We see this as a critical issue for school improvement. Here’s our view. Let’s hear what you have to say.
Send comments to Ltaylor@ucla.edu 

On July 10, 2018, Hawai`i passed a law regulating the practice of behavior analysis (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/GM1314_.pdf ). While focused on special education (i.e., autism), it raises a variety of concerns. For example: Such legislation mat accelerate the trend toward overpathologizing student behavior problems and overspecializing practices for addressing the problems. The legislation states:

teachers are encouraged to continue to employ general classroom management techniques in classroom management plans, modifications of content, process, and product. However, a licensed behavior analyst or a licensed psychologist is required to conduct functional behavior assessments and to design and oversee applied behavior analysis services when what the classroom teacher is doing is not resulting in increased learning or improved behavior and the student's behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others. Teachers are not permitted to independently conduct functional behavior assessments, or to design, develop, or independently oversee applied behavior analysis services.



Of immediate concern is that such legislation colludes with the notion that the only practitioners who are seen as capable of, and thus allowed to, deal with students manifested severe behaviors are licensed or certified professionals specially trained to offer behavioral interventions. It also reifies specific practices (i.e., Functional Behavioral Assessment and ABA).

And in the long-run, as history demonstrates, too often such special education policies and practices lead to inappropriate and unnecessary applications to students manifesting common behavior, learning, and emotional problems.

For more on this, see the December 12, 2018 School Practitioner Community of Practice
https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/mhpractitioner/practitioner

Please share your thoughts on all this.



*****************************

For a range of resources related to this matter,/span>
see: National Initiative for Transforming Student and Learning Supports in 2016

In addition, see the list of Emerging Issues identified over the years by the Center and used as a stimulus for discussion on our Net Exchange - https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/newnetexchange.htm

Previously highlighted hot issues

• Can there be too much emphasis on gathering more data?

• Concerns about Personalizing Teaching

• Arguments About Overdiagnosis of ADHD

• Moving Beyond the Concept of Integrated Student Supports

• Special Education Disputes Continue to Reflect the Many Issues that Permeate the Field

• Maintaining Momentum for Sound Systemic Changes When the Superintendency Changes

• And Yet Another Discrete Initiative!

• Enabling Learning: It's a Bigger Policy Problem than Most Education Reformers Appreciate

• Reporting on Teacher Effectiveness: The Discussion Heats Up

• Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act and Addressing Barriers to Learning

• Grade Retention: What's the Prevailing Policy and What Needs to be Done?
• Suicide Prevention in Schools
• Should Policy Specify a Formal Role for Schools Related to Mental Health?
• Screening Mental Health Problems in Schools

• What’s the Best Way to Shape the New Education Act to Enhance Equity of Opportunity?

  ---

  Table of Contents

  Home Page

  Search

  Send Us Email

  WebMaster: Perry Nelson (smhp@ucla.edu)