Journal of Behavioral Education, VoL 7, No. 1, 1997, pp.

71-74

Increasing the Integration Between Behavior

Analysis and General Education
Craig H. Kennedy, Ph.D.1,2

This special section is based on a simple premise: Behavior analyses

are occurring with increase frequency in general education settings. A decon-
struction of this premise reveals three facets. First, a behavior analysis en-
tails an event-based, idiographic pursuit of functional relations between
behavior and the environment (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968, 1987). General
education settings are a particular part of public education where, histori-
cally, behavior analysts have not been able to participate successfully (e.g.,
Lindsley, 1992; Skinner, 1987; Sidman, 1994). Nonetheless, as the predicate
of the proposition notes, behavioral analyses are increasing in frequency in
general education settings. This increase is probably due to several causes,
including renewed attempts to merge general and special education, a
cross-generational learning curve among behavior analysts regarding gen-
eral education participation, and improvements in the behavioral technolo-
gies being proffered. Given the behavior-altering effects of environments,
behavior analysts are learning to behave differently as they once again enter
general education settings.
Each of the subsequent articles focuses on a different aspect of a be-
havior analyst's general education participation and the learning that has
been engendered. Carolyn Hughes discusses how behavior analysts can
learn from the individuals who have typically been considered recipients,
rather than sources, of research knowledge. Debra Kamps illustrates how
behavior analysts can function as effective consultants to general education
teachers. Mark Wolery presents his perspective on the value of providing
1
Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Pennsylvania, Hahnemann
Medical School, Pittsburgh, PA.
2
Correspondence should be directed to Craig H. Kennedy, Department of Psychiatry, Medical
College of Pennsylvania, Hahnemann Medical School, One Allegheny Center 510, Pittsburgh,
PA 15212-4772.

71
1053-0819/97/0300-0071$12.50/0 c 1997 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
72 Kennedy

early childhood services within general education, but notes several barriers
needing to be overcome for effective support delivery. Finally, Susan Tay-
lor-Green and colleagues describe the process and outcomes associated
with school-wide behavior change. Across each of these observations is the
basic premise of increased general education participation on the part of
behavior analysts.
Four outcomes will be considered regarding an increase in integration
between behavior analysis and general education. The scenarios are not
exhaustive, nor orthogonal, but they illustrate a range of possibilities. One
such possibility is that general education practices may be thoroughly re-
vamped as a result increased contact with behavior analysis. Although many
behavior analysts might consider this desirable, general education has his-
torically resisted efforts to substantively re-shape pedagogical practices. As
a result, Scenario One is unlikely. A second scenario is the contrary of the
first; that is, that behavior analysis could be reconstrued within the frame-
work of general education practices. Smaller entities are more likely to be
altered when merging with larger entities than vice versa. However, given
the tenacity with which behavior analysts have retained their core prac-
tices—as they did in the 1960s—behavior analysts are more likely to opt
to remain aloof from general education rather than relinquish their scien-
tific beliefs and practices (or, so the case has been, so far; cf. Catania,
1987). If Scenario One is unlikely, Scenario Two is undesirable.
Scenario Three could be described as behavior analysts altering some,
but not all, aspects of their repertoire to facilitate an interface with general
educators. Tacts describing this change in behavior might range from "com-
promise" to "collaboration." A prescient comment may be that thoughtful
and planned collaboration is the preferable perspective (e.g., Fawcett,
1991). In fact, the papers that constitute this special section primarily de-
scribe four research groups altering their behavior as they increasingly in-
teract with the larger general education community. Scenario Three is
probably necessary, and therefore desirable, if the fourth scenario is to oc-
cur. Scenario Four, as the subcontrary of the previous scenario, suggests
some change in general education as a result of contact with behavior
analysis. What types of change, and their degree, have yet to be demon-
strated but, changes in general education practices, to the extent that they
improve educational results, are the goals being pursued. Given the obser-
vation that Scenario One is unrealistic, the fourth scenario appears to de-
fine our expected outcome space.
What can behavior analysts do to achieve some semblance of Scenario
Four. Careful attention to Scenario Three is one component. This may in-
clude understanding (a) the existing structure and history of general edu-
cation; (b) the contingencies of reinforcement under which general
Behavior Analysis in General Education 73

educators operate; (c) the outcomes they value; (d) the language they use
to describe points a, b, and c; (e) the procedures they can implement with
or without assistance; and (f) the procedures they will implement with or
without assistance. To simply criticize general education practices and poli-
cies as an outsider is to remain an outsider with little chance of affecting
substantive change.
Overall, the four papers that follow are examples of how to move be-
yond criticism to effective action within general education settings. This
implies a great deal more focus on the process of behavior change and
engaging in that process at levels broader than behavior analysts have tra-
ditionally participated. Perhaps because behavior analysts focus on individ-
ual behavior there has been a predisposition toward working with the
person whose behavior is being labeled as needing to be changed. Much
less attention has been given to the controlling conditions under which peo-
ple label another's behavior as problematic (Baer et al., 1987), and not
enough attention has been given to the contingencies under which their
supervisors behave. If behavior analysis is to have a substantive impact on
general education, the field needs to move beyond the "better mouse trap"
mentality. We have developed better mouse traps. We have demonstrated
that they are better. We have told others they are better and shown them
how they work; yet antiquated approaches remain the tools used in prac-
tice.
Why? Perhaps because behavior analysts' mouse traps are too effortful,
too complex, or are based on an obtuse conceptual system. Perhaps because
the consumers of behavior analysts' mouse traps have cultural biases against
our technologies, are scientifically untutored, hold political and economic
positions that guard against substantive reform, or they perceive the costs
of change-over as too great. Perhaps because of all of these reasons, and
others.
The most effective practices may not be the best-practices; not if the
most effective practices are rarely used. If changing general education prac-
tices means understanding the social validity of change within those con-
texts, the result may be a better understanding of why we have not been
more successful. I would like to think that within that statement is a series
of testable questions that constitute a task analysis of how to improve gen-
eral education practices. However, that is only a logical proposition in need
of empirical demonstration. Sometimes logic does not fare well in the face
of scientific evidence, Tb date, the logic of the better mouse trap has not
born the rich fruit that was anticipated (Kennedy, 1995).
What alternatives are left? Perhaps the better mouse trap approach is
only part of a larger answer. The other components may need to interface
with the larger social environment in which educational reform occurs. So,
74 Kennedy

again, if Scenario Four is to be realized at some level, Scenario Three may

be required so that behavior analysts come under more effective stimulus
control within general education environments. The exact form those ad-
ditional components to educational reform may take is difficult to predict.
I suspect that multiple and various efforts at integrating the work of be-
havior analysts' into general education settings will result in at least a few
practices being selected by their consequences that are worthy of replica-
tion. The papers that follow provide researchers with examples of ap-
proaches that some behavior analysts are taking to improve general
education practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this article was supported by the U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Con-
tract #H086D60001). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the
positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official
endorsement is implied. The author thanks Kim Meyer and Sandra Dittmar
for their comments on an earlier version of the paper.

REFERENCES

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 313-328.
Catania, A. C. (1987). Some Darwinian lessons for behavior analysis: A review of Bowler's
The Eclipse of Darwinism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 249-257.
Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community research and action. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24, 621-636.
Kennedy, C. H. (1995). A lesson learned. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 119-122.
Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Why aren't effective teaching tools widely adopted? Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 21-26.
Sidman, M. (1994). A teaching sequence. In M. Sidman (Ed.), Equivalence relations and
behavior: A research story (pp. 65-80). Boston: Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). The shame of American education. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Upon further
reflection (pp. 113-130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.