Work Refusal in a Co-Taught Math Class
Priya is a 12-year-old seventh grader with an IEP for emotional disability and a specific learning disability in mathematics. She attends a co-taught 45-minute math class with 22 students, one general educator, one special educator, and a paraprofessional for 30 minutes. The class typically begins with a 15-minute lecture, followed by a 10-problem worksheet of multi-step word problems. Priya reads at a third-grade level and performs math at a fourth-grade level. Interval data show she is off-task for 55% of independent work time, refuses work three to four times per week, and asks to use the bathroom during math more than any other class. When redirected, she sometimes rips the worksheet and says, 'I am not doing this.' Her IEP goal is to complete 8 of 10 grade-level problems with 80% accuracy, but she has not met it in nine weeks. The para often sits beside her and prompts her to start.
1. Analyze the likely function of Priya's behavior and explain why the current instructional arrangement may be maintaining it.
Read the worked answer
The pattern points to escape from a task that is both academically aversive and socially exposing. Priya reads at a third-grade level but is given 10 multi-step word problems in a 45-minute class; the reading demand, volume, and public worksheet format make completion feel impossible. Off-task behavior at 55% of intervals, ripping the worksheet, and bathroom requests all produce removal from the task. The paraprofessional's proximity and repeated prompts may add escape opportunities and stigma, and the bathroom is a highly reliable exit. This is a hypothesis, not a confirmed function, so the team should collect brief ABC data. The key point is that the current arrangement asks Priya to perform a task far outside her instructional level without enough scaffolding, then provides escape when she refuses. That cycle maintains the behavior and prevents her from accessing grade-level math.
2. Design at least four instructional and behavioral adjustments that fit the co-taught setting and address both the academic gap and escape function.
Read the worked answer
First, reduce the response demand without lowering the standard: give two or three problems instead of 10, chosen to sample the same skills, and use a worked example plus a partially completed template. Second, pre-teach vocabulary and read the problem aloud or provide text-to-speech so reading level is not the barrier. Third, teach a replacement escape behavior: a break card or help signal with a brief, scheduled break, reinforced before frustration peaks. Fourth, chunk the lesson with a visual checklist, timer, and self-monitoring sheet. The special educator can run a small-group model/guided-practice station while the general educator monitors independent work; the para should use a least-to-most prompt hierarchy and then fade. Offer choice of problem order or writing format. These changes are function-based and academic, not just motivational.
3. How should the team monitor progress and coordinate the adults' roles?
Read the worked answer
The team should define one behavior (independent problem completion) and one academic measure (weekly curriculum-based measurement in math problem solving), plus a brief daily count of work refusal and break-card use. The special educator can collect permanent products and the para can record intervals during independent work; the general educator rates fidelity of the chunking and break protocol. Roles should be written: who pre-teaches, who provides the break, who enters data, and who reviews it. A 20-minute weekly co-planning meeting is enough if the team uses a shared agenda and reviews the graph every three to four weeks. If Priya's completion rises but accuracy stays low, adjust the academic scaffold; if breaks increase without work, revisit the replacement-behavior plan. The IEP goal should be revised to reflect the scaffolded conditions, not left as an unmet 8-of-10 worksheet goal.