Positive behavior support (PBS) and functional behavioral assessment (FBA) are two significant concepts of the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These two concepts are not new, but they are important for improving the quality of efforts to educate children and youth with disabilities. The purposes of this article are to describe (a) the context in which PBS and FBA are needed and (b) definitions and features of PBS and FBA. An important message is that positive behavioral interventions and supports involve the whole school, and successful implementation emphasizes the identification, adoption, and sustained use of effective policies, systems, data-based decision making, and practices. Systems-level challenges are also discussed.

ABSTRACT:

The field of early intervention has recognized a growing need to study contributing factors of family outcomes such as family quality of life (FQOL). This study of 130 fathers and 234 mothers of families in early childhood programs explores the associations between family income and severity of disability, and fathers' and mothers' satisfaction with their FQOL. The results reveal that severity of disability is a significant predictor of fathers' and mothers' satisfaction ratings of FQOL; that family income is a significant predictor of mothers' satisfaction ratings of their FQOL, but not of fathers; and that there is no interaction effect of family income and severity of disability with respect to fathers' and mothers' satisfaction ratings of FQOL. DESCRIPTORS: parents' satisfaction, family quality of life, income, predictors, early childhood Measuring FQOL Based on a national survey exploring valued outcomes of service coordination, early intervention, and natural environments, Dunst and Bruder (2002) reported that family satisfaction and improved FQOL were the most valued outcomes as determined by practitioners, administrators, and parents. However, Bailey et al. (1998) noted that efforts to measure FQOL present a "formidable challenge" (p. 323) to the field, given that FQOL studies are still in their infancy. Especially in echoing the concerns of Heal and Sigelman (1990), Bailey et al. (1998) pointed out, "Variables that could threaten validity or reliability of quality of life measures include how the data are collected, how questions are phrased, characteristics of the interviewer, and characteristics of the respondents" (p. 323).

No abstract

This qualitative study used focus groups to explore student perspectives on family involvement in the transition from school to adult life. Four focus groups, including students with learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and mild mental retardation, identified pertinent issues concerning how families influence the development of a personal vision for the future, how students with disabilities perceive family involvement in transition planning, and how families influence the development of student self-determination. Results showed the importance to students of family input and support. Implications for transition planning, family roles for support during adulthood, and family-student-school partnership models are discussed.

The national goals of higher expectations for all students and their emphasis on academic achievement are reviewed in light of the data on outcomes for students with disabilities. A new framework for measuring outcomes along the lines of quality of life is proposed. The framework regards academic goals as the means for achieving other outcomes, namely the four outcomes that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) declared: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. We propose that the underlying goal of education should be to enhance the quality of life of students with disabilities and that the four overarching IDEA goals, as implemented in part by the emphasis on academic achievement, should guide the curriculum and all assessment measures.

No abstract

We write this article as parents of our 33 year old son, JT, who has significant mental and emotional disabilities, and as professionals in the field of developmental and mental health disabilities. We write about self-determination, a value that we practice in our own lives and a value that we want JT (and our two daughters) to practice in theirs. In short, we want to take control of our lives in an independent fashion. We want JT to do likewise and we applaud the way our daughters have done so. But with JT, unlike ourselves and our daughters, taking control, being self-determined, is a curiously lived value. To continue to honor his obvious choice to live "in my own home," we have just purchased a different house for JT (he had been living in another home of his own for 11 years) that would enable him to live with "primary" and "weekend" housemates who would provide support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The house has two separate living areas and is over 3,000 square feet. When we asked JT how much the house cost, he said, "$1.00." When we asked him what he thinks about it, he answered, "Nice." When we asked him whether he wanted to move back to our family home, he said, "No." When we asked him what is necessary to maintain his house in good order, he said, "Work." Our probes of his meanings were no more revealing than his original answers.Because they reveal so dramatically aspects of his cognitive disability and the functional limitations that attend it, JT's responses provide a context for discussing the role of families in supporting the self-determination of individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. The issues are manifold: What does self-determination mean for people whose limitations are like JT's? When, how, and how much can and should families recede in quality of life decision making from their children or other members with such disabilities? These and related issues challenge us as parents and as professionals. We write Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to