Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS): Using Screening Data to Inform Instruction

A Look at the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond) A Focus on Grade Level Supports Coaching at the Grade Level: Using Screening Data to Inform Instruction Presented by: Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA-D University of Kansas Catherine Claes, MiBLSi Content Specialist -Delta Schoolcraft ISD

Agenda • 1. Screening for Behavior Challenges • 2. Administration • Preparation • Screening • Scoring • 3. Interpretation Lane & Oakes (2012)

Systematic Screening for Behavior Challenges Student Risk Screening Scale (SSRS, Drummond, 1994) Lane & Oakes (2012)

Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk ≈ Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈ Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk Secondary Prevention (Tier 2) PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Validated Curricula ≈ Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Social Academic Behavioral Lane & Oakes (2012)

Considerations Psychometrically Sound Socially Valid If social validity is lacking, even psychometrically strong tools are likely to remain unused by practitioners. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Part 1. Screening Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Before Screening … • Recommendation #1: Build Stakeholders’ Expertise • Recommendation #2: Develop the Structures to Sustain and Improve Practices • Recommendation #3: Conduct Screenings in a Responsible Fashion • Recommendation #4: Consider Legal Implications- know your state laws

Part 2. Administration Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Part 2. Administration Lane & Oakes (2012)

Who should organize the screening? Lane & Oakes (2012)

When should we administer? • Three times per year: • Fall, 4 – 6 weeks after the start of the school year • Winter, 2 – 3 weeks before winter break • Spring, 4 – 6 weeks before the end of the school year, often around the state testing window • Day of screening • Place the faculty meeting screener dates on the master calendar at the start of the year. • For the first screening, allow extra time for an explanation and directions, once teachers understand the process and become familiar with the spreadsheet, the time needed will be reduced. • In the second and subsequent years, the team may decide to add a procedure for returning teachers to complete the screener prior to the meeting – then arrive late or leave early. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school.New York, NY: Guilford Press. Develop an assessment schedule to illustrate all assessments (and their timing) administered as part of regular school practices. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Which teachers will screen which students? Lane & Oakes (2012)

How will you ensure security of the data? The team should determine, ahead of time, security procedures for the information. • Where will the electronic spreadsheets be stored for teachers to access during screening? • Where will teachers save the completed screeners once completed? • Who will have access to this information? Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Let’s get excited about the SRSS! A Closer look ….. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Question? What questions do you have about preparing the SRSS files? Lane & Oakes (2012)

How do we administer the SRSS? • All teachers meet in the computer lab or other room with computer access. • Each teacher opens their spreadsheet. • Check that all items are included (count items), the scale is included, and appropriate students are listed. • Rate each student in the class moving in a horizontal fashion. • Rate each student on each item using the scale 0, 1, 2, 3. Higher numbers indicate greater concern – refer to the anchors on the screener. • Repeat for each student on the list. • If a student has been enrolled in your class fewer than 30 days, do not rate that student – simply indicate that the student is newly enrolled (type in the space for item 1). Please remember: Teachers should independently screen students on this lists. Teachers should not discuss students with each other while screening. Lane & Oakes (2012)

How do we administer the SRSS? • Ensure all items are completed for each student enrolled at least 30 days prior to the screening date. • Look over the entries and check that only 0, 1, 2, or 3 are entered in each cell. • Each teacher should select a partner for scoring. Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Let’s practice! … completing the SRSS Lane & Oakes (2012)

Let’s practice! … completing the SRSS Lane & Oakes (2012)

Student Risk Screening ScaleMiddle SchoolFall 2004 - Fall 2011 n = 12 n = 20 n = 507 Percentage of Students N=534 N=502 N=454 N=470 N=477 N=476 N=524 N= 539 Fall Screeners Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Student Risk Screening Scale Spring 2012 N = 109 N = 153 N =228 N = 490 n = 32 n = 81 n = 97 n = 56 n = 77 n = 74 n = 73 Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Common, E. A., Zorigian, K., & Brunsting, N. (2012). Project Screen and Support: Initial evidence between the SRSS-IE and the SSiS-PSG at the elementary school level. Manuscript in preparation.

Question? What questions do you have about scoring the SRSS files? Lane & Oakes (2012)

Part 3. Interpretation Lane & Oakes (2012)

How do we connect students to supports? • Allocate time for teachers to compile other data collected as part of regular school practices (e.g., benchmark scores in reading, attendance, grade point averages). • Using the secondary and tertiary intervention grids, consider potentially relevant Tier 2 and Tier 3 Supports • Involve parents in the planning process. Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Preparing a Blue-Print of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Supports at Your School Lane & Oakes (2012)

A Systematic Approach to Designing a Secondary Intervention Plan • Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule • Step 2: Identify your secondary supports • Existing and new interventions • Step 3: Determine entry criteria • Nomination, academic failure, etc. • Step 4: Identify outcome measures • Pre and post tests, CBM, etc. • Step 5: Identify exit criteria • Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success, etc. • Step 6: Consider additional needs

Secondary Intervention Grid Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Secondary Interventions Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lane & Oakes (2012)

Kalberg, J. R., Lane, K. L., & Lambert, W. (2012). The utility of conflict resolution and social skills interventions with middle school students at risk for antisocial behavior: A methodological illustration. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 23-38. Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class Lane & Oakes (2012)

Small group Reading Instruction with Self-Monitoring Lane & Oakes (2012)

Question? What questions do you have about interpreting the screening scores? Lane & Oakes (2012)

Moving towards screening… Questions: Kathleen.Lane@ku.edu Wendy.Oakes@asu.edu Lane & Oakes (2012)

Will your district or building implement the SRSS? A: Yes B: Maybe C: No Data will assist MiBLSi on where to invest resources.

How much time do you anticipate your district or building will need to meet readiness to implement the SRSS? A: 0-3 Months B: 4-6 Months C: 7-9 Months D: 8-12 Months E: >12 Months Data will assist MiBLSi on where to invest resources.

Identify which primary resource you would access for SRSS support. A: Webinar B: In-Person Training C: Voice-over PowerPoint D: MiBLSi Website E: Text Resources (Books, Articles) Data will assist MiBLSi on where to invest resources.

This session was a valuable use of my time and worth spending the day outside of my ISD/ district/ school. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters know whether the day was valuable to participants and a good investment of the resources invested.

I am leaving with strategies and tools necessary to create an action plan for applying my learning from this session. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters gauge whether the session is likely to result in implementation / application of the information.

The training content included clearly defined goals for the session. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters know when the session goals need to be made clearer in the content or provided more clearly by the presenter(s).

The content and activities were well aligned with the goals and priorities of my district. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters to know if there was a good match between the session content and district goals/ priorities/ needs.

The trainers presented the content in such a way that promoted active engagement, opportunities for processing, and time for participants to work together. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenter(s) know whether the presenter(s) needs to use more strategies for active engagement and whether the content needs to facilitate this better.

The pacing and amount of material presented were appropriate for the time allocated. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters know how to adjust pacing and amount of content provided in the future.

The materials for the session facilitated my learning. 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi and presenters know whether the quality, number, and organization of materials and handouts was appropriate.

The training space was acceptable for learning (comfortable temperature, good working space, functional technology). 4: Strongly Agree 3: Agree 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree Data will help MiBLSi make future decisions about training/ conference space reservations, room design, available technology.

Please also take a moment to provide written feedback. Forms are provided on your tables. The most valuable part of this session was. . . This session could be improved if. . .

Coaching at Grade LevelClock Hours Code GRDDUJ ADVISORY: It is the responsibility of the participant to be sure to document his/her own attendance. It is a criminal offense to use or attempt to use State Continuing Education Clock Hours (SCECHs) that is fraudulently obtained. .

Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS): Using Screening Data to Inform Instruction