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. Questions to Ponder How do we determine what students need services at Tiers 2 & 3? How do we determine the “level of risk” in a school? How might knowing these clearly changed the way we serve students? –By School and By District

4. 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

5. Screening for “At-risk” Students

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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) Why Universal Screening benefits students.

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. SSBD Differentiates Grads, Non- grads, Comparisons GraduatesNon-GraduatesComparison 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 Adaptive32.3 (8.0) a 28.0 (4.8) b 30.6 (6.8) a

15. 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 (lies, cheats, sneaks, steals, behavior problems, peer rejections, low achievement, negative attitude, and aggressive behavior) –Score indicates the level of risk (low, medium, high) Scores predict both negative academic and behavioral outcomes Effective, Efficient and Free

16. 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

17. 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. Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

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

19.  2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

20. 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.

22. 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

23. 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)

24. 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

25. Review - This may be a good screener, but its not universal

26. Universal Screening in Practice: Highline School District, Washington

27. Highline School District Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

28. Highline Public Schools Who & Where Are We? Just South of Seattle in Washington State 17,549 Students strong 10,535 Students eligible for free & reduced-meals or 60.3% 12.5% of Students qualify for special education services 78 languages spoken Students from 80 ethnic & racial backgrounds OSPI 2008-2009

29. Highline is Beautifully Diverse 1.9% American Indian/Alaskan Native 21.5% Asian 21.5% Asian/Pacific Islander 14.8% Black 28.3% Hispanic 33.3% White October 2008

30. Our Schools 18 K-6 Elementary Schools 4 Middle Schools Grades 7 & 8 10 High Schools 1 Skills Center 1 Early Childhood Center 5 Other Instructional Sites

31. Our PBS hiStory 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 demonstration sites in Seahurst Elementary was Highline’s 1 st PBIS School 2003-06 OSPI, OSEP, & WEA Outreach 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 2008-2009 1.0 FTE District PBIS Coordinator, district team, sustain PBS in six schools, District implementation adding 9 schools

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

33. 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

34. 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

36. RtI Application Examples EARLY READING/LITERACYSOCIAL 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 measurementSSBD, 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, intensivePrimary, secondary, tertiary tiers

37.  2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

38. How Did We Screen? Conduct SSBD Screening each October at 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

39. What tools did we use? SWIS ODRs - Office Discipline Referrals SSBD - Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders 08-09 compared the SRSS -Student Risk Screening Scale & SSBD in 4 HSD schools

40. Who was identified for Targeted Group Intervention? 488 students in 4 years were identified & given permission for CC&E (Check, Connect, & Expect) Ten schools continue screening and targeted group interventions

41. # of Highline Schools Implementing PBIS & Screening 2005-2007 3 Elementary Schools 2007-2008 6 Elementary Schools 2008-2009 10 Elementary Schools 2009-2010 16 Elementary Schools

42. Graduation Self-Monitoring Basic Plus Program (as needed) Program Phases Daily Program Routine Student Meets CC&E Criteria Via SSBD Screening, ODRs,Teacher Nomination Morning Check-in Parent Feedback Basic Program Teacher Feedback Afternoon Check-out

43. What was the impact? Show reduction of ODRs Reduction of ODRs in sped slide Total number of students in Highline in CC&E

44. 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!

45. Impact of PBIS in one year 2008-2009 10 elementary schools implemented SWPBS & screened for CC&E Targeted Group Intervention Reduction in office referrals from 6,284 to 3,703 is 42% reduction or 2,581 fewer referrals Administrative, instructional, and academic engaged time recaptured = 645 hours or 108 days

46. 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%

47. 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%

48. How might screening work in your school? What questions do you have for us?