Universal Screening AWS
LEARN
Universal Screening
as an Integral Part of Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Pamela R. Bernards, Ed.D.
In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA – 97) did much to transition the interaction between general education classrooms and special education classrooms from separate systems into more of a single system (Wedl, 2005). In 2004, IDEA was not only reauthorized, but renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). As noted by Wedl (2005). The most significant impact of IDEIA was the elimination of reliance on the discrepancy model to identify children with disabilities based on an IQ test. This change facilitated the development of models which provided for identification and intervention before a student failed. One of the most well-known alternative models is Response to Intervention (RtI). ince that time, educators have had not only RtI as part of their professional vocabulary, but the term Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) has emerged. While these terms are often used interchangeably, the Center on Response to Intervention (Center on RtI) and the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII 2014) define these terms as follows: RtI – Response to intervention (RTI) integrates assessment and intervention within a multi‐level prevention system to maximize student achievement and reduce behavior problems. With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence‐based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities. Multi-tiered Systems of Support – Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) is a prevention frame-
32
MOMENTUM • SPRING 2017
work that organizes building-level resources to address each individual student’s academic and/or behavioral needs within intervention tiers that vary in intensity. MTSS allows for the early identification of learning and behavioral challenges and timely intervention for students who are at risk for poor learning outcomes. It also may be called a multi-level prevention system. The increasingly intense tiers (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3), sometimes referred to as levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, intensive prevention levels), represent a continuum of supports. Response to intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are examples of MTSS. RtI processes typically focus on students who are struggling, and include: universal screening, multiple tiers of intervention, data-driven decision-making, problem-solving teams, progress monitoring and a focus on standards-based curriculum. MTSS includes
these elements of RtI; however, it broadens the focus to providing systematic support for all students, including gifted and talented students and English Language Learners. It not only intentionally aligns the systems at the diocesan, school and classroom levels, but also aligns the systems of support, resources and initiatives. Once the systems are aligned, MTSS provides for continuous school improvement processes to facilitate the evaluation and improvement of the entire system. One of the components named as part of the RtI and MTSS models is universal screening. The Center on RtI website provides the following guidance when considering universal screening: Screening is conducted to identify or predict students who may be at risk for poor learning outcomes. Universal screening assessments are typically brief, conducted with all students at a grade level and followed by additional testing or short-term progress monitoring to corroborate students’ risk status. In screening, attention should focus on fidelity of implementation and selection of evidence-based tools, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths (n.d.). Given the stated importance of evidence-based tools, the Center for RtI (n.d.) developed a rating system of technical standards the Center’s Technical Review Committee uses to identify tools that meet standards for: • Classification Accuracy – The extent to which a screening tool is able to accurately classify students into “at risk for reading/math disability” and “not at risk for reading/math disability” categories SPRING 2017 • MOMENTUM
33
•
Generalizability – The extent to which results from one population can be applied to another population • Reliability – The consistency with which a tool classifies students from one administration to the next • Validity – The extent to which a tool accurately measures the underlying construct that it is intended to measure • Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations – The extent to which data are disaggregated when they are calculated and reported separately for specific subgroups Information regarding the various screening tools that meet the Center’s standards, as noted above, as well as the efficiency of use can be found on their website at http://www.rti4success.org/ resources/tools-charts/screening-toolschart. The Center on RtI also notes fidelity of implementation as an important consideration in universal screening. Leadership Teams, whether at the diocesan or school level, play an integral role in ensuring fidelity of implementation through the planning process. Deno, Lembke, & Anderson, (n.d.) assert that
34
MOMENTUM • SPRING 2017
“leadership teams undertake and support those activities that are necessary if classroom teachers are going to develop and effectively use student progress monitoring data to increase achievement.” They note the importance of teachers working together as a team to pursue mutual goals, set measureable goals, make data-based decisions and reduce inappropriate referrals and bias in assessment. Leadership Teams can also assist teachers by establishing systematic processes that are replicable. The researchers offer a sample timeline for implementing universal screening that includes: • July-August – Facilitate and support teachers’ progress monitoring activities • September – Assist teachers in scheduling and carrying out screening activities • October – Assist teachers as they set goals for individual students and establish classwide benchmarks • November – Assist teachers as they choose data utilization rules for individual students and establish benchmark decision rules • December - January – Assist teachers in completing winter screening, evaluating progress on classroom
benchmarks and making data-based decisions about students • March-April – Assist in developing a plan for and implementing spring screening and devise a plan for study group evaluation Another important element in ensuring fidelity of implementation is determining the approach to collecting the data during the screening process. The University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning (UOCTL) provides guidance regarding the who, how and what of data collection. When considering who can collect the data, the UOCTL (2008) notes that anyone who has been trained can administer the screener and operate from the assumption that grade-level teachers who receive student performance results are trained to administer and score the results. Others who can be considered include the principal, viceprincipal, speech-language pathologist, special education personnel, parents/ volunteers, educational assistants, school psychologist, Title 1 personnel, physical education/art/music specialist teachers and practicum students. When considering how to collect the data, the UOCTL offers four different approaches for universal screening,
which can be used as examples for developing an approach at the school level. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages that can be considered during the planning phase. Also noted was the utility of the different approaches in combination within the same school. The four approaches include: • In-Class Approach – The classroom teacher, classroom assistants and trained volunteers administer the tests in the classroom during time that is set aside for that purpose within the testing window. • One-Day Schoolwide Approach – A large team of teachers, support staff, trained volunteers and educational assistants administer the tests based on a schedule that is set for students (by classroom) to come to a central location where the team assesses all day and cycles through all grades.
The room has tables and places for students to wait their turn. • Multiple-Day Schoolwide Approach – A core team of teachers, support staff, trained volunteers and educational assistants administer the tests by either going to the classroom and testing the students while other students work quietly at their desks, or classes of students go to a central location such as the cafeteria. • Within-Grade Approach – Gradelevel teachers, educational assistants and trained volunteers administer the tests in one of the grade-level classrooms while the students waiting to be tested are in another classroom. Finally, the UOCTL ) suggest that data collected as part of the universal screening process are often collected in the fall, winter and spring. These dates
should be established as part of the planning process with the school calendar as a major consideration. In general, UOCTL notes it is a general rule of thumb to wait two weeks after returning from a major break such as winter and spring vacations before scheduling a screening. RtI and MTSS provide specific and broad systems of support for educators as they seek to meet the needs of each student. Within both structures, universal screening provides educators a means to collect critical information they can use to make data-driven instructional decisions to improve student performance. Pamela R. Bernards, Ed.D. [email protected]
Serve The Catholic Mission New Jersey’s first Catholic School Leadership degree offers: • Focus on Catholic school ministry • Personalized academic support and superior instruction • Customized curriculum for working professionals • On-campus program meets one weekend a month and one summer week • Executive Online Program starting January 2018
M.A./Ed.S. in Catholic School Education Leadership, Management & Policy The curriculum for this unique program draws upon both the secular field of educational leadership as well as the Catholic educational and spiritual tradition, with attention to contemporary issues in the life of the Catholic Church and schools.
• Superlative networking opportunities • Eligibility for both principal and supervisor’s certification • 50% tuition reduction for Catholic school educators
Visit www.shu.edu/momentum
SPRING 2017 • MOMENTUM
35
Universal Screening
as an Integral Part of Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Pamela R. Bernards, Ed.D.
In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA – 97) did much to transition the interaction between general education classrooms and special education classrooms from separate systems into more of a single system (Wedl, 2005). In 2004, IDEA was not only reauthorized, but renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). As noted by Wedl (2005). The most significant impact of IDEIA was the elimination of reliance on the discrepancy model to identify children with disabilities based on an IQ test. This change facilitated the development of models which provided for identification and intervention before a student failed. One of the most well-known alternative models is Response to Intervention (RtI). ince that time, educators have had not only RtI as part of their professional vocabulary, but the term Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) has emerged. While these terms are often used interchangeably, the Center on Response to Intervention (Center on RtI) and the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII 2014) define these terms as follows: RtI – Response to intervention (RTI) integrates assessment and intervention within a multi‐level prevention system to maximize student achievement and reduce behavior problems. With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence‐based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities. Multi-tiered Systems of Support – Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) is a prevention frame-
32
MOMENTUM • SPRING 2017
work that organizes building-level resources to address each individual student’s academic and/or behavioral needs within intervention tiers that vary in intensity. MTSS allows for the early identification of learning and behavioral challenges and timely intervention for students who are at risk for poor learning outcomes. It also may be called a multi-level prevention system. The increasingly intense tiers (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3), sometimes referred to as levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, intensive prevention levels), represent a continuum of supports. Response to intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are examples of MTSS. RtI processes typically focus on students who are struggling, and include: universal screening, multiple tiers of intervention, data-driven decision-making, problem-solving teams, progress monitoring and a focus on standards-based curriculum. MTSS includes
these elements of RtI; however, it broadens the focus to providing systematic support for all students, including gifted and talented students and English Language Learners. It not only intentionally aligns the systems at the diocesan, school and classroom levels, but also aligns the systems of support, resources and initiatives. Once the systems are aligned, MTSS provides for continuous school improvement processes to facilitate the evaluation and improvement of the entire system. One of the components named as part of the RtI and MTSS models is universal screening. The Center on RtI website provides the following guidance when considering universal screening: Screening is conducted to identify or predict students who may be at risk for poor learning outcomes. Universal screening assessments are typically brief, conducted with all students at a grade level and followed by additional testing or short-term progress monitoring to corroborate students’ risk status. In screening, attention should focus on fidelity of implementation and selection of evidence-based tools, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths (n.d.). Given the stated importance of evidence-based tools, the Center for RtI (n.d.) developed a rating system of technical standards the Center’s Technical Review Committee uses to identify tools that meet standards for: • Classification Accuracy – The extent to which a screening tool is able to accurately classify students into “at risk for reading/math disability” and “not at risk for reading/math disability” categories SPRING 2017 • MOMENTUM
33
•
Generalizability – The extent to which results from one population can be applied to another population • Reliability – The consistency with which a tool classifies students from one administration to the next • Validity – The extent to which a tool accurately measures the underlying construct that it is intended to measure • Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations – The extent to which data are disaggregated when they are calculated and reported separately for specific subgroups Information regarding the various screening tools that meet the Center’s standards, as noted above, as well as the efficiency of use can be found on their website at http://www.rti4success.org/ resources/tools-charts/screening-toolschart. The Center on RtI also notes fidelity of implementation as an important consideration in universal screening. Leadership Teams, whether at the diocesan or school level, play an integral role in ensuring fidelity of implementation through the planning process. Deno, Lembke, & Anderson, (n.d.) assert that
34
MOMENTUM • SPRING 2017
“leadership teams undertake and support those activities that are necessary if classroom teachers are going to develop and effectively use student progress monitoring data to increase achievement.” They note the importance of teachers working together as a team to pursue mutual goals, set measureable goals, make data-based decisions and reduce inappropriate referrals and bias in assessment. Leadership Teams can also assist teachers by establishing systematic processes that are replicable. The researchers offer a sample timeline for implementing universal screening that includes: • July-August – Facilitate and support teachers’ progress monitoring activities • September – Assist teachers in scheduling and carrying out screening activities • October – Assist teachers as they set goals for individual students and establish classwide benchmarks • November – Assist teachers as they choose data utilization rules for individual students and establish benchmark decision rules • December - January – Assist teachers in completing winter screening, evaluating progress on classroom
benchmarks and making data-based decisions about students • March-April – Assist in developing a plan for and implementing spring screening and devise a plan for study group evaluation Another important element in ensuring fidelity of implementation is determining the approach to collecting the data during the screening process. The University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning (UOCTL) provides guidance regarding the who, how and what of data collection. When considering who can collect the data, the UOCTL (2008) notes that anyone who has been trained can administer the screener and operate from the assumption that grade-level teachers who receive student performance results are trained to administer and score the results. Others who can be considered include the principal, viceprincipal, speech-language pathologist, special education personnel, parents/ volunteers, educational assistants, school psychologist, Title 1 personnel, physical education/art/music specialist teachers and practicum students. When considering how to collect the data, the UOCTL offers four different approaches for universal screening,
which can be used as examples for developing an approach at the school level. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages that can be considered during the planning phase. Also noted was the utility of the different approaches in combination within the same school. The four approaches include: • In-Class Approach – The classroom teacher, classroom assistants and trained volunteers administer the tests in the classroom during time that is set aside for that purpose within the testing window. • One-Day Schoolwide Approach – A large team of teachers, support staff, trained volunteers and educational assistants administer the tests based on a schedule that is set for students (by classroom) to come to a central location where the team assesses all day and cycles through all grades.
The room has tables and places for students to wait their turn. • Multiple-Day Schoolwide Approach – A core team of teachers, support staff, trained volunteers and educational assistants administer the tests by either going to the classroom and testing the students while other students work quietly at their desks, or classes of students go to a central location such as the cafeteria. • Within-Grade Approach – Gradelevel teachers, educational assistants and trained volunteers administer the tests in one of the grade-level classrooms while the students waiting to be tested are in another classroom. Finally, the UOCTL ) suggest that data collected as part of the universal screening process are often collected in the fall, winter and spring. These dates
should be established as part of the planning process with the school calendar as a major consideration. In general, UOCTL notes it is a general rule of thumb to wait two weeks after returning from a major break such as winter and spring vacations before scheduling a screening. RtI and MTSS provide specific and broad systems of support for educators as they seek to meet the needs of each student. Within both structures, universal screening provides educators a means to collect critical information they can use to make data-driven instructional decisions to improve student performance. Pamela R. Bernards, Ed.D. [email protected]
Serve The Catholic Mission New Jersey’s first Catholic School Leadership degree offers: • Focus on Catholic school ministry • Personalized academic support and superior instruction • Customized curriculum for working professionals • On-campus program meets one weekend a month and one summer week • Executive Online Program starting January 2018
M.A./Ed.S. in Catholic School Education Leadership, Management & Policy The curriculum for this unique program draws upon both the secular field of educational leadership as well as the Catholic educational and spiritual tradition, with attention to contemporary issues in the life of the Catholic Church and schools.
• Superlative networking opportunities • Eligibility for both principal and supervisor’s certification • 50% tuition reduction for Catholic school educators
Visit www.shu.edu/momentum
SPRING 2017 • MOMENTUM
35
