Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions

1
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

2
Acknowledgments

• Hill Walker, U of O
• Doug Cheney, U of WA
• Kathleen Lane, Vanderbilt
• Bridget Walker - Seattle U
• Wendy Iwaszuk - Seattle U

3
Turn and Talk
5 Minutes

• How do we determine what students need services
  at Tiers 2 3?
• How do we determine the level of risk in a
  school?

4
(No Transcript)
5
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.
6
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

7
Screening for At-risk Students
8
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)

9
Washington Schools Study 1Walker, Cheney,
Stage, Blum (2005)

• 3 Elem. Schools, 80/80 SET, 1999-2003
• 124 students (70 Ext./54 Int.) Ext. gt 1 s.d. on
  Social Skills and Prob Behs./ Not Int.
• Screening ODR gt ODR
• ScreeningODR 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)

10
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

11
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)

12
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)

13
Choosing A Universal Screener

• Choose a Screener that
• Is appropriate for its intended use and that is
  contextually and developmentally appropriate and
  sensitive to issue of diversity
• Has Technical Adequacy
• Useable - efficient, feasible, easy to manage
• - Calderella,Young, Richardson Young, 2008

14
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

15
SSBD Sample Questions

• Critical Events (Behavioral Earthquakes)
• Sets Fires,
• Vomits after eating,
• Exhibits painful shyness
• Maladaptive Behavior
• Requires punishment before s/he will terminate
  behavior.
• Child tests teacher imposed limits.
• Adaptive Behavior
• Is considerate of the feelings of others.
• Is socially perceptive.

16
Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007)
Teachers Rank Order 3 Ext. 3 Int. Students
Gate 1
Pass Gate 1
Teachers Rate Top 3 Students on Critical Events,
Adaptive Maladaptive Scales
Gate 2
Tier 2,3 Intervention
Pass Gate 2
Gate 3
Classroom Playground Observations
Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral
17
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
18
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

19
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)

20
SRSS
21
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)

22
(No Transcript)
23
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

24
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

Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
25
Integrating Screening into RTI/PBS Initiatives

• How is it done?

26
? 2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
27
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.
28
(No Transcript)
29
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

30
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)

31
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

32
Universal Screening in Practice Highline School
District, Washington

• If you screen them,
• they will come.

33
Highline Public SchoolsWho Where Are We?

• Just South of Seattle in Washington State
• 17,605 students strong
• 10,563 students eligible for free reduced-meals
  or 65
• 2,305 students qualify for special education
  services
• 78 languages spoken
• 3,679 English Language Learners

HPS Report Card 2010
34
Highline Ethnic Diversity

• 2.3 American Indian/Alaskan Native
• 16.8 Asian
• 5 Pacific Islander
• 14 Black
• 30 Hispanic
• 31.1 White

Fall 2010
35
Our Schools

• 18 K-6 Elementary Schools
• 4 Middle Schools Grades 7 8
• 10 High Schools
• 1 Skills Center
• 1 Early Childhood Center

36
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
  Highlines 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 CCE Project 3 Districts 18
  Schools Check, Connect, and Expect - 6 Highline
  Schools

37
(No Transcript)
38
Where are they now?2010-2011 PBIS in Highline

• District PBIS Coordinator
• District PBIS Team Representative
• Establishing PBIS Coaches Cadre
• Monthly Meetings
• 25 PBIS Schools Tier 1 School-wide
• 12 Schools Tier 2 Screening CCE
• 7 Schools Tier 3 Systems Established
• Capturing PBIS Baseline in 8 more

39
Why has screening been such an important part of
PBIS in Highline?
40
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/disr
  uptive 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

41
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

42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAM General 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 measurement ODR, 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
46
? 2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.
47
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

48
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

49
Year 1 of PBIS CCE
Students with 0 or 1 Referrals 461 77.87 497 83.95 537 90.71
Students with 2-5 Referrals 88 14.86 70 11.82 47 7.94
Students with 6 Referrals 43 7.26 25 4.22 8 1.35
Students with 9 Referrals 25 4.22 11 1.86 2 0.34
50
Who was identified for Check, Connect, and Expect?

• 488 students in 4 years were identified given
  permission for CCE
• 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

51

Student Meets CCE Criteria Via SSBD Screening,
ODRs,Teacher Nomination
Program Phases
Daily Program Routine
Basic Program
Morning Check-in
 
Basic Plus Program (as needed)
Parent Feedback
Teacher Feedback
Afternoon Check-out
Self-Monitoring
Graduation
52
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
53
Key Relationships Contd

• 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
54
Progress Monitoring of Students Responding and
those Non-responder
55
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 qualifyOct.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!

56
Impact of PBIS from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

• Reduction in office referrals from 6,284 to 3,457
  is 45 reduction or 2,827 fewer referrals
• Administrative, instructional, and academic
  engaged time recaptured 707 hours or 118 days

57
(No Transcript)
58
Highline PBIS School 2005-2011
59
Year 4 of PBIS CCE
Students with 0 or 1 Referrals 619 94.65 643 98.32 627 95.87
Students with 2-5 Referrals 28 4.28 10 1.53 25 3.82
Students with 6 Referrals 7 1.07 1 0.15 2 0.31
Students with 9 Referrals 1 0.15 0 0.00 1 0.15


60
System wide reductions in suspensions for special
education students (from 07-08 to 08-09 School
Years)

• Out-of-school suspensions lt 10 days reduced by
  31.72
• Out-of-school suspensions gt 10 days reduced by
  47.05
• Total out of school suspension reduced by 35.14

61
How might screening work in your school?

• What questions do you have for us?