RTI and the Behavior – Response to What Intervention?

By Doug Cheney, University of Washington, Seattle

Last week I left you with three main questions, and I want to follow-up on the first two in this week’s blog. Let me say I have not been overwhelmed with responses this past week and feel somewhat like that Maytag repairman who is waiting for a service call. So come on CEC members and friends, let’s hear some chatter about RTI and Behavior.

First, I asked, “What are some of the essential features of a (or your) Tier One school-wide program that addresses social behavior of students?” This may be old hat by now since the PBIS national network has really emphasized these features in trainings across the past ten years. But let’s review: Schools should have a set of social expectations, three to five broad social values such as respect or responsibility, to guide the behavior of staff and students. These expectations should be taught throughout the school in all contexts and the behaviors taught should exemplify the expectations. When students demonstrate the desired social expectations, they should receive acknowledgement and reinforcement from staff and peers. In addition, discipline policies should be clearly written for minor and major discipline problems. In general, minor discipline matters, such as noncompliance or arguing, should be handled in classrooms; major discipline problems, such as fighting or other aggressive verbal or physical behavior, should receive an administrative referral. Finally, school-wide PBIS relies on collection of important data and analyses to assess effectiveness of programs within school settings. A common unit of analysis is the use of office discipline referrals for major offenses and, in some schools, analyses of minor offenses.

What is the relevance of this to RTI and behavior? This school-wide approach is considered the Tier One work, and staff should carefully and diligently assess which students are not meeting the school-wide social expectations and consider them as non-responders to Tier One, and possible candidates for a Tier Two Intervention. This leads us to the second question that I posed on October 3.

What are some of the assessment approaches that are currently used to identify students for Tier Two behavioral intervention? You’ve already heard of one prominent approach in the PBIS literature, the use of office discipline referrals (ODR). Criteria have been established and tested, and when students have received two to five ODR, they should be on the radar screen of the school’s behavior support (BST) or student support team (SST). Your school may use different terms, but typically the BST or SST is the gatekeeper for providing school services to students. If, for example, the BST members were told that Jered had three office referrals for fighting on the playground, they should attempt to provide a standardized intervention that can be implemented within the next week for Jered. This would be considered a Tier Two intervention, one that is given to any fighter in school, with some consideration of behavioral function but not an intensive individualized behavior intervention plan.

How else might we have found out about Jered’s aggressive tendencies? Many schools are using behavioral screeners to identify students at-risk of school failure. The screeners are analogous to those for sensory or learning problems. Just like a school gives vision and hearing screening to students on a yearly or every other year basis, schools can have teachers complete behavioral screeners to identify students at risk. Popular screeners used nationally include the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992), the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Teacher Rating Scale-Preschool (DiStefano & Kamphaus, 2007), and the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS;
Drummond, 1994).

In short, teachers complete the rating scales and if the student passes a threshold or criteria/cut line, the student is brought to the BST or SST’s attention. If we use Jered as an example, his teacher would have completed a behavioral screener after the first three to four weeks of school, and if Jered was rated above the criteria or cut line for problem behaviors, he is put on the BST/SST agenda. Then, in collaboration with the classroom teacher the team may choose to implement a Tier Two intervention, as the student may be considered as below standard on behavioral ratings, perhaps non-responsive to school expectations and at risk for school failure.

But what Tier Two interventions might we use with Jered? That’s the leftover question from October 3, so let me hear what you think of the assessment ideas above and the types of Tier Two interventions that could be used with a student like Jered. And remember, I’m here and I’m still waiting!

References

DiStefano, D. & Kamphaus, R. W. (2007). Development and Validation of a Behavioral Screener for Preschool-Age Children, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 93-102.

Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders: Technical manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Comments

[Gita in Tucson]

Hi Doug --
Having seen how a 2nd-tier intervention based on such screening measures actually works (through Check, Connect and Expect), I also know that it's extremely practical in terms of use. One concern that a few school personnel here have been trying to address as they look into targeted interventions for adoption is the issue of having support at the district (across schools) level, such as the Behavior Specialist provided in CC&E. While schools which might adopt a CICO system might not need to adhere to as rigid set of criteria as an experimental intervention, there are certainly concerns about how to manage the data (an online system that could be accessed by coaches and behavior specialists with ease would, of course, be ideal) that such a targeted system would generate and how to provide professional support and guidance for coaches, and ensure adherence to protocols.

The operationalization of such a system, of course, is the devil that lives in the details. . . I don't think anyone can argue with the results if they've witnessed them first-hand!

[Gwen]

Our Shared Decision Making Committee (SDMC) determined that we need an Executive Committee on Behavior. After reading some of CEC's excerpts on RTI(Response to Intervention), for me, it provides a new framework for handling an old problem: How do schools address student discipline? I would like to share this information with our school's Shared Decision Making Committee (SDMC). In addition, I like RTI because it provides a way to place the responsibility of student discipline on the student.

[Barb]

I work at a high school in California. Teachers are expected to handle problems within their classroom themselves. First they are warned, then theyare put in time-out either within their classroom or can be swapped with another teacher who has a problem student in their own classroom. Another time canbe a telephone call home. I like to have the parent talk directly to their child. After school detention is another way to stop the behavior. Usually, you try to give the parent 24 hour notice, students can be sent to someone who is called the Dean of Discipline. They are usually a Vice Principal who deals with Behavior problems. The Dean has the right to suspend. have an immediate parent conference, etc. He can also have classes changed. The Dean is who you send the child when the problem involves safety issues, or other serious problems.

I try to develope close relationships with parents of my students. This puts them on my side and I don't abuse this relationship with trivial concerns. at the same time the student knows the classroom rules and what will happen disobeying them. This causes a close relationship to develope with me and the family.

You can see that students'
behavior is supposed tobe handled by the teacher and she is thought to be a bad teacher if she can't.

[ImproveEducation4All]

It is great to see an avenue here for educators to interact and exchange ideas, strategies, and approaches. I agree with Gita that to truly improve schools we need to make it a system-wide approach. Having worked in leadership in several states in recent years, one issue I have experienced in education is the struggle with requiring the implementation of programs across the system. Like so many other initiatives determining the funding and maintaining it consistently over a period of years is very difficult.

Schools need a system-wide data management process. However, as a district administrator the past three years, I have found a huge issue with the lack of consistency WITHIN schools recording discipline problems. Even when the descriptive words are provided, administrators leave out information and details or choose to use a different 'label' for the offense. Comparing incidents I found that a student who had tossed a backpack off to the side had the same type discipline report as one who punched another student severely enough to draw blood. Likewise a student who refused to leave a classroom after arguing with the teacher was treated aggressively by the administration and SRO, put in handcuffs and arrested (I witnessed this. The boy was quiet and sitting at his desk. He just wouldn't leave the room.)

So we need thorough training in completing discipline reports and determining the seriousness of each behavior, along with intense professional development on responding to behavior issues. Fortunately we have many educators at all levels who understand how to interact with students to reduce the chance of escalation. Sadly we have enough folks in our schools nationwide that fan the fire instead, and thus need strategies in positive behavior intervention. The system wide discipline program would provide information regarding may need this extra training as most schools have a few teachers who refer the majority of students. So when creating these systems the ability to desegregate all types of information is key to really evaluating what is happening within individual schools.

My final statement here may be easier to implement. Research is clear that students who are most at-risk of both delinquency and dropping out have certain indicators including repetitive discipline referrals, truancy, poor academic performance, and low parental support (among others). As we begin to use RTi as a behavioral intervention in addition to an academic intervention, I suggest we seriously consider a combination of two instead. All behavior is communicating something. Having taught EBD and SED students for many years it would serve us well to use intense academic interventions along with the PBIS and Individual Behavior Plans. These students are most often acting out due to frustration of not fitting in academically. They are covering up the fact that they are unable to do the work. I am currently working with juveniles who have been sentenced to up to five years in a facility and it is really amazing how many of them want to learn. They want to be in school.

While I do not believe schools have total responsibility for students who are not being successful, I do believe we are the ones who can make the difference in the lives of these children. We are their hope, their future.

[Kesha in Texas]

Hi Doug,

An example of a Tier Two intervention could be social skills instruction in the classroom. It should focus on the prerequisite skills needed for more appropriate interactions and responses. Much like the services we provide academically, we need to begin to provide social instruction for our students. It would include a set number of meetings per week and/or a prescribed number of minutes.