Orchestrating Success with
Universal Screeners
Fall 2012 -Spring 2013
How it all began…
Summer 2012: Chichester School District was contacted
by PaTTAN to participate in a study to test the sensitivity
of 2 universal behavior screeners at the secondary level.
Fall 2012: Chichester Middle & High School prepared
the data needed for the researchers, Wendy Oakes
(Arizona State University) and Kathleen Lane
(University of Kansas) on their visit, October 2, 2012.
Data was provided to this project from District database in reports that
listed by Student Name, Teacher Name, Class/Subject and Student ID.
School used the Student Names for calculations.
Researchers used the Student ID for calculations.
Process / Procedures:
 Every teacher of 8th period (high school) and 2nd period
(middle school) completed 2 separate screeners to identify
students at no risk, moderate risk and significant risk.
 Both screeners were done on paper Fall 2012 by teachers in
an extended after-school staff meeting, coordinated by
Wendy Oakes and Kathleen Lane and supported by
PaTTAN: Tina Lawson, Donna Salkin and Diane Funsten.
 SSIS: Social Skills Improvement System (Pearson)
 SSRS: Social Skills Rating System
The SSIS Performance Screening Guide focuses on
observable behaviors in four skill areas:
 Prosocial Behaviors
 Motivation to Learn
 Reading Skills
 Math Skills
Educators identify the level of performance for the student using
criterion-referenced performance continua for each of these areas
to measure the student’s skills against grade-level expectations.
The Social Skills Rating System allows you to obtain a more
complete picture of social behaviors from teachers.
 Teachers evaluate a broad range of socially validated
behaviors-behaviors that affect teacher-student
relationships, peer acceptance, academic performance, and
more.
Then the real work began…
 A support team was then assembled to determine how
best to help match students who scored significant
and moderate risk on one or more screeners with
appropriate interventions.
 This support team was different than SAP. It became
the group that maintained all referrals to SAP as well
as interventions that were Tier 2.
Chichester
High School
Student
Management
Team
Dan
Chominski,
guidance
counselor
Meghan
Castagna,
guidance
counselor
Joan Irwin,
Social Worker
and SAP
coordinator
Allison Ricco,
school
psychologist
Joelle Bobel,
guidance
counselor
Nancy
Nicole Athey,
Alexander,
Administrator Internal Tier
2/3 coach and
guidance
counselor
Chichester
Middle School
Student
Management
Team
Melanie
Scapello,
librarian
(data diva)
Lynn
Watts,
guidance
counselor
Joan Irwin,
social
worker
Aneida
Merriweather,
guidance
counselor
Steve
Magliano,
Asst
Principal
Nick Cresta,
guidance
counselor
Caroline
Brewer,
guidance
counselor
Don Morgan,
dean
Ken
Salamone,
principal
Heather
Hahn, school
psychologist
The “Rules”
 Decision rules for analyzing and matching students to
appropriate interventions were designed by the team
and tested (and revised) through the use of student
data. Decision rules are used at every meeting.
 At times, interventions were created to match the
need. (Example: one student at risk for social skills
was given leadership training and responsibilities
within the Autistic support class.)
Making it work
 Initially, based upon SWIS data, the target group in
the fall was the freshman class for high school. The
target groups for the winter in both schools were all
students who were found significant for risk based
upon the screeners and teacher input.
 Additional data was collected for students who were
not previously identified as at risk to be sure that 2nd
/8th period was not just a difficult class at the time.
Custom Report of 4+ referrals per student was generated and
downloaded into Excel for filtering when comparing with universal
screener data to initially assign students to intervention groups.
Attendance reports and student class attendance and grades in the Quick Look up was
analyzed when comparing with universal screener data to initially assign students to
intervention groups and determine the efficacy of the interventions in place.
Data Based Decision Making Agenda
 What students need to continue in the current
intervention?
 What students need to be added into an intervention?
For what purpose / outcome?
 What students need to be exited to the “watch” list?
 From the “watch list,” what students need to be added,
continued or exited?
Select Sample Fall-Winter Supports









Check and Connect
Tardy call group (using auto-call in the morning)
Mentoring
Small instructional groups: anger management, organization,
coping skills, life skills
Counselor collaboration with special education case manager
Daily check-in
Referral to SAP
Relaxation group conducted by PE teacher
Individualized supports
 Examples:


Working with county level judges in student contracting
Setting up leadership experiences for certain students, etc.
Winter 2013 Procedural Changes
 By winter 2013, all participating schools requested that more
immediate data be received than the pencil-paper
administration could allow in order to evaluate progress and
identify students in further need of help.
 January 2013, both screeners were put onto an Excel sheet. Each
classroom teacher assigned scores based upon the screeners’
descriptions and input data into an Excel workbook on the
server.
 As a result, a classroom profile was generated instantaneously
with identification of students scoring no risk, moderate and
significant risk. This information was later assimilated by grade
level for further data analysis by the student management team.
File can be found: http://becky-millspaugh.wikispaces.com/Universal+Screener+Project
Example Class Profile (Teacher)
SRSS – Yellow: moderate risk
Red: significant risk
SSIS
Yellow: 2 or 3 rubric (moderate)
Red: 1 rubric (at risk)
Green: 4 or 5 rubric (not at risk)
File can be found: http://becky-millspaugh.wikispaces.com/Universal+Screener+Project
Example School/Grade
Level Planning Profile
2 Universal Screener
Scores
Sample
Interventions
assigned
% of student
population
Lessons Learned
 It’s important to analyze and use information as soon as
possible to garner staff support in an endeavor like this at
the secondary level.
 Support teams have to define their role in PBS. They need
to share these role definitions, results of data analysis and
the identification of needs for intervention supports with
the entire staff.
 The staff on the tiered support teams (student
management team) cannot be the only staff helping to run
and coordinate interventions.