Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in
Tier 2/3 Interventions
Lori Lynass, Ed.D.,
University of Washington
Tricia Robles M. Ed.
Highline School District, WA
Questions to Ponder
• How do we determine what students need services at Tiers 2 & 3?
• How do we determine the “level of risk” in a school?
• How might knowing these clearly changed the way we serve students?– By School and By District
How most schools determine student need for services
• Only 2% of schools screen all children for mental heath reasons (Romer & McIntosh, 2005)
• Office discipline referrals & Teacher/Staff referrals are commonly used
Screening for “At-risk” Students
Office Discipline Referrals• Implemented widely in SWPBS where 2-5 ODR
is considered threshold for at-risk (Horner et al., 2005)
• Issues with Consistent Use of ODR• May miss a number of students
– One study found that 35% of students who qualified as at risk on SSBD did not have multiple ODRs (Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005)
Washington Schools: Study 1Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum (2005)
• 3 Elem. Schools, 80/80 SET, 1999-2003
• 124 students (70 Ext./54 Int.) Ext. > 1 s.d. on Social Skills and Prob Behs./ Not Int.
• Screening & ODR > ODR
• Screening+ODR increases # of at-risk students
• Screening and use of school supports maintains students at SST level (Gate 2 Tier 2), and fewer FBA/BSP or referred to Special Ed (Gate 3, Tier 3)
Why Universal Screening benefits schools
• Establishes a schools risk level and allows for monitoring of responsiveness through shifts in this risk level (Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn, Mahoney & Driscoll, 2008)
• Informs the use of Tier 2 & 3 interventions - where to target limited funds
• Preventative supports reduce the need for more intensive supports later (Cheney & Stage, in press; Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005)
• Monitor overall effectiveness of the three-tiered model
• Promotes early intervention in place of “wait to fail” (Glover & Albers, 2007);– Of the 20% of school-aged children who
experience mental health difficulties, only 30% receive services (US Public Health Service, 2000).
– 65% of students identified for EBD are 12 years or older (US Dept of Ed, 2001)
• A reduction in over-representation of children of color– African American students are twice as likely to be
identified as EBD than White students (Alliance for Excellence Education, 2009)
• Addresses the issue of under-identifying girls and students with internalizing issues (Hosp & Reschly, 2004)
Why Universal Screening benefits students.
How Screening relates to Academics
• Academic success inextricably linked to social/behavioral skills– Five predictor variables concerning student
skills or behaviors related to success in school:
– (a) prior achievement, – (b) interpersonal skills, – (c) study skills,– (d) motivation, and – (e) engagement (DiPerna and Elliott,1999, 2000)
Choosing A Universal Screener
• Choose a Screener that:1. Is appropriate for its intended use and
that is contextually and developmentally appropriate and sensitive to issue of diversity
2. Has Technical Adequacy3. Useable - efficient, feasible, easy to
manage - Calderella,Young, Richardson & Young, 2008
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)
• Originally normed K-6, recently normed for middle and Jr High (Calderella,Young, Richardson & Young, 2008)
• Multiple gating procedures following mental health & PBS model
• Externalizing and Internalizing dimensions• Evidence of efficiency, effectiveness, & cost benefits• Exemplary, evidence-based practice
• US Office of Special Education, Council for Children with Behavior Disorders, National Diffusion Network
Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007)
Teachers Rank Order 3 Ext. & 3 Int. Students
Teachers Rate Top 3 Students on Critical Events, Adaptive & Maladaptive Scales
Gate 1
Gate 2
Pass Gate 1
Classroom & Playground
Observations
Gate 3Pass Gate 2 Tier 2,3
Intervention
Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral
SSBD Differentiates Grads , Non-grads, Comparisons
Graduates Non-Graduates Comparison
SSBD Critical
Events
5.9 (2.8) 5.4 (3.0) 5.2 (2.8)
SSBD
Maladaptive
31.2 (10.5) a 37.2 (5.7) b 32.2 (7.8) a
SSBD Adaptive 32.3 (8.0) a 28.0 (4.8) b 30.6 (6.8) a
Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994)
• Originally normed at elementary level, recently normed at middle and high school (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008)
– Classroom teacher evaluates and assigns a frequency-based, Likert rating to each student in the class in relation to seven behavioral criteria (lies, cheats, sneaks, steals, behavior problems, peer rejections, low achievement, negative attitude, and aggressive behavior)
– Score indicates the level of risk (low, medium, high)
• Scores predict both negative academic and behavioral outcomes
• Effective, Efficient and Free
BASC- Behavior and Emotional Screening Scale (BESS, Pearson Publications)
• Based on BASC by Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2002• Universal screener with norms for preschool & K-
12, • Includes teacher, parent, and self-rating forms
grades 3-12. 3-5 minutes per form. Completed on all students in class
• Hand scored and scannable forms, ASSIST software available
• Provides comprehensive summary of student scores and teacher ratings across the school
Brief Academic Competence Evaluation Scales System
(BACESS; Elliott, Huai, Roach, 2007) • Intended to be a universal screener (cover both academic
and academic “enabling” behaviors)– Phase 1: Criterion referenced Academic Screening used on ALL
students– Phase 2: 10 items five academic and five academic enabling
behaviors rating of students who passed through phase 1 (from ACES)
– Phase 3: Teachers complete the entire ACES measure for students with specific cut score (less than 26)
• Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES; DiPerna and Elliott,1999, 2000) is normed K-12, with teacher forms and student forms for grades 3-12.
Integrating Screening into
RTI/PBS Initiatives
How is it done?
2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
Kdg A Sam Spade
Kdg B Frederico Latica Charles Brown
Grade 1 A Lina Ruis Char Beyer Rana Wilcox Renny Linquist
Grade 1 B Jack Jonson
Grade 2 A Kim Signorelli Mike Majewski
Grade 2 B Lin Wu Monico Leon
Grade 3 A Howard Muscott Doug Cheney
Grade 3 B Peggy Hunt Pat Harrington
Grade 4 B Tim Leary Peppermint Patty
Grade 5 A Scott Stage
Grade 5 B Kelli Jane Paula Seabright
Grade 6 A Alex Tapps Shin Ji Lauren Anderson Dave Drobek Jerome Garcia
Grade 6 B Robert Weir Chris Norman Kate Davis Dennis Chipp Rashan Lincoln
Names listed in blue are students who have passed Gate 2 of SSBD. Names listed in red are students who have been identified with academic issues Names in green are students who have been identified by both academic screening & SSBD. The Support team is meeting to determine appropriate supports for each group
Sample List of Students Identified Through Schoolwide Screening
How could this information help you determine where your limited support resources should focus?
Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
Supporting Doug Cheney, A New Kindergartner in Your School
Socio-Emotional Screening Process
Ac a d e mic Sc reen ing P roc e ss
SS BD
Curri c ul u m Ba sed Measur e s
Teacher ident ifies fo r screen ing as externa lizer
Schoo lwide screen ing ind icates low leve ls of lette r ident ificat ion and prob le m s with
phonem ic a wareness
Passe s Gate 2 with concerns in p ros ocia l an d prob le m behav iors
Teacher observ e s s im ila r co n cern s in clas s work
2 O ffice d isc ip line referra ls fo r f ight ing
Student Support Te a m meet s w ith teacher, rev ie ws screen ing data, t eacher feedba ck a n d
d iscu s ses a dd it iona l r is k fac t ors af fect ing f a m ily
Referred for sec o ndary in terventi o ns
Meets w ith sc h oo l cou n se lor once week ly Meets tw ice week ly w ith read in g s pec ia list
Check , Connect , an d Exp ec t p rog ram da ily Supp lementa l instr u ct ion in areas of concer n da ily
Fam ily Su p por t Coord ina t or connects w ith
fam ily
Read s da ily with vo lunteer reader or o lder peer tutor
Progres s is m on itore d b y teacher, CCE Coach , an d b y Student Su p port Team
Factors Related to Screening Effectiveness
• Teachers are reliable evaluators/judges of student academic & behavioral performance when given a clear, overt structure to facilitate the decision making (Elliott , Huai , Roach, 2007)
• Screening occurs across all students in the areas of health, academic, and social-emotional functioning.
• Schools need to be ready to move away from reactive systems of responding only to long standing need (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratchowill & Gresham, 2007)
• Most effective when in the context of a comprehensive RTI/PBS initiative
Issues with Implementation 1: Staff Training and Implementation
• For effective screening to occur leadership teams must consider:– Procedural considerations in implementation of the
process of screening (implemented consistently and with fidelity to the instructions and process)
– General training in behavioral and mental health issues that improves teachers’ understanding of the purpose and content of the screening process, provided prior to implementation (e.g. internalizing vs. externalizing behaviors) as well as potential concerns and misconceptions (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratchowill & Gresham, 2007)
Issues with Implementation 2: Informed Consent, Student Privacy
• Determine threshold for specific informed consent in your district/community– Minimum includes; parents clearly informed as part of
schoolwide academic/social screening, use of passive consent process for screening, outline confidentiality policy and follow up procedures for students who are identified as at-risk, no interventions at that level without informed parental consent
• Establish procedure to protect student privacy throughout the process
• Review confidentiality guidelines and follow up procedures with staff
Review - This may be a good screener, but its not universal
Universal Screening in Practice: Highline School
District, Washington
Highline School District Positive Behavior Intervention
and Support
Highline Public SchoolsWho & Where Are We?
• Just South of Seattle in Washington State• 17,549 Students strong• 10,535 Students eligible for free & reduced-meals or
60.3%• 12.5% of Students qualify for special education
services• 78 languages spoken• Students from 80 ethnic & racial backgrounds
OSPI 2008-2009
Highline is Beautifully Diverse
• 1.9% American Indian/Alaskan Native• 21.5% Asian• 21.5% Asian/Pacific Islander• 14.8% Black • 28.3% Hispanic• 33.3% White
October 2008
Our Schools
• 18 K-6 Elementary Schools
• 4 Middle Schools Grades 7 & 8
• 10 High Schools
• 1 Skills Center
• 1 Early Childhood Center
• 5 Other Instructional Sites
Our PBS hiStory
• 1997-1999 WA Task Force on Behavioral Disabilities • 1998 US Office of Special Education & OSPI Fund BEACONS
Demonstration Project to reduce referrals to EBD via PBIS• 1998-2002 4 schools in 4 districts serve as demonstration sites in
Seahurst Elementary was Highline’s 1st PBIS School • 2003-06 OSPI, OSEP, & WEA Outreach Project
– Six districts, 28 schools join network– Five Highline Elementary Schools
• 2004-05 WA State CIP/SIG Project w/ 15 Schools in 6 districts• 2004-08 – OSEP funded CC&E Project 3 Districts 18 Schools
Check, Connect, and Expect - 6 Highline Schools• 2008-2009 1.0 FTE District PBIS Coordinator, district team, sustain
PBS in six schools, District implementation adding 9 schools
Why has screening been such an important part of PBIS in
Highline?
We know we have students exhibiting problem behavior?
• 486 incidents of violence/gang/weapons in 4 middle school
• 13 elementarys processed 6284 Major Office Discipline Referrals = 1,571 hours or 262 days of instructional time lost - fighting, aggression, bullying, non-compliance, etc
• 1713 Major incidents of defiance/disobediance/disruptive conduct were reported in 4 middle schools
• 4 middle schools processed 3827 Major ODRs = 957 hours or 159 days of instructional and leadership time lost
Elementary and Middle School ODR data in O7-08 School Year
Prevention Logic for All(Walker et al., 1996)
• Decrease development of new problem behaviors
• Prevent worsening of existing problem behaviors
• Redesign learning/teaching environments to eliminate triggers & maintainers of problem behaviors
• Teach, monitor, & acknowledge prosocial behavior
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAMGeneral educator, special educator,
reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school
psychologist, etc.
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating
PROGRESS MONITORING
Curriculum based measurementODR, suspensions, behavior incidents,
precision teaching
EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension
Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active
supervision, behavioral contracting, group contingency management, function-based
support, self-management
DECISION MAKING RULES
Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers
2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
How Did We Screen?• Conduct SSBD Screening each October at staff mtg.• Counselors & psychologists help define externalizers
& internalizers & lead process• Teachers identify & rank students in order of concern • Teachers complete the screening protocol on top 3
internalizers & 3 externalizers• Bldg. PBS Team scores screening, compares
screening to previous years ODRs & identifies targeted group and individuals for intensive supports
What tools did we use?
• SWIS ODRs - Office Discipline Referrals
• SSBD - Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders
• 08-09 compared the SRSS -Student Risk Screening Scale & SSBD in 4 HSD schools
Who was identified for Targeted Group Intervention?
• 488 students in 4 years were identified & given permission for CC&E (Check, Connect, & Expect)
• Ten schools continue screening and targeted group interventions
# of Highline Schools Implementing PBIS & Screening
• 2005-2007 3 Elementary Schools
• 2007-2008 6 Elementary Schools
• 2008-2009 10 Elementary Schools
• 2009-2010 16 Elementary Schools
Graduation
Self-Monitoring
Basic Plus Program (as needed)
Program Phases Daily Program Routine
Student Meets CC&E CriteriaVia SSBD Screening, ODRs,Teacher Nomination
Morning Check-in
ParentFeedback
Basic Program
Teacher Feedback
AfternoonCheck-out
What was the impact?
• Show reduction of ODRs
• Reduction of ODRs in sped slide
• Total number of students in Highline in CC&E
How has screening changed the way we do business in
Highline?• Helps us match students to building supports• Provided teams with common language• Strengthened behavioral expertise for all staff• Students are identified earlier & more
efficiently without having to “qualify”Oct.vs Apr• Helped make the shift in thinking about
addressing behavioral concerns the same way we address academic concerns -
• Teach! Re-teach! Model! Practice & Motivate!
Impact of PBIS in one year 2008-2009
• 10 elementary schools implemented SWPBS & screened for CC&E Targeted Group Intervention
• Reduction in office referrals from 6,284 to 3,703 is 42% reduction or 2,581 fewer referrals
• Administrative, instructional, and academic engaged time recaptured = 645 hours or 108 days
System wide reductions in suspensions for special
education students (from 07-08 to 08-09 School Years)
• Out-of-school suspensions <= 10 days reduced by 31.72%
• Out-of-school suspensions > 10 days reduced by 47.05%
• Total out of school suspension reduced by 35.14%
System wide reductions in suspensions for special
education students (from 07-08 to 08-09 School Years)
• Out-of-school suspensions <= 10 days reduced by 31.72%
• Out-of-school suspensions > 10 days reduced by 47.05%
• Total out of school suspension reduced by 35.14%
How might screening work in your school?
What questions do you have for us?
Top Related