I love this question as a there are numerous differences between a PBIP and BIP. I have been advocating in my local school for a PBIP that addresses the antecedent behaviors that my child displays when the physical or academic environment becomes too challenging, his compromised language skills regress and behaviors occur. We live in a state without any governance on seclusion and restraint so this is a typical aversion intervention for "behaviors" that often can be prevented if an IEP or BIP where done with due diligence and fidelity. Without wanting to recognize the "function" behind the behaviors, education staff then inadvertently create a pattern which then becomes impossible to disrupt and change. A child's IEP fails to recognize limitations; fails to ensure the proper service supports; fails to identify the student's strengths and creates chaos for that classroom or school building. When the IEP fails the child, then we are forced to address those resulting behaviors through a BIP.
I have learned that there are great differences between how a school psychologist and a BCBA view behaviors which then impact how a BIP is created. I often grow frustrated when we label a struggling child's avoidance for work as a "non-preferred" activity instead of "non/low-accomplished" skill. Attention-seeking or work avoidance/escape are very functional behaviors that indicate something about the environment or demand has exceeded a child's ability to be successful. My belief is that educators who continue to place the onus on children and not a systemic, failing education system are choosing purposeful ignorance.
In my state, the DPI (Department of Public Instruction) guides the local educational agents to "track" the results of a BIP in effort to ensure that it's successful. However, my son has been on a BIP since age of 4 and I have yet to see this documentation. The BIP remains with it's foundation and every year we keep adding too it which then creates an impaired tool due to too many choices, too many independent user interventions and fails to do what a BIP is suppose to do; reduce and eliminate behaviors.
But this is my belief - if society can finally realize that our public education system is archaic and dysfunctional then we can address the primary antecedent to most students behaviors; an outdated system approach to education. If we can do better by matching our teaching methods to our children's abilities, we reduce functional behaviors. Placing students into a classroom at the age of 3 for Early Intervention and expecting to educate them as if they are 6 or 8 is simply wrong. We do tremendous harm to our children through "time-outs" (seclusion) or "holds" (restraint) at this young age for failing the system's expectations. We cause trauma and life long impairment instead of a love for learning. Expecting a 6 year old to learn a copious amount of information, most of that being of an abstract nature, is nearly impossible unless they are gifted. I am ever stupefied that society expects a full day of kindergarten to be academic learning instead of play based learning.
The public school systems and Federal government believe they have good intentions but our current system indicates that pushing this current education agenda is harmful to our children and I would argue (from our personal experiences with aversion interventions) that going to school with any type of learning differences means that we have already increased students' ACE scores and risk for ongoing mental health impairments. We forget that education is an entitlement for children to ensure they become the best American citizen that their natural gits allow; we are systemically failing our children.