1 / 61

Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions

Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions. Tricia Robles M. Ed. roblesph@hsd401.org Jinna Risdal M. Ed. risdaljm@hsd401.org Highline School District. Acknowledgments. Hill Walker, University of Oregon Doug Cheney, University of Washington

sandra_john
Télécharger la présentation

Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Systematic Screening Approaches for Students in Tier 2/3 Interventions Tricia Robles M. Ed. roblesph@hsd401.org Jinna Risdal M. Ed. risdaljm@hsd401.org Highline School District

  2. Acknowledgments • Hill Walker, University of Oregon • Doug Cheney, University of Washington • Kathleen Lane, Vanderbilt • Bridget Walker - Seattle University • Wendy Iwaszuk - Seattle University

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. RtI Application Examples

  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 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)

  9. 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)

  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): • 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.

  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

  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. 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

  23. 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.

  24. Integrating Screening into RTI/PBS Initiatives How is it done?

  25.  2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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)

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. 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

  32. Highline Ethnic Diversity • 2.3% American Indian/Alaskan Native • 16.8% Asian • 5% Pacific Islander • 14% Black • 30% Hispanic • 31.1% White Fall 2010

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. Why has screening been such an important part of PBIS in Highline?

  38. We know we have students exhibiting problem behavior? • 486 incidents of violence/gang/weapons in 4 middle school • 13 elementarys processed 6284Major Office Discipline Referrals = 1,571 hours or 262 days of instructional time lost - fighting, aggression, bullying, non-compliance, etc • 1713Major incidents of defiance/disobediance/disruptive conduct were reported in 4 middle schools • 4 middle schools processed 3827Major ODRs = 957 hours or 159 days of instructional and leadership time lost Elementary and Middle School ODR data in O7-08 School Year

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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

More Related