Universal Screening

By Daryl F. Mellard
Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas

A question was posted about how one might get started with RTI at the secondary level. The possible entry points for getting started are numerous. For example, leadership is central. The leadership in the district and school will be critical. That leadership includes multiple stakeholders because most “everyone” is going to have a change in role and responsibilities as RTI gets developed, implemented, and maintained.

In this short posting, I want to emphasize the importance the screening component will have on RTI. Screening is an efficient, low-cost, repeatable test of age-appropriate essential skills given to all students in a school in order to identify students who are at risk for academic or behavior problems. To date, no research studies regarding academic screening at the secondary level have been completed; however, case studies suggest that staff use summative test scores, such as scores on state assessments, as a starting point for discussions.

The high school level is distinguished from the elementary setting in that we are not interested in predicting who is “at-risk” for failing to acquire reading or mathematics skills. At the elementary level, prediction is the important standard because we want to intervene and prevent failure. At the high school level, staff likely have an extensive record of students’ performance and know their achievement. At the high school level screening seems to shift to a question of who is likely to drop out of school or who is likely to need the school’s most intense level of interventions (e.g., tertiary-level interventions).

To answer the latter question, school staff might integrate the student data on drop outs or other low-performing students from the last three years and see what profile emerges. For example, failure in one or more academic classes might be a good predictor for judging students as “at-risk.”

In elementary schools, the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) recommends that school-wide screening occur three times per school year for all students (Johnson et al., 2006). A “cut score” represents the decision point where potentially at-risk students are distinguished from those not at risk. For those students who fall below the cut point and are judged as “at-risk,” placement decisions vary by RTI model, although most models agree these students should have their progress monitored for a fixed time period. This progress-monitoring period is to determine whether general instruction is meeting their needs. If progress monitoring indicates that these at-risk students are not responding, some RTI models recommend a more intensive intervention to target academic or behavioral issues.

Shinn and Phillips (2008) suggested that the secondary level includes the use of screening to identify basic skill deficits. In their model, students in grades 5, 6, and 9 are administered reading screening at the beginning of the school year. They recommend a curriculum-based measure (CBM) maze with a follow-up for 5 percent of suspicious scores to account for random response rate.

Information on progress monitoring is just a little better and I’ll describe those findings in my next post. Thank you for your comments to the blog.

Comments

[Charles Johns]

Good post.

As a secondary principal, I suggest looking for the assessments that are used in the junior highs or middle schools and see how they can fit as a universal screener. From this data, a school can dial in on the students' needs by more specific measures such as the Maze. In Illinois, which uses the ACT as its AYP Assessment for high schools, the Explore (also an ACT product) is a natural fit for a universal screener. The results from the Explore can inform students and school staff of student skill weaknesses and can provide information toward a projected ACT score. We've been using it for years and it has been quite useful. I do caution about using it alone. It is important to have additional data points to focus in on the specifics of the skill deficit.

Charles

[Gene G.]

These are very pertinent posts and valuable information for schools that are initiating RTI. I am a school psychologist who was fortunate to be trained in RTI as it was emerging into a national trend. As such, I feel that I have been well versed in helping to design and implement the process, but it seems, only in the elementary level.
I have been working at a K-12 charter school and have initiated the change to RTI over two years ago, and am finding many problematic design and implementation issues at the high school level. I have been looking for supportive research articles, but have not found any. I'm saddened to read, from a few sources, that there still is no adequate research for the secondary level, but am a little relieved to know that I am not alone in this dilemma.
The secondary issue I am faced with is trying to implement the process as a stand-alone school. We do not have district resources or support, nor do we have common schools to help us in this process. I am glad to hear that a school is using the ACT data in conjunction with other data to move forward. That may be helpful to our school as we use their products, including the Explorer.
Primarily, our school uses the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress assessments as our school-wide screener. It is very useful and provides much information for each student. Even the high school students can be examined for skill deficits and interventions looked into.
The areas that we are having issues most, at the secondary level, involve the students whose skills are at the appropriate level, but their classroom grades are failing. Our school is utilizing the Positive Behavior Support system also, but the difficulty in linking the two to address these students with failing grades has not helped these individuals progress. We may need specific interventions in reaching these students with a different strategy.
I look forward to reading more on other school’s experiences and any new research in this area.
Gene G.

[Daryl Mellard]

Screening at a secondary level is going to be problematic for several reasons.
Most of the measures mentioned like the MAP and ACT battery provide indications of current status as opposed to predicting an outcome. Explore might do well predicting ACT scores so that's a place to begin.
We likely want to predict HS dropout or completion.
Also, regarding the quality of the prediction, we have to be in a position to respond to students' needs with more intense interventions. So again, the screening test provides results that should point us in a direction for next steps.