The Power of Individualization: Why IDEA Requires More Than One-Size-Fits-All Behavior Supports

One of the most important words in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is often overlooked:

Individualized.

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is exactly what its name implies—an educational plan developed for the unique needs of one student. IDEA was never intended to create standardized supports or blanket approaches for students with disabilities. Instead, it requires schools to understand the individual child, identify their specific needs, and design educational supports that allow that child to make appropriate progress.

Individualization Is the Foundation of IDEA

The IDEA regulations require every IEP to include a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, measurable annual goals, specially designed instruction, accommodations, and services based on the student’s individual needs.

As outlined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.320, the IEP must be built around the individual student—not around a disability label, a program, or district practice.

An IEP should answer one fundamental question:

What does this particular student need to make appropriate progress?

That answer will be different for every child.

Behavior Is a Required Special Factor

Behavior is one area where IDEA is especially clear.

When a student’s behavior interferes with learning, the IEP Team has a legal obligation to address it.

34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i) states:

“In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.”

This requirement is not optional.

It reflects one of IDEA’s central principles: behavior should be addressed through support and instruction, not simply through punishment or removal.

Positive Behavioral Supports Should Be Individualized

Too often, schools rely on generic Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs), standardized behavior goals, or interventions that look nearly identical from one student to the next.

That approach misses the purpose of IDEA.

A behavior plan should be based on an understanding of why the behavior is occurring and what supports will help the student succeed.

Questions the IEP Team should consider include:

• What triggers the behavior?

• What skill is the student lacking?

• What motivates this student?

• What strengths can be incorporated into instruction?

• What environmental changes might reduce barriers to success?

The answers will differ for every child.

One Student’s Motivation Is Not Another Student’s Motivation

Effective behavior supports recognize that students are individuals.

For one student, earning extra time with preferred technology may be highly motivating.

Another student may respond to opportunities to draw, build with Legos, read about a favorite topic, or help in the school library.

An interest inventory, student interview, family input, preference assessment, or other individualized assessment tools can provide valuable information about what motivates a particular student.

Those interests can then be incorporated into instruction, reinforcement systems, and behavior supports.

That is what individualized planning looks like.

Behavior Is Communication

Many behaviors communicate an unmet need.

A student may be:

• Avoiding a task that is too difficult.

• Struggling to communicate.

• Experiencing sensory overload.

• Feeling anxious or overwhelmed.

• Responding to environmental stressors.

• Demonstrating a skill deficit rather than willful noncompliance.

Without understanding the function of the behavior, interventions often fail because they address the behavior itself rather than the underlying need.

This is why Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), when appropriate, are such an important part of the IEP process.

Functional Behavioral Assessments: Understanding Behavior Before It Escalates

Too often, Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) are viewed as something schools conduct only after a student has been repeatedly suspended or engaged in serious misconduct.

The U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 guidance encourages a very different approach.

Rather than waiting until behavior escalates, the guidance explains that FBAs should be used more frequently to understand behaviors that interfere with learning—even behaviors that are not safety-related, such as talking out of turn, work avoidance, refusing tasks, or difficulty following directions.

Functional-Behavioral-Assessments-11-19-2024.pdf

An FBA is not simply another form to complete. It is a structured process designed to answer an important question:

Why is this behavior occurring?

Instead of focusing only on the behavior itself, an effective FBA examines:

• A clear, objective description of the behavior.

• Data collected through observations, interviews, and review of existing records.

• The events that occur before the behavior (antecedents).

• The behavior itself.

• The consequences that follow the behavior.

• The function or purpose the behavior serves for the student.

• The skills the student needs to learn to replace the interfering behavior.

Functional-Behavioral-Assessments-11-19-2024.pdf

This represents a fundamental shift in thinking.

Rather than asking, “How do we stop this behavior?” educators should ask:

“What is this student trying to communicate, and what skills or supports are needed?”

A Behavior Intervention Plan Should Teach—Not Simply Punish

The Department explains that an FBA should lead to the development of a Behavior Support Plan (BSP) or Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) that is individualized and based on the function of the student’s behavior.

According to the guidance, an effective BSP or BIP generally includes:

• A description of the interfering behavior.

• An examination of environmental factors that contribute to the behavior.

• An explanation of the function or purpose of the behavior.

• Preventive strategies that address triggers before the behavior occurs.

• Explicit instruction in replacement skills.

• Positive reinforcement when the student demonstrates new skills.

• Identification of staff responsible for implementing the plan.

• Training and consultation to ensure consistent implementation.

• A plan for measuring whether the interventions are actually working.

Notice what is missing.

The focus is not on punishment.

The focus is on changing the environment, teaching new skills, and providing supports that enable the student to be successful.

Behavior Supports Should Be Part of Instruction

One of the strongest messages in the guidance is that FBAs and behavior plans are instructional tools, not disciplinary tools.

The Department explains that function-based interventions are more effective than non-function-based approaches, including exclusionary discipline. When educators understand the purpose of a student’s behavior, they can design interventions that improve academic engagement, reduce interfering behaviors, and help students remain in their educational setting.

The guidance provides a simple example.

A student who repeatedly talks during independent writing time may not be refusing to follow directions. An FBA may reveal that the student is avoiding writing because the task is difficult. Instead of repeatedly correcting the student or removing them from class, the instructional response might include:

• Breaking writing assignments into smaller steps.

• Providing scaffolds.

• Teaching strategies for beginning difficult tasks.

• Supporting the student through frustration.

By addressing the underlying reason for the behavior, educators reduce disruptions while increasing student success.

Functional-Behavioral-Assessments-11-19-2024.pdf

IDEA Requires Individualized Behavioral Supports

For students with disabilities, the guidance reinforces what IDEA has long required.

When a student’s behavior impedes the student’s learning or the learning of others, the IEP Team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and other strategies to address that behavior. An FBA can help identify the interventions, supports, services, supplementary aids, accommodations, and measurable goals that should be included in the student’s IEP.

Functional-Behavioral-Assessments-11-19-2024.pdf

Importantly, the guidance explains that information gathered through an FBA can strengthen multiple parts of an IEP, including:

• Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)

• Measurable annual goals

• Specially Designed Instruction

• Related services

• Supplementary aids and services

• Accommodations

• Behavior Intervention Plans

In other words, the FBA is not intended to exist as a separate document. It should help shape an individualized educational program that addresses the student’s unique behavioral and educational needs.

Every Behavior Plan Should Reflect the Individual Student

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the Department’s guidance is that behavior support should never be generic.

An effective FBA requires educators to understand the student’s environment, strengths, challenges, motivations, and skill deficits. The resulting behavior plan should reflect those individual findings—not a template copied from another student’s file.

A student whose behavior is maintained by escaping difficult work needs different supports than a student seeking peer attention. A student overwhelmed by sensory input requires different strategies than one struggling with social communication. Treating these students the same is inconsistent with the very purpose of an Individualized Education Program.

That is why IDEA requires individualized planning. The goal is not simply to reduce behavior. The goal is to understand the student, teach new skills, remove barriers to learning, and provide the supports necessary for meaningful educational progress.

Functional-Behavioral-Assessments-11-19-2024.pdf

Generic Plans Often Produce Generic Results

When behavior plans consist primarily of broad statements such as:

• “Remain on task.”

• “Follow directions.”

• “Improve behavior.”

• “Use coping skills.”

• 
  

without clearly identifying individualized supports, teaching strategies, or methods for measuring progress, they may do little to change student outcomes.

Likewise, behavior goals that are copied from one IEP to another are unlikely to address the unique needs of an individual student.

An effective IEP should reflect the student—not a template.

Blanket Practices Can Create Unintended Harm

Schools certainly have a responsibility to maintain safe learning environments. At the same time, IDEA requires that students with disabilities receive individualized educational programming designed to meet their unique needs.

When districts rely on blanket procedures or uniform responses rather than individualized decision-making, students may not receive the supports they need to succeed.

One-size-fits-all approaches can overlook the factors contributing to a student’s behavior and may result in repeated removals, lost instructional time, or missed opportunities to teach replacement skills.

The purpose of IDEA is not simply to respond to behavior.

It is to understand it, address it, and support student progress through individualized planning.

The Goal Is Progress

The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) that every IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.

That standard cannot be met with generic supports.

Progress requires:

• Individualized Present Levels.

• Individualized goals.

• Individualized Specially Designed Instruction.

• Individualized behavior supports.

• Individualized progress monitoring.

  
  

Every component of the IEP should be connected to the student’s unique strengths and needs.

Every child deserves more than a standardized plan.

Every child deserves to be understood.

When behavior impedes learning, IDEA directs schools to consider positive behavioral interventions and supports because meaningful educational progress is most likely to occur when supports are individualized, proactive, and based on the student’s unique needs.

The question should never be:

“What do we usually do for students like this?”

The question should always be:

“What does this student need to succeed?”

That is the promise of an Individualized Education Program.

References

-Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017).

-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482.

-34 C.F.R. § 300.320 – Definition of Individualized Education Program (IEP). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.320

-34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i) – Development, review, and revision of the IEP; Special Factors. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324

-U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations (2023).

-U.S. Department of Education, Using Functional Behavioral Assessments to Create Supportive Learning Environments (OSERS & OESE, Nov. 2024).