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 Acknowledgments • • • • • Hill Walker, U of O Doug Cheney, U of WA Kathleen Lane, Vanderbilt Bridget Walker - Seattle U Wendy Iwaszuk - Seattle U 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. 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 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): – 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. Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007) Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Teachers Rank Order 3 Ext. & 3 Int. Students Pass Gate 1 Teachers Rate Top 3 Students on Critical Events, Adaptive & Maladaptive Scales Pass Gate 2 Classroom & Playground Observations Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral Tier 2,3 Intervention SSBD Differentiates Grads , Nongrads, Comparisons SSBD Critical Graduates Non-Graduates Comparison 5.9 (2.8) 5.4 (3.0) 5.2 (2.8) 31.2 (10.5) a 37.2 (5.7) b 32.2 (7.8) a 32.3 (8.0) a 28.0 (4.8) b 30.6 (6.8) a Events SSBD Maladaptive SSBD Adaptive 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 & K12, • 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 How could this information help you determine where your limited support resources should focus? K dg A Sa m Spade K dg B F reder ico L atica C har les Br ow n G rade 1 A L ina Ru is C har Be yer Ra na W il cox Re nn y L inqu ist G rade 1 B Jack J onson G rade 2 A K im S ignore lli M ike Ma jewsk i G rade 2 B L in W u M onico L eon G rade 3 A H oward Musc ott D oug C heney G rade 3 B P egg y Hu nt Pa t Harr ingto n G rade 4 B T im L ear y Pepper mi nt Pa tt y G rade 5 A Sc ott S tage G rade 5 B K elli Ja ne Pau la Sea bright G rade 6 A A lex Tapps S hin Ji L aure n An ders on Da ve Dr obek Jer om e Garc ia G rade 6 B R ober t W eir C hris N orm an K ate Da vis De nn is C hipp Ra shan L incoln Na m es li sted in bl u e are st u de nts w ho have passed Gat e 2 of SS B D. Na m es li sted in red are st u de nts w h o have bee n ide ntifi ed w ith acade m ic iss ues Na m es in gree n are st ude n ts w ho h ave be en i de ntifi ed by bot h acade m ic scree ning & SS B D. T h e S u pp o rt tea m is m eet ing to deter mi ne approp ri ate su pports fo r eac h gro up Bridget Walker, Ph.D. Su pp ort ing Do ug C he n ey, A N e w Ki n de r ga r tner in Y o ur Sc ho ol Soc io - Em ot io n al Scre e ni ng P r oc e ss Ac a d e mic Sc r een ing P r oc e ss SS B D Curri c ul u m B a sed Measur e s Teacher Passe s Gate ident ifies fo r screen ing as externa li zer Schoo lw ide screen ing ind icates lo w leve ls o f lette r ident ificat io n and prob le m s w ith phonem ic a wareness 2 w ith c oncerns in p r os o cia l an d prob le m behav iors Teacher observ e s sim il a r co n cern s in c las s w ork 2 O ffice d isc ip li ne 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 d iscu s ses a dd itiona l r is k fac t ors af fect ing f a m il y Referred for sec Meets w ith sc h oo l cou n se lor once week o ndary ly C heck , C onnect , an d Exp ec t p r og r am da il y Fam ily Su p por t Coord ina t or c onnects w fam ily Progres s is m on itore d b y teacher, ith feedba c k a n d in terventi o ns Meets tw ice week ly w ith read in g s pec ia li st Supp lementa l instr u ct ion in areas of concer da il y Read s da ily w ith vo lunteer peer tutor CC E C oach , an d b y Student reader or o lder Su p p o rt Team n 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 Universal Screening in Practice: Highline School District, Washington If you screen them, they will come. Highline Public Schools Who & Where Are We? • Just South of Seattle in Washington State • 17,605 students strong • 10,563 students eligible for free & reducedmeals or 65%% • 2,305 students qualify for special education services • 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 • 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 PBIS Schools in Highline 30 25 20 *08-09 FTE for District Coordinator Identified *District Leadership Team Established *3 Year Plan for Sustainability 15 10 BEACONS & Check, Connect, & Expect Federal Research Projects Implement PBIS School Year 5 0 2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 2003-2004 2002-2003 2001-2002 2000-2001 1999-2000 1998-1999 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 & CC&E • 7 Schools – Tier 3 Systems Established • Capturing PBIS Baseline in 8 more 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 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 2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D. 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 Year 1 of PBIS & CC&E Students with 0 or 1 Referrals Students with 25 Referrals Students with 6+ Referrals Students with 9+ Referrals 461 77.87 % 497 83.95 % 537 90.71 % 88 14.86 % 70 11.82 % 47 7.94 % 43 7.26 % 25 4.22 % 8 1.35 % 25 4.22 % 11 1.86 % 2 0.34 % 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 Student Meets CC&E Criteria Via SSBD Screening, ODRs,Teacher Nomination Program Phases Daily Program Routine Basic Program Morning Check-in Basic Plus Program (as needed) Self-Monitoring Graduation Teacher Feedback Parent Feedback Afternoon Check-out The Power of Key Relationships Students who build strong positive relationships with school staff have significant long term reductions in: aggressiveness delinquency school drop outs court adjudications substance abuse teen pregnancy suspensions and expulsions 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 Progress Monitoring of Students Responding and those Nonresponder 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 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 Highline Elementary Schools Reduce # of Out of School Suspension Days 1600 2007-2008 1393 Days OSS 1400 2008-2009 1244.5 Days OSS 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2009-2010 735.5 Days OSS Highline PBIS School 2005-2011 Year 4 of PBIS & CC&E Students with 0 or 1 Referrals 619 94.65 % 643 98.32 % 627 95.87 % Students with 25 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 % 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?