can be a source of support and assistance, rather than friction.
Parents who connect with the school through volunteer activities,
attend family fun nights or participate in other school-community
activities typically feel part of a problem-solving team when difficult
issues arise. The schools we visited recognize the value of volunteer
activities that link families more closely with their child’s school. They
found many parents who cannot or do not wish to attend meetings, but
who respond to requests for help with concrete tasks.
Having a parent
on staff helps to
facilitate strong
connections
between
parents and
schools.
In New York, an elementary school gives “green” tickets for good
behavior that are redeemable for prizes. Parents solicit donated prizes from the
community and volunteer to staff the store for a few hours per week. (One of
the coveted prizes is a rubber bracelet, patterned after the Lance Armstrong
bracelet, inscribed “I am a problem-solver.”)
Family Liaisons
Having a parent on staff helps to facilitate strong connections
between parents and schools. Many of the sites visited have hired
parents to work in the PBS initiative. Family liaisons serve on PBS
teams, collaborate with school and community organization’s staff,
help families navigate service systems and connect with community
resources, help families develop self-sufficiency and leadership skills, and
strengthen school/family/community relations. Parents feel they have
someone to advocate for them, while the schools find it valuable to have
the added support of the liaison when trying to assist the child and the
family.
42
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
PBS initiatives have different terms to describe these individuals but,
for the purposes of this discussion, we will use “family liaison” as the
generic term.
Each Travis County (TX) PBS school has a paid family member who works
in the school. These individuals assume leadership roles easily because of their
regular presence in the school and their focus on PBS. They serve as in-school
coaches and are part of PBS teams at all levels.
In New York, family representatives on PBS school teams link familysupport services within their region. Family representatives are expected to be
part of school planning and implementation teams and typically receive a
stipend to cover their expenses. The family organization continues to look at
ways to segue family representatives into leadership roles traditionally held by
professionals in schools (e.g., PBS coach), but is finding this a challenge with
volunteers who do not have a regular presence on campus.
Family liaisons not only provide links to an array of communitybased services, they provide a variety of services and support themselves.
In the Chicago schools, the family resource developers (FRDs), who
are parents with personal experience navigating the mental health system,
work with families to develop self-sufficiency skills and obtain services like
housing and employment assistance. They often offer programs to adults—like
parenting classes or English classes for non-English-speaking families—and
facilitate community-promoting social events, such as community dinners.
Families value the extra help and the inclusionary approaches of the FRDs
and, as a result, are able to more constructively engage with the school in
helping their children succeed socially and academically.
Aslan
Family
organizations
Recognizing the value of the family-liaison role, some sites have
managed to find a way even when unable to fund the position.
are a particularly
Some PBS schools in Montana use AmeriCorps volunteers as family
resource officers who do family outreach and receive training in working with
people in poverty. The schools have been successful in obtaining volunteers
with skills and community knowledge that enable them to be effective. While
the schools would prefer to have the permanence and advantages of a
regular employee, they are appreciative of this option.
important
resource for
school-wide PBS
integrated with
mental health.
Family Organizations’ Role
Family organizations are a particularly important resource for schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health. These groups can bring the
experience and skills of family members to the table to assist both
professionals and other families alike.
Family organizational capacity will vary from state to state, district
to district and school to school. Our sites needed to assess accurately
what infrastructure and capacity existed, recognizing strengths as well as
gaps. Then they determined how to promote capacity and infrastructure
development to expand family involvement. This is a developmental
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
43
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
process, and the family component strengthens over time with careful
nurturing.
The Illinois Federation of Families (IFF) provides Parent Partners, who
participate on universal PBS teams and on individual child and family teams
when needed. IFF has developed partnerships at community levels with
schools, local area networks for children and adolescents (LANs), mental health
and other social service agencies. It also maintains collaborative relationships
on a statewide level with, among others, the Departments of Children and
Family Services and Mental Health, the state Board of Education and the
Community Residential Services Authority.
In New York, the family organization has a grant from the state to support
regional family coordinators, who partner with school mental health specialists
in regional student support centers. The regional family coordinators act as
resources for school teams, assisting them with recruitment and training of
PBS family representatives on school teams and linking family-support services
within their region.
Family organizations that became involved in the PBS sites we visited
typically had some partnership with the state already.
Family organizations in New York, New Hampshire, Maryland and Illinois,
for example, had significant experience prior to PBS in partnering with the
state and local agencies to plan, design and implement family-engagement
strategies. They may offer wraparound facilitation training and consultation,
run mentoring programs and family-to-family support programs, monitor and
administer the flexible funds associated with the mental health system of care,
partner with the community mental health centers and provide family- and
youth-leadership training.
One of the roles
for PBS teams
is to nurture
strong family
organizations.
Family organizations that have not had this experience will take
more time to build capacity. One of the roles for PBS teams is to nurture
strong family organizations. Some leadership teams establish work
groups to develop strategies for engaging family and youth. These groups
typically identify the family-involvement efforts of other state and local
children’s services to join, rather than duplicate efforts.
New Hampshire coordinates family involvement through the Family and
Youth Engagement Workgroup of its System of Care and Education initiative,
developing common strategies among projects (including PBS).
Measuring Family Engagement
PBS leaders emphasized the importance of schools’ assessing their
success in fostering meaningful family engagement. School and family
perceptions can be markedly different. Schools should identify desired
outcomes and goals for family partnerships at all levels of their PBS
initiative (universal, targeted and intensive). Asking what family
partnerships will look like, how the team will know if it is successful and
how it will monitor family partnerships are important questions that
keep initiatives accountable with respect to family focus. Several tools
44
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
have been developed to measure family involvement (see the appendix)
and some initiatives have also developed their own tools.
New Hampshire and New York have checklists to measure family
engagement and to help PBS teams assess whether their schools are following
the process designed to ensure family involvement. Families Together NYS
developed a manual for training family members and to help PBS teams
incorporate family members in all aspects of PBS.
Funding Family Involvement
Funding for family involvement is necessary and comes, we found,
from a variety of sources. These include SAMHSA system of care grants,
IDEA Part B discretionary money, federal discretionary grants from the
Department of Education, funding from state mental health, education
or other state agencies, school district and school budgets, and funds
raised by family organizations.
Maryland has a School Mental Health Integration grant from the
U.S. Department of Education for developing models and strategies for
strengthening family involvement and the targeted- and intensive-level service
components of its PBS initiative. A family member chairs the advisory board
for the project and a family liaison, appointed by the Maryland Coalition of
Families for Children’s Mental Health, serves on the management team of the
school mental health alliance. The family liaison is responsible for developing
a training curriculum and materials for family engagement. In each of the
counties participating in the grant project, a family member will be hired to
serve as a family partner, trained and supported by the coalition.
Student involvement
Student Role
is part of a
Student involvement is part of a change in cultural expectations for
schools. While consumer and family involvement has become a core
expectation in the mental health system, this is a newer expectation for
schools.
change in cultural
expectations for
schools.
Like other stakeholders, youth need access to information, training
and cross-training opportunities that will allow them to effectively
participate and be a partner in directing PBS initiatives. We found that
PBS schools promote various youth-development activities, such as
leadership training, community service, civic participation, peer support
and peer tutoring. Typically, organizations that have developed family
involvement and leadership training will also create youth-leadership
training.
In New Hampshire, the Alliance for Community Supports (ACS) and the
Granite State Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health jointly provide
annual mental health leadership training for young people from all over the
state. Each year, about 15 youth are selected to participate in a seven-month
series of trainings that include team building, cultural competency, public
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
45
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
speaking, conflict resolution and state systems. The series culminates in a
graduation ceremony and celebration, well-attended by leaders of state and
nonprofit entities, who offer opportunities for graduates to become involved
with their agencies’ planning and management activities. Until this year, the
CARE NH system of care grant from SAMHSA provided part of the funding for
the series, but financial support now comes entirely through a contract with the
state Bureau of Behavioral Health.
High schools and middle schools may emphasize peer support and
mentoring more than elementary schools, but even at the elementary
school level, PBS schools look for opportunities to encourage the
development of leadership skills. They may give students, at one
time or another, responsibility for teaching an aspect of PBS to their
schoolmates; the opportunity to serve on a student council, a classroom
decision making group or student safety patrol; and the authority to
issue tickets recognizing good behavior in other students.
Elementary schools have also found ways to engage students in
decisions about PBS implementation.
A New York elementary school, looking for opportunities to involve
students in PBS, allowed the children to choose the prizes students could obtain
by redeeming their good-behavior certificates. Students conducted a survey
to determine preferences, underscoring the message that students have a
voice and can engage in a logical, meaningful process to affect life in their
community. At this school, the universal team also includes a student member.
School-wide PBS involves all staff, including bus drivers, cafeteria
workers and custodians. Helping students recognize the contributions of
these staff members leads to improved mutual respect.
Fifth-grade students in a rural New Hampshire school spend one morning
each month serving donuts and bagels to the bus drivers who stop at the
school. The students enjoy serving and interacting with the drivers. The drivers
appreciate the gesture and are especially pleased with the significant
reduction in discipline problems on their routes with the advent of PBS.
Elementary-school teachers also find creative ways to bring PBS into
the classroom and to underscore its principles in a concrete way while
strengthening academic skills.
At an elementary school in New Hampshire, kindergartners were asked
to illustrate one of the behaviors on the PBS behavior matrix. Each was then
paired with a fourth-grader who demonstrated how to use drawing software to
create the illustration on the computer. The kindergartner then described the
illustration and the pair worked to create the text that the fourth-grader then
entered on the computer. Each pair then had an opportunity to present its
work to the class. This assignment involved computer and language skills and
valuable social interactions.
46
School-wide PBS
involves all staff,
including bus
drivers, cafeteria
workers and
custodians.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Working With The Community
Schools are a hub of community activity. Sites have found that raising
awareness in the community about what happens behind school walls
can be very beneficial. The community can also be a valuable resource
to schools by providing volunteers or supplying prizes and incentives for
school initiatives.
An elementary school in New York makes a special effort to bring the
community into the school and to take the school to the community. Teachers
and students go to businesses around town to put up signs made by students
that reflect a particular PBS focus. Another New York elementary school inspired
a local ecumenical council to spearhead Community Respect Week. These
are examples of ways the community chose to reinforce behavioral learning in
PBS schools.
Aslan
Raising
awareness in
the community
about what
PBS schools understand that children who have behavioral problems
may exhibit them in the community. But when helped through PBS,
their behavior can improve in both school and community.
When a New York student was caught shoplifting, the PBS team did not
ignore the situation, even though it did not occur in school. Instead, the school
looked to how it could constructively engage the student and family. Staff
worked with the student to identify his motivation for stealing and learned that
he wanted spending money that he did not have because of the family’s
poverty. He and his family took part in some brainstorming/problem-solving
sessions that ultimately yielded a decision to pursue a part-time family business
in which the child could be involved and which would provide extra money to
both student and family. In this case the team was able to turn a mistake into
a lesson about problem-solving.
happens behind
school walls
can be very
beneficial.
Training and Technical Assistance
Since PBS is a developmental process, ongoing technical assistance,
training and support are fundamental to implementation. On the mental
health side, there is a very significant need for parallel training in system
of care principles and philosophy, in evidence-based and best-practice
approaches and on how mental health systems can work with and
support school-wide PBS initiatives.
One of the challenges we found for statewide initiatives is ensuring
the capacity for training and technical assistance (in both education and
mental health) once the number of schools implementing PBS expands
significantly. This can be done within resource limitations by training
the trainers.
In Illinois a state system of trainers and coaches supports more than 444
schools implementing school-wide PBS. In Maryland, trainers and coaches
support more than 300 schools.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
47
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
Since PBS is a cross-systems approach, cross-systems training is
needed at every level. At the state level, team members must understand
the culture, systems and programs, and the eligibility and funding of
education, mental health and other child-serving agencies, as well as
family organizations. Cross-training at the local level is also needed
so that all involved in the collaboration can understand how to most
effectively achieve the jointly identified goals in serving children and
their families.
In Travis County, Texas, the Education Service Center (ECS), a regional
school-support center that existed before the PBS initiative started, provides
training and support on PBS to school personnel and families. The local system
of care is a partner in the PBS training, and school personnel learn about
mental health and social service systems and system of care principles.
Conversely, social service and mental health agency personnel learn about
working in the schools and PBS.
In New York, the family organization is a co-trainer at all PBS training
sessions, ensuring that the goal of families as partners is more than just rhetoric
and is actually reflected in all aspects of PBS practice. The family group
has developed a training manual and curriculum for family coordinators
and currently collaborates with SUNY Albany, child-serving agencies and
other family partners to create unified statewide training initiatives that will
assist all stakeholders in their work to support children and their families in an
individualized, family-driven environment.
Since PBS is a crosssystems approach,
cross-systems
training is needed
at every level.
It is both effective and efficient to build on existing infrastructure,
and PBS leadership teams typically look to existing regional schoolsupport networks to develop and integrate PBS training and technical
assistance.
In Illinois, the EBD Network was established in 1990 to develop a regional
network of technical assistance providers to support regional and local
system of care development and to promote integration of school-based
wraparound care for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. The
network, renamed the Illinois PBIS Network, currently provides expertise, training
and support to several Illinois initiatives, including PBS. Having developed
expertise in the eight years prior to PBS, the network was able to incorporate its
experience with wraparound and individual behavioral support plans with PBS
and is now recognized as a national leader in targeted and intensive level PBS
implementation.
New York contracts with seven regional technical-assistance sites to
provide training and technical assistance to interested schools. Each region
has a PBS specialist responsible for the planning, development and provision
of coordinated training and technical assistance for the region. These sites are
also aligned with the NYS Regional School Support Centers in order to promote
collaboration with existing regional support networks. A statewide PBS technical
assistance center, which will support the regional sites, is expected to open in
2006-2007. New York, like Illinois, used regional technical assistance centers or
networks that were experienced in providing assistance to schools participating
48
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
in interagency initiatives to support students with emotional and behavioral
disorders.
Practice, coaching and on-site technical assistance are necessary
to supplement formal training, since behavior change requires more
than just an intellectual understanding of PBS. Just as practice and
reinforcement are key elements in students’ behavioral learning,
experienced PBS practitioners note that these are also essential for adults
learning PBS. Coaching and technical assistance help ensure that the
substance of what is presented in training is appropriately translated into
practice.
A number of interviewees acknowledged that adults, like students, have
a learning curve as they try to develop new behaviors and skills, and that the
same thoroughness that goes into building the school-wide PBS plan needs
to be incorporated into a staff-development plan. A training and technical
assistance plan will accommodate differences in learning styles, and while a
majority may be trained with a standard curriculum and practice opportunities,
some will require more support. Like younger learners, adults also respond to
strength-based approaches, recognition, clear expectations, and respectful
interactions. Those responsible for shepherding PBS must make sure that their
plans reflect that understanding.
Maryland has trained more than 130 behavior-support coaches, who
collaborate with PBS teams to strengthen existing programs and provide
leadership and guidance to schools that are considering PBS. Most coaches
are school psychologists who work with three to five PBS schools. They attend
PBS school team meetings and provide ongoing support to help schools
implement and sustain PBS. The coaches also meet at the state level five times
a year.
Institutions
of higher
education can
make important
contributions
to the design
and delivery of
Several of the states we visited highlighted the importance of
establishing partnerships with institutions of higher education. These
institutions can make important contributions to the design and delivery
of training, program evaluation and data management. When professors
and administrators are included as partners on the statewide leadership
teams, they develop a better understanding of priorities in the field and
the need to connect what is taught in professional-training programs to
PBS and systems of care practice.
training, program
evaluation
and data
management.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
The commitment to PBS training is reinforced in New Hampshire’s
institutions of higher education, where PBS is part of the curriculum in both newteacher training and continuing education. The University of New Hampshire’s
Institute on Disability, which provides family- and youth-leadership training,
as well as training to professionals and paraprofessionals in family-centered
systems, is represented on the PBS leadership team. Plymouth State College,
one of four institutions of higher education that serve on the statewide PBS
team, offers graduate credits for teachers in wraparound and systems of care
and education. Plymouth also offers a PBS certificate program in behavioral
management, and PBS is part of undergraduate education for teachers. The
49
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
state also has a four-year mentoring program that gives new teachers entering
the field experience with PBS.
Many of the people we interviewed mentioned how experience
with PBS changed their thinking and that prospective PBS schools and
communities would benefit from hearing from experienced peers.
In New Hampshire, teachers no longer think of behavior management as
“policing,” and are now receptive to the responsibility for teaching behavioral
expectations when explained in an instructional context.
For those with no direct experience yet, it was emphasized that the
process should be described in terms that are as concrete as possible,
using illustrative examples to clarify theoretical constructs.
Outcome Measurement and Reporting
Outcome measurement is a fundamental aspect of school-wide PBS.
Reporting on outcomes and achievements, we were told, has several
purposes, including to help initiatives maintain the support of their
school boards, communities and elected officials.
All the states we visited post information about their initiative on a website.
Illinois, New Hampshire and Maryland use their PBS websites quite extensively.
To highlight research findings and celebrate successes, they post such items as
progress reports, outcome data, and online newsletters, in addition to training
and technical assistance information, resource literature, PBS tools and forms.
Many of the schools visited use the School-Wide Information System
(SWIS–see Chapter 2). Schools appreciate its simplicity and the summary
reports that allow schools to compare discipline referrals from one year
(or one quarter) to the next. This aggregated information can be used in
various ways.
Maryland encourages its schools to use a cost-benefit analysis worksheet
that calculates how much instructional and administrative time is gained from
a reduction in office-discipline referrals. This not only provides a measurable
outcome that is useful for the school in maintaining staff buy-in, it is also a
way to show policymakers, parents and other constituencies the value of
supporting PBS.
New Hampshire also examines school hours regained due to reductions
in problem behaviors. The number of hours regained is quantified for students
(for learning), teachers (for teaching) and administrators (for leadership).
In examining reports for one cohort of 22 schools, it found that, as a result
of reduction on problem behaviors in 2004-05 compared to 2003-04, the
average school gained 447 hours for student learning, 134 hours for teaching
and 100 hours for administration.
Reporting on
outcomes and
achievements
helps initiatives
maintain the
support of their
school boards,
communities and
elected officials.
Data from the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET, see Chapter 2) are
also used:
50
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Illinois use discipline referrals and SET data to show how rigorous
application of PBS produces the best outcomes and how less consistent
application reduces effectiveness. In schools that had a SET score indicating
full implementation at the universal level, 84-89% of students had either zero
or one discipline referral. Schools not meeting the baseline score for full
implementation had only 58-69% of students with either zero or one referral.
In addition to SET, many PBS initiatives use the Effective Behavior
Support (EBS) survey. SET scores, EBS findings and other assessmenttool scores help individual schools plan and modify their strategies, in
addition to guiding state and regional technical assistance, training and
support.
In Maryland and New York, for example, district and regional leadership
teams review data from each school in their district or region, identifying
strengths and areas targeted for improvement. An external coach or regional
coordinator may help determine whether there are school-specific needs and
whether needs are common among schools in their area. This information is
also communicated to the statewide team so that at all levels, PBS leaders are
aware of what is working well and what needs to be strengthened or improved.
All of the initiatives
focused on
academic
outcomes as
well as discipline
issues.
All of the initiatives studied focused on academic outcomes as well
as discipline issues. They discussed the connection between academics,
behavioral issues and school success and charted a range of different
outcomes relevant to implementation of PBS.
Illinois correlated reading scores and PBS SET scores among elementary
schools that were participating in a reading initiative. On average, 62.19%
of third graders in fully implementing schools met or exceeded the state
reading standard, while only an average of 46.6% of third graders in the other
schools met the same standard.1 Illinois plans to make it easier for schools to
manipulate and correlate various outcome measures, not just those related to
discipline. It is redesigning its statewide database to integrate PBS assessment
and evaluation scores, as well as ISAT (IL Standards Achievement Test) scores
and LRE (least restrictive environment) data.
A number of leaders in the statewide initiatives acknowledged the
need for additional planning and assessment tools for Tiers Two and
Three. While many resources are available for Tier One, they recognized
that schools particularly needed added support and resources for targeted
and intensive levels. This is an area in which mental health support is
especially useful.
To that end, New Hampshire has developed:
• Targeted Team Implementation checklists, which lay out benchmarks
for full implementation of Tier Two, taking a team through the essential steps
from readiness to startup, full implementation and assessment;
• the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff, a tool to
guide school personnel through an initial functional behavioral assessment;
and
• a Targeted Team Intervention Summary Report Form, a survey asking
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
51
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
for information about aggregated data and process and quality measures.
This tool is designed to help teams understand whether they are using FBAs
and behavior-support plans effectively and to enable tracking of progress from
baseline through successive years.
Illinois uses a simple process-measures rating system for each tier and
schools are scored for each level of implementation. At the end of the
year, PBS teams complete a school profile to examine the impact of their
interventions. The profile includes information on the number, level and
perceived effect of interventions. (See the appendix for tools used in Illinois.)
Data can also be used to measure the effectiveness of wraparound for
students with serious behavioral problems.
Illinois has piloted an online system to track changes and progress for
individual students with wraparound. Follow-up data on these at-risk students (at
risk for out-of-school, home or community placement) showed that the risk of
removal was reduced after three months and that there was a decrease in the
incidence of verbal aggression, oppositional behavior and lying. In addition,
as these students’ behavioral disruptions declined, their need for academic
assistance became more apparent in the classroom and their academic
achievement improved. Families also reported improvements in emotional
and behavioral functioning at home.
Grants and university partners are ways that state initiatives have
found to obtain support for rigorous evaluation of their PBS efforts.
The Sheppard Pratt Health System and the John Hopkins University Center
for the Prevention of Youth Violence and its graduate division of education, the
Maryland Department of Education and four school districts are collaborating
in a five-year evaluation project that receives grant funding from the National
Institute of Mental Health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
External evaluations and assessments are also critical to ensuring
accountability and to assess the need for further training and technical
assistance. While internal data allow a school to chart its individual
progress, larger-scale evaluations allow progress to be measured against
other schools and against target goals. Without feedback mechanisms
and accountability checks, we were told that, over time, schools risk
becoming complacent, leading to flagging efforts and inconsistent
behavior management.
External
evaluations and
assessments
are also critical
to ensuring
accountability
and to assess
the need for
further training
and technical
assistance.
Many resources have been developed to aid PBS initiatives. A list
of planning, implementation and evaluation guidelines, forms and
measurement tools is in the appendix.
Many of the leaders we interviewed stressed the importance of public
acknowledgment of accomplishments and outcomes reached in PBS
schools, not only to keep the interest of community stakeholders but
also because success itself is a positive reinforcer for those who are
engaged in PBS initiatives.
52
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Outcomes and data are not only valuable for decision-making,
team planning and evaluation, they are also effective when discussing
behavior with parents and children. There are fewer disputes when
documentation backs up statements made by the school.
A New York State elementary school shares behavioral data with
parents when they come to conferences about their children. Children may
behave very differently at home and at school. As an example, the principal
recounted how a parent didn’t believe that her child was continually tardy, but
accurate records were helpful in showing exactly how many times the student
arrived late.
School personnel in successful PBS schools have a positive view
of data collection and analysis because they understand how these
components are connected to instructional objectives. Any initial
resistance usually disappears when it becomes apparent that the social
and academic outcomes are achieved.
Outcomes
Teachers with PBS experience told us that they are now more
aware of the pitfalls that come with reaching for solutions before
understanding problems or questioning the validity of preconceived
ideas. They have been impressed with PBS because it follows a
disciplined approach in which decisions are reached about interventions
only after careful analysis of data. Regular monitoring of data also
provides ongoing feedback to show them when their interventions are
not working or are in need of adjustment.
and data are
Funding
Isis Hudgins
valuable for
decision-making,
team planning,
evaluation and
when discussing
behavior with
parents and
children.
The initiatives we studied patched together various state, federal and
local funds. Federal education monies that most frequently underwrote
the PBS initiative came through the IDEA, Part B discretionary funds
and Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act. Other discretionary federal
education grants are used to develop the infrastructure and capacity that
supports PBS and other initiatives. These include grants aimed at:
dropout prevention;
literacy promotion;
safe and drug-free schools;
mental health integration in schools; and
character education.
For mental health services, federal system of care funding from
SAMHSA was used not only to fund individual services for children but
also to support mental health professional consultation to PBS schools,
early intervention services, family support and family liaisons.
Mental health services for individual students were billed to
Medicaid, S-CHIP or private insurance, or through Part B, special
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
53
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
education. Significant contributors, particularly for services and activities
that are not easily billable, are state education and mental health general
revenue funds. Other funding sources include private foundations and
hospital and health care systems, insurers and community organizations.
In states where Medicaid managed care organizations and/or
managed care entities had contracts for covering public mental health
services, the state team worked with the state Medicaid and mental
health agencies to negotiate funding for relevant services.
A number of the PBS leaders interviewed suggested that state teams
investigate grant sources and develop strategic plans that systematically
examine various funding streams and how to integrate them. They
underscored the importance of a long-range financial plan to support
all aspects of the initiative. When applying for new grant monies, they
recommended that states consider how new dollars could be used to
strengthen the state’s system of care and PBS, since these are integrative
systems that support various youth-serving and school-improvement initiatives.
It is important to be strategic and to do these two initiatives well in order to
avoid diverting attention and resources from important transformation efforts.
At the school level, some expenses are associated with PBS. The
one most often mentioned during our site visits was the need to hire
substitute teachers when staff attend trainings or PBS meetings. Or, if
training occurs in the summer, then funds are needed to pay staff for the
extra days of work. Funding generally came from the school district or
the individual school budget and this resource need was small enough
that it did not prove a barrier to participation.
As relationships
become
stronger,
community
members begin
to think of ways
they can support
the school.
The other area for which funds are often needed at the school
level is for small items used as positive reinforcers. Usually money
for these items is obtained through a parent organization or parent
volunteers who fundraise or seek community donations. Not only do
the contributions cover some of the expense of PBS, but schools have
found that it is an easy step in building relations between the school
and community. As these relationships become stronger, community
members begin to think of other ways they can support the school.
Sustainability
Because school-wide PBS integrated with mental health represents
major system reform, the states, counties and school districts we visited
have plans for how they will sustain these efforts. Despite the research
demonstrating impressive outcomes with PBS, there is enough history
with educational fads and failed reform efforts to warn stakeholders that
concerted and planned efforts must be made to ensure the initiative will
continue.
54
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
There is also a danger in moving forward too ambitiously if the effort
cannot be sustained. Many educators remember previous initiatives that
were introduced and allowed to languish. Failed efforts are demoralizing
and lead schools to stick with business as usual even when researchbased practices indicate a better way.
In conversations with national experts, we heard about PBS initiatives
that had withered because of insufficient long-term commitment.
Typically, a county or district effort had funded the initial training, but
had not understood the need to maintain external training, technical
assistance and support once schools were beyond the initial PBS roll-out.
On the mental health side, sustainability will often involve being
able to maintain a system of care that was started with federal funds, as
were several of the initiatives that we studied. Any community, school or
district that relies on this money must be prepared to obtain alternative
funding for its school-mental health collaboration activities when the
grant expires.
Westchester County relied on some federal system of care grant funds
to initiate its support of PBS development in schools. It has been successful
in maintaining PBS efforts after the grant ended. The regional education
consortium, which supports 18 school districts in New York State, now provides
funding for training and coaching for more than 35 PBS schools in the county.
Funds may be
To sustain any initiative, initial implementation results must be able
to demonstrate worth. School-wide PBS integrated with mental health
should be valuable to the school, the mental health system, families and
the community. In some cases, demonstrating success was sufficient to
encourage a local funder to support some part of the initiative.
In New York, a satellite mental health center of a large hospital and
health care system received state funds to provide mental health services at
an elementary school. The state no longer funds the project, but the hospital
still maintains the center and its services and underwrites expenses that are
not reimbursed by Medicaid and other payers. Despite the loss of state funds,
the school/mental health collaboration has continued and the mental health
center participates in PBS.
forthcoming from
the education
or mental health
system, once value
is demonstrated.
Alternatively, funds may be forthcoming from the education or
mental health system, once value is demonstrated.
In the first year, the system of care initiative in Travis County, Texas,
provided all the funding for family liaison positions. In the second year, the
Partnership paid half and the school funded the other half. From the third
year on, the schools have paid for the positions. All the positions have been
sustained, even after the federal grant for the Partnership ended. These
positions have been crucial in supporting children in the school setting and
linking them to outside services and resources necessary to sustain success.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
55
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
Social Marketing
While success may lead some funder(s) to underwrite some
components of PBS, to put school-wide PBS integrated with mental
health on a firm, long-term footing will require a much greater level
of planning and proactive work on the part of initiative leaders in
the state and community. Social marketing—explaining and selling a
human-services approach to policymakers and the wider public—will
be necessary to ensure long-term support. Success in social marketing
is both a question of finding the right words and communicating the
substance of the initiative.
Many issues currently seek public attention and support. Developing
a compelling rationale for PBS is central to getting sustained support
from policymakers and the resources to continue. PBS proponents
understand the perspective of those they are trying to influence when
they talk about PBS and its ability to address current public-policy
priorities.
In all the initiatives we studied, PBS leaders explained the importance
of “buy-in” by key stakeholders and described what they did to elicit
this support. An overriding theme was that, since it is a school-based
initiative, PBS must be described in terms that are consistent with the
mission of schools and reflect today’s concerns about school climate,
discipline and academic achievement.
In New Hampshire, those who present PBS to schools emphasize
the outcomes on which educators are mostly likely to be focused—e.g.,
improved school climate and academic performance. To this audience, PBS
is described in ways that show how it fits in with school-improvement initiatives
like No Child Left Behind, dropout prevention, literacy and violence prevention.
Talking about lost instructional time and how a collaborative team effort can
support educators struggling with behavior problems is a winning message.
Many of the PBS practitioners we interviewed repeatedly stressed
that the connection between social and emotional development and
academic achievement is powerful when it is properly explained. They
saw PBS as the single most important factor in their school’s effort to
lift academic performance and meet the standards of No Child Left
Behind. Education audiences can appreciate that PBS is predicated on
the understanding that social and emotional learning are integral to
education and essential in preparing children for adulthood. Several
educators mentioned that PBS promotes the understanding that
instruction about behavioral norms is part of the core mission of
teaching.
Developing
a compelling
rationale for
PBS is central to
getting sustained
support from
policymakers and
the resources to
continue.
In addition, social marketing needs to reflect the different messages
that resonate with different audiences. PBS teams have learned to adapt
56
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
WHAT Words TO Use
Language is important. The words
used to describe PBS influence
how it is perceived. PBS leaders
choose terminology that is easily
their presentations accordingly, using the terms that are most familiar
to the group being addressed.
To mental health audiences, the emphasis is on prevention, early
identification, reaching individual children in need of services, and
appropriate educational support so that children with behavioral and
emotional disturbances achieve academically. Another message that can
resonate in mental health policy circles is about making better use of
public funds by replacing less effective services with services that are
both beneficial and cost-efficient.
Travis County, Texas, planners discovered that the county was spending
$12 million a year on 400 children in residential treatment centers. They
used the research literature to demonstrate that a school-wide PBS initiative
combined with the system of care could reduce the need for residential
treatment.
understood in the community.
In some communities, describing
PBS integrated with mental health
as a mental health initiative
may provoke resistance. Some
are concerned that schools
are taking on roles that are not
appropriate for them or that PBS
is promoting “therapy” for all
children.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is instructive to review the advantages highlighted
to us by families, educators and mental health practitioners regarding
school-wide PBS integrated with mental health.
Families
As one administrator suggested,
PBS offers good mental health
practices, but can do so without
using the words “mental health.”
Even when talking with people
who support providing mental
health services in schools, the
words “mental health” may be
associated with psychotherapy
rather than the broad,
population-based, education
initiative that is represented by
PBS.
To overcome the stigma
attached to the idea of providing
mental health services in schools,
PBS (even when integrated with
mental health) can be described
Families appreciate the PBS commitment to involving parents as
partners in their child’s education and behavior plan.
The emphasis on a team approach that is inclusive of family lessens
the likelihood that adversarial relationships will develop between
schools and the parents of children with behavior problems.
With PBS, parents do not feel blamed. A punitive discipline policy
emphasizes failure, demoralizing children and their parents. Parents
report they become defensive in such a system as they sense an implicit
assumption that they are bad parents.
In PBS schools there are fewer misunderstandings between families
and school because communication is a focus of PBS.
Building on student and family strengths and on strategies that
foster greater behavioral competency, instead of listing problems and
failures, makes families feel validated and enhances cooperation.
in educational terms—as
focusing on teaching behavioral
expectations, improving
academic performance and
reducing discipline problems.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
A New Hampshire middle-school parent explained that she had not
had good experiences with schools until her child came to a PBS school. The
teachers and administrators in other schools had the attitude that they were
the experts and that what she had to say about her child’s behavior was
not important. As a result, resentment grew on both sides. In the PBS school,
however, her voice is heard and respected. She now feels comfortable at the
school, has noticed significant improvements in her child’s behavior and has
57
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
become an informal ambassador for the initiative, talking to other mothers
who frequent the beauty salon where she works. The shift in focus from what
is wrong and who is to blame to constructive discussion about what can be
done, she feels, has made a world of difference.
A parent liaison in Texas emphasized that “for the parents, presence is
power. Having a parent liaison at a school meeting to aid parents helps hold
schools accountable.”
Schools
PBS has reduced the time that teachers spend dealing with behavior
problems, leaving more time for classroom teaching.
Improved academic and behavioral outcomes (for individuals and the
student body as a whole), greater family and student satisfaction, and
improved school climate are among the major reasons school personnel
like PBS.
The collaborative team approach brings about other benefits,
including increased job satisfaction and a synergy that makes it exciting
to work in PBS schools.
Educators appreciate having the resources of a PBS team. Not only do
they have a place to turn for consultation, they find that their own skills
and understanding in the behavioral realm develop over time. They are
better able to help individual students and are more mindful of student
motivation generally.
When thinking in a more holistic manner, teachers are more aware of
ways to adapt their teaching style to increase student motivation.
School officials were particularly enthusiastic about the model for colocating and integrating mental health professionals and a family liaison
in the school.
PBS contributes to attitudinal change where the culture is a shared
sense of responsibility. As adults become more conscious of the behaviors
they are trying to teach, they also find that they are more consistent and
constructive in their professional interactions with students, families
and colleagues. In PBS schools, the teachers and other staff check in
with each other frequently, providing positive reinforcement, as well
as constructive feedback when they see their peers interacting with
students in ways that are not consistent with PBS behavior.
PBS has reduced
the time that
teachers
spend dealing
with behavior
problems, leaving
more time for
classroom
teaching.
School boards, superintendents and principals appreciate how PBS
contributes to community support for schools.
PBS is seen as different from other school-reform efforts because it
is a way to organize knowledge and put it into practice in a conscious
and integrated fashion. PBS serves as an effective framework for other
58
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
school-improvement initiatives (e.g., character education, Reading First,
No Child Left Behind and Safe and Drug Free Schools) and can become a
common thread that is woven into fabric of the school and into the daily
curriculum.
According to a school principle, PBS “made us more sensitive to
looking for kids who are below the radar—and more sensitive to what is
causing the problem.”
Mental Health Agencies
Aslan
Mental health
agencies
appreciate the
prevention and
early intervention
focus of PBS.
Mental health agencies appreciate the prevention and early
intervention focus of PBS. When schools are able to create a school
climate that reduces the incidence of problem behavior and are able to
intervene effectively with the majority of students, then the mental
health system can more effectively triage high-needs students. Resources
are better utilized when there is a system to address the spectrum of
needs.
Mental health professionals can use their expertise to shape all
phases of PBS implementation. Often, state policies on funding limit
practitioners to individualized services for the most seriously disturbed
youngsters and they are unable to focus on prevention and early
intervention.
Community mental health providers recognize that PBS creates a
more supportive school environment, increasing the likelihood that
students with emotional and behavioral problems can stay in school and
succeed.
PBS is a good fit with trends in mental health for person-centered,
strengths-based models of service.
When problem behavior is reduced, teachers are better able to focus
on the academic strengths and needs of students with serious mental
disorders, leading to greater school success and improved social and
emotional functioning.
PBS improves communications among stakeholders—schools,
families, mental health and other community service providers—
resulting in increased support to children and families. A unified plan,
understood by all stakeholders, is more likely to be effective.
Mental health and social service staff feel they develop a better
understanding of a student’s behavioral motivations and psychosocial
needs when they are co-located in the school and can observe the student
in school.
Greater and more varied contacts with students and their families
increase the likelihood that students and families will be able to establish
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
59
CHAPTER 3—LESSONS LEARNED
trusting and beneficial relationships and that the practitioner will have a
clearer assessment of the student and the family.
The integrated model allows a mental health provider to focus on
planning for the spectrum of behavioral health needs at the school.
Access to services improves as parents, especially those who face
financial, logistical, linguistic or cultural barriers, are more likely to access
services for their children when provided in school. Students can also
more easily access services themselves, with coordination and support of
the mental health and family-support workers.
According to a state mental health administrator, “we don’t get a lot
of prevention in mental health, but PBS fits for all people.”
The integrated
model allows a
mental health
provider to focus
on planning for
the spectrum
of behavioral
health needs at
the school.
60
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Chapter 4
Making Strides : Policies for Implementation
s stated earlier, PBS is a platform on which a range of
interventions relating to behavior and social-emotional
development can be built. Effectively implemented, PBS can
address these issues, and the recommendations in this chapter reflect this
emphasis. However, we believe the recommendations are also relevant
for states and localities interested in developing positive behavior support
and social-emotional learning and/or youth-development programs,
whether or not they use the formal PBS process we reviewed.
A
Implementation of an initiative for school-wide PBS integrated with
effective mental health services is a significant undertaking. As in all
social policy, it requires attention to the substantive policy and program
details, along with work to convince policymakers, school personnel and
mental health administrators and providers of its value.
No school-wide PBS initiative integrated with mental health services
can succeed without:
political will;
leadership at state and local levels;
effective structures for collaboration between education and mental
health systems at all levels;
provision of evidence-based, strengths-based appropriate mental
health services to children in need;
a strong family role in policy (preferably through a family
organization) and shared responsibility for decisionmaking in PBS
implementation;1
consultation and education for school personnel by community
mental health;
initial and ongoing training and technical assistance for schools and
mental health agencies/providers;
outcomes measurement and continuous quality improvement;
funding, both for PBS implementation and for the necessary adjunct
mental health services; and, of course,
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
61
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
school-wide implementation of PBS.
As policies are developed, it is also critical to keep certain realities in
mind:
Schools have seen a number of special programs/projects come and
go. Educators need to be convinced that PBS is not just another fad.
It must be a consistent and sustainable approach. Schools that are
implementing it will need ongoing technical assistance, training and
support.
PBS is a framework, not a model program, and it will take time
for school districts to accept and adopt it. It also does not need
to displace other school initiatives related to social-emotional
development.
The community mental health center model, as currently
implemented, may be seen by educators as flawed when it comes
to helping schools. Local mental health agencies must engage in
evidence-based or best practices (hereafter referred to as “most
effective services”), moving out of their offices and into the schools to
provide support to school staff as well as services to children.
Collaboration takes time. Education and mental health agency leaders
need to meet and work together to understand the other system— its
goals, language and pressures.
Families have proven invaluable in successful implementation of
PBS. They should be engaged in all planning and monitoring efforts,
as well as working within both the schools and the mental health
systems of care.
To be fully successful, PBS should not be just a school-based initiative,
but should involve various social services agencies and the community
in addition to mental health providers.
PBS is a framework,
not a model
program, and
does not need
to displace other
school initiatives
related to socialemotional
development.
Presented below is a series of steps, based on findings from this
study, for changing policy and programs at the state, local and federal
level. These are presented first in outline form (the shaded text), then
certain aspects are expanded with more detail. (Note that, while the
material is organized in steps, this is not meant to imply that the steps
are necessarily sequential. It may be appropriate to take an action either
earlier or later in the process.)
Step 1: Getting Ready
Separately and together, the education and mental health authorities
at the state level must make policy changes if a school-wide PBS
initiative integrated with mental health is to be effective. While districtwide initiatives can succeed, if they are to be sustainable, both PBS and
systems of care need state backup and policy changes that only state
62
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
agencies can make. Moreover, it is cost-efficient to spread the costs of
PBS infrastructure over a large number of schools and districts.
Key first steps at the state level would be:
Leaders of both agencies learn more about collaborative schoolwide PBS models and systems of care and commit to a process that
will result in the implementation of a joint initiative.
A leadership team is formed. Members include those who have
a thorough understanding of their agency’s policies and funding
streams and sufficient authority to facilitate the implementation
of school-wide PBS integrated with mental health.
Education and mental health authorities should ensure that
the PBS planning group includes, at a minimum, the appropriate
staff from both agencies, families and youth representatives and
possibly also representation from the regional/county or district
level. Representation from other child-serving agencies is also
encouraged.
Once formed, the leadership team should engage in a joint
goalsetting exercise and delineate the objectives and outcomes
desired from the PBS initiative.
Education will need to adopt, if it has not already, a statewide
policy for school-wide PBS and make plans to assist schools in
implementing it. Many tools are available to provide specific
guidance on how to do this, such as the Blueprint (see appendix).
It is cost-efficient to
spread the costs of
The mental health authority must similarly make a
commitment to establishment of systems of care around the state
that will serve not only children with serious mental disorders,
but also children who show behavior or other social/emotional
problems that put them at risk for serious disorders.
PBS infrastructure over
a large number of
schools and districts.
The mental health authority should formulate policy and plan
training and technical assistance that will improve the quality
of services to children, using the most effective services and a
strength-based, family-driven, culturally relevant approach to
service delivery.
Interagency Collaboration
The leadership team may need to be built, or an existing interagency
collaboration across child-serving systems may take on this role. In many
states, structures for interagency collaboration exist at the state level and
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
63
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
often are replicated regionally or locally. Regardless of how the structure
is formed, it may be appropriate to begin with one-on-one discussions
between the mental health and education authorities.
Mental health systems should reach out to education whenever a
school-wide PBS initiative is under consideration. PBS should be seen as
an opportunity for mental health to contribute to the effort of making
the school environment conducive to learning and helping schools
address the needs of children with behavioral problems.
The state leadership team should have broad representation, while
retaining the ability to be efficient and focused.
At the state level, the team should include representation from
offices responsible for special education, general education and
mental health as well as family organizations and youth, child
welfare and juvenile justice agencies.
Participation by higher education institutions can also be
valuable as these institutions can conduct evaluations, assist with
data review and address pre-service and in-service training needs.
Other agencies that might also be part of the team (perhaps
at a later date, if not initially) include substance abuse, health,
Medicaid, developmental disabilities, vocational rehabilitation and
vocational education.
In some states it may also be appropriate to include
representation from the regional, county or district levels in order
to bring a local perspective to the discussions.
Mark Stanton
PBS initiatives
need to be
school-wide in
order to create a
positive learning
environment for
all students.
Leadership teams may wish to create an advisory role for
trade associations representing mental health agencies, teachers
or community health centers and state groups representing key
practitioners such as pediatricians or mental health professionals.
States should devise a policy mechanism to lay out these structures in
order to insure permanence. This can be done through legislation, agency
memoranda of understanding, executive order or some other mechanism.
PBS as Education Policy
PBS initiatives need to be school-wide in order to create a positive
learning environment for all students. While federal law mandates that
schools consider PBS and an FBA for students with disabilities in certain
circumstances, it is a mistake to engage in PBS only for a limited number
of students. All students benefit from PBS, and students with disabilities
are more effectively assisted if there is a school-wide program to buttress
individual services.
64
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Education systems have access to a considerable body of support for
PBS initiatives. National training and technical assistance is available
through Department of Education-supported centers (see list in the
appendix) and a number of tools have been developed to assist in schoolwide implementation. In addition, software and technological and other
support are available for the information management necessary to
permit ongoing adjustments focused on improving the initiative.
School-wide PBS should also be developed district by district. Unless
all schools in the district —elementary, middle and high schools— have
PBS in place, children will lose the gains they have made as they move up
the grades. PBS is effective in preschools, alternative schools, high schools
and juvenile justice-run schools. Plans should be made to encourage the
development of PBS initiatives throughout the education system.
Mental Health System of Care Expansions
Many states have at least fledgling initiatives to support interagency
systems of care for children and youth with serious mental disorders.
However, these initiatives frequently target only the most seriously
impaired children, even while the federal system of care program uses a
broader definition that encompasses children at risk. Engagement of the
education system in these initiatives is often weak or nonexistent.
State and local mental health systems should fund local systems
of care where these do not exist and broaden the mandate of
existing systems to address the needs of children with serious
disorders, as defined in federal law, and those at risk of such
disorders.
PBS is effective
State and local mental health systems should explore the
possibility of filing an application for a SAMHSA system of care
grant (see www.samhsa.gov).
in preschools,
alternative schools,
high schools and
juvenile justice-run
schools.
Furnishing Effective Services
Systems of care and other local mental health programs have not
always implemented the most effective practices. Research has shown
that if children do not have access to the most effective services,
reorganizing systems will have only a limited impact.
Mental health authorities should identify the most effective
practices in children’s services and promote them in an ongoing
program of training, technical assistance and mentoring for
practitioners. SAMHSA has information on the most effective
practices at www.samhsa.gov.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
65
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
Training and technical assistance should focus particularly on
communities where schools are expected to implement schoolwide PBS.
Step 2: Building a Foundation
Having made the commitment and started discussions, state
officials should move quickly to encourage the formation of parallel
local leadership teams. County (if applicable), district and school level
collaborations should be formed and stakeholders at all levels should be
educated about school-wide PBS integrated with mental health.
The state PBS implementation leadership team (which now
includes broad representation) should organize a conference to
build awareness of school-wide PBS within school districts and
engage family organizations in both conference planning and
conference presentations.
The leadership team should also undertake other activities to
explain the goals and objectives of the initiative to school districts
and local mental health agencies and encourage them to consider
its adoption.
A plan should be implemented to educate families about PBS
and provide training and support to families and youth who will
serve on leadership teams at the state or local level.
The mental health authority should begin an inventory of the
services provided by child mental health providers to assess the
capacity of local delivery systems to furnish the most effective
services, consultation and education to school personnel and
school-based early intervention services. This will identify gaps in
the service array.
The leadership team should map funding sources for schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health services and identify gaps
in resources. A planning process for finding necessary additional
resources needs to be initiated.
At the local level, education and mental health system personnel
should focus on how a school-wide PBS initiative integrated with mental
health can be launched.
66
State officials
should move
quickly to
encourage the
formation of
parallel local
leadership teams.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Local mental health providers and school personnel should
attend the state-sponsored conference and assist local family
representatives in participating.
School districts and schools must discuss adoption of a schoolwide PBS initiative integrated with mental health. All staff in the
relevant schools should be educated about PBS and a poll should be
conducted to determine whether there is sufficient staff support.
With state support, local education and mental health systems
must begin laying the groundwork for a successful initiative by
initiating contacts and exploring how to work together to prepare
for launching school-wide PBS integrated with mental health.
School districts and individual schools that plan to adopt
school-wide PBS should approach their local mental health system
to initiate discussions on meeting the needs of children in Tiers
Two and Three and their families.
States need
to build the
capacity, skills
Local mental health systems must assess their own capacity to
support a PBS initiative by furnishing direct services to children
with serious mental disorders, consultation and education to
school personnel and support for school-based early interventions.
and infrastructure
at the local level
to implement
Local collaboratives, once formed, should consider reaching out
to other providers of mental health services, such as community
health centers or private practitioners, to supplement services of
their local community mental health agency. Efforts should be
made to ensure a culturally competent workforce.
the initiative
effectively.
Building Local Expertise
States need to build the capacity, skills and infrastructure at the local
level to implement the initiative effectively. One way to do this is by
bringing people together for a conference on school-wide PBS integrated
with mental health.
School superintendents, teachers, local mental health agency
leaders and clinicians, and families should be invited, along with
other relevant local players, such as pediatricians, community
health centers, public health offices, youth-development groups,
local social services and community juvenile justice agencies.
Presenters should include national experts in school-wide
PBS and recognized experts on the most effective mental health
services and systems of care.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
67
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
Each entity should consider other ways to educate stakeholders
on PBS. For example, an agency could incorporate PBS education
in its statewide meetings, distribute guidance to local schools and
mental health agencies on PBS, systems of care, most effective
services and collaborative practices and offer funding for travel to
state or national trainings.
Local Collaborations
States should encourage the formation of collaborations and
leadership teams at the county, regional and (as appropriate) local levels
by providing resources to ensure their development.
Local leadership teams should be tailored to the community and its
assets, and include representation of other agencies or other providers
as appropriate. For example, schools and districts could approach
community health centers (CHCs) and consider adding them to their
local leadership team. CHCs can supplement the services of the local
mental health agency, furnishing early intervention mental health
services and potentially providing consultation and education to school
personnel, if the local mental health agency does not have the capacity to
do this. CHCs may also have more resources to serve the uninsured than
does the local mental health agency.
Family Role
Family involvement is crucial. Families and youth must receive
training and support so they can participate fully in leadership and
planning groups at the state and local level.
Families and youth
must receive
training and
support so they
can participate
fully in leadership
and planning
groups at the state
and local level.
Self-assessment tools specific to PBS should be used, adapted or
developed for state, local and school levels. These include Shared
Solutions, available from the Federation of Families for Children’s
Mental Health, and checklists for family involvement. (See
appendix for these and other resources on family involvement.)
External assessment of family involvement is also a good idea.
The state leadership team should review existing tools as it is
deciding on its own assessment tool to ensure that families are
fully engaged in all planning and implementation of school-wide
PBS integrated with mental health.
An external assessment tool, to be used by an external coach or
other impartial individual, should be developed and used to assess
fidelity to the family involvement aspects of school-level PBS.
Financing
States need to assess the opportunities for funding mental health
services in schools and community.
68
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
The state mental health authority should identify current
funding sources and services that are funded. This permits
identification of gaps in the system. It should then map out all
possible federal funding streams (see Chapter 5) and identify
opportunities.
Similarly, education should identify resources for the training
and technical assistance necessary to launch school-wide PBS.
Step 3: Early Implementation
In the early stages of PBS roll-out, schools and local mental health
agencies will need ongoing support. Initial training and technical
assistance on PBS should be coupled with training and technical
assistance to mental health collaborators concerning systems of care and
effective services. Early implementation activities (by both schools and
mental health agencies) must be funded.
It is also important for the state to ensure that the core principles
and the approach the state leadership team has planned are followed.
This is the stage when the leadership team should determine the data it
wishes to collect across implementing schools/districts and should design
a report card based on that data. This will enable schools and other
stakeholders to measure progress and outcomes against other schools—
those that have implemented school-wide PBS and those that have not.
For successful implementation at the state level:
Aslan
Early implementation
activities (by both
schools and mental
health agencies)
must be funded.
The leadership team should develop and fund training and
follow-up technical assistance to schools that choose to implement
school-wide PBS integrated with mental health services. Training
must also be provided for family members and youth.
The state education authority should issue a policy statement
regarding its requirements for local implementation of school-wide
PBS integrated with mental health services.
The state leadership team should develop a memorandum of
agreement for schools and, where appropriate, regional/district
teams. Such an agreement should lay out the core elements to
which the parties have agreed. An agreement with a school should
specify that the school has agreed to implement all three levels
of PBS, to fully involve families and to report data and outcomes
requested by the state.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
69
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
A staff person must be assigned or hired to oversee day-to-day
implementation. If possible, this individual should have experience
in both education and mental health. This person is hired to act as
a boundary spanner, working on behalf of the leadership team as a
liaison between the two agencies.
The mental health authority will need to fund one or more
family-run organizations to support family involvement in schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health services.
The leadership team should design a report card based on
school outcomes for children and should set up the necessary
infrastructure to collect the data.
The mental health authority should provide small grants to
local mental health agencies that are collaborating with PBS
schools to fund consultation and education to teachers and other
school personnel.
The mental health authority needs to review Medicaid rules to
determine changes that will be needed (in rules, regulations or the
state plan) to fund the most effective community mental health
and substance abuse services for children.
The leadership
team should
design a report
card based on
school outcomes
for children.
For successful implementation at the local level:
Families and students should be trained on school-wide PBS.
Family liaisons need to be trained and employed.
Schools should initiate school-wide PBS, focusing primarily
on Tier One but including at least some Tier Two and Tier Three
services.
Schools should tap into the state-sponsored training, technical
assistance and other support, and adapt national or state materials
when necessary to fit local needs.
Mental health agencies should work to build strengths-based,
family-driven, culturally competent services.
Mental health agencies should begin to offer consultation and
education and place mental health staff in the school.
As at the state level, schools or districts need to hire (or assign)
an individual to act as boundary spanner, connecting the schools
70
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
and mental health agencies, identifying any problems early and
facilitating their resolution.
Training
PBS requires initial and ongoing training, which must be based on
the experience with successful launching of school-wide PBS initiatives
around the country.
States (and localities as appropriate) should initially contract for
national trainers and consultants on school-wide PBS to provide
both training and technical assistance.
Training programs should use a train-the-trainer model and
develop a cadre of people within the state who can provide
ongoing technical assistance through state-supported teams that
are available to schools.
State agency-funded training and technical assistance should
include training of local level PBS leaders, including family leaders.
Specialized training needs to be furnished. Principals, teachers,
family liaisons and others need access to training geared to their
specific needs.
State agencies should provide support (through technical
assistance) to local schools and mental health agencies on how
to recruit and engage families and collaborate with family-run
organizations to train family liaisons.
Training programs
Families of children in PBS schools should be educated about
PBS.
should develop a
State education authorities should ensure sufficient training for
PBS implementation of Tiers Two and Three, since schools have
found they need more assistance with these than with Tier One.
cadre of people
within the state
Demonstration of Commitment
who can provide
ongoing technical
assistance.
States should consider setting prerequisites for school participation
in PBS. The state should first involve schools and school districts that
are most motivated and ready to move forward. Before investing heavily
in training and technical assistance for any school or district, the state
should require actions that demonstrate a commitment to the initiative.
States should require a district-improvement plan and schoolimprovement plan that lay out how PBS implementation will be
carried out before allocating funds for a school to implement PBS.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
71
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
States and schools should obtain firm
commitments from all stakeholders to
implement PBS with fidelity, complying with
program guidelines and reporting requirements.
Illinois BOARD OF EDUCATION
Statement ON PROTOCOLS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
At the same time, it will be necessary to adapt
PBS models, recognizing each school’s size, grade
levels and geographic location, and the social
expectations of the community.
Policy Statement of Requirements for Local
Implementation
An example of a state policy statement that
spells out requirements for schools regarding
the implementation of social and emotional
development learning standards appears in the
sidebar. The Illinois State Board of Education
issued the statement regarding the protocols and
administrative procedures that schools were to
develop to implement the required state standards.
PBS Implementation Tools
The Illinois Board of Education’s Student Social and
Emotional Development Standards require schools
to develop protocols involving the following core
components:
Classroom-wide and school-wide programming to
teach social and emotional skills, promote optimal
mental health and decrease risk behaviors for
students;
Staff development and training for school
personnel to enhance students’ social, emotional
and academic learning;
Opportunities for parents and family involvement to
Implementation guidelines for schools are
available from national resource centers. During
the early stages of implementation, schools will
need to build the necessary infrastructure for
implementation of PBS and the linkages with
community mental health (or assign an existing
entity to oversee implementation). It is important
for states and/or counties to give each school time
for this developmental period.
Using national resource-center materials, PBS
state leaders should develop and distribute tools
for each level of implementation. These tools
should address all three tiers of PBS.
learn about the importance of their children’s optimal
social and emotional development and ways to
enhance it;
Development of partnerships with community
agencies and organizations to assist in a
coordinated approach to addressing children’s
mental health and social and emotional
development;
Early identification and intervention by
development of a periodic screening mechanism to
assess those students who have significant risk factors
for social, emotional or mental health problems that
impact learning;
Improve treatment of children with social,
Implementation checklists and selfassessments should be used to facilitate
appropriate practices.
emotional and mental health issues that impact
Mental Health Service Needs
community linked services and supports; and
learning through student and family support services,
school-based behavioral health services and school-
Schools need to consider how to best use and
coordinate their own mental health resources
and outside providers, ensuring that the needs of
children in all three tiers are met.
72
Development of systems to assess and report
baseline information and ongoing progress about
school climate, students’ social and emotional
development and academic performance.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Schools should assess their in-school mental health resources
(school psychologists, guidance counselors, social workers,
behaviorists, other specialists and school health clinics or other
health services) and determine their specific needs for additional
access to community-based mental health services.
Schools and mental health agencies should determine together
how best to link community mental health services to the school.
Many mental health-school collaborations involve the placement
of community mental health staff in the school. Others integrate
mental health in a school-based health center.
Regardless of the placement of mental health personnel, mental
health professionals should participate on PBS teams and IEP
teams for students with disabilities whose behavior is, or is likely
to be, disruptive to their learning or the learning of others.
Fully integrating mental health staff in the school has a number
of advantages, including the fact that proximity fosters collaboration
(around individual children and on other issues). Yet some schools do not
wish for this degree of closeness.
Mental health systems must also address the dearth of community
mental health practitioners trained specifically to furnish the most
effective services for children and their families.
Youth and
State mental health authorities should offer community mental
health personnel technical-assistance opportunities and training in
the most effective services.
families will
need training
and support to
participate fully
Family Liaisons
Parent or family liaisons have proven extremely valuable to schools
implementing school-wide PBS.
School-based family liaisons should be hired and serve on the
PBS team.
in PBS initiatives.
The family liaisons’ role should include helping families navigate
relevant service systems to tie them into community resources
and to provide family support. They should also educate and train
parents about self-sufficiency and self-advocacy techniques.
Engagement of Families and Youth
Family-run organizations are essential partners and can provide
services essential to PBS. Youth and families will need training and
support to participate fully in PBS activities.
States should contract with family-run organizations: to
support family members on leadership and planning teams;
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
73
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
for wraparound facilitation; for training and consultation with
professionals and parents; to mentor families and youth; for
family-to-family support and training, such as parenting classes or
classes in English for non-English-speakers; and for respite care.
Localities should reimburse parent advisors who are an
ongoing resource for school teams, assisting them with tasks
such as recruiting and training PBS family liaisons, and planning,
implementation and monitoring of the initiative.
Like other stakeholders, youth need access to information, training
and opportunities for development.
States should provide cross-training opportunities for youth
that will allow them to be effective participants in PBS initiatives.
Leadership training is a key element.
Youth-development activities should be planned at the
local level to promote youth involvement in activities such as
community service, civic participation, peer mentoring and peer
tutoring.
Resources
Services urgently needed by schools, such as consultation and
education for teachers and other school personnel, should receive high
priority for funding, especially early in the implementation stage.
State mental health authorities should explore various options
for enhancing resources to support PBS. These include the use
of federal block grant funds, state general revenue, Medicaid
billing, when the consultation relates to a particular child, and
flexible federal funds, such as the social services block grant or the
substance abuse block grant.
Report Cards
Political leaders, families and taxpayers are all interested in children’s
well-being and in having safe schools. Critical to sustaining and
expanding support among public officials is the continuing collection
of outcome data and the presentation of that data in usable formats.
Preparation of a report card on all schools in the state is highly
recommended.
Political leaders,
families and
taxpayers are
all interested
in children’s
well-being and
in having safe
schools.
Initially, leadership teams should focus on data that are easily
collected, such as SWIS discipline data, that can show policymakers the
impact of these initiatives. Over time, more data elements should be
added.
74
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
State leadership teams, in collaboration with local leadership
teams, schools, local mental health entities and families, should
identify desired outcomes and benchmark indicators to measure
children’s success in school (see sidebar).
Outcomes That Might
be Measured
A mechanism should be devised to collect and report data on
those outcomes.
Data should be collected from schools that are implementing
PBS and schools that are not, to compare results.
School-attendance rates
States should budget for training and technical assistance to
schools and community mental health agencies about collection
and reporting of the data.
Dropout rates
Suspension rates—broken
down showing 3 days or less,
3-5 days and more than 6
days per academic year
Another important element of accountability that should be added to
the report card is family and youth involvement and satisfaction.
Expulsion rates
Parents should be surveyed to determine how engaged they feel
in their child’s education and whether they feel supported by the
school. Family organizations should be contracted with to conduct
the family-satisfaction survey.
Rates of parent attendance
at parent-teacher
conferences
Students should be surveyed to determine whether they feel
safe, responsible and challenged and whether they get the support
they feel they need in school. Student surveys will need to be
tailored to age.
NCLB school achievement
measures for children with
disabilities
Academic progress for the
school overall and by PBS tiers
State education agencies should then share the report card with
schools, families and the public on a regular basis.
Levels of placements for
students with disabilities
Teacher-retention rates
Retention rates for school
administrative and other staff
Child and family outcomes
should be measured
separately by age group and
for racial/ethnic minorities.
Other Measures
In addition to measuring data on outcomes for children, there should
be ongoing measurement of processes that are designed to ensure success.
In addition to SET data, these could determine:
the strength of the partnerships between the school and mental
health provider agencies and other community agencies. One
indicator could be the status of memoranda or working agreements;
whether a full array of mental health supports is available to children
in the school;
service effectiveness (an indicator could be whether there has been
expansion of the most effective services —if necessary, replacing less
effective approaches); and
whether PBS implementation reflects adherence to PBS principles.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
75
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
Step 4: Ongoing Implementation Issues
As the initiative matures, policies for education and mental health
may need adjustment to be more supportive. While this may take time,
it is critical for the leadership team to identify policies that impede
PBS implementation and to define the revisions necessary to overcome
such difficulties. In addition, the leadership team will need to continue
providing support to local-level collaborations.
For successful implementation at the state level:
The leadership team should offer ongoing in-service training and
technical assistance, including cross-training of local mental health
and school personnel.
Family-run organizations at the state and local level should
continue to receive financial support and training to fully engage
in school-wide PBS. Local family liaisons must be supported.
The leadership team should expand its resources by working
with other child-serving agencies, if it is not already doing so, such
as child welfare and juvenile justice. Pooled and/or braided funding
for some activities should be discussed (see Chapter 5).
The state leadership team should explore with juvenile justice
representatives whether school-wide PBS can be implemented in
juvenile justice facilities, where experience shows it is particularly
effective.
The state education authority could enter into a contract with a
university for an external evaluation of the initiative.
The leadership
team should
expand its
resources by
working with
other childserving agencies,
such as child
welfare and
juvenile justice.
The state education authority should revise teacher-certification
requirements to require teachers to demonstrate competency in
behavior-management skills.
The state mental health authority should require agencies
receiving federal mental health block grant funds to collaborate
with local schools.
The state mental health authority should allocate resources
to community mental health agencies working with PBS schools
to be used for services for children who are at risk of serious
emotional, behavioral or mental disorders.
The state education authority should review and, if necessary,
revise its rules and guidance on identification of students as
emotionally disturbed under the IDEA to ensure that schools are
76
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
identifying children with serious emotional, behavioral or mental
disorders (who generally will fall into Tier Three of PBS) and
providing special education and (in collaboration with the local
mental health agency) related services for those children.
The state education authority should review and, if necessary,
revise its rules and guidance on the use of 504 plans for students
who need additional support in school but who are not identified
under the IDEA. Often, students in Tier Two may benefit from
such a plan.
Through joint efforts by the state mental health authority
and the Medicaid agency, policies should be adjusted to ensure
reimbursement of the full range of community-based mental
health services that can be covered under federal Medicaid law.
At the local level, ongoing implementation should now include
various strategies for fully meeting the needs of children in Tiers Two
and Three and for expanding into the community. At this stage, selfassessments should be done on a regular basis and data should be
available to report to the state and the community on changes in school
climate, discipline and student outcomes.
Local
collaborations
should reach
out to juvenile
justice agencies
and facilitate
the training in
PBS of probation
officers.
Schools should focus on implementing effective programming
for students in Tier Three. For example, special education teachers
can serve as resources to general education teachers. Mental
health professionals can provide training on effective behavioral
techniques for the classroom.
Local collaborations should reach out to juvenile justice agencies
and facilitate the training in PBS of probation officers.
School-mental health collaborations should reach out and
educate their community on PBS and link with social service
agencies to ensure that children and their families receive services
for which they are eligible.
Schools and districts should explore various sources of funding
to improve, expand and sustain their initiatives.
Schools must begin to report to the state and the community
the data required by the state leadership team, including the
results of family and youth surveys.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
77
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
Schools should also make use of self-assessment tools for
continuous quality improvement.
Teacher Training
Public and private colleges and universities can help embed PBS and
the values of strengths-based, family-driven, most-effective service
systems in professional training. Teacher-certification requirements can
be an important tool in increasing the number of teachers who are fully
conversant with PBS.
The state leadership team should meet with higher-education
institutions to discuss how to incorporate behavioral-management
training in teacher-training programs for both special education
and general education teachers, paraprofessionals and school
administrators, and training for mental health personnel in
interdisciplinary, strengths-based, family-driven, culturally
competent care.
State policies should be amended when necessary to provide
an impetus for this change. For example, states should require
a minimum level of training in positive approaches to behavior
(preferably specific training in PBS) for any newly hired special
education and general education teachers and other school
personnel.
Currently employed teachers should be given a period of
time (two to three years) to demonstrate competence in these
techniques.
Mark Stanton
Teacher-certification
requirements can
be an important tool
in increasing the
number of teachers
who are fully
conversant with PBS.
Training on Quality Mental Health Services
Many mental health professionals also need in-service training to
bring them up to date on how to implement the most effective services.
The state mental health authority should approach public
and private universities to partner on training programs
that emphasize systems of care, working on an interagency,
interdisciplinary team and strengths-based, family-driven effective
services. Opportunities should be created for students to work in
community mental health settings where these values and skills
are practiced.
Graduate-student stipends might be made available through
partnerships with schools of social work or other disciplines to
provide practicum experiences in schools implementing schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health.
78
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
State mental health authorities should provide resources and
opportunities for training in system of care principles and mosteffective services for all community mental health providers.
Self-Assessments/Quality Improvement
At all levels, PBS teams need to be able to self-assess to ensure that
they are doing what they intended and to engage in continuous quality
improvement.
States should help by providing self-assessment templates for
schools.
Leadership teams at the state and local level must assess their
infrastructure and capacity.
Leadership teams need to continue to assess family engagement
through the use of appropriate tools.
Funding
In addition to tapping into existing funding streams by amending
state policies, it is advisable to identify ways to pool funds. Education
and mental health authorities at the state or local level might find it
more efficient to join forces to pay for some hard-to-fund activities.
State education and mental health authorities should determine
how they could share the costs of data collection, services not
covered by Medicaid, and training and support to families.
Schools and local mental health agencies should discuss pooling
of some resources to fund activities that are not easily or wellfunded by either agency, such as family liaisons, consultation to
school personnel, PBS rewards, etc.
Aslan
Education and mental
health authorities at
Collaborations at the state and local level should also explore nontraditional funding sources.
the state or local level
TANF funds might be used to provide a family liaison work
experience for a TANF recipient.
might find it more
To supplement the work of family liaisons (or to provide funds
for a family liaison), local collaborations might consider tapping
into the AmeriCorps program.
efficient to join forces
to pay for some hard-
Local initiatives should explore the possibilities of foundation
funding and support from local hospitals or businesses.
to-fund activities.
Engaging the Community
Home, school and community domains are all important to children’s
development. The community can reinforce behavioral expectations,
offer learning opportunities and, where strong relationships develop
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
79
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
between school and community, provide financial and political support.
For PBS to be implemented successfully:
Schools should engage their community—for example, by
making presentations to community groups, meeting with
employers located near the school, sponsoring or supporting
community-based activities for children and creating opportunities
for community leaders to come into the school.
Community donations should be sought for rewards for
students’ positive behaviors and as a way to build relationships
between community businesses and the school.
Report Cards and Evaluation
States should continue to focus on the collection of outcome data
in order to assess the impact of PBS initiatives. These results should
be shared with policymakers and the public. Local systems should also
continue receiving technical assistance in information management and
analysis.
An external evaluation by a respected source, such as a public
university in the state or a reliable research firm, can provide useful
information for quality improvement as well as impartial evidence of
success.
State collaborations should contract for a multi-year evaluation
that assesses both process measures and outcomes for children and
families.
It is important for
state child-serving
agencies to make
school-wide PBS
integrated with
mental health a
permanent way of
doing business.
Step 5: Sustainability
Far too often, innovations in human services are not sustained beyond
the initial period of enthusiasm and implementation. It is important for
state child-serving agencies to make school-wide PBS integrated with
mental health a permanent way of doing business.
Because PBS is a major system reform, states, counties and school
districts (i.e., the administrative entities leading the PBS initiative) must
carefully design and implement a plan for sustainability and ongoing
technical assistance, training and support.
Sustainability will be more likely if states ensure that the key
philosophies of PBS and strengths-based, effective mental health services
are embedded in training for education and mental health professionals
and if they create an ongoing role for families and youth in these
initiatives. In time, such efforts, if consistent, can institutionalize the
approach.
80
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
In addition, states and localities will need to involve and educate
policymakers and the broader public to promote PBS and ensure
continued support.
Leadership teams should develop (or contract for) toolkits
for raising public awareness of key aspects of PBS: social and
emotional development, the impact of school-wide PBS on school
climate and academic achievement, and the effectiveness of
collaboration between schools and mental health.
Legislative leaders should ask the executive branch for regular
periodic reports on children’s progress and well-being so they
can assess the impact of school-wide PBS integrated with mental
health.
State entities, advocates and family organizations should give
public recognition to schools and individuals within them who
have provided effective PBS leadership and seek media coverage of
events highlighting their efforts.
The state leadership team should review the status of funding
for critical elements of local initiatives and determine whether
further policy changes are needed in state rules.
The leadership team should explore, if it appears relevant, the
option of applying for a federal discretionary grant to fill gaps
in training, technical assistance, family organization support or
services.
Strategies
Locally:
to keep the
Schools and mental health should ensure that they reach out
and educate the community about PBS and provide hard data on
improvements in behavior and outcomes.
initiative in front
of policymakers
Schools should encourage youth engagement in civic activities.
will be critical
to continued
support.
Public Awareness
Memory is short among policymakers and the public. Strategies to
keep the initiative on school-wide PBS integrated with mental health in
front of policymakers will be critical to continued support.
Strategies should be developed for a public-education campaign
around school-wide PBS integrated with mental health for use by
local collaborations and family groups.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
81
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
The information and data collected must be presented to the
lay public and public officials in a manner that is clear, concise
and understandable. Toolkits developed by public-information
specialists can ensure effective communication of such
information.
When presenting the case for ongoing support to state and
county officials, advocates should use the report card along with
other information, such as data on the costs of high-end services
that can be avoided with appropriate school-based supports.
Personal stories from families and students should also be
highlighted.
Advocates should ask the state legislature to request a report
on how children in the state are faring in school and in avoiding
bad outcomes, such as out-of-home placements, placement with
child welfare and involvement with juvenile justice. The report
should also provide information on the status of collaboration
across the state between schools and mental health, provision of
most-effective services and spending on children’s mental health
by schools and mental health systems. The report should compare
state outcomes with national data on systems of care and PBS
schools and make recommendations for policy changes, if needed.
Have Patience
It is important to have a long view. Administrators experienced in
PBS suggest that proper implementation may take three to five years.
Role of the Federal Government
While the Department of Education has been supportive of PBS
and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) has been funding systems of care, a more focused joint
strategy would be highly beneficial. Other agencies in other departments
can also play a critical role. In addition, there are many opportunities for
each of the departments to support state/local initiatives.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the
Department of Education and SAMHSA in the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) should build on the federal
national partnership to form a federal collaboration to assist state
and local education-mental health collaborations that focus on
positive behavior supports integrated with mental health. Other
key agencies that should be asked to support this collaboration are
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
82
It is important
to have a long
view. Proper
implementation may
take three to five
years.
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
in the Department of Justice and, in HHS, the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) and the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA).
To promote state initiatives:
The federal interagency group should develop a national plan to
support state-level collaborations.
OSEP should provide funds to states that are committed to
district-wide implementation of school-wide PBS integrated with
mental health, providing seed money to support state and local
infrastructure, including family and community involvement.
SAMHSA should use grants under the Comprehensive
Community Mental Health Services for Children and Families
Program to promote systems of care supporting schools that
implement school-wide PBS, and Congress should amend the
statute to encourage such linkage between systems of care and
schools focused on PBS or similar approaches to social-emotional
development.
Training and
technical
SAMHSA and the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools
(OSDFS) in the Department of Education should pool resources
so that the OSDFS program of Integration of Schools and
Mental Health Systems can be expanded to focus on state-level
collaboratives that intend to build school-wide PBS integrated
with mental health.
assistance should
be encouraged
and supported.
Training and technical assistance should be encouraged and
supported.
OSEP (with input from SAMHSA) should contract for
the development of a manual regarding the development of
infrastructure for targeted and intensive level (Tiers Two and
Three) PBS implementation integrated with mental health.
SAMHSA should contract for development of a parallel
manual regarding mental health engagement in school-wide PBS
initiatives, focusing on the need for mental health agencies to
view schools as a client of their system and to furnish services in
accordance with system of care principles to all children in school.
Training on the manual should be made available.
SAMHSA and OSEP should jointly fund training and technical
assistance with the mission to build school-wide PBS linkages
with mental health, where such initiatives have an active
focus on social-emotional learning, youth development and
character education. This assistance might be furnished through
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
83
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
a collaboration among existing OSEP and SAMHSA technicalassistance centers and include joint training, a listserv, policy
academies for state agencies and other activities.
Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH), SAMHSA, the Department of Education and the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should use their existing
authorities to fund research on practice innovations that focus on
effective implementation of PBS for students in Tier Three and
disseminate information on their findings.
To assist in data collection at the state and local level:
OSEP and SAMHSA should provide guidance to the field on
measurable and meaningful outcomes for children in school and
promote consistency across agencies in data elements required or
encouraged at the federal level.
Both OSEP and SAMHSA should make available small data
infrastructure grants to states and localities.
To improve early identification and provision of services and other
interventions:
Congress should amend federal law to require functional
behavioral assessment of all students facing suspension for more
than 10 days in a school year or expulsion (regardless of the reason
or the setting in which the child is placed), to be followed up by
targeted PBS interventions when appropriate.
OSEP should issue revisions to IDEA rules and guidance
regarding the definition of a child with an “emotional
disturbance,” so as to eliminate the current exclusion of many
students from protections under the IDEA based on a designation
of “social maladjustment.”
Congress should
amend federal
law to require
functional
behavioral
assessment of all
students facing
suspension or
expulsion.
SAMHSA should amend its mental health block grant rules
to encourage states to integrate children’s mental health services
with school-wide PBS.
States receiving SAMHSA grants, such as a state incentive
grant, should measure outcomes such as school performance and
attendance.
To facilitate more reliable funding streams to support mental health
services for children in school:
SAMHSA should issue guidance to states on their ability to
use block grant funds for consultation and education services and
other supports for PBS schools.
84
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
OJJDP should encourage states to use federal block grant
funds for school-wide PBS integrated with mental health services
by encouraging states (1) to include it as a priority in their
comprehensive prevention plans, and (2) to encourage localities to
link with these initiatives by funding them through the Title V,
Community Prevention Incentive Grant program.
OSEP and SAMHSA should approach the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote Medicaid funding for
evidence-based mental health practices in the schools.
OSEP Manual
OSEP and SAMHSA
should approach
the Centers for
Medicare and
Medicaid Services
(CMS) to promote
Medicaid funding
for evidence-based
mental health
practices in the
schools.
The recommended Department of Education manual should identify
key features of PBS and effective mental health service delivery for
children in Tiers Two and Three. It should address:
development of a school-wide PBS initiative integrated with mental
health, including guidance on collaboration;
training curricula for meeting the needs of students in Tiers Two and
Three;
appropriate family-involvement practices, including the role of
families whose children have significant mental health needs, and
self-assessment and external assessment tools for family involvement,
for use at both state and local levels;
guidance and self-assessment tools to assist schools and mental health
agencies in determining whether they are doing what they intended
to help students in Tiers Two and Three;
a list of outcomes that states may wish to measure regarding schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health services; and
accountability tools for students in Tiers Two and Three.
SAMHSA Manual
A similar document is needed to lay out for mental health
stakeholders at the state and community level how transformation in
the mental health system is furthered by collaborations with education
systems around school-wide PBS. This document should address:
how school-wide PBS assists children, including those who need
mental health services;
ways for mental health systems to support local schools;
collaboration strategies;
a focus on helping children in Tiers Two and Three through strengthsbased, family-driven, culturally competent, most-effective services;
funding sources for a range of services for children in school;
how to provide and fund backup support to teachers and other school
personnel; and
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
85
CHAPTER 4—MAKING STRIDES
a list of outcomes that states may wish to measure regarding services
to children.
Financing
Medicaid is the single largest source of funds for community
mental health. Collaboration between SAMHSA and CMS is critical to
more nearly align Medicaid rules on services with known evidence of
effectiveness. As SAMHSA and the Department of Education collaborate
around school-based mental health issues, it is essential to begin a
dialogue with CMS on these issues. In addition to greater clarity for
states on how to use Medicaid funds to pay for effective services, CMS
needs to clarify how services can be appropriately billed to Medicaid
when furnished in the school.
SAMHSA also needs to address the issue of financing for services that
are not generally billable under Medicaid and identify:
how states can use their mental health block grant funds to support
consultation and education to schools; and
funds that can be used at the community level to support services to
children who do not have Medicaid coverage and who have mild or
moderate mental health disorders (Tier Two).
Outcomes
States and communities need guidance on what outcomes are best to
measure, and federal child-outcome requirements should be consistent
across agencies.
OSEP and SAMHSA should collaborate to ensure that they are
providing the same guidance to states and communities about the
outcomes that are most feasible and useful to monitor.
OSEP and SAMHSA should support community data collection
by providing small grants for data-infrastructure improvement,
specifically for systems that are compatible across education and
mental health.
CMS needs
to clarify how
services can be
appropriately
billed to
Medicaid when
furnished in the
school.
Additional Collaborators
As at the local level, connections between mental health and
education and other key child-serving agencies are essential.
SAMHSA and the Department of Education should jointly
collaborate with ACF, OJJDP and HRSA regarding the needs of
children. These collaborations should include encouraging child
welfare, juvenile justice, maternal and child health and health
agencies to participate in state and local initiatives around schoolwide PBS integrated with mental health.
86
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
If states, localities and the federal government make these strides in
policy, the future can be much brighter for all children, but especially for
children with mental health care needs.
Note
1
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
For definitions of family involvement and family-run organizations, see Technical
Assistance Resource Guide for the Comprehensive Community Mental Health for
Children and Family Program, Center for Mental Health Services, www.samhsa.gov.
87
88
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Chapter 5
Financing
central task for any system change is the design of a coherent
funding model that is efficient, scalable and secure. Defining the
specific sources of funding for such efforts is always a challenge.
This chapter offers a summary of financing opportunities that state
policymakers and PBS leadership teams may access.
A
While implementing school-wide PBS is not a costly undertaking,
providing the services that some children need will be. Education and
mental health systems should collaborate to examine all potential
funding streams and states should ensure that they are using the
flexibility in federal laws wisely to tap into relevant federal programs.
For payment of mental health services, the structure of the financing
is critical. Currently, many mental health systems operate on a fee-forservice model, which does not readily allow for individualized, flexible
services. Fee-for-service is incompatible with prevention efforts. Further,
it does not permit an agency to furnish services that are not tied to a
child with a specific diagnosis, such as consultation and education for
teachers. This leads to reimbursement’s driving services, instead of the
other way around.
Mental health systems focusing on structures that give the child and
family team flexibility to determine the mix of services, regardless of
funding source—with some other entity responsible for matching the
service to a source of funds—find not only that the services are more
effective but, ironically, that they are also more cost-effective. Braiding
funds, paying case rates or capitation rates, pooling resources and similar
mechanisms can ensure that a child receives an individualized service
package that is effective, while allowing the system to make maximum
efficient use of resources.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
89
CHAPTER 5—FINANCING
The braiding of funds—often used in mental health systems—
allows the use of each funding stream in accordance with its goals and
objectives, while creating flexibility for program staff to spend resources
on appropriate services, supports, training, technical assistance or other
activities. Braiding occurs at an administrative level, where funds are
aligned with (and charged to) the appropriate funding stream, based on
spending that has already occurred. At the program level, all available
funds are used flexibly. Program decisions are not based on specific
reimbursement rules or grant requirements but on program need.
Braiding is particularly effective when an additional small pool of dollars
is available to be tapped for any expenses that cannot be charged to a
particular funding stream.
One problem facing mental health systems today arises from overly
restrictive eligibility policies. To collaborate with a school, mental health
agencies must be able to provide consultation and education backup
to teachers and other personnel and furnish at least some services to
children with mild or moderate mental disorders, regardless of insurance
status. Increasingly, mental health systems are seeing that they have a
responsibility to provide services (of varying levels) either to all children,
or at a minimum to those at risk of, as well as those exhibiting serious
mental disorders.
Resource on Federal
Funds
Through an earlier project, the
Bazelon Center produced a
matrix of federal entitlement
and formula grant programs
indicating which services
and activities of a system of
care can be funded by each
source. This matrix is in the
appendix. The full report,
Mix and Match, is available
at www.bazelon.org/issues/
children/publications/
mixmatch
From the education perspective, several funding streams can support
PBS training, technical assistance and implementation. However, in
some cases changes to state or local policy may be needed in order to
make appropriate use of certain sources of funds. In addition, while
resources from federal education programs can be quite flexible, often
the state has not used this flexibility to address issues of social-emotional
development, behavior and the need for mental health services.
Action Steps on Funding
As leadership teams design their funding strategy, they must be
sure that the potential resources can be aligned to the targeted goals of
the initiative. Their plan should emphasize the use of funding streams
(across and within agencies) that have common goals and program
objectives. Each funding source should be considered within:
a total picture of the target goals; and
a plan that allows each agency and funding stream to meet its unique
goals, while contributing to the shared goals.
The reality is that most education resources will be targeted to
academic achievement (based on No Child Left Behind), so efforts to
use those funds must clearly articulate the non-academic barriers to
90
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
achievement and logically demonstrate how the intended use of the
education funds will improve academic performance.
State leadership teams should first map existing funding
streams used to support mental health systems of care and schoolbased positive behavior supports (or similar initiatives) in the
state. This will help to identify gaps.
State leadership teams should then research and map available
federal funding from entitlement and formula-grant programs, and
compare how these funds are now used with how they might be
used to support an initiative for school-wide PBS integrated with
mental health. This will identify how gaps can be plugged.
State leadership teams should review federal discretionary-grant
opportunities and create a list of potentially helpful programs
available to the state, LEAs, local mental health agencies and local
collaborations.
State leadership teams should work with LEAs and other
local education and mental health stakeholders to train them on
how to maximize their use of various federal funding streams
(entitlements, formula grants and discretionary grants).
Isis Hudgins
State and local leadership teams should consider working with
community partners in applying for funds. Many grant funders
today favor multi-stakeholder projects.
Federal
entitlement
programs and
state formula
Reliable Funding Streams
grant programs
State leadership teams should first ensure that they use the large,
reliable federal funding streams from Education, Health and Human
Services and other federal departments, as did the sites we visited.
Federal entitlement programs (such as Medicaid or IDEA) and state
formula grant programs (such as the mental health block grant) provide
a reliable and consistent source of funding. Unlike federal discretionarygrant programs, these are not time-limited and by using them, states and
localities can ensure sustainability.
provide a reliable
and consistent
source of
funding.
Table 1 on the next page presents some options for funding the
various components of school wide PBS integrated with mental health
using these major federal entitlement and block grant/formula grant
programs.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
91
CHAPTER 5—FINANCING
Table 1
Federal Entitlement Programs and State Formula Grants
Funding Source
Use of Funds
IDEA, Part B, state flexible funds (20 U.S.C., §1400
et seq. most recent amendments, Public Law
108-446, Section 611(e)(2)(c))
Flexible funds for technical assistance and to
assist LEAs in providing PBS and mental health
services for children with disabilities. Can be
used for systems collaboration with mental
health, training and technical assistance,
training and support for parent liaisons and
other purposes.
IDEA, Early intervening flexible funds (up to 15%,
as authorized in 2004 by Public Law 108-446:
IDEA Section 613); www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
osers/osep
Flexible funds to be used to develop,
implement and coordinate early intervening
services for students not identified as needing
special education but who need academic
and behavioral support to succeed. Funds
can be used for all aspects of planning and
implementing school-wide PBS.
IDEA, Part B (20 U.S.C., §1400 et seq. most
recent amendments, Public Law 108-446); www.
ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep
Non-medical related services for individual
students and families, including: functional
assessments, case management, behavioral
aides, therapy, systems collaboration,
wraparound facilitation, education and
consultation and training.
IDEA, Part D, Section 651 (20 U.S.C., §1400 et
seq. most recent amendments, Public Law 108446); www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep
Formula grants to state educational agencies,
provided they work with other agencies, families
and others (and provided federal appropriations
are of sufficient size) to be used for pre-service
and in-service training, for special and general
education teachers, principals, administrators,
related service personnel and others in order
to improve early intervention and results for
children with disabilities. Specifically authorizes
using funds to train in PBS.
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
Act, Drug-Violence Prevention State Programs,
(Title IV, No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107110; www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs
Services/activities to prevent use of drugs or
violence in school, including: counseling,
conflict resolution programs, peer mediation
and mentoring, character education and
community service. Can support PBS activities,
such as training, technical assistance and
implementation.
No Child Left Behind Act, Improving Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Title I, Part
A, Public Law 107-110); www.ed.gov/programs/
innovative
Flexible resources that can be used to support
instruction and for professional development,
including: costs of PBS training, technical
assistance and implementation.
No Chiild Left Behind Act, Prevention &
Intervention Programs for Children and Youth
who are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk (Title I,
Part D, Section 1401; Public Law 107-110).
Funds may be used to assist children and
youth in transitioning from institution to school,
to prevent dropout and to provide to dropouts
and children and youth returning from
correctional facilities a support system to ensure
their continued education. Can be used to
support PBS.
No Child Left Behind Act, Innovative Programs
(Title V, Part A, Public Law 107-110)
Supports local education reforms consistent
with state reforms: can be used to support PBS
planning, training, technical assistance and
implementation.
92
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Funding Source
Use of Funds
Elementary & Secondary Education Act (Title I,
20 U.S.C. §7245); www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
oese/index.html
Flexible funds that can be used, among other
purposes, for: staff development, wraparound
facilitation, supporting parent liaisons and
mental health services. Title I drop out
prevention funds can support PBS.
Medicaid (Title XIX, Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1365 et seq.); www.cms.hhs.gov/home/
medicaid.asp
Funds a wide range of mental health services
for individual, Medicaid-covered children who
have a mental health diagnosis, including:
individual, group and family therapy,
medications, in-home services, crisis services,
case management, in-school services,
therapeutic foster care, wraparound, multisystemic therapy, and other community based
mental health services.
S-CHIP (Title XXI, Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1397aa et seq.); www.cms.hhs.gov/home/
schip.asp
Funds health and mental health services for
eligible children, primarily: inpatient hospital
care and outpatient physician services and
therapy (often with limits).
Mental health block grant (Public Health
Service Act, Section 1921, 42 U.S.C. §300x-21
to §300x-66); www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/
publications/allpubs/KEN95-0022
Flexible funds to state mental health authorities.
Can fund a broad array of communitybased services for children with serious
mental disorders, including: consultation and
education, family liaisons, and non-Medicaid
mental health services.
Substance abuse block grant Public Health
Service Act, Section 1921. 42 U.S.C. §300x-21 to
§300x-66); www.samhsa.gov/grants06/default.
aspx
Funds state substance abuse prevention
and treatment services, including: outpatient
services and consultation and education.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
State Formula Grants (Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, Title II, Section 221223. 42 U.S.C. §5651 et seq.); http://ojjdp.ncjrs.
org/funding/funding.html#3a
Funds diversion programs, including familyoriented treatment and community based
alternatives to incarceration, including: afterschool programs, gang prevention, wraparound
services, family support, recreation and respite
care.
Juvenile Justice Community Prevention Grants
(Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, Title V, 42 U.S.C. §5601);
Funds are used to reduce risks and enhance
protective factors to prevent youth from
entering the juvenile justice system. Can be
used for a broad range of purposes including:
mentoring, after-school programs, tutoring,
drop-out reduction, mental health treatment
and family services. Can be used for PBS tier 2
and 3 children who have significant risk factors
for juvenile justice involvement.
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
(Social Security Act, Title V, Section 502(a)(1); 42
U.S.C. §701 et seq.);
Provides gap-filling funds for mental health and
substance abuse services, including: case
management, wraparound and consultation
and education. Funds must be used for children
with special health care needs (including those
with serious mental disorders).
Foster Care, (Social Security Act, Title IV-E, 42
U.S.C. §670 et seq.); www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/fostercare.htm
For children in foster care system a range of
mental health and family support services can
be funded, including: case management,
treatment, engaging community supports,
wraparound facilitation and systems
collaboration.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
93
CHAPTER 5—FINANCING
Funding Source
Use of Funds
Child Welfare Training (Social Security Act, Title
IV-E, Section 426, 42 U.S.C. § 626 ); www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/discretionary/
cw_training.htm
Pre-service and cross-discipline in-service
training for child welfare workers and others who
work with child welfare children.
Child Welfare Promoting Safe & Stable Families
Program (Social Security Act, Title IV-B, 42 U.S.C.
§629); www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_
fund/state_tribal/ss_act.htm
Funds services to prevent out-of-home
placement, including: wraparound mental
health community services, family supports,
training and systems collaboration.
TANF (Social Security Act, Title IV-A. 42 U.S.C. §601
et seq.); www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa
For families with dependent children, a
wide range of services, including: case
management, family support, and non-medical
mental health and substance abuse services.
Social Services Block Grant (Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C., §1397 et seq.); www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ocs/ssbg
Services for children and families, including
mental health counseling.
Supplemental Funding from Time-Limited Discretionary Programs
In addition to entitlement and formula-grant programs, school-wide
PBS initiatives integrated with mental health services studied for this
report have utilized a number of federal discretionary programs. These
and selected other programs are listed below.
Table 2
Federal Discretionary Programs
Agency
Program
Center for Mental Health Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (Public Health Service Act,
Section 565, 42 U.S.C. 300x-1)
Comprehensive Community Mental Health
Services for Children and their Families
Program.
Provides 6-year grants to communities to
develop systems of care and furnish mental
health services to children and families,
including: wraparound, systems collaboration,
consultation and education to schools, training
and technical assistance. Could fund many
PBS activities, including family liaisons and other
family supports. www.mentalhealth.samhsa.
gov/publications/allpubs/CA-0013/default.asp
Office of Safe & Drug-Free Schools, DOE;
Center for Mental Health Services, DHHS and
Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention, DOJ. (Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7131; Public
Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. § 290aa; and
Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, 42
U.S.C. § 5614(b)(4)(e) and § 5781 et seq.).
Safe Schools Healthy Students Program.
Supports a variety of activities, and can include:
training, technical assistance, planning and
implementation of PBS initiatives in schools, as
well as wraparound facilitation, collaborative
activities and mental health and substance
abuse treatment. www.ed.gov/programs/
dvpsafeschools/index.html
94
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Agency
Program
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
Department of Education (Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, Title V, Section 5541,
as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, 20 U.S.C. §7269).
Integration of Schools and Mental Health
Systems
Small grants for linkage between school
systems, local mental health systems and
juvenile justice systems to improve provision
of mental health services to students. Funds
can be used to develop infrastructure at state
or local level, improve access to services
and provide training. Can include: training
on PBS, technical assistance, consultation
and education to schools, family services,
services to child and family, family training and
family involvement. www.ed.gov/programs/
mentalhealth/index.htm
Office of Special Education Programs, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
Department of Education (IDEA, Part D, Section
651-656; 20 U.S.C. § 1451-1456).
State Personnel Preparation Grants
Competitive grant funds to be used for same
purposes as Part D formula grants. Funds
will help state educational agencies and
their partners (parents and other agencies)
improve pre-services and in-service training
for personnel in order to improve results for
children with disabilities. Includes specifically
training in PBS. (Competitive grants are funded
only if there are insufficient funds for formula
grants–see Table 1). www.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/osers/osep/programs.htm
Office of Special Education Programs, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
Department of Education (IDEA, Part D, Subpart
2, Chapter 1, § 673; 20 U.S.C. § 1473).
Personnel Development to Improve Service
and Results for Children with Disabilities.
Grants to ensure personnel have necessary skills
and knowledge to meet the needs of children
with disabilities. Includes specifically, funding for
pre-services and in-service training in PBS. www.
ed.gov/programs/osepprep/index.html
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Department of Education (No Child
Left Behind Act, Title I, Part F 20 U.S.C. § 65116518).
Comprehensive School Reform.
Comprehensive school reforms, based on
reliable research and effective practices that fit
students needs. Can fund PBS initiatives. www.
ed.gov/programs/compreform/index.html
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
Department of Education (Safe and Drug Free
Schools and Communities Act, Title IV, 20 U.S.C.
§ 7101 et seq.).
Drug-Violence Prevention National Programs.
Several discretionary programs, including
Alternative Strategies to Reduce Student
Suspensions and Expulsions, Model
Demonstration Grants to Create Safe and
Orderly Environments, Foundations for Learning
Grants and Mentoring Grants. Can be used to
support aspects of PBS implementation.
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Department of Education, No Child
Left Behind Act, Title I, Part B-3; 20 U.S.C. § 63816318k).
Even Start.
Funds state education agencies partnered with
LEA to provide services for low-income families
that can be used to build community networks
which support the family as an educational
unit. Can fund aspects of PBS. www.ed.gov/
programs/evenstartformula/index.html
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
95
CHAPTER 5—FINANCING
Agency
Program
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
Department of Education (Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, Title IV, Part D,
Subpart 3, Section 5431; 20 U.S.C. § 7247.
Character Education discretionary grants.
Funds for state and local educational
agencies (can work with other public and
private nonprofit organizations) to design and
implement character-education programs
that can be integrated with classroom
instruction and are consistent with state
academic standards and can be carried out
in conjunction with other educational reform
efforts, such as PBS.
www.ed.gov/programs/charactered/index.html
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Department of Education, No
Child Left Behind Act, Title X. Part C; 42 U.S.C. §
11431).
Education for Homeless Children.
Funds are to ensure homeless children attend
and succeed in school. Can be used to
support programs, such as PBS that include or
focus on homeless children and youth. www.
ed.gov/programs/homeless/index.html
Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, DOJ.
Office of National Drug Control Policy has
an agreement with OJJDP to administer the
program in partnership with SAMHSA. (Drug Free
Communities Act of 1997, 21 U.S.C. § 1521).
Drug Free Communities Support Program.
Funds community coalitions, through
educational organizations or units of local
government, to reduce substance abuse
through collaborative efforts. Does not fund
services.
http://drugfreecommunities.samhsa.gov
Centers for Disease Control, Division of
Adolescent and School Health. (Public Health
Services Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 241, 243, 247, 301a,
311b, 311c, 317k).
Coordinated School Health Program.
Promotes development of state infrastructure
and coalitions for coordinated school health,
including mental health. Funds counseling and
psychological services to improve students’
mental, emotional and social health as well as
to improve psychosocial climate and culture
of a school and activities to engage family
and community in helping students. Can be
used for state collaboration on PBS, training
and technical assistance, evaluation and other
activities. www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/CSHP/
index.htm
Other potential revenue sources for these initiatives were identified
by experts at the meeting, including:
state and local general revenue funds to education or mental health
authorities;
redirecting funds now spent on out-of-district placements through
education, mental health or other systems;
health department funds for prevention activities (such as pregnancy
prevention, substance abuse or HIV prevention);
private insurance, for reimbursement of covered services to covered
children and also (when based in the state) for grant support;
managed care companies holding contracts for Medicaid mental
health services;
community hospitals;
United Way, community foundations, charitable institutions;
large employers in the community; and
96
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
small businesses in the community (community grants or small
donations, such as for PBS enhancements or rewards).
This list is not exhaustive, and state and local leaders can be
innovative in seeking out additional sources of support for school-wide
PBS integrated with mental health.
Conclusion
Mark Stanton
Policymakers
As state and local leadership teams work to devise their own funding
plans for supporting school-wide PBS integrated with mental health,
the federal and non-federal resources listed above can provide significant
impetus and potential long-term support. However, no such initiative
will be successful unless the state and, to some extent, local governments
are willing to invest general-revenue funds. Despite the number of
federal programs, there are likely to be important gaps. Accordingly,
policymakers must be ready to make their own commitment to
designating funds before such an initiative can become a permanent way
of meeting children’s needs in school.
must be ready to
make their own
commitment to
designating funds
before a PBS initiative
can become a
permanent way of
meeting children’s
needs in school.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
97
98
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Conclusion
his report promotes the integration of two tested approaches
to meeting the social, emotional and mental health needs of
children—school-wide positive behavior support (PBS) and
systems of care. Our intention is to help those who are concerned with
education policy to understand critical elements of mental health policy
that can make school-wide PBS more effective, especially for children
with higher needs, and to help those focused on mental health policy to
understand and appreciate the value of school-wide PBS.
T
As this report makes clear, school-wide PBS integrated with mental
health is an important policy for schools, for mental health agencies
and for families and children. Accordingly, it warrants greater attention
in the education and mental health policy arenas. We found that it has
produced excellent results and won widespread support among the
stakeholders involved—school and mental health professionals, parents
and youth, support staff and community members. It is affordable, costefficient and effective in creating school environments that are safer,
more respectful and better suited to learning.
To succeed, such initiatives require an ongoing commitment to
implement school-wide PBS with fidelity, particularly with respect to
family involvement and the social/emotional learning that youngsters
need. On the mental health side, successful implementation requires
doing business in a different way, emphasizing the values and principles
of a system of care and offering interventions that are supported by the
evidence.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
99
CONCLUSION
Policymakers using this report as a basis for planning should
remember the following:
While involving families as partners is an essential feature
of PBS, in practice it is not always understood, and needs to be
promoted through technical assistance and training. The paradigm
is more established in systems of care and mental health, where
the family movement has had a strong voice.
The best outcomes in school-wide PBS come from
implementation of best practices at all three levels. Many schools
have difficulty meeting the needs of students who require
intensive services. Implementation of PBS for Tiers Two and Three
(involving children with more significant behavior problems) is
more complicated than for Tier One (the universal level), and
initiatives will not be as effective without sufficient emphasis on
cross-disciplinary planning and implementation.
Resources are better utilized when PBS is integrated with
mental health because this creates a system capable of addressing
the spectrum of children’s needs. Interventions and supports can
be triggered before a student’s behavior creates a crisis, supplanting
some higher-end services when lower-level interventions could
suffice. With a single individualized child and family support
plan, schools can reinforce and support the work of mental health
and other professionals, and mental health services can be more
effectively targeted.
The best outcomes
in school-wide
PBS come from
implementation of
best practices at
all three levels.
To fully support a school-wide PBS approach, mental
health systems must have resources enabling them to provide
consultation and education to teachers. They must also have the
capacity to help children identified and referred by the school who
have no public or private insurance.
While numerous federal programs can support many aspects of
PBS and mental health reform, there will inevitably be some costs
that cannot be charged to federal entitlements or formula grants,
and discretionary grants, while very helpful, are time limited.
States, and in many cases localities too, must be prepared to invest
some of their own general revenues to make these initiatives
effective.
The PBS sites we visited reported positive outcomes, including
improved school climate and reductions in discipline problems. Sites
that had developed more capacity for data analysis were able to correlate
improvements in behavior with improved academic achievement.
Early interventions were successful in helping some students avert an
100
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
ingrained pattern of problem behavior that, if left unchecked, could lead
to impaired social-emotional functioning and school failure.
Families found that the PBS emphasis on a team approach and
involvement of parents as partners lessened the likelihood that
adversarial relationships would develop between schools and the
parents of struggling children. PBS improved communications among
stakeholders—schools, families and mental health and other community
service providers—and a unified plan understood by all was more likely
to be effective than uncoordinated interventions.
In stressing the connection between social and emotional
development and academic achievement, many educators cited PBS as
the single most important factor in their school’s effort to lift academic
performance and meet the standards of No Child Left Behind. They
recognized that social and emotional learning were integral to education
and to preparing children for adulthood, and that teaching behavioral
norms is part of the core mission of teaching.
In summary, school-wide PBS integrated with mental health assists
all children and creates a better school environment for all. Working
closely with a child’s school improves the outcomes of community
mental health services and this is rewarding for mental health
professionals. Families are happy that their child’s problems are being
identified and that strategies are in place to deal with them.
Aslan
PBS linked to mental
health—if well and
fully implemented—is
PBS linked to mental health—if well and fully implemented—is a
win-win-win for education, mental health and families. Clearly, it is
a very important direction for policymakers to consider. We hope our
readers will take Way to Go both as an accolade for an exciting approach
to helping children and families and as a call to action. To facilitate
action, the Bazelon Center has also produced a set of Fact Sheets for
State and Local Action, and checklists for state and local advocates
interested in promoting school-wide positive behavior supports
integrated with mental health reforms.
a win-win-win for
education, mental
health and families.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
101
102
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Appendix I
Site-Visit Reports
1.
Bitterroot Valley, Montana
In the mid-1990s, teachers in the Bitterroot Valley in western
Montana asked the special education cooperative (the Bitterroot Valley
Cooperative, or BVC) for support in addressing challenging behavior
in the schools. The cooperative provides special education and related
services to the rural school districts in the area that do not have the
resources to hire full-time providers. The BVC responded by hiring a
behavior consultant, who soon became embedded in the schools and
developed a strong relationship with the community mental health
agency.
Soon after the behavior consultant started with the BVC, it was
evident that school-wide processes were needed for real results. However,
providing such services in the schools was not sustainable. The BVC
applied to become a community mental health center in an attempt to
create a seamless system between education and mental health. It was
thus able to provide both the educational and mental health services
needed in the schools. In 1997, the BVC became the first school-based
entity in Montana to be a licensed community mental health center.
In 2002, the BVC and the state jointly brought in a national expert
to educate the staff of the co-op and others on the wraparound process,
SWIS and PBS. The principals and administrators immediately bought
into the process and brought in teams to be trained in universal PBS.
The BVC currently serves 16 schools; at this time seven of them are
implementing PBS, with two others beginning the PBS process.
The Bitterroot Valley Cooperative uses a team approach when staffing
mental health workers in the schools. The teams devise behavior plans
and set up reinforcements and supports for their clients. Each school has
both a licensed mental health therapist and a behavior consultant. The
therapist writes the umbrella treatment plan for each child, works with
the families and spends time helping children individually and in groups.
The behavior consultant works as an important liaison with the school
and teachers.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
103
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
In addition to providing mental health plans and services to
individuals in the schools, the teams play an integral role in guiding
the schools on the PBS framework and principles. The mental health
teams are active on the Tier Two and Tier Three PBS teams and serve
as a resource for teachers and staff who are dealing with problem
behavior and aggression in school. Consequently, they spend time in
the classroom, on the playground, in the lunch room and in the halls,
assisting school staff and observing students’ behavior in various
settings.
Family Involvement
The mental health teams also provide support for families and parents
in the schools. They attend parent/teacher conferences and individual
conferences with parents, to help them feel comfortable and to ensure
that they attend important school functions.
In a handful of schools in the Bitterroot Valley, AmeriCorps has
placed family resource officers. The goal of the family resource officer is
to develop relationships with parents and provide outreach to families.
Both the family resource officers and the mental health teams provide
various supports to parents and families.
However, the bulk of support for families of children with mental
health needs comes through the mental health teams. The therapist
and behavior consultant work regularly and intensely with families.
They go on home visits when necessary, provide parenting classes, work
with their clients’ siblings and provide some respite services. During the
summer, they organize outings and recreational activities for their clients
to ensure they are in safe and healthy environments.
The seven teams served 81 clients during the 2003-04 school year.
That number dipped slightly in 2004-05 to 78 clients. For the 2005-06
school year, eight mental health teams are working in the region, serving
118 clients.
Training & Technical Assistance
From the outset, the need to provide behavior training to educators
has been a priority with the BVC. One school psychologist was sent to
an intensive training seminar on behavior in order to be the primary
behavior coach for the Bitterroot Valley. A state improvement grant now
funds the position.
While the PBS initiative has many unique features because of the
co-op’s community mental health center status, it is also part of the
Montana Behavioral Initiative, a statewide project created by the
104
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
state’s Department of Education to improve the capacity of schools and
communities to meet children’s social, emotional and behavioral needs.
Through collaboration between the Montana Behavioral Initiative
and the BVC, ongoing training and technical assistance is provided. To
date, the Behavioral Initiative has paid for national trainers to travel to
Montana and provide assistance around the state and in the Bitterroot
Valley. The Office of Public Instruction and the Behavioral Initiative have
also been instrumental in bringing in wraparound and PBS trainers.
Locally, the BVC is now working to create a structured coaching
network with one staff member responsible for most of the training.
The BVC is identifying and training inside coaches in each school as
well as working with the behavior consultants and teachers to train on
functional behavior assessments, writing intervention plans and proper
data-collection. The University of Montana has also played a role in
providing training to the staff of the BVC and teachers in the area. Staff
from the University does team trainings on behavior plans and goes
into schools to work with staff on behavior issues. The BVC and the
University provide ongoing support and build capacity in the schools.
Funding
Most of the funding for mental health services in the Bitterroot
Valley comes through Medicaid. The licensed mental health center
provides services in the schools through the Comprehensive School
Community Treatment Program, set up to serve children with serious
emotional disturbance and others by providing mental health services
in the schools. Medicaid is billed for services provided in the school by
licensed mental health center employees. Each mental health team serves
between 12 and 14 clients in the school, of whom eight to 10 are usually
Medicaid-eligible.
The BVC also receives IDEA dollars for the children who qualify for
special education services. Out of a total annual program budget, around
10% comes from IDEA Part B and other special education money.
Another funding stream for the co-op is grant money from the Office
of Public Instruction to serve students with intensive-level needs. The
BVC receives $25,000 annually, or around four percent of the budget.
Other funds comes from CHIP and private insurance.
2.
Illinois
The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) initiative
was launched in 1998, when the Illinois Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders Network (the EBD Network) began PBIS training with a
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
105
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
cohort of 23 schools. Currently, 520 schools participate in PBIS (more
than 11% of the state’s public schools), including 20 alternative schools
and a school at a juvenile justice facility.
Illinois’ strong statewide technical assistance and support system
provided a good foundation upon which to build PBIS. The EBD
Network (now the PBIS Network) started in 1990, when the Illinois
Board of Education began funding regional technical assistance providers
to support local system of care development and the integration of
school-based wraparound for students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities. The Network developed the infrastructure and would later
support PBIS. Currently, it trains and supports PBIS, autism and fullinclusion initiatives.
The state has 62 local area networks (LANs) that are responsible
for a community-based system of care for children and youth in their
geographic regions. Technical assistance and support to LANs is provided
by the Network, the Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS), the Illinois Federation of Families (IFF) and the Department of
Human Services and the Community and Residential Services Authority
(CRSA)—an interagency body that facilitates interagency cooperation,
reviews and make recommendations about policy, and resolves disputes.
Incorporating Wraparound
Illinois is a pioneer in integrating wraparound and PBIS and its
approach is recognized nationally as a model for other states. For
students for whom universal prevention strategies are not enough,
Illinois integrates secondary and tertiary strategies, including targeted
small-group interventions, social-skills instruction and, when needed,
individualized school-based team planning. While wraparound was
developed to serve children with the highest levels of need, PBIS
practitioners in the state recognize that early intensive interventions,
positive behavior support plans and effective academic interventions
are key to preventing or ameliorating problems that would lead to more
serious impairments in behavior and functional ability in some children.
In these cases, individualized early intervention teams are formed to
aid students who are identified through reviews of school-wide data
(i.e., frequent office referrals, tardies, absences, and incident reports) or
referrals by teachers, parents and caregivers.
Wraparound values and components (e.g., family/youth voice,
strengths/needs-based planning and quality of life indicators) are
incorporated into all interventions, but some of the features associated
with wraparound (e.g., interagency involvement and the multiple
domains focus of home/school/community) come into play only for
students with the most serious disorders (the top 1-3%).
106
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Family Involvement
Each of the Chicago schools that is part of the System of Care-PBIS
demonstration project is assigned a Comprehensive Care Coordinator
(CCC), a mental health professional who provides direct services
to children and families on site, and a Family Resource Developer, a
full-time paid family member who helps families access services and
supports, promotes parental involvement and serves on PBIS teams.
FDRs are parents who have the skills to assist other families and
personal experience navigating the children’s mental health system.
Having an FDR who is integrated fully with school staff promotes the
understanding that parents are true partners.
The Illinois Federation of Families (IFF) provides Parent Partners who
participate on universal PBS teams and, when needed, on individual child
and family teams. IFF has developed partnerships at the local level with
schools, LANs and mental health and other social service agencies. The
organization also maintains collaborative partnerships on a statewide
level with, among others, the Departments of Children and Family
Services (DCFS and Mental Health (DMH), the Illinois State Board of
Education (ISBE) and the Community Residential Services Authority
(CRSA).
In addition to IFF, the Illinois Family Partnership Network (IFPN),
a coalition group created in 1996 to strengthen and support parents
in their efforts to improve community-based resources and services
for children, youth and families, is an informal statewide network
of families receiving support and/or services from federal, state and
community organizations. Composed of parents and representatives
from parent and family organizations, state agencies and advocacy
groups, the IFPN helps engage parents in the planning, implementation
and monitoring of services through participation in local and statewide
governing boards.
Training & Technical Assistance
The PBIS Network provides overall coordination of PBIS, training,
technical assistance, support and evaluation. All PBIS school teams
participate in an initial series of three trainings covering the three tiers of
PBS implementation (universal, targeted and intensive). After the initial
cycle, there are regular trainings for established teams, on-going access
to technical assistance and, on a monthly basis, regional skills-building
sessions for coaches. At the intensive level, the teams develop skills in
functional behavioral assessment, behavior-support plans and familycentered interagency wraparound planning. The Network also provides
training for trainers and internal and external coaches.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
107
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
Outcome Data
The Illinois PBIS Evaluation Center at Loyola University helps guide
schools and districts through the data-based decision-making process
and assessments of the universal, targeted and intensive levels of PBS.
Statewide SWIS data showed that in fiscal year 2005, PBIS schools
that had reached full implementation (SET scores of at least 80/80)
had significantly fewer discipline problems than those that had not
yet reached 80/80 on the SET. Fully implementing elementary schools
experienced a 46-percent lower rate of office-discipline referrals (ODRs)
than schools that had only partially implemented. Middle schools
deemed to have fully implemented recorded a 38-percent lower rate of
ODRs than partially implementing ones.
The data show that when investments are made in both behavior
support and effective instruction, academic performance improves. For
the 2002-03 year, 52 elementary schools with SET scores at or above the
80/80 threshold were compared with 69 schools that were just adopting
PBS and not fully implementing. On average, 62% of third graders in the
fully implementing schools met or exceeded the state reading standard.
By comparison, an average of 46% of third graders in schools just starting
PBS met the same standard.
Funding
The state uses federal IDEA Part B discretionary funds to support
the PBIS network statewide coordinator and team of coordinators and
trainers. Illinois also receives assistance with training, support and
evaluation from the National PBIS Center co-located at the Universities
of Connecticut and Oregon.
Funding for the System of Care pilot that co-locates the CCCs and
FRDs in the seven Chicago schools is through a federal Center for Mental
Health Services grant, community mental health agencies, the state
mental health authority, the Chicago Metropolitan Child and Adolescent
Network and the Chicago public schools. In these pilot sites, mental
health services are funded by the federal grant. As the funding ends, the
pilots sites will seek reimbursement from health care third-party payers
(Medicaid, S-CHIP, private insurance) and from special education and
mental health system allocations.
The Illinois Federation of Families (IFF) is funded through the state
Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Mental
Health, the Illinois State Board of Education, the Center for Mental
Health Services, the Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health,
the Community and Residential Services Authority and parent groups,
corporations, foundations, families and individuals.
108
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
3.
Maryland
The decision to proceed with a statewide positive behavioral
intervention and supports (PBIS) initiative resulted from discussions
in 1998 between the Maryland State Department of Education and the
Sheppard Pratt Health System (a nonprofit behavioral health system
serving 11 counties) about strategies to prevent violence and improve
school climate. Since PBIS is a school-wide approach, the decision was
made to house the initiative in the Department of Education’s Division
of Student and School Services, rather than within special education. A
leadership team was formed, composed of co-directors from Sheppard
Pratt and the Department of Education. Sheppard Pratt has a contractual
arrangement with the Department of Education to co-direct and assist in
training and oversight for the PBIS initiative.
The Department of Education contracted with the National PBIS
Center at the University of Oregon to train 15 school teams from
nine local school systems in July of 1999. In 2001, the Center for the
Prevention of Youth Violence at Johns Hopkins University joined the
collaboration, agreeing to serve on the leadership team and to conduct
a systematic evaluation of the initiative. This evaluation will include
comparison with a control group, which consists of schools that have
not received PBIS training.
The state leadership team meets monthly to set policy and
procedures, with a smaller sub-group, the PBIS management team,
meeting weekly to handle operations. Within the local school
systems, each has a Director of Student Services, who oversees PBIS
implementation and serves as the local point of contact to the state
leadership team. Currently about 21% (301) of Maryland schools are
implementing PBIS.
Legislation enacted in 2004 requires elementary schools with a
suspension rate of 18% or higher to implement PBIS or an alternative
behavioral modification strategy. For the 2003-04 school year, 50
elementary schools exceeded the 18% suspension rate.
In 2005, the state was awarded a Schools and Mental Health Systems
Integration grant by the U.S. Department of Education. This pilot
project, involving three PBIS schools from each of four local school
systems, is designed to integrate mental health systems into the PBIS
structure to better serve students with more intensive mental health
needs. The project aims to improve linkages among school teams,
families, youth, health care providers, the community and the public
mental health system. A State Advisory Board for Safe School Climate
was formed to support the integration of services and training at the
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
109
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
local level and to advise about resource allocation at the state level. The
board includes representatives from the Governor’s Offices of Children
and of Crime Control and Prevention, the state departments of Juvenile
Services and Education, the Alcohol and Drug Administration, and the
Maryland Coalition of Families for Children’s Mental Health.
The grant also establishes the Maryland School Mental Health
Alliance, which is responsible for coordinating the project. The Alliance
includes the Department of Education, the state mental health authority,
the Department of Juvenile Services, the Maryland Coalition of Families
for Children’s Mental Health, universities and others. It is expected that
the project will result in the development of a model for integration that
will be replicable across Maryland’s school systems, guiding resource
allocation, training and technical assistance.
Family Involvement
One objective of the federal Integration Grant is to ensure that
families are included in all aspects of the project. To achieve this, the
state has contracted with the Maryland Coalition of Families for
Children’s Mental Health, which has appointed a Family Liaison to
coordinate its efforts and develop training and educational materials
for families. In each of the participating four counties, a family member
will be hired as Family Partner to bring the family perspective to countywide integration teams. These individuals will be trained and supported
by the coalition. They will receive a small stipend for their attendance
at meetings and for participation in monthly conference calls with the
Family Liaison.
Training & Technical Assistance
The state leadership team is responsible for planning and
implementing PBIS training and support. Technical support has been
provided, in part, by the National Technical Assistance Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports that is co-located at
the University of Oregon and the University of Connecticut. Initially,
Maryland relied on a summer training institute, with national
consultants providing annual training for new and continuing schools.
However, as interest mushroomed and several of the larger school
systems indicated their readiness to join the initiative, the leadership
team developed a model for regionally based training and technicalassistance capacity that began operations in 2005. Intensive training for
lead coaches and training for trainers have been emphasized to develop
regional capacity for ongoing expansion.
The majority of PBIS behavior-support coaches are school
psychologists who each work with three to five implementing schools.
110
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Coaches work to strengthen existing programs and also provide
leadership and guidance to schools that are considering PBIS. Coaches
attend PBIS school team meetings and provide ongoing support to
implement and sustain PBIS. Additionally, coaches meet at the state level
five times a year.
Funding
Support for the PBIS initiative comes from a variety of sources—
including federal grants (Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Truancy Prevention,
IDEA Part B funds, No Child Left Behind) that flow through the state’s
general education and special education offices. Local school systems are
responsible for funding coaches in each school and for stipends, travel
and other expenses for school personnel to attend trainings. Funding to
support the evaluation of the PBIS initiative is through grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Outcome Data
PBIS schools in Maryland use the School-Wide Information System
to keep track of discipline referrals. Thirty-seven schools in five school
systems are participating in an evaluation where 21 schools are PBIS
schools and 16 are control schools that will not implement PBIS.
Preliminary data show that the PBIS schools have reduced problem
behaviors in the classroom, office-discipline referrals and the number of
suspensions.
In addition to this formal evaluation, the PBIS leadership team
continues to review data submitted by schools. For the 2003-2004 school
year, it found, for example, when comparing mean scores of officediscipline referrals (ODRs) per day per 100 students to the national
average, that the elementary and middle schools scored better than their
national counterparts—0.38 ODRs per day per 100 students for pre-K
and K-5 vs. a national average of .043; and 0.89 ODRs for grades 6-8 vs. a
national average of 0.95. Not surprisingly, Maryland has also found that
the percentage of children in Tier One is highest at the elementary school
level, at 93.33. Only 73.14% of high-school students meet criteria for
Tier One, suggesting that the lack of effective interventions earlier has
contributed to a higher number of high school students’ having problem
behaviors.
Twelve schools took their annual reductions in lost administrative
and instructional time and calculated the savings, using a costbenefit analysis worksheet. When these numbers were combined,
Maryland found that together these schools had recovered 233 days of
administrators’ time and 700 days of instruction for students.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
111
4.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS)
is a state-level initiative that began in 2002 and is now a prominent
element in both the state’s education and mental health plans. Just
over 16% of all of public schools are participating and there are 125
sites, including eight alternative schools, five of the state’s six Head
Start programs (36 sites), and four early childhood programs. The PBS
initiative is part of an interagency initiative called Systems of Care and
Education (SOC&E), which also includes Enhanced Post-Secondary
Outcomes (secondary transition), Achievement for Dropout Prevention
and Excellence (APEX) and NH Connections (regional support networks
for families). The impetus for a statewide PBS initiative came from
state and local partners involved in developing New Hampshire’s SOC
who were concerned about the number of youth placed outside their
communities, often in out-of-state residential facilities.
Prior to PBS, the state had separate mental health and education
reforms underway. A mental health system of care began in 1989 with
grant funding from CMHS (now called CARE-NH). In order to return
students from placements, the system of care recognized the need to
improve the community schools’ ability to serve students with serious
emotional problems. PBS was viewed as a way to bring this capacity
to the schools systematically and to create more positive school
environments that would better meet all students’ needs. School climate
and discipline issues were high on the list of the education department’s
concerns and its officials were enthusiastic about an interdepartmental
effort that promised to bolster school improvement.
While the Bureau of Behavioral Health was building systems of care,
the Department of Education was launching a community systems
change effort designed to help local school districts better serve all
children. In 1998, the DOE received a federal State Improvement
Grant (SIG I) to focus on professional development, school and family
partnerships, and secondary transition planning and services. The state’s
DOE and the Department of Health and Human Services discussed how
CARE NH and SIG I could be aligned, recognizing that a partnership
using a system of care approach could improve community-based
services for children and families. The collaboration proved successful
and other entities joined the partnership, including the state offices of
child welfare, juvenile justice, developmental services, alcohol and drug
abuse prevention, minority health, health planning and Medicaid, and
the district court system, as well as numerous family and child-serving
organizations and some of the state’s universities and colleges. The
CARE NH and SIG I collaboration is the SOC&E.
112
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
CARE NH also formed three regional collaboratives that include
parents, youth, local child serving agencies, educators, community
mental health leaders and private providers. Each collaborative employs
a community organizer, a full-time family partner and a cultural
competency consultant. In the context of PBS, these collaboratives
help to forge the link between mental health and education, bringing
community services to families.
Training & Technical Assistance
Through a contract, the state provides technical assistance, training
and support for universal and targeted teams and coaches, as well as for
more intensive level services such as functional behavioral assessment,
person-centered planning and wraparound. The New Hampshire Center
for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports (NH-CEBIS), an
educational consortium that is a collaboration of the Southeastern
Regional Education Service Center (SERESC) and Rivier College,
conducts the training and technical assistance on PBS, along with the
SOC and APEX leadership.
Schools are also trained to use SWIS (the School-Wide Information
System) and the school reports are used to guide decisions about the
need for ongoing technical assistance and training. NH-CEBIS has offices
at SERESC and regional offices located at three colleges.
PBS is also part of the curriculum in both new-teacher training and
continuing education in the state’s institutions of higher education.
At Plymouth State, teachers earn graduate credits for training in
wraparound and systems of care and education. A PBS certificate
program is offered in behavioral management and PBS is part of
undergraduate training.
Family Involvement
The Family and Youth Engagement Workgroup of the SOC&E
works to develop common strategies among projects (including PBIS)
for engaging families and youth. New Hampshire began developing its
capacity to promote family involvement in 1989 with its first system of
care grant. Since that time the Granite State Federation of Families for
Children’s Mental Health and NAMI NH, along with the Alliance for
Community Supports, have provided ongoing education, training and
advocacy, helping to develop the family-involvement component of all
SOC&E initiatives. These family groups provide leadership at the state
level through the leadership team, offer wraparound-facilitation training
and consultation, run mentoring programs and family-to-family support
programs. They also monitor and administer the flexible funds associated
with the SOC, partner with the community mental health centers and
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
113
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
provide family and youth training. New Hampshire’s Parent Information
Center houses the statewide NH Connections project, which joins the
aforementioned family organizations in providing leadership to SOC&E.
Schools are expected to include parents and community members
on their universal teams (an expectation on the family-engagement
checklist) and the workgroup continues to address issues of family
engagement at the targeted and intensive levels. A Family Engagement
Checklist was created in 2004 to help schools identify the status and
priority of different tasks necessary to engage families in PBS programs.
Outcome Data
For the 2004-05 school year, the first cohort of schools in New
Hampshire’s PBS initiative saw a 28% drop in office-discipline referrals.
There were also 568 fewer in-school suspensions and 352 fewer out-ofschool suspensions. The hours regained were a total of 15,647—10,496
hours for student learning, 2,958 hours for teachers’ teaching, and 2,193
hours for administrative leadership.
At the elementary-school level, between 2003 and 2004, physical
aggression was reduced by 46% and defiance, disrespect and
noncompliance were reduced by 73%. At the middle-school level, all
problem behaviors were reduced by at least 50% in a six-week period
following implementation of an intervention designed to teach respect.
The incidence of problem behaviors decreased, and there were drops in
the number of disruptions (from 130 to 65), defiance/disrespect (from
145 to 66), aggression (from 75 to 38), physical contact (from 28 to 8),
harassment (from 27 to 8), and inappropriate verbal behavior and abusive
language (from 47 to 14).
At the high-school level, one school reported a 78% reduction in
tardiness after initiating an intervention. Another school reported that
the number of incidents of tardiness dropped from 900 to 300 after it had
targeted tardiness as a problem behavior.
Funding
The PBIS initiative is supported by Department of Education funds.
The Department uses IDEA Part B and APEX grant funds for training
and technical assistance. The Department of Health and Human
Services, Bureau of Behavioral Health supports training and technical
assistance for family involvement, including wraparound facilitation.
This partnership has created a platform for other funding and support,
including the SIG grant and a Mental Health and Schools Seed Grant
from the IDEA Partnership at the National Association of State Directors
114
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
of Special Education. Local schools contribute toward training by
providing staff time, substitute teachers and travel resources.
5.
New York State
The statewide positive behavioral interventions and supports
(PBIS) initiative in New York began in March 2002. Vocational and
Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities and the Elementary,
Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education Offices (within the state
Department of Education) joined with the state Office of Mental Health
(OMH) and Families Together in New York State (FTNYS), the state
chapter of the Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, to
coordinate joint delivery of education, mental health and family-support
services. The coalition was charged with designing and implementing a
technical-assistance strategy to promote widespread adoption of schoolwide PBIS throughout New York. A statewide interagency leadership
team guides the project.
Fifty-six schools were part of the initial cohort in the PBIS initiative
that began in the 2002-2003 school year. Currently, 151 PBIS schools are
involved. The goal is to establish PBIS initiatives in 180 school districts
by July 2008.
The work to have schools partner in the system of care did not begin
with PBIS, but started more than a decade ago. Other collaborations
between the Office of Mental Health and the NYS Department of
Education include:
the Coordinated Children’s Services Initiative (CCSI), designed to
support cross-system planning and coordination of services at the
local, regional, and state levels. The CCSI was designed to build an
interagency system of care for children and families, relying on a
single point of access. CCSI coordinates mental health services for
children with serious emotional disturbance at the county level;
Effective Practices in Collaborative School-Based Mental Health Services,
started in 1999 to promote collaborations at the local level between
schools, mental health agencies and service providers to improve
outcomes for children and families;
School Support Project, which began funding co-located mental health
service projects in schools in 1999 to aid children with significant
behavioral issues that put them at risk for academic failure,
suspension/expulsion, and exclusion from general education settings;
and
the Special Education Space Planning Initiative targeted to students with
autism and severe emotional and behavioral problems and designed
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
115
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
to provide alternatives to inappropriate placements and reliance on
homebound instruction.
While these various interagency initiatives are targeted to children
requiring intensive services, the state recognized that an initiative like
PBIS, with a comprehensive school-wide focus, was also needed. PBIS
is both the next step in the evolution of New York’s service-system
integration and recognition that a public health approach is key to
improving school outcomes.
Staffing
PBIS teams include building administrators, psychologists, social
workers and others employed by the school district, as well as family
representatives and a PBS coach, who participate in planning and
implementation at all three levels and facilitate the bridge to the system
of care (the CCSI). In areas where a community agency provides schoolbased services, that agency may also participate in PBIS.
Funding
The New York PBIS initiative relies on an amalgamation of funds—
Medicaid, public mental health and special education monies for services
that are allowable under these entitlements, state education and mental
health department funding, as well as federal and state grant monies.
Federal IDEA Part B discretionary grant money is used to fund
state and regional technical assistance and training and will support
a statewide technical assistance center. The CCSI supports intensive
services as well as trainings in areas such as wraparound or functional
behavioral assessment. FTNYS receives a grant to support the family
component of PBIS, the result of an arrangement between the state
mental health and education departments.
Training & Technical Assistance
The state education department contracts with seven regional
technical assistance centers to provide training and technical assistance
to interested schools. Each region has a PBIS specialist responsible for
the planning, development and provision of coordinated training and
technical assistance for the region. These sites are also aligned with the
NYS Regional School Support Centers in order to promote collaboration
with existing regional support networks. A statewide PBIS technicalassistance center, which will support the regional sites, is expected to
open in 2006-2007. Currently, the state leadership team and the state’s
PBIS director are responsible for training and technical assistance and
regional support.
116
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Family Involvement
New York State is seen as a national leader in the effort to integrate
family members as equal partners at every level of PBIS planning and
implementation. A well-developed family organization, FTNYS, has been
at the forefront helping to guide the design and implementation of PBS
at the school, district/county, and state levels.
FTNYS is part of the statewide PBIS leadership team. The grant
funding it receives from the state supports Regional Family Coordinators
who partner with regional PBIS specialists based in the regional student
support centers. The primary role of each Regional Family Coordinator is
to serve as a resource for school teams in the region, assisting them with
the recruitment and training of active family representatives on PBIS
school teams, linking family-support services within the region and cotraining with the Regional PBIS Specialist.
There is a clear expectation that family representatives will be part
of schools’ planning and implementation teams and FTNYS continues
to look at ways to segue family representatives into leadership roles that
traditionally are held by a professional in the school (e.g., PBIS coach).
While the Regional Family Coordinators are paid salaries, PBS school
team family representatives are not; they do, however, receive stipends.
Outcome Data
Data from the 2003-2004 school year indicate that 151 schools in the
state initiative were in various stages of implementing PBIS. Seventyeight percent of the first cohort are actively implementing universal-level
strategies focusing on changing school climate; 88% are forming teams
to target assistance to groups of students requiring special attention;
and 64% are beginning staff development to prepare to address intensive
individual student and family-support needs. Data for the year 200304 indicate that in the six schools farthest along in developing PBIS
approaches, office-discipline referrals declined by 28%. Data from these
sites also indicate reductions in insubordination and tardiness. Trend
data from school report cards will be gathered over time to assess the
impact on schools’ academic performance and school climate.
6.
Travis County, Texas
In 1989, a handful of counties in Texas were named as pilot sites to
create a community-based planning agency for children with multiagency needs. The Community Resource Coordination Group (CRCG)
brought together all of the major child-serving agencies in the county
to plan how to better serve children and families. The creation of
the CRCG helped forge relationships between agencies in the county
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
117
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
and began a tradition of collaboration. In 1996, the Texas Integrated
Funding Initiative (TIFI) was formed to pilot blended-funding models
in communities throughout the state. The legislation provided funds to
help communities move toward interagency funding. In Travis County,
the agencies focused on decreasing reliance on residential care and
providing services in the community.
The individuals who headed these interagency reform efforts
spearheaded development of an application for a system of care grant
from the Center for Mental Health Services. Travis County received the
grant in 1998. The Children’s Partnership was formed and now serves
more than 300 children with complex mental health needs in the area.
In 1998, the Region XIII Education Service Center (ESC), in
collaboration with the special education directors in the area, started
training the first cohort of schools in PBS.
In 2000, the ESC staff liaison and The Children’s Partnership staff
came together, in recognition that they were working toward the same
goals.
Today, the Austin School District, the ESC and The Children’s
Partnership collaborate in using their agencies’ supports and resources.
Other school districts in Travis County have followed suit and are
working to expand PBS.
The link between mental health and schools in Travis County has
come through The Children’s Partnership (system of care) and the
strong collaboration set up within the county health and human services
agency, mental health and juvenile justice systems.
The Children’s Partnership, the Community Partners for Children,
and the schools all work together to help youth who are struggling to
access services through a variety of programs and partnerships. The
schools play an important role in helping students access such programs.
Each school has an impact team composed of various school personnel,
who meet to review youth who are not functioning well and link them
with supports. The vice principal typically chairs the impact team and
both general and special education teachers are involved.
The Children’s Partnership provides access to an array of services for
children with mental health needs and supports their families in various
ways, utilizing services and supports offered by community partners.
The Partnership is directly involved with the schools and works with
them to provide wraparound services for children with complex needs
(PBS Tier Three). Each child and family has an individualized plan of
care.
118
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
The Children’s Partnership collaborates with education partners to
create and sustain care-coordination positions. These positions have been
crucial to supporting children in the school setting and linking them to
the outside services and resources they need to sustain success.
Funding
The system-reform efforts in the 1990s helped in many ways to
build and strengthen collaboration in the community. With respect
to financing, the TIFI led the community agencies to participate in a
blended funding model. Travis County agencies have therefore been
working together and funding initiatives jointly for over a decade.
PBS was initially funded by the ESC with federal special education
dollars. While the ESC used Part B and TIFI funds to offer training
and technical assistance in the Travis County area, The Children’s
Partnership and the county funded care coordinators and social workers
to work in some schools.
Today, the schools cover the bulk of the PBS costs. Schools pay for the
care coordinators, and have developed the capacity to train themselves,
with the help of the ESC. A statewide network, The Texas Behavior
Support Initiative, has also allocated funding over the past two years
to each ESC to support implementation of PBS across the state. The
Children’s Partnership federal grant ended in September 2005. However,
the Partnership has been able to sustain every service and activity by
relying on community partners and continues to use Medicaid dollars to
leverage services.
Training & Technical Assistance
Much of the technical assistance and training for PBS was originally
provided through the ESC. When the PBS initiative merged with the
Partnership in 2000, the two entities focused on the need for training and
support for families and school personnel on PBS and the systems of care
model. The ESC coordinates a number of training tracks and technicalassistance meetings for trainers, families and school personnel, while
The Children’s Partnership provides training to others important in the
system, such as nonprofit employees and for-profit organizations that
serve children in the area.
The Children’s Partnership also trains parent liaisons who provide
support and linkages to schools and other community agencies. They
help parents and families prioritize their needs and navigate the system,
and they are instrumental in facilitating the wraparound process,
working closely with families in their homes or other designated places.
The majority of families in The Children’s Partnership have an assigned
Parent Liaison.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
119
APPENDIX 1—SITE-VISIT REPORTS
The Children’s Partnership works with more than 300 children
in Travis County. However, there are other students with mental
health needs who are not a part of The Children’s Partnership. These
children access mental health services in various ways. One of the most
important avenues for care is Community Partners for Children, set up
by the county. The agency provides services to children who are at-risk
or in danger of becoming at-risk. They provide a single point of access to
services for youth who are returning from residential placement or at
risk of being placed into residential treatment.
Family Involvement
The Children’s Partnership has incorporated the family voice in every
layer of the organization. Family members serve as board members,
management staff and direct care staff, and are employed as parent
liaisons. The Family and Youth Leadership Council meets bi-weekly and
discusses issues of interest or concern, advocacy, mental health education
and skills development.
Outcome Data
The Children’s Partnership data illustrate improved school
functioning and behaviors. At intake, 94% of children served by The
Children’s Partnership reported school absences during the previous six
months. Within six months, 14% of the children improved attendance,
and at the 18-month follow-up, 21% did. School performance also
increased, with 37% of Children’s Partnership children improving their
grades 24 months after intake. Out-of-school suspensions decreased by
30% from intake to the six month follow-up. Expulsions dropped by 10%
in the same time frame.
Living situations also improved significantly for children involved
with The Children’s Partnership. The time spent in out-of-home
placements decreased from 187 days to 98 days. This reduction not only
helps keep the family together, but also represents a significant costsaving for Travis County. Similarly, the number of children who stayed
in one living arrangement, as opposed to multiple placements, increased
by 30% from intake to the 24-month follow-up.
120
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Schools Visited During Site Visits
Illinois
Dixon Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois
Stockton Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois
Maryland
Indian Head Elementary School, Indian Head, Maryland
Montana
Daly Elementary School, Hamilton, Montana
Stevensville K-12 School, Stevensville, Montana
Hamilton High School, Hamilton, Montana
Victor K-12 School, Victor, Montana
New Hampshire
South Meadow Middle School, Peterborough, New Hampshire
South Londonderry Elementary School, South Londonderry, New
Hampshire
Jolicoeur School, Manchester, New Hampshire
Belnap-Merrimack Head Start, Laconia, New Hampshire
New York
Lanigan Elementary School, Fulton, New York
East Syracuse Elementary School, East Syracuse, New York
Texas
Martin Middle School, Austin, Texas
Travis High School, Austin, Texas
Pflugerville Middle School, Pflugerville, Texas
Manor Middle School, Manor, Texas
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
121
PBS Policy Retreat Attendance List
Susan Bailey-Anderson, MBI Coordinator
Montana Office of Public Instruction
Susan Barrett, PBIS Maryland State Coordinator
Sheppard Pratt Health System
Linda Brown, MS, RN, Regional PBIS Specialist
Student Support Services Network
Carlo Cuccaro, School Psychologist, Fulton City School District
Lucille Eber Ed.D, Project Director, Illinois PBIS Network
Carol Ewen, Programs Manager, Bitterroot Valley Education Co-op
Debra Grabill, Interagency Consultant
NH Systems of Care and Education
Kathe Hayes, Director of Training and Strategic Direction
New York State Office of Mental Health
Ruth Hughes, PhD, CPRP, Deputy CEO
Public Policy and Community Services, CHADD
Milt McKenna, Student Services & Alternative Programs
Division of Student and School Services
Maryland State Department of Education
John Moore, Director (ret.), Educational Support Services, Austin ISD
Michael Orth, Program Director, Children’s Mental Health Services
Westchester County Dept. of Community Mental Health
Ada Maria Ortiz, Family Resource Developer
System of Care Chicago
Trina W. Osher. Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
Carl Smith, Co-Director, Iowa Behavioral Alliance
Iowa State University
Ann Straub, Behavior Consultant
The Bitterroot Valley Education Coop
Mark D. Weist, Ph.D, Professor and Director
Center for School Mental Health Analysis and Action
University of Maryland School of Medicine
122
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Appendix 2
PBS Training Tools
The following tools and resources are available either online at www.
pbis.org, or they can be obtained from the OSEP Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
PBS Implementation and Planning Self-Assessment
Checklist —general template or protocol for self-assessment. It
is designed as a multi-level guide for appraising the status of PBS
organizational systems and developing and evaluating PBS action
plans. It is to be completed by a team and can be used to evaluate
statewide, district-wide or school-wide implementation.
Ebs Self-Assessment Survey
EBS survey assessing and planning behavior support in schools
—used by school staff for initial and annual assessment of EBS
systems in their school.
Summarizing the results from the EBS survey —detailed
instructions for summarizing and evaluating the EBS survey
results.
Effective Behavior Support Team Implementation
Checklists —the EBS team should complete checklists #1 and #2
monthly to monitor activities for implementation of EBS in the
school.
Checklist #1: Startup Activity
Checklist #2: Ongoing Activity Monitoring
Action Plan for Completion of Startup Plan
School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET) —designed to assess
and evaluate the critical features of school-wide effective behavior
support across each academic year.
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff
(FACTS) —two-page interview used either to build behaviorsupport plans for individual students or to guide more complete
functional-assessment efforts.
Self-Assessment of Contextual Fit in Schools —assesses the
extent to which the elements of a behavior-support plan fit the
contextual features of a school environment. The interview asks
school faculty to rate (a) knowledge of the elements of the plan,
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
123
APPENDIX 2—PBS TRAINING TOOLS
(b) perception of the extent to which the elements of the behaviorsupport plan are consistent with personal values, and skills, and (c)
the school’s ability to support implementation of the plan.
1.
School Leadership-Team Training Reference Materials
Components and Processes of School-Wide Discipline
—worksheets that can be used to brainstorm the elements of the
school’s PBS program:
school’s statement of purpose;
school’s stated behavioral expectations;
school’s teaching matrix for behavioral expectations;
school’s procedures for positive reinforcement;
school’s procedures for rule violations; and
school’s data decision system for office discipline referrals.
Getting Started —tools to organize initial tasks for getting
started with practices and systems of school-wide PBS:
establishing team membership and getting started —team
profile to establish a school-wide leadership team and
agreements;
actions needed for establishing team membership and getting
started;
actions needed for identifying positive school-wide expectations;
teaching matrix for school-wide expectations;
actions needed for developing a plan for teaching school-wide
expectations;
acknowledgements worksheet —identifies forms of
acknowledgement for student use of school-wide expectations;
actions needed for developing procedures for encouraging and
strengthening student use of school-wide expectations;
rule-violation worksheet —identifies definitions, examples and
procedures for rule violations;
actions needed for developing procedures for violations of
school-wide rule; and
questions for getting started and action planning worksheet.
Conducting Leadership-Team Meetings
conducting leadership meetings checklist —facilitates the
preparation, conduct and evaluation of meetings; and
routines for conducting effective and efficient meetings.
School-Wide Expectations —Teaching Matrix
teaching expectations-implementation checklist; and
teaching matrix —identifies positive behaviors for each
expectation/rule in different settings/routines.
124
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Committee/Group Self-Assessment and Action Planning
— worksheet enables schools to assess and enhance the
efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the committee and team
organization of schools.
Classroom Management: Self-Assessment and Action
Planning —worksheet determines the extent to which effective
general classroom-management practices are in place and develops
an action plan for enhancement/maintenance.
Non-Classroom Management: Self-Assessment and
Action Planning —worksheet determines the extent to which
effective supervision practices outside of the classroom are in place
and develops an action plan for enhancement/maintenance.
Data Checklists and Forms
discipline referral data self-assessment —worksheet rates the
status of discipline-referral data-management procedures and
develops an action plan for procedures “not in place”;
SWIS referral form examples —each form for office-discipline
referral and office referral is formatted differently, in size of
paper, actual categories and the order of the information to be
recorded;
readiness checklist —10 requirements for obtaining a SWIS
license agreement; and
compatibility checklist —tool for ensuring that all necessary
categories are being documented on a referral form
Parent Survey —in English and Spanish, asks parents to
anonymously rate school and family activities, school safety and
school climate.
2.
Implementer’s Blueprint and Self-Assessment
Sample State/District Leadership PBS Action Planning
Template —provides a three-year timeline of certain activities
necessary for implementing a PBS program.
Action Plan for Completion of Startup Activities —
planning worksheet outlines the major startup activities for the
state leadership team.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
125
APPENDIX 2—PBS TRAINING TOOLS
The OSEP Center on PBIS has an extensive online library that
includes research, links to state initiatives and national PBS resource
centers, tools, and information about conferences and training
opportunities. Rather than recreate their list of national resources and
state links, we suggest that you look at the OSEP Center website: www.
pbis.org/Library.htm
In addition to their resource lists, below are some additional sources
of information on social and emotional development, positive behavioral
support, family leadership, and community and school-based mental
health. These sites also have links to other valuable resources.
The UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/
Dept. of Child & Family Studies, Louis de la Parte Florida
Mental Health Institute
http://cfs.fmhi.usf.edu/
The Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
www.ffcmh.org
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education
www.nasdse.org
The Center for School Mental Health Analysis and Action
http://csmha.umaryland.edu/
The National Association of School Psychologists
www.nasponline.org
Illinois
The following tools and resources are available either online at www.
pbisillinois.org/ or from the Illinois PBIS Network.
Integrating Wraparound Approaches in PBS Schools
Team Development
guiding questions to assist with initial conversations;
sample questions for family-strength assessment;
sample questions for school-strength assessment, questions to
ask teachers about their schools;
sample questions for school-based strength assessment,
questions to ask teachers about their students;
strengths-assessment exercise —identifies key stakeholders and
the strengths of each within a school; and
collaborative team-planning form.
Evaluation and Assessment
wraparound start-up checklist —evaluates the progress of each
step/action;
126
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
wraparound planning indicators —evaluates the progress of
each planning indicator;
implementation survey —evaluates the progress of each
implementation task;
student referral for comprehensive wrap plan;
youth and family checklist —survey evaluates a youth’s needs
and strengths in the community, home/family and school;
educational information form —to be completed by a youth’s
teacher, survey identifies the youth’s current educational
placement, classroom functioning and academic performance;
parent/primary caregiver satisfaction —survey evaluates a
parent’s or primary caregiver’s satisfaction with the current
child and family wraparound team;
youth satisfaction —survey evaluates a youth’s satisfaction
with his/her current child and family wraparound team; and
full evaluation dispositional form for students receiving
comprehensive plan
General Resources from Illinois
PBIS School Profile, 2004-2005;
Illinois PBIS Implementation Levels for 2005-2006
—details criteria for assessing implementation in schools for each
phase;
PBIS Academic and Behavioral Interventions —asks for
input from each school on interventions they have implemented as
a result of their PBIS training and implementation;
PBIS School Data Summary Form —includes summary of
major office-discipline referrals (ODRs), in-school suspensions
(ISSs) and out-of-school suspensions (OSSs);
PBIS Academic And Behavior Interventions —collects
data from schools on their school-wide/universal, targeted and
intensive/wraparound interventions and seeks suggestions for
improvements regarding roadblocks and challenges encountered;
2005-2006 Illinois PBIS Team Implementation Checklist;
Parent and Community Involvement —survey requests
information on how parents and community members are
involved in implementing PBIS; and
“Speak Out!! We’re Listening” —asks for quotes/statements
about PBIS implementation and impact from various sources, e.g.,
principal, general education teachers, student, parent, counselor.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
127
APPENDIX 2—PBS TRAINING TOOLS
New Hampshire
The following tools and resources are available either online at http://
nhcebis.seresc.net/ or from the New Hampshire Center for Effective
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (NH CEBIS):
Targeted Team Self-Assessment —assesses the team’s (1)
readiness and (2) startup and processes;
Targeted Intervention Questionnaire; and
Family Engagement Checklist —identifies the status and
priority of tasks necessary to engage families in PBS programs.
Maryland
The following tools and resources are available either online at www.
pbismaryland.org or from the Maryland State Department of Education:
Statewide PBIS: The Maryland Model, Implementers
Manual —an example of statewide implementation of PBS;
PBIS Team Implementation Checklist, Form A Revised:
School Year 2005-06;
Coach’s Implementation Checklist, Form C, School
Year 2005-06 —to be completed monthly by the PBIS coach to
monitor PBIS implementation activities in a school;
Coach’s Self-Assessment (Maryland) —designed to assist
coaches in identifying current strengths and professionaldevelopment goals;
The School-Based PBIS Implementation Phases Inventory
(IPI) —survey to be completed by coaches twice a year, assesses a
school’s level of PBIS implementation;
Maryland Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Forms —identifies who is responsible for filling out all program
forms, how often, and to whom each form is sent;
Cost/Benefit Analysis Worksheet.
New York
The following tools and resources are available either online at www.
emsc.nysed.gov/sss/MentalHealth/PBIS-short.html or from the New
York State Education Department:
Administrator’s Commitment Expectations; and
Team Implementation Checklist (TIC)
128
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
Screening
Assessment/evaluation/diagnosis
Anticipatory guidance
Individual, group and family therapy
Crisis intervention
Mobile crisis services
Medication management
Prescription medications
Substance abuse outpatient treatment
Parental education on child disorder
Home visits for newborns
Family services for 0-6
Intensive in-home services
School-based day treatment
School-based mental health services
Other day treatment
Behavioral aide
Social skills daily living skills training
Therapeutic nurseries/preschools
After-school programs
Summer day programs
Parent hotlines
Therapeutic recreation
Service team meetings
SERVICES
Income
Severity of child disorder
Age
Other factors
Title IV-E Foster Care
X
Title IV-E Training
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Community Development Block Grants
X
X
Section 8 Housing
X
X
X
X
Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevent. Form. Grant
X
Delinquency Prevention Block Grant (Part C)
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IDEA, Part B
X
X
X
X
X
IDEA, Part C
X
X
IDEA Pre-School Grants
X
X
Sliver Grants
X
X
ESEA, Title I used for special education students
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ELIGIBILITY
Title IV-E Administration
X
Title IV-B/ Promoting Safe & Stable Families Prog.
X
X
X
X
X
Vocational Rehabilitation, State Grants
X
X
Medicaid: Rehabilitation Services
X
Medicaid: Clinic Services
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Medicaid: Targeted Case Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Medicaid: Psychiatric hospital services for children
X
X
Medicaid: Home & community-based waiver
X
X
Medicaid: Other*
X
X
S-CHIP
X
X
Community mental health block grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Substance abuse block grant
X
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Social Services Block Grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Child Care Block Grant
X
TANF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
X
X
X
X
Matrix of Federal
Entitlement and Block Grant
Programs to Support Systems
of Care for Children with
Serious Mental and
Emotional Disorders
Appendix 3
Matrix of Federal Entitlements and Block Grants
129
130
X
Title IV-E Training
X
Transportation
X
X
X
X
Recruitment of personnel
Pre-service training
Multi/cross-discipline in-service training
X
X
X
X
Provider networking
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IDEA Pre-School Grants
X
X
X
X
X
Sliver Grants
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vocational Rehabilitation, State Grants
X
X
ESEA, Title I used for special education students
X
X
X
X
X
Community Development Block Grants
X
X
Section 8 Housing
X
X
Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevent. Form. Gra
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Delinquency Prevention Block Grant (Part C)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Medicaid: Clinic Services
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Systems collaboration (agency level)
X
X X X
X
X X
*Medicaid: Other category includes physician, home health, transportation, administration
** Under Title IV-E, only room, board, and care can be covered; under Medicaid, only services can be covered
X
X
X
X
Management information system
X
X
X
X
Technical assistance to providers
X
X
X
Mediation of disputes
Advocacy services
X
X
X
X
X
X
Purchase of goods/opportunities for child
X
X
Therapeutic foster care**
X
Resources for family partic. in policy & prog.
X
Group homes**
X
X
X
Crisis residential services**
Resources for family organization
X
X
Residential treatment center services**
X
X
X
X
IDEA, Part C
X
Medicaid: Rehabilitation Services
X
X
X
X
X
Engaging natural supports
X
X
X
X
X
Medicaid: Targeted Case Management
X
X
Parent-to-parent support groups
X
IDEA, Part B
X
Medicaid: Psychiatric hospital services for children
Inpatient psychiatric hospitalization
X
Respite services
Education and consultation
X
X
X
X
Supported housing (adolescents)
X
X
X
Supported education (adolescents)
X
X
X
X
Title IV-E Administration
X
Title IV-B/ Promoting Safe & Stable Families Prog.
Supported employment (adolescents)
Intensive case management/ACT
X
Case management
Title IV-E Foster Care
Wraparound facilitation
Matrix of Federal
Entitlement and Block
Grant Programs to
Support Systems of
Care for Children with
Serious Mental and
Emotional Disorders
(continued)
Medicaid: Home & community-based waiver
X
X
X
Medicaid: Other*
X
X
X
X
S-CHIP
X
X
X
Community mental health block grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Substance abuse block grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Social Services Block Grant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TANF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Child Care Block Grant
X
X
APPENDIX 3—MATRIX OF FEDERAL ENTITLEMENTS & BLOCK GRANTS
WAY TO GO—School Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs