In 2018, the DoE began a pilot project which involved the direct engagement of 4/5 Board Certified Behaviour Analysts (“BCBAs”). Since then a number of BCBAs work directly for the DoE.
While DET should be applauded for finally recognising the skill level of this profession, their formal position is that the engagement of a BCBA is not a reasonable adjustment, and any family that makes a complaint about not receiving BCBA assistance, has the DET position vigourously defended, that is, such assistance is not necessary.
Therefore as in many other situations, we have DoE claiming one stance in legal matters, and another on the ground.
Unfortunately, what should have been a top-class evidence-based project was actually a trial project which has involved experimentation on students with disabilities through a “train the trainer” model.
There was no ethics committee supervising this project. As a result of the project, DET have published on their website information about Functional Behaviour Assessments (“FBA”) which can be found here: https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/behaviour-students/guidance/7-functional-behaviour-assessment
It suggests that almost anyone can undertake an FBA. One can infer this from the claim that FBAs are conducted by “skilled professionals”, but then those professionals are listed as teachers, school leaders, allied health staff and regional staff. This claim does not accord with the research on the subject, however it does allow schools to arrange FBAs at little cost, which is a significant driver for DoE and is the priority over health and welfare of students with disabilities and staff.
This “flexibility” has allowed school staff not only to perform FBAs with no clear oversight as to the harm they may be doing, but such assessments have occurred without the knowledge of parents. This is not recognised as being acceptable professional practice.
The writer knows of no data being taken to ensure that those working under the “supervision” of BCBAs are providing quality outcomes for students with disabilities. The writer knows of no information sheets that set out the risks to parents of the current model, or that sets out the supervision process of the numerous staff that are now deemed appropriate by DoE to perform FBAs – being as per their website, almost anyone.
Like allied health practitioners working directly for DoE, the evidence is that normal BCBA ethics are often compromised once employed by DoE. One BCBA refused to explain the conditions under which he would be passing information on about a child to the DoE Legal Division. When that BCBA was challenged that it was actually the Legal Division writing his emails, he refused to respond. DoE BCBAs have been known to be engaged to write behaviour plans, but then parents are told that they do not have the time to properly oversee the implementation of such plans. Under normal conditions, independent BCBAs would formally advise if any practice they were asked to engage in was not going to allow them to provide the service with the highest level of integrity.
Normal BCBA ethics would require high quality/high level commitments to working diligently and performing all tasks that were required to properly support their clients who had behaviours of concern. DoE BCBAs are involved with a child to the extent that DoE allows them to be, rather than based on client need.
Attached is an example of what has been referred to variously by a Principal as a “Functional Behaviour Analysis” and a “Functional Behaviour Assessment”. The “Assessment” was done without the parent’s knowledge, and the parents were not advised as to what actions emanated from the assessment in relation to their child. This is the sort of assessment that is now approved and endorsed by the Department of Education due to the BCBA project.FBA 15 Aug 2018
Due to the conflict of interest involved in this project, now past the pilot phase, it is suggested that if your child has behaviours of concern and needs expert assistance, that you request an independent BCBA be engaged. One parent did this in South-Eastern Region and the request was refused on the basis that DoE employed its own BCBAs and therefore it was not appropriate to obtain independent BCBA assistance. This was confirmed in writing. Therefore she received no service. This is particularly concerning as documents indicate admissions that there are not enough BCBAs employed by the DoE and therefore if an external BCBA is not engaged, a student who is self injuring or being subjected to physical restraint and false imprisonment as a result of their behaviours simply have to wait, regardless of the harm they are experiencing. This indicated that the DoE prefers that a child’s behaviours of concern, no matter how severe, are unaddressed, rather than them use an independent BCBA.
It is highly recommended that parents request an independent BCBA if one is needed. In addition to the reasons set out above, use of an internal BCBA will require signing the DoETconsent form, which gives permission for DET to share any clinical information gathered by a BCBA with literally thousands of people.
It is unfortunate that DoE BCBAs have managed to damage the reputation of BCBAs, who outside of the DoE context, are highly professional staff with nothing at the forefront of their mind other than the professional support of their client.