Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board seeks clearer timelines and safeguards in proposed special-education behavior rule
Summary
Members pressed department staff to clarify how quickly functional behavior assessments must be completed and to guard against improper long-term removal of students from class; department cited 45–60 day guidance and said IEP teams make placement decisions.
The State Board discussed proposed clarifying language for functional behavior assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP), urging the Department of Education to add clearer timelines and safeguards before finalizing the rule.
Dr. Jennifer Jordan, assistant commissioner for special education and student supports, explained that the proposed rule does not prevent an LEA from moving a student who is a “disruptive force” to a more restrictive environment and that an FBA/BIP may be conducted while the student is in that environment. She read the statutory/case-law definition of “disruptive force,” noting three criteria including when a student’s behavior “demands so much of the teacher’s time and attention.”
Concerns centered on two issues. First, board members asked whether teachers or IEP teams may remove students from classrooms because of conduct that impedes other students’ learning even when no physical risk exists. Dr. Jordan emphasized that removal is an IEP-team decision, not a unilateral teacher action. Taylor Jenkins, deputy general counsel, described federal law treating an FBA as a form of re-evaluation and said the department’s guidance has generally recommended an accelerated timeline of 45–60 days for completing an FBA after a school has notice of dangerous behavior.
Second, members asked for explicit limits to prevent long-term exclusion of a student from instruction while an LEA delays or prolongs a placement decision. Members and staff discussed statutory safeguards (reporting requirements, seclusion/restraint prohibitions) and the role of parents and the IEP team in ongoing review. Board members asked staff to revisit the drafted language to (a) clarify that the IEP team, not an individual teacher, determines movement to a more restrictive placement and (b) consider adding a firmer timeline for FBA completion.
What’s next: The board approved the item for first reading and directed staff to work with the department to refine language addressing definitions, timelines and safeguards before final reading.
