Applied behavior analysis: Current myths in public education

Abstract The effective use of behavior management strategies and related policies continues to be a debated issue in public education. Despite overwhelming evidence espousing the benefits of the implementation of procedures derived from principles based on the science of applied behavior analysis (ABA), educators often indicate many common misconceptions in this area. These misconceptions contribute to a reluctance on the part of educators to implement strategies utilizing what we know to be true about the operation of behavioral law. Further, these misconceptions often impede educator effectiveness and student progress. This paper reviews 3 common misperceptions: 1) ABA is used exclusively for children who have autism; 2) ABA may only be implemented using a teacher/student ratio of 1:1, and; 3) negative connotations of terminology associated with ABA. Important legal issues, procedures, research, and philosophical issues related to the implementation of ABA is explored along with concluding recommendations for public school educators. Applied Behavior Analysis: Current Myths in Public Education Public education is, historically, a punitive institution. From suspensions and expulsions to verbal reprimands, the majority of consequences imposed by teachers and administrators are done with the idea that such consequences will decrease the rate of future behavior; thereby "sending a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated" (Skiba, 1999, p. 2). Zero tolerance policies that involve removing a student from the classroom or campus for up to a year for certain offenses have been included in state and federal regulation