IMPROVING POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLANS

91

veloped by typical school teams were rated as 'Adequate" compared to 65% of the plans from teams with a more experienced and skilled member. Based on the disparate results, the authors concluded that by delivering training with the intention of improving the behavioral competencies of school personnel, the substantive quality and educational relevance of PBS plans could be improved. The findings from Cook et al. and similarly those from Van Acker et al. (2005) indicate that the majority of PBS plans developed in today's schools are inadequate and potentially legally invalid due to substantive and procedural violations. This is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that courts have already, and continue to, render decisions based upon procedural violations (e.g., missing mandatory personnel, not developed within the team context, etc.). More recently, however, courts have started to rule on the substantive aspects of PBS plans as well, making it even more important to develop substantively adequate PBS plans (see Etscheidt, 2006). Two recent cases illustrate this trend. In the first case, a hearing officer in Iowa upheld the premise that positive behavioral supports and strategies were a necessary element of a legally tenable PBS plan (People v. Mason City Community School District, 2000). In his final decision, the hearing officer ordered that the school district develop a new PBS plan consistent with the mandates of IDEA 1997, because the former plan was deemed insufficient due to its emphasis on punitive strategies and general failure to specify how the student was going to be taught appropriate replacement be haviors. The second case, which was the closest case to date to ruling on the substantive aspects of PBS plans, was decided in Pennsylvania and was appealed to the 7 th Circuit Court of Appeals (Alex R. v. Forrestville. Valley Community Unit School District, 2004). In this case, the mother of a special education student contested her son's PBS plan on the grounds that it was "substantively insufficient." The judge issued the following ruling: Alex, nevertheless, urges us to follow the lead of the administrative judge in Mason City, who manufactured the substantive criteria of a sufficient behavioral intervention plan...We decline the invitation. Although we may interpret a statue and its implementation regulations, we may not create out of cloth substantive provisions for the behavioral intervention plan contemplated by 1415(k)(l) or 1414(d)(3). In short, the District's behavioral intervention plan could not have fallen short of substantive criteria that do not exist, (p. 19)