UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR PENNSYLVANIAS COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS
UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS AND DISTRICT LEVEL IMPLEMENTERS’ Tina Lawson Pa. TTAN 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 Pa. PBIS, School Districts, and the University Researchers Define the Study Share Lessons Learned
PA PBIS…
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 Academic Validated Social Skills Program Behavioral Social
Measure Early Screening Project Authors Ordering Information Walker, Severson, & Feil Available for purchase from (1995) Sopris West Systematic Screening for Walker & Severson (1992) Available for purchase from Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Student Risk Screening Drummond (1994) Scale (SRSS) Strengths and Difficulties Goodman (1991) Questionnaire (SDQ) Cambium Learning/ Sopris West Free-Access BASC-2 Behavior and Kamphaus & Reynolds Emotional Screening (2007) System (BASC-2 BESS) Social Skills Improvement Elliott & Gresham (2007) System: Performance Screening Guide (SSi. S – PSG) Available for purchase from Pearson/ Psych. Corp Free-Access online at http: //www. sdqinfo. com/ Available for purchase from Pearson/ Psych. Corp
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
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)
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IE Anxious Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior Lonely Aggressive Behavior Sad; Depressed Shy; Withdrawn Emotionally Flat Negative Attitude Low Academic Achievement Peer Rejection 0 = Never Behavior Problem TEACHER NAME 2 = Sometimes Use the above scale to rate each item for each student. Steal Student Name Lie, Cheat, Sneak 3 = Frequently 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) Self-Inflicts Pain 1 = Occasionally
SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE (SSi. S- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)
SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE (SSi. S- 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 (SSi. S-PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007).
THE PARTNERSHIP JOURNEY …
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
Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total n = 974 n = 749 N = 1, 723 Male 52. 05 (507) 52. 20 (391) 52. 12 (898) Female 47. 95 (467) 47. 80 (358) 47. 88 (825) 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. 10 (1) 0. 00 (0) 0. 06 (1) Mixed races 3. 39 (33) 3. 74 (28) 3. 54 (61) Student Gender % (n) Ethnicity % (n) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Fifth 23. 92 (233) 0. 00 (0) 13. 52 (233) Sixth 27. 41 (267) 0. 00 (0) 15. 50 (267) Seventh 23. 72 (231) 0. 00 (0) 13. 41 (231) Eighth 24. 95 (243) 0. 00 (0) 14. 10 (243) Ninth 0. 00 (0) 32. 44 (243) 14. 10 (243) Tenth 0. 00 (0) 31. 11 (233) 13. 52 (233) Eleventh 0. 00 (0) 16. 02 (120) 6. 96 (120) Twelfth 0. 00 (0) 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) Grade level % (n) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total Physical education 0. 00 (0) 7. 48 (56) 3. 25 (56) Arts 0. 00 (0) 4. 14 (31) 1. 80 (31) Foreign language 0. 00 (0) 7. 48 (56) 3. 25 (56) 40. 25 (392) 22. 96 (172) 32. 73 (564) Aide 0. 00 (0) 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) 12. 15 (1. 18) 16. 00 (1. 29) 13. 82 (2. 27) Course Enrolled for Ratings English Age M (SD) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total n = 52 n = 58 N = 110 Male 30. 77 (16) 49. 12 (28) 40. 37 (44) Female 69. 23 (36) 50. 88 (29) 59. 63 (65) White 94. 23 (49) 94. 75 (54) 94. 50 (103) Black 5. 77 (3) 0. 00 (0) 2. 75 (3) Hispanic 0. 00 (0) 1. 75 (1) 0. 92 (1) Other 0. 00 (0) 3. 51 (2) 1. 83 (2) General education 80. 77 (42) 92. 98 (53) 87. 16 (95) Special education 19. 23 (10) 7. 02 (4) 12. 84 (14) Teacher Gender % (n) Ethnicity % (n) Primary role % (n) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total 95. 92 (47) 98. 25 (56) 97. 17 (103) High school diploma 0. 00 (0) 1. 75 (1) 0. 92 (1) Associate’s degree 1. 92 (1) 1. 75 (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) Yes 92. 31 (48) 82. 14 (46) 87. 04 (94) No 7. 69 (4) 17. 86 (10) 12. 96 (14) Certified in the area currently teaching % (n) Highest degree earned % (n) Completed course in classroom management % (n) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
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) Yes 30. 77 (16) 32. 14 (18) 31. 48 (34) No 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) Professional development in behavior screening % (n) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 2 School Characteristics 2010 -2011 Variable School MS HS 80% Attendance ratea / Graduation Rate a 93% Classroom teachers (FTE)b 81. 75 91. 57 996 1, 106 56. 02% 45. 39% 5 - 8 9 - 12 Suburb: Large Corrective Action II School Improvement II 12. 18 12. 08 Yes No Enrollmentb Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb Grades servedb Localeb NCLB statusac Student/teacher ratiob Title 1 eligibleb
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
Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total n=626 n=492 n=562 N=1, 680 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) 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 Gender % (n) Ethnicity % (n)
Table 1 Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total 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) 13. 21 (65) 14. 06 (79) 14. 46 (243) Third 28 12. 14 (76) 17. 07 (84) 14. 77 (83) 14. 46 (243) Fourth 29 13. 58 (85) 13. 82 (68) 13. 07 (77) 13. 69 (230) Fifth 15 17. 73 (111) 11. 99 (59) 16. 73 (94) 15. 71 (264) Sixth 16 13. 10 (82) 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. 00 (0) 0. 71 (12) 8. 19 (2. 02) 7. 97 (1. 99) 8. 15 (2. 05) 8. 11 (2. 02) Grade level% (n) Age M (SD)
Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total n = 35 n = 24 n= 29 N = 88 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) 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 0. 00 (0) 4. 35 (1) 0. 00 (0) 1. 20 (1) Asian 9. 09 (3) 13. 04 (3) 3. 70 (1) 8. 43 (7) Native American 0. 00 (0) 4. 35 (1) 0. 00 (0) 1. 20 (1) Declined to report 3. 03 (1) 0. 00 (0) 1. 20 (1) 100. 00 (23) 100. 00 (28) Teacher Gender % (n) Ethnicity % (n) Primary role % (n) General education 90. 91 (30) 96. 43 (81)
Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics Variable/ Level School A Certified in the area currently teaching % (n) School B School C Total 100. 00 (32) 100. 00 (23) 100. 00 (28) 100. 00 (83) 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) 3. 13 (1) 0. 00 (0) 1. 20 (1) 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) 69. 70 (23) 30. 30 (10) 43. 48 (10) 56. 52 (13) 51. 85 (14) 48. 15 (13) 56. 63 (47) 43. 37 (36) Highest degree earned % (n) Master’s degree + 30 Completed course in classroom management % (n) Professional development in academic screening % (n) Yes No
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 14. 67 (9. 01) (SD) 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) Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 2 School Characteristics 2012 -2013 Variable School A n = 626 School B n = 492 School C n = 562 Attendance ratea 97% 96% 97% Classroom teachers (FTE)b 43. 55 35. 40 37. 25 621 447 540 82 (13. 20%) 106 (21. 54%) 40 (7. 41%) K-6 K-6 Suburb: Large Made AYP 14. 26 12. 60 14. 50 No Yes No Enrollmentb Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb Grades servedb Localeb NCLB statusac Student/teacher ratiob Title 1 eligibleb
RESULTS Study 2: Elementary Schools
Table 3 Convergent Validity: SRSS-E 7, SRSS-I 5, and SRSS-IE 12 with the SSi. S-PSG Scale M (SD) Correlation (1. 05) (1. 06) (1. 00) (1. 01) (1. 03) (0. 95) (0. 96) SRSS- E 7 SRSS- I 5 SRSS-IE 12 1. 72 (2. 74) 0. 95 (1. 81) 2. 67 (3. 87) 1. 79 (3. 03) 0. 67 (1. 71) 2. 46 (4. 12) r r r -0. 60 -0. 37 -0. 60 -0. 54 -0. 27 -0. 51 -0. 54 -0. 37 -0. 56 -0. 53 -0. 32 -0. 52 -0. 66 -0. 40 -0. 66 -0. 63 -0. 36 -0. 61 -0. 63 -0. 42 -0. 64 Time Fall M (SD) Spring M (SD) Reading Skills Fall Spring Math Skills Fall Spring Motivation to Learn Fall Spring Prosocial Behavior Fall 3. 77 4. 01 3. 88 4. 06 3. 92 4. 20 3. 95
Table 4 Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSi. S-PSG Measure SRSS-IE SSi. S-PSG Subscale N Correlation P value SRSS-E 7 1646 0. 71 <. 0001 SRSS-I 5 1646 0. 56 <. 0001 SRSS- I 12 1646 0. 67 <. 0001 Reading Skills 1626 0. 67 <. 0001 Math Skills 1626 0. 64 <. 0001 Motivation to Learn 1626 0. 60 <. 0001 Prosocial Behavior 1626 0. 59 <. 0001
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), SSi. S-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 SSi. S-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-E 7, SRSS-I 5 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 •
Sample … Winter % of Students Screens SRSS-E 7 Results – All Students 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4. 20% 18. 49% N = 15 N = 66 N = 276 77. 31% School W 14 School W 15 School W 16 Screening Time Point Low Risk (0 -3) Moderate (4 -8) School W 17 High (9 -21) 49
Sample … Winter % of Students Screens SRSS-I 5 Results – All Students 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7. 56% 13. 45% N = 27 N = 48 N = 282 78. 99% School W 14 School W 15 School W 16 Screening Time Point Low Risk (0 -1) Moderate (2 -3) School W 17 High (4 -15) 50
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 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 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 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. Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Students who: Behavior: Fall SRSS at moderate (4 -8) or high (9 – 21) risk Academic: Fall AIMSweb LNF at the strategic or intensive level Data to Monitor Progress: AIMSweb reading PSF and NWF progress monitoring probes (weekly). Daily selfmonitoring checklists Exit Criteria 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 Study Skills Description Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress: 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) Conflict. Talk (Kimsey & Fuller, 2003) (Table 4. 7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012) Exit Criteria Academic: (for the quarter) (1) Grade Point Average (GPA) > 2. 7; OR (2) No Course Failures (D or F/E) AND Behavior: (1) SRSS screening low risk (0 – 3) OR (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.
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Multi-tiered System of Support 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 mod to high risk Academic: 2 or more missing assignments with in a grading period completion, or other behavior addressed in contract Completion of behavior contract 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 Behavior: SRSS - Work Successful 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. Selfmonitoring Students will monitor and record their academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on-task behavior each day.
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 Functional Assessment. Based Intervention Individualized interventions developed by the behavior specialist and PBS team School-wide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Students who: Data will be collected Behavior on both the (a) scored in the high risk category target (problem) on the Student Risk Screening behavior and (b) Scale (SRSS), or replacement scored in the clinical range on (desirable) one following Strengths and behavior identified Difficulties (SDQ) subscales: by the team on an Emotional Symptoms, Conduct on-going basis. Problems, Hyperactivity, or Weekly teacher report Prosocial Behavior, on academic status earned more than 5 office ODR data collected discipline referrals (ODR) for weekly 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 districtwide assessments Exit Criteria 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.
ou! y k n a Th MTSS: CI 3 T II Professional Learning 66
- Slides: 66