This article provides educators with a research-informed process for addressing student problem self-injurious behaviors within inclusive settings. The process involves (a) identifying functions of problem behaviors, (b) implementing function-based interventions that include teaching and reinforcing socially acceptable replacement behaviors, (c) monitoring student progress and fidelity of implementation, and (d) fading interventions to facilitate long-term success. The process is described in practical detail using a case study vignette about a fifth-grade student who engages in self-injurious behaviors.

Over the past two decades, the paraprofessional role has expanded to include a variety of support roles in both general and special education. Although the most recent 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) addressed the necessity of paraprofessional preparation, training, and supervision, the field of education continues to struggle with incorporating these necessary components. In this article, we summarize current policies and standards, both state and federal, for training paraprofessionals in special education. Next, we provide possible recommendations for policy, practice, and future research to ensure the preparation of paraprofessionals and ultimately, the success of students who have disabilities.

Over the past 30 years, through multiple reauthorizations, both the Every Student Succeeds Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, lawmakers and researchers have consistently acknowledged the importance of fostering familyprofessional partnerships in schools. Yet research continues to document a number of challenges and obstacles experienced by families and professionals with actualizing this intended partnership through both special meetings (i.e., Individualized Education Programs) and ongoing consultation interactions, as originally envisioned by lawmakers. Much of this divergence between policy, research, and practice is attributed to the historical challenges experienced between professionals and families with forming and maintaining trust. In celebration of the Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation's 30 th anniversary, this paper provides discussion of the legal implications of the family-professional partnership, historical documented challenges that lead to a lack of trust in these partnerships, the importance of developing and maintaining a trusting family-professional partnership in special education consultation, and recommendations for future family/parent consultation practice, research, and policy.

Despite the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations that specify parent participation for student-level decision-making and planning, these principles do not easily translate to practice for most families. Researchers highlight an implicit assumption within these laws that parents are equipped with the necessary advocacy skills required to understand and exercise their legal rights, including challenging the school district if necessary (Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Phillips, 2008). Specifically, IDEA encourages parents to actively participate in activities that include the following: making a request to obtain and examine student records (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.501), providing consent for any formal evaluations (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (a-d)), and participating in the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) decisions, such as determining the design and delivery of services (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.321; 322; 327). Congress further emphasized the importance of such parent participation by requiring local education agencies to provide parents prior written notice when proposing or refusing to initiate or change any and all education decisions related to the provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the child (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300. 503). Finally, perhaps the greatest implicit assumption about such parent advocacy lies in the expectation that parents will be able to exercise formal dispute resolution options (Phillips, 2008; Wakelin, 2008), particularly given the college/graduate readability level and excessive jargon used in procedural safeguards (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Researchers describe challenging districts as an act that requires knowledge, skill, tenacity, and monetary resources (Gorman, 2001; Mueller, 2017). Consequently, studies continue to outline the necessity of advocacy to fulfill these legal responsibilities (Burke, 2013;

No abstract