Several researchers have argued that the functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP) mandates in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 have gone beyond the current research base. For instance, although BIPs have been shown to improve student outcomes when implemented with strict control and oversight by researchers, it is unclear whether these relationships hold true when implemented under real educational conditions. The purpose of this research was to conduct an initial study evaluating the relationship among the evidence-based quality of federally mandated BIPs, treatment integrity, and student outcomes under real-world educational conditions free from the help of researchers. Results indicated that the evidence-based quality of BIPs was significantly related to positive student outcomes. Results also supported the role of treatment integrity as a mediator of the relationship between the evidence-based quality of BIPs and student outcomes. The implications and limitations of this research as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Functional assessment is now required for some students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization provisions to assist in the identification of positive behavioral intervention plans and supports. Functional analysis, the approach to functional assessment that is used to identify the causes of behavior and facilitate the development of such plans, has an extensive history in behavioral theory and practice. However, four methodological issues should be resolved before the field can adopt functional analysis as standard practice in the schools: (1) client characteristics, (2) response classes, (3) analog assessments, and (4) criteria for determining behavioral function. At this time, most of what we know about functional analysis of behavior is based on research with self-injurious behavior conducted with clients having severe and profound mental retardation. Until these methodological issues have been resolved, we must question the use of this technique as outlined in the 1997 amendments to IDEA.

Recent correlational studies provide support for a transactional relationship between reading and behavior problems. A transactional relationship implies that reading problems cause behavior problems, and vice versa. This study took this basic finding and examined its implications for intervention. Specifically, this study employed single-case experimental methods to examine the collateral (e.g., reading intervention improves behavioral performance) confined (e.g., reading intervention improves reading performance) and combined (e.g., reading plus behavioral intervention) effects of reading and behavioral interventions. Preliminary results indicated that both reading and behavioral interventions produced confined, collateral, and combined effects on reading and behavioral outcomes. Although a transactional relationship was demonstrated for the majority of participants, findings indicated that behavior function potentially moderates the effectiveness of the reading intervention to improve behavior, suggesting that a transactional relationship may not be universally true. The implications and limitations of the results, as well as directions for future research are discussed.

agencies (LEA) were permitted to use a Response-toIntervention (RtI) approach for identifying children with possible learning disabilities for special education. Furthermore, IDEIA 2004 no longer required LEAs to establish an IQachievement discrepancy for determining a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). Although federal law no longer mandates the need for a discrepancy for determining an SLD, some researchers suggest that intelligence tests should continue to be used for children at-risk for SLD who do not respond to interventions within the initial phases of an RtI approach. The current paper: (a) provides a brief review of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, (b) reviews some of the major criticisms regarding the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, (c) reviews concerns of using intelligence tests within an RtI framework, and (d) provides a rationale for applying RtI in school districts in California.

In this article, major laws, regulations, court cases, policies and practices related to intelligence testing of African American students in California are reviewed. A California Department of Education (CDE) ban on intelligence testing of African American students for the purpose of determining special education eligibility is in effect and enforced by Special Education Hearing Officers (SEHO) and Coordinated Compliance Reviewers (CCR). Although the CDE bases its restrictions on the results of the Larry P. case, we found that (a) the CDE policy runs counter to the ruling and intent of the Larry P. case; (b) overrepresentation of African Americans in special education programs continues despite the use of alternative assessment methods to measure intelligence; and (c) overrepresentation of African Americans in special education is not the result of intelligence test bias, rather, more endemic socio-political inequalities are to blame. We conclude with a discussion of three critical questions to be considered in future responses to the Larry P. court case.Key Words: Larry P., Special Education, Intelligence Testing, Minority OverrepresentationIntelligence testing 1 of African American students for the purpose of determining special education eligibility is a politically and legally charged issue in California. While bias in intelligence testing is discussed at a national level from time to time (for example, the 1994 publication of Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve sparked considerable debate), only in California is administration of an intelligence test to an African American student explicitly banned by public policy. The California Department of Education (CDE) ban is based in large part on the well-known Larry P. court case. This and other related case law, state and federal laws and regulations, the state hearing officers' rulings and coordinated compliance reviews, state and district policies, and current practices in intelligence testing of African Americans in California are reviewed, followed by a summary of the literature on test bias. In this review we found that many of the policies and practices surrounding intelligence testing of African Americans in California have not achieved their purpose as evidenced by the fact that 25 years after Larry P. and the introduction of alternative assessment methods for determining special education eligibility, African Americans remain significantly over-represented in special education (U.S.1 Intelligence testing is a generic term used in this paper to refer to any commercially developed, widely used, and publicly scrutinized test of intelligence, cognition or aptitude. These tests include, but are not limited to, the Wechsler Intelligence Tests, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.Address correspondence to Kristin Powers; School Psychology Program Coordinator; CSULB; Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling; 1250 Bellflower Blvd.; Long Beach, CA 90840-2201. E-mail: kpowers@csulb.edu. The authors t...