Arizona State University Universal Screening for Behavior: Pennsylvania’s Collaboration with Researchers and District Level Implementers’ Tina Lawson PaTTAN Kathleen Lynne Lane University of Kansas Wendy P. Oakes Arizona State University

Agenda Define Pennsylvania’s PBIS Structure Provide a Rationale for Universal Screening of Behavior Define the Partnership between PaPBIS, School Districts, and the University Researchers Define the Study Share Lessons Learned

PA PBIS…

This slide is an overview of the structure of the PAPBS Network This slide is an overview of the structure of the PAPBS Network. Some states have had pockets of PBIS implementation that have coalesced into a statewide system (bottom up approach). PA created a state level support team, followed by regional and local support structures (top down approach). We will talk about each of these levels in more detail as we go along. NOTE: BOTH SCHOOL AGE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD ARE REPRESENTED AT THE CO-DIRECTORS & SCT LEVEL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

Participating Schools / LEAs Inclusive of both cohorts, all 29 Intermediate Units (IUs) have staff participating in the PAPBS Network as facilitators, consultants, etc.

PAPBS Network SWPBIS Sites – Cohort 1 (2007) & Cohort 2 (2009-present)

The rationale …

Prevalence Considerations ED … <1% EBD … 12% Lane & Oakes

Student with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) Internalizing Externalizing Lane & Oakes

Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Validated Social Skills Program Academic Behavioral Social

Systematic Screening Measure Authors Ordering Information Early Screening Project Walker, Severson, & Feil (1995) Available for purchase from Sopris West Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Walker & Severson (1992) Available for purchase from Cambium Learning/ Sopris West Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) Drummond (1994) Free-Access Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Goodman (1991) Free-Access online at http://www.sdqinfo.com/ BASC-2 Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS) Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007) Available for purchase from Pearson/ PsychCorp Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide (SSiS – PSG) Elliott & Gresham (2007) Systematic Screening

Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) Student Risk Screening Scale

Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. This tool is appealing to schools because it takes minimal teacher time and is of no cost. Teachers evaluate each student on the following items - Steal - Low Academic Achievement - Lie, Cheat, Sneak - Negative Attitude - Behavior Problem - Aggressive Behavior - Peer Rejection Each item is rated on a Likert-type scale of 0-3 Never 0 Occasionally 1 Sometimes 2 Frequently 3 Student Risk is divided into 3 categories Low 0 – 3 Moderate 4 – 8 High 9 – 21

Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) 15

Student Risk Screening Scale-IE TEACHER NAME 0 = Never Steal   Lie, Cheat, Sneak Behavior Problem Peer Rejection Low Academic Achievement Negative Attitude Aggressive Behavior Emotionally Flat Shy; Withdrawn Sad; Depressed Anxious Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior Lonely Self-Inflicts Pain 1 = Occasionally 2 = Sometimes 3 = Frequently Use the above scale to rate each item for each student. Student Name Original SRSS-IE 14 12 items retained for use at the elementary level 14 items under development in middle and high schools (Lane, Oakes, Harris, Menzies, Cox, & Lambert, 2012) Lane and Oakes 2013 16

Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

SSiS– Performance Screening Guide 4 items per student Preschool Scale – 4-point Rubric Elementary Scale – 5-point Rubric Behavioral areas assessed Prosocial Behavior Motivation to Learn Reading Skills (Early Reading Skills) Math Skills (Early Math Skills)

SSiS – Performance Screening Guide Risk Categories Preschool Scale Adequate Progress = 3 or 4 (green band) Moderate Risk = 2 (yellow band) Elevated Risk = 1 (red band) Elementary Scale Adequate Performance = 4 or 5 (green band) Moderate Difficulties = 2 or 3 (yellow band) Significant Difficulty = 1 (red band)

Purpose Report the findings of a psychometric study exploring reliability of the SRSS-IE in secondary schools Report the convergent validity comparing scores two screening tools: the Student Risk Screening Scale – Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE) and the Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS-PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007).

The Partnership journey …

Eligible Districts were close to a major airport Natural next step Network Schools Tier 1 with high fidelity Advanced tier systems in place Network Facilitators Eligible Districts were close to a major airport Kathleen and Wendy were interested!!!

The study …

METHOD A Look in School Secondary Schools

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Student  n = 974 n = 749 N = 1,723 Gender % (n)   Male 52.05 (507) 52.20 (391) 52.12 (898) Female 47.95 (467) 47.80 (358) 47.88 (825) Ethnicity % (n) White 68.69 (669) 65.95 (494) 67.50 (1163) Black 21.66 (211) 24.83 (186) 23.04 (397) Hispanic 3.49 (34) 3.20 (24) 3.37 (58) Asian 2.57 (25) 2.14 (16) 2.38 (41) Native American 0.10 (1) 0.13 (1) 0.12 (2) Other 0.00 (0) 0.06 (1) Mixed races 3.39 (33) 3.74 (28) 3.54 (61) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Grade level % (n)   Fifth 23.92 (233) 0.00 (0) 13.52 (233) Sixth 27.41 (267) 15.50 (267) Seventh 23.72 (231) 13.41 (231) Eighth 24.95 (243) 14.10 (243) Ninth 32.44 (243) Tenth 31.11 (233) Eleventh 16.02 (120) 6.96 (120) Twelfth 20.43 (153) 8.88 (153) Special Education % (n) 23.61 (230) 18.56 (139) 21.42 (369) Emotional Disturbance 1.64 (16) 2.27 (17) 1.92 (33) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Course Enrolled for Ratings   Physical education 0.00 (0) 7.48 (56) 3.25 (56) Arts 4.14 (31) 1.80 (31) Foreign language English 40.25 (392) 22.96 (172) 32.73 (564) Aide 0.80 (6) 0.35 (6) Electives 0.51 (5) 5.87 (44) 2.84 (49) Math 29.16 (284) 15.62 (117) 23.27 (401) Science 15.09 (147) 15.75 (118) 15.38 (265) Social Studies 14.99 (146) 19.89 (149) 17.12 (295) Age M (SD) 12.15 (1.18) 16.00 (1.29) 13.82 (2.27) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Teacher n = 52 n = 58 N = 110 Gender % (n)   Male 30.77 (16) 49.12 (28) 40.37 (44) Female 69.23 (36) 50.88 (29) 59.63 (65) Ethnicity % (n) White 94.23 (49) 94.75 (54) 94.50 (103) Black 5.77 (3) 0.00 (0) 2.75 (3) Hispanic 1.75 (1) 0.92 (1) Other 3.51 (2) 1.83 (2) Primary role % (n) General education 80.77 (42) 92.98 (53) 87.16 (95) Special education 19.23 (10) 7.02 (4) 12.84 (14) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Certified in the area currently teaching % (n) 95.92 (47) 98.25 (56) 97.17 (103) Highest degree earned % (n)   High school diploma 0.00 (0) 1.75 (1) 0.92 (1) Associate’s degree 1.92 (1) 1.83 (2) Bachelor’s degree 28.85 (15) 26.32 (15) 27.52 (30) Master’s degree 69.23 (36) 70.18 (40) 69.72 (76) Completed course in classroom management % (n) Yes 92.31 (48) 82.14 (46) 87.04 (94) No 7.69 (4) 17.86 (10) 12.96 (14) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Professional development in academic screening % (n)   Yes 21.15 (11) 30.36 (17) 25.93 (28) No 78.85 (41) 69.64 (39) 74.07 (80) Professional development in behavior screening % (n) 30.77 (16) 32.14 (18) 31.48 (34) 69.23 (36) 67.86 (38) 68.52 (74) Years teaching experience M (SD) 11.06 (8.93) 11.96 (8.29) 11.53 (8.57) Years teaching experience current school M (SD) 9.38 (9.19) 11.18 (8.96) 10.33 (9.07) Age M (SD) 33.86 (9.35) 37.79 (10.82) 35.93 (10.29) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

School Characteristics 2010-2011 Variable School Table 2 School Characteristics 2010-2011 Variable School MS HS Attendance ratea / Graduation Rate a 93% 80% Classroom teachers (FTE)b 81.75 91.57 Enrollmentb 996 1,106 Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb 56.02% 45.39% Grades servedb 5 - 8 9 - 12 Localeb Suburb: Large NCLB statusac Corrective Action II School Improvement II Student/teacher ratiob 12.18 12.08 Title 1 eligibleb Yes No Note. FTE = full time equivalent; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act (1997); AYP = adequate yearly progress. a2010-2011 school report card data. bNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core Data 2010-2011. cThe NCLB established improvement goals measured by AYP in (a) attendance or graduation, (b) academic performance, and (c) test participation. Corrective Action II refers to the level of greatest need for support and actions taken including possible governance changes. School Improvement II refers to school who have not met annual yearly progress for three consecutive years in the same subject and students are eligible for supplementary educational services (e.g., tutoring).

Procedures Study 1: Middle School & high school Consenting Meetings Completed two measures for one class period SRSS-IE (10-15 min) SSIS-PSG (30 min) Social Validity Data entry and reliability by research assistants

METHOD A Look in Elementary Schools

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Student n=626 n=492 n=562 N=1,680 Gender % (n) Male 52.88 (331) 49.39 (243) 52.49 (295) 51.73 (869) Female 47.12 (295) 50.61 (249) 47.51 (267) 48.27 (811) Ethnicity % (n) White 79.07 (495) 54.27 (269) 76.87 (432) 71.07 (1194) Black 9.42 (59) 30.28 (149) 5.16 (29) 14.11 (237) Hispanic 3.67 (23) 5.69 (28) 5.87 (33) 5.00 (84) Asian 5.75 (36) 3.05 (15) 9.07 (51) 6.07 (102) Native American 0.16 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (1) Mixed races 1.92 (12) 6.71 (33) 3.02 (17) 3.69 (62)

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Grade level% (n)   Kindergarten 25 13.10 (82) 13.21 (65) 14.77 (83) 13.69 (230) First 26 14.54 (91) 17.28 (85) 12.10 (68) 14.52 (244) Second 27 15.81 (99) 14.06 (79) 14.46 (243) Third 28 12.14 (76) 17.07 (84) Fourth 29 13.58 (85) 13.82 (68) 13.07 (77) Fifth 15 17.73 (111) 11.99 (59) 16.73 (94) 15.71 (264) Sixth 16 13.41 (66) 13.88 (78) 13.45 (226) Special education services % (n) 9.11 (57) 8.74 (43) 6.23 (35) 8.04 (135) Emotional Disturbance % (n) 0.00 (0) 2.44 (12) 0.71 (12) Age M (SD) 8.19 (2.02) 7.97 (1.99) 8.15 (2.05) 8.11 (2.02)

Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Teacher n = 35 n = 24 n= 29 N = 88 Gender % (n)   Male 12.12 (4) 21.74 (5) 7.14 (2) 13.10 (11) Female 87.88 (29) 78.26 (18) 92.86 (26) 86.90 (73) Ethnicity % (n) White 79.07 (29) 69.57 (16) 85.19 (23) 81.93 (68) Black 0.00 (0) 8.70 (2) 11.11 (3) 6.02 (5) Hispanic 4.35 (1) 1.20 (1) Asian 9.09 (3) 13.04 (3) 3.70 (1) 8.43 (7) Native American Declined to report 3.03 (1) Primary role % (n) General education 90.91 (30) 100.00 (23) 100.00 (28) 96.43 (81) Special education 3.57 (3)

Table 1 cont. Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Certified in the area currently teaching % (n) 100.00 (32) 100.00 (23) 100.00 (28) 100.00 (83) Highest degree earned % (n)   Bachelor’s degree 15.63 (5) 8.70 (2) 28.57 (8) 18.07 (15) Master’s degree 81.25 (26) 91.30 (21) 71.43 (20) 80.72 (67) Master’s degree + 30 3.13 (1) 0.00 (0) 1.20 (1) Completed course in classroom management % (n) Yes 93.94 (31) 95.65 (22) 96.43 (27) 95.24 (80) No 6.06 (2) 4.35 (1) 3.57 (1) 4.76 (4) Professional development in academic screening % (n) 69.70 (23) 43.48 (10) 51.85 (14) 56.63 (47) 30.30 (10) 56.52 (13) 48.15 (13) 43.37 (36)

Student and Teacher Characteristics Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total Professional development in behavior screening % (n)   Yes 59.38 (19) 43.48 (10) 29.63 (8) 45.12 (37) No 40.63 (13) 56.52 (13) 70.37 (19) 54.88 (45) Years teaching experience M (SD) 14.67 (9.01) 11.13 (7.65) 14.00 (8.91) 13.48 (8.65) Years teaching experience current school M (SD) 10.75 (7.68) 8.95 (77.51) 11.57 (8.57) 10.57 (7.96) Age M (SD) 38.83 (12.19) 35.35 (10.43) 38.41 (10.65) 37.69 (11.16) MES, OES, RES Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

School Characteristics 2012-2013 Table 2 School Characteristics 2012-2013    Variable School School A n = 626 School B n = 492 School C n = 562 Attendance ratea 97% 96% Classroom teachers (FTE)b 43.55 35.40 37.25 Enrollmentb 621 447 540 Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb 82 (13.20%) 106 (21.54%) 40 (7.41%) Grades servedb K-6 Localeb Suburb: Large NCLB statusac Made AYP Student/teacher ratiob 14.26 12.60 14.50 Title 1 eligibleb No Yes Note. FTE = full time equivalent; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act (1997); AYP = adequate yearly progress. a2011-2012 school report card data. bNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core Data 2010-2011. cThe NCLB established improvement goals measured by AYP in (a) attendance or graduation, (b) academic performance, and (c) test participation.

Results Study 2: Elementary Schools EC: (8/26/12) added Middle School

Table 3 Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, and SRSS-IE12 with the SSiS-PSG   SSiS-PSG Scale M (SD) Correlation Time Fall M (SD) Spring M (SD) SRSS- E7 1.72 (2.74) 1.79 (3.03) r SRSS- I5 0.95 (1.81) 0.67 (1.71) SRSS-IE12 2.67 (3.87) 2.46 (4.12) Reading Skills   Fall 3.77 (1.05) -0.60 -0.37 Spring 4.01 (1.06) -0.54 -0.27 -0.51 Math Skills 3.88 (1.00) -0.56 4.06 (1.01) -0.53 -0.32 -0.52 Motivation to Learn 3.92 (1.03) -0.66 -0.40 4.20 (0.95) -0.63 -0.36 -0.61 Prosocial Behavior 3.95 (0.96) -0.42 -0.64 4.19 (0.92) -0.69 -0.41 -0.67 Note. SRSS-IE = SSiS-PSG = Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide; SRSS-E7 = the original 7 externalizing SRSS items; SRSS-I5 = the 5 internalizing items added to the SRSS; SRSS-IE12 = the original 7 externalizing and the added 5 internalizing SRSS items combined. Correlations were interpreted using the following guidelines .00 to .10 were nonexistent, .10 to .30 were small, .30 to .50 were medium, .50 to .70 were large, .70 to .90 were very large, and .90 to 1.00 were close to perfect (Cohen, 1992, Hopkins, 2001; Kettler Elliott, Davies, & Griffin, 2010). In Fall, 1,680 participants were rated on the SRSS-IE and the SSiS-PSG. In Spring, 1,646 participants were rated on the SRSS-IE and 1,626 on the SSiS-SPG.

Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG Table 4 Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG   Measure Subscale N Correlation P value SRSS-IE   SRSS-E7 1646 0.71 < .0001 SRSS-I5 0.56 SRSS- I12 0.67 SSiS-PSG Reading Skills 1626 Math Skills 0.64 Motivation to Learn 0.60 Prosocial Behavior 0.59 Note. 31 weeks lapsed between fall and spring administrations. SRSS-IE = Student Risk Screen Scale – Internalizing and Externalizing; SRSS-E7 = the original 7 externalizing SRSS items; SRSS-I5 = the 5 internalizing items added to the SRSS; SRSS-IE12 = the original 7 externalizing and the added 5 internalizing SRSS items combined; SSiS-PSG = Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide.

Social Validity – ES Teacher in Fall The greater differences appear to be related to: SRSS-IE (a free-access screening tool) rated more favorably Monetary resources (Cohen’s d = 1.40) as the primary concern Easy to prepare (Cohen’s d = .73), SSiS-PSG to be better able to cover the critical elements of behavior that concern teachers (Item 5; Cohen’s d = -.40), offer teachers important information to support students (Item 6; Cohen’s d = -.46), and offer the school as a whole important information (Item 7; Cohen’s d = -.46). Total social validity scores suggest a low-magnitude favorable rating for the SRSS-IE as whole relative to the SSiS-PSG. However, time, ease, and cost were the key factors; not utility.

The Lessons Learned …

District perspective Administrative leadership both district and building level is critical Convenience is KEY! Faculty appreciated the ability to share perspectives through social validity survey Faculty appreciated immediate feedback through electronic format Participants needed frequent reminders of the conceptual purpose of Universal Screening Consent Follow up with plans for sustainability

Subsequent Inquiry …

SRSS-IE: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5 Cut Scores Enter ‘practice’ data into that one sheet so that the total scores and conditional formatting are tested. Items 1-7 (The SRSS externalizing scale) 0 – 3 low risk 4 – 8 moderate risk (yellow) 9 – 21 high risk (red) Items 8-12 (The SRSS-IE internalizing items)*preliminary cut scores for elementary only 0 – 1 low risk 2 – 3 moderate (yellow) 4 – 15 high (red) Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Swogger, E. D., Schatschneider, C., Menzies, H., M., & Sanchez, J. (in press). Student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Preliminary cut scores to support data-informed decision making. Behavioral Disorders  

SRSS-E7 Results – All Students Sample … Winter SRSS-E7 Results – All Students N = 15 N = 66 N = 276

SRSS-I5 Results – All Students Sample … Winter SRSS-I5 Results – All Students N = 27 N = 48 N = 282

Pennsylvania Now… Established PA Process Finalized PA materials Trained all facilitators Awarded 6 mini grants Lessons Learned

Data-based decisions lead to interventions…

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Multi-tiered System of Support Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring - - Functional Assessment-Based Interventions Higher Intensity Strategies Assess, Design, Implement, and Evaluate Assessment

Essential Components of Classroom Management Classroom Climate Physical Room Arrangement Routines and Procedures Managing Paper Work

Instructional Considerations How motivating is my classroom? Control – Challenge – Curiosity – Contextualization Am I using a variety of instructional strategies? How am I differentiating instruction?

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Multi-tiered System of Support Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring - - Functional Assessment-Based Interventions Higher Intensity Strategies Assess, Design, Implement, and Evaluate Assessment

Low-Intensity Strategies Active Supervision Proximity Pacing Appropriate use of Praise Opportunities to Respond Instructive Feedback Incorporating Choice

Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data Small group Reading Instruction with Self-Monitoring

Sample Secondary Intervention Grid Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress: Exit Criteria Small group Reading instruction with Self-Monitoring Small group reading instruction (30 min, 3 days per week). Students monitored their participation in the reading instructional tasks. Students used checklists of reading lesson components each day to complete and compare to teachers’ rating. K – 1. Students who: Behavior: Fall SRSS at moderate (4 -8) or high (9 – 21) risk Academic: Fall AIMSweb LNF at the strategic or intensive level AIMSweb reading PSF and NWF progress monitoring probes (weekly). Daily self-monitoring checklists Meet AIMSweb reading benchmark at next screening time point. Low Risk on SRSS at next screening time point.

Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class

Sample Secondary Intervention Grid Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress: Exit Criteria Study Skills Content: Study skills curriculum of skills and strategies used to gain and demonstrate knowledge. Goals: Gain knowledge from a text, class discussions, and teacher-led instruction. Demonstrate knowledge on formal and informal assessments (test, quizzes, homework, presentations, and projects) Topics Include: Note-taking strategies Use of graphic organizers Organization Goal setting Test taking strategies Writing process (planning/ drafting/ editing)   Scheduling: 50 min class (30 min instruction; 20 min applied practice) 56 Lessons Academic: (1) Grade Point Average (GPA) ≤ 2.7; OR (2) 1 or more Course Failures in a quarter (D or F/E) AND (3) Not participating in Read 180 reading intervention AND Behavior: (1) Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) score in the Moderate (4 – 8) or High (9 – 21) Risk; OR (2) 1 or more office discipline referral (ODR) within a four month time period Schoolwide Data: GPA Course Grades (9-weeks) SRSS ODRs Proximal Measures: (1) Criterion Referenced Assessment – Acquiring Knowledge, Demonstrating Knowledge, and Conflict Resolution (Lane, 2003) (2) Knowledge of Study Skills (KSS) (3) Knowledge of Conflict Resolution Skills (KCRS) Distal Measures: (1) Study Habits Inventory (SHI; Jones & Slate, 1990) (2) ConflictTalk (Kimsey & Fuller, 2003) Academic: (for the quarter) (1) Grade Point Average (GPA) > 2.7; (2) No Course Failures (D or F/E) AND (1) SRSS screening low risk (0 – 3) (2) No ODRs within the quarter Students would participate in this class for one semester. If exit criteria are not meet further interventions would be considered for the following semester. This is only one section do you want multiple slides for this? (Table 4.7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Multi-tiered System of Support Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring - - Functional Assessment-Based Interventions Higher Intensity Strategies Assess, Design, Implement, and Evaluate Assessment

Sample Secondary Intervention Grid Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria Behavior Contract A written agreement between two parties used to specify the contingent relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery of a specific reward. Contract may involve administrator, teacher, parent, and student. Behavior: SRSS - mod to high risk Academic: 2 or more missing assignments with in a grading period Work completion, or other behavior addressed in contract Successful Completion of behavior contract Self-monitoring Students will monitor and record their academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on-task behavior each day. Students who score in the abnormal range for H and CP on the SDQ; course failure or at risk on CBM Work completion and accuracy in the academic area of concern; passing grades Passing grade on the report card in the academic area of concern Sample Secondary Intervention Grid

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Multi-tiered System of Support Low Intensity Strategies Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction Low Intensity Strategies Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring - - Functional Assessment-Based Interventions Higher Intensity Strategies Assess, Design, Implement, and Evaluate Assessment

Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid Support Description School-wide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria Functional Assessment-Based Intervention Individualized interventions developed by the behavior specialist and PBS team Students who: Behavior scored in the high risk category on the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS), or scored in the clinical range on one following Strengths and Difficulties (SDQ) subscales: Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, or Prosocial Behavior, earned more than 5 office discipline referrals (ODR) for major events during a grading period or Academic identified at highest risk for school failure: recommended for retention; or scored far below basic on state-wide or district-wide assessments Data will be collected on both the (a) target (problem) behavior and (b) replacement (desirable) behavior identified by the team on an on-going basis. Weekly teacher report on academic status ODR data collected weekly The function-based intervention will be faded once a functional relation is demonstrated using a validated single case methodology design (e.g., withdrawal design) and the behavioral objectives specified in the plan are met.

Thank you!