Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions Tricia Robles M. Ed. firstname.lastname@example.org Jinna Risdal M. Ed. email@example.com Highline School District Acknowledgments • Hill Walker, University of Oregon • Doug Cheney, University of Washington • Kathleen Lane, Vanderbilt • Bridget Walker - Seattle University • Wendy Iwaszuk - Seattle University 5 Minutes Turn and Talk • How do we determine what students need services at Tiers 2 & 3? • How do we determine the “level of risk” in a school? In academics, universal screening instruments are widely recognized as adequate measures to identify students at-risk for developing further problems (Ardoin et al., 2004; Elliott, Huai, & Roach, 2007). However, agreement is lacking about the best screening practices to identify behaviorally and emotionally at-risk students. RtI Application Examples EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR General educator, special educator, General educator, special educator, TEAM reading specialist, Title I, school behavior specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc. psychologist, etc. UNIVERSAL Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating SCREENING PROGRESS ODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, Curriculum based measurement MONITORING precision teaching Direct social skills instruction, positive 5-specific reading skills: phonemic reinforcement, token economy, active EFFECTIVE awareness, phonics, fluency, supervision, behavioral contracting, group INTERVENTIONS vocabulary, comprehension contingency management, function-based support, self-management DECISION MAKING Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers RULES 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 SWPBIS 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 1 Walker, 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 Why Universal Screening benefits students. • 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) 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 Adequacy 3. 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 SSBD: Sample Questions • Critical Events (Behavioral Earthquakes): – Is physically aggressive with other students or adults (hits, bites, chokes, or throws things) – Has tantrums – Exhibits painful shyness • Maladaptive Behavior – Requires punishment before s/he will terminate behavior. – Child tests teacher imposed limits. • Adaptive Behavior – Produces work of acceptable quality given her/his skill level. – Expresses anger appropriately, e.g. reacts to situation without being violent or destructive. Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007) Teachers Rank Gate 1 Order 3 Ext. & 3 Int. Students Pass Gate 1 Teachers Rate Top 3 Gate 2 Students on Critical Events, Adaptive & Maladaptive Scales Tier 2,3 Pass Gate 2 Gate 3 Intervention Classroom & Playground Observations Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral SSBD Differentiates Grads , Non- grads, Comparisons Graduates Non-Graduates Comparison SSBD Critical 5.9 (2.8) 5.4 (3.0) 5.2 (2.8) Events SSBD 31.2 (10.5) a 37.2 (5.7) b 32.2 (7.8) a Maladaptive 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 – Score indicates the level of risk (low, medium, high) • Scores predict both negative academic and behavioral outcomes • Effective, Efficient and Free Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994) – lies, – cheats, – sneaks, – steals, – behavior problems, – peer rejections, – low achievement, – negative attitude, – Aggressive. – Rated on a 4-point Likert scale (never, seldom, sometimes, frequently) SRSS Student Internalizing Behavior Screener (SIBS, Cook 2008) • Nervous or Fearful • Bullied by Peers • Spends Time Alone • Clings to Adults • Withdrawn • Seems Sad or Unhappy • Complains About Being Sick or Hurt – Rated on a 4-point Likert scale (never, seldom, sometimes, frequently) 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. - Pearson Integrating Screening into RTI/PBS Initiatives How is it done? 2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D. Sample List of Students Identified Through Schoolwide Screening Kdg A Kdg B Grade 1 A Grade 1 B Grade 2 A Sam Spade Frederico Lina Ruis onson Jack J Kim Latica Char Beyer Signorelli Charles Rana Wilcox Mike How could this Brown Renny Majewski Linquist information help Grade 2 B Grade 3 A Grade 3 B Grade 4 B Grade 5 A you determine Lin Wu Howard Peggy Hunt Tim Leary Scott Stage Monico Leon Muscott Pat Peppermint where your Doug Cheney Harrington Patty limited support Grade 5 B Kelli Jane Grade 6 A Alex Tapps Grade 6 B Robert Weir resources Paula Seabright Shin Ji Lauren Chris Norman should focus? Anderson Dave Drobek Kate Davis Dennis Chipp Jerome Rashan Garcia Lincoln Names listed in blue are students who have passed Gate 2 of SSBD. Names listed in red are students who have been identifi ed with academic issues Names in green are students who have been identifi ed by both academic screening & SSBD. The Support team is meeting to determine appropriate supports for each group Bridget Walker, Ph.D. Supporting Doug Cheney, A New Kindergartner in Your School Socio-Emotional Screening Process Academic Screening Process SSBD Curriculum Based Measures Teacher identifies for screening as Schoolwide screening indicates low levels of externalizer letter identification and problems with phonemic awareness Passes Gate 2 with concerns in prosocial and Teacher observes similar concerns in problem behaviors class work 2 Office discipline referrals for fighting Student Support Team meets with teacher, reviews screening data, teacher feedback and discusses additional risk factors affecting family Referred for secondary interventions Meets with school counselor once weekly Meets twice weekly with reading specialist Check, Connect, and Expect program daily n Supplemental instruction in areas of concer daily Family Support Coordinator connects with Reads daily with volunteer reader or older family peer tutor Progress is monitored by teacher, CCE Coach, and by Student Support 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 Implementing Screening – 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 Universal Screening in Practice: Highline School District, Washington We cannot wait for students to fail. We must identify students in need of support and provide early intervention. We can change the trajectory of a child from at-risk of school failure to socially and academically successful. Highline Public Schools • South of Seattle in Washington State • 17,605 students • 65% eligible for free & reduced-meals • 2,305 students qualify for special education • 78 languages spoken • 3,679 English Language Learners HPS Report Card 2010 Highline Ethnic Diversity • 2.3% American Indian/Alaskan Native • 16.8% Asian • 5% Pacific Islander • 14% Black • 30% Hispanic • 31.1% White Fall 2010 Our Schools • 18 K-6 Elementary Schools • 4 Middle Schools Grades 7 & 8 • 10 High Schools • 2 Alternative High Schools • 1 Skills Center • 1 Early Childhood Center Our PBIS Story • 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 WA demonstration sites Seahurst Elementary was Highline’s 1st PBIS School • 2003-06 OSPI, OSEP, & WEA Outreach BEACONs 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 • 2007-2008 Share Project School Results with Administrators 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 2.0 FTE District Coordination PBIS P-12 35 Different Sites 2008-2009 2007-2008 2011-2012 2006-2007 PBIS in Highline 2005-2006 2004-2005 2003-2004 2002-2003 2001-2002 2000-2001 1999-2000 35 1998-1999 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010-2011 PBIS in Highline • District PBIS Coordinator • District PBIS Team – Representative • Establishing PBIS Coaches Cadre • Monthly Meetings • 25 Schools – Tier 1 School-wide PBIS • 12 Schools – Tier 2 Screening & CC&E • 7 ES Schools – Tier 3 Technical Assistance Teams • PBIS Baseline offered for High Schools From 6 to 18 Elementary Schools Implementing PBIS • 2007-2008 - 6,284 Office Discipline Referrals = 262 Days of time Lost • 2009-2010 - 5,690 Office Discipline Referrals = 237 Days of time Lost -3,457 Major ODRs= 144 Days • 2010-2011 – 4,193 Office Discipline Referrals = 174 Days of time lost - 2,113 Major ODRs = 88 Days Highline Elementary Schools Office Discipline Referrals 7000 6000 5000 4000 All ODR Major ODR 3000 2000 1000 0 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 HPS Elementary Suspension Data 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 OSS OSS & ISS 600 400 200 0 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 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 How Did We Screen? • Conduct SSBD Screening at October 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 Web-based System (www.swis.org ) • SSBD - Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders • 08-09 compared the SRSS -Student Risk Screening Scale & SSBD in 4 HSD schools • Teacher Nomination Who was identified for Check, Connect, and Expect? • 488 students in 4 years were identified & given permission for CC&E • 15 schools screen and use screening for targeted group interventions • About 70% of students are successful • 15% of students need a little more – Academic tutoring, social skills instruction, problem solving • 15% of students need more intensive individualized function-based supports or a different intervention The Power of Key Relationships Students who build strong positive relationships with school staff have significant long term reductions in: aggressiveness substance abuse delinquency teen pregnancy school drop outs suspensions and expulsions court adjudications academic failure (Hawkins, Catalano, & Arthur, 2002) A strong positive alliance with school staff is a key aspect of the development of resiliency. WAREA 2007 Key Relationships Cont’d Students who build strong positive relationships with school staff showed significant increases in: *academic performance *positive social relationships *improved parent relationships *student self-esteem *work completion *sense of safety at school (Hawkins, Catalano,&Arthur, 2002) WAREA 2007 PBIS Highlights from Individual Schools: Cedarhurst Cedarhurst Elementary SET Data 100 90 80 70 60 2008-2009 50 2009-2010 2010-2011 40 30 20 10 0 Expectations Expectations On-Going Response to Data Monitoring Management District Support Total Score Defined Taught Reward Violation Cedarhurst Total Office Discipline Referrals from 1,228 to 352 Cedarhurst ODRs Below the National Rate for Elementary Schools Suspension Data Cedarhurst 180 160 140 120 100 2005-2006 80 2010-2011 60 40 20 0 Events Suspensions Students Expulsions Tertiary Prevention: CONTINUUM OF Specialized SCHOOL-WIDE FEW Individualized INSTRUCTIONAL & ~5% Systems for POSITIVE Students with High- BEHAVIOR Secondary ~15 Risk Behavior SUPPORT SOME % Prevention: Specialized Group Primary Prevention: Systems for School-/Classroom- Students with At- Wide Systems for Risk Behavior All Students, Staff, & Settings ALL ~80% of Students 56 Cedarhurst Elementary Response to Intervention (RtI) 19% = 73 2% = 12 Students Students 100% 9% or 54 90% Students 80% 21% = 80 70% Students 60% 6+ ODR 90% or 530 2-5 ODR 50% Students 0-1 ODR 40% 30% 60% = 233 Students 20% 10% 0% 2005-2006 2010-2011 Student Meets CC&E Criteria Via SSBD Screening, ODRs,Teacher Nomination Program Phases Daily Program Routine Basic Program Morning Check-in Basic Plus Program Parent Teacher (as needed) Feedback Feedback Self-Monitoring Afternoon Check-out Graduation Non-responders to SWPBIS, but 70% responding to Tier 2 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! How might screening work in your school? What questions do you have for us?
Pages to are hidden for
"Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders"Please download to view full document