Disproportionality Prevention
Daniel J. Reschly
Vanderbilt University
dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu
615-708-7910
Reschly Disproportionality
1
National Academy of Science Panel Report
• Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds) (2002). Minority
students in special and gifted education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
• “There is substantial evidence with regard to both
behavior and achievement that early identification
and intervention is more effective than later
identification and intervention.” (Donovan & Cross,
2002, p. 6).
Reschly Disproportionality
2
Discipline and Special Education Referrals
• What leads to discipline referrals and
suspension/expulsion
• What leads to special education referral, disability
identification, and special education placement?
• Discussion
Reschly Disproportionality
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discussion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reasons for referrals
Reschly Disproportionality
4
Analysis of Reading Results
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP)
– Nation’s Report Card Reading (2011)
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2
011/2012457.pdf
– Biennial examination of US achievement in
selected areas (reading, mathematics, science,
history, etc.)
– Generally administered at 4th and 8th grades
– Samples of students from each state
– Rigorous standards-more rigorous than state
standards for proficiency
Reschly Disproportionality
5
NAEP 2009 Descriptions of Achievement
Categories
• Categories
– < Basic: Less than partial mastery of prerequisite
knowledge and skills fundamental to proficient work at the
grade level
– Basic: Partial mastery of ……..
– Proficient: Solid academic performance. Demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter
– Advanced: Superior performance
National Center for Educational Statistics (2009). (NCES 2010458). Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of
Education, Washington DC.
Reschly Disproportionality
6
USA NAEP 2011 4TH Grade Reading by Group
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
15
30
17
32
2
16
32
2
14
33
50
21
32
2
9
1
6
21
23
34
36
30
51
10
2
16
51
68
48
70
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
< Basic
23
Notes: SES=Socioeconomic Status; SWD=Students with Disabilities;
Reschly Disproportionality
ELL=English Language Learner
7
IA groups differ significantly in reading outcomes
IA groups generally are below USA averages
70
NAEP 4TH Grade Reading for Iowa Groups
62
60
51
52
50
50
40
30
32
30
32
2728
33
35
32
33
32
27
20
17
13
16
14
10
10
2
1
2
< Basic
Basic
Proficient
24
23
21
34
32
Advanced
13
10
10
2
0
USA
Asian
IA
Asian
USA IA Black USA IA Hisp USA
IA
Black
Hisp
White White
Reschly Disproportionality
8
20
Change in NAEP 4th Grade Reading
Standard Score: 1992-2011 by State
15
10
US Median Change=5
IA Change= -4
5
0
ME IA AK NM
WI
-5
SD IN MO MN ID NE AZ IL OR
WV ND UT WY NH KS MI
VT
MT TN
CT OK AR CO NV NY NJ WA CA GA MS HI MA DE KY AL DC
RI SC LA PA OH
NC
TX
USA
VA
Reschly Disproportionality
FL
MD
9
20
NAEP Standard Score Changes by State 1992-2011
4TH Grade Reading
15
10
US Median Gain=5
IA Change= -4
0
-5
ME
AK
IA
NM
WI
SD
WV
IN
MO
ND
UT
VT
MN
WY
ID
NE
NH
AZ
IL
KS
MI
MT
TN
OR
USA
CT
OK
RI
SC
TX
VA
AR
CO
LA
PA
NV
NY
OH
NJ
WA
CA
GA
NC
MS
HI
MA
DE
KY
AL
DC
FL
MD
5
Reschly Disproportionality
10
USA and IA 2011 NAEP 4TH Grade Reading Results
6
7
Advanced
27
25
Proficient
Basic
35
34
< Basic
31
34
0
10
IA Total
USA-Total
20
Reschly Disproportionality
30
40
11
240
NAEP 4th Grade Reading Standard Scores 1992-2011
237
236
234
235
234
231
230
225
228
226
225
225
223
223
223
221
220
220
215
223
217
215
212
216
220
221
220
221
220
217
USA
IA
MA
213
210
IA one point above USA average
205
200
Year
1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Reschly Disproportionality
12
Explanation: Why did MA improve and IA decline?
Why do IA minorities perform lower than USA Averages?
Discussion?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reschly Disproportionality
13
NAEP 4th Grade Reading Standard Scores 1992-2011
240
MD from 211 to 231
FL from 208 to 225
AL from 207-220
235
IA
230
225
225
210
205
200
223
220
220
215
223
USA
215
211
208
207
212
210
208
205
213
212
211
206
217
214
223
219
218
216
221
220
219
217
MD
231
FL
225
224
226
225
USA
220
221
220
221
220
AL
216
216
IA
FL
MD
207
207
208
AL
1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Reschly Disproportionality
14
What did Alabama do that Iowa did not do?
Can IA do as well as AL in reading?
Ideas?
Reschly Disproportionality
15
NAEP 4th Grade Reading % Proficient and Advanced 1992-2011
55
50
45
Year
1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
51
49
47
47
44
40
35
40
36
30
25
20
27
36
35
28
28
23
24
20
IA Rank 2
15
35
33
6
35
30
35
30
36
33
30
20
22
21
22
20
22
21
8
17
19
18
Reschly Disproportionality
32
29
24
10th
34
32
28
24
23
33
32
31
USA
AL
IA
MA
NV
26
27
16
Iowa Population Characteristics
Demographics? Is that a credible explanation?
1. Does Iowa have a higher proportion of
students who have lower NAEP scores?
2. Other IA population characteristics?
Reschly Disproportionality
17
2009 Overall Poverty Rates and Proportions of
Students Age 5-17 in Poverty Circumstances
Digest of Educational Statistics (2011, Table 26, p. 48)
30
27
IA poverty rate below US average
25
20
15
19
19
17
14
16
1112
15
12
10
11
10
% Poverty
% Poverty 5-17
5
0
USA
AL
IA
MA
FL
Reschly Disproportionality
MD
18
2008 Composition of Student Populations by Race/Ethnicity
Digest of Educational Statistics 2011 (Table 43)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
84
70
59
55
55
55
37
35
22
17
1
5
USA
11 4
AL
12
67
IA
0
14
58
26
17
02
MA
FL
0
AI/Ak
As/PI
Black
Hispanic
White
4 4
MD
Iowa is less diverse than the US and selected states
Reschly Disproportionality
19
USA AND IA 4TH Grade Reading Results
for Asian/Pacific Islander Students
35
30
30
27
32 32
USA A/PI Students
Outperform IA A/PI
Students
28
25
21
20
17
15
13
USA Asian
IA Asian
10
5
0
< Basic
Basic
Proficient
Reschly Disproportionality
Advanced
20
70
USA AND IA 4TH Grade Reading Results
62
for Black Students
60
50
USA Black Students Outperform
Iowa Black Students
51
40
33
USA Black
IA Black
27
30
20
14
10
10
2 1
0
< Basic
Basic
Proficient Advanced
Reschly Disproportionality
21
60
50
USA AND IA NAEP 4TH Grade Reading Results
52
for Hispanic Students
50
USA and IA Hispanic Students
Perform at Similar Levels
40
32 33
30
20
16
USA Hisp
IA Hisp
13
10
2 2
0
< Basic
Basic
Proficient Advanced
NAEP Reading Proficiency Level
Reschly Disproportionality
22
USA AND IA NAEP 4TH Grade Reading
Results for White Students
40
35 34
35
32 32
USA and IA White Students
Perform at Similar Levels
30
25
23 24
USA White
IA White
20
15
10 10
10
5
0
< Basic
Basic
Profic
Reschly Disproportionality
Advan
23
USA AND IA NAEP 4TH Grade Reading
Results for Students with Disabilities
90
78
80
70
68
60
50
USA-SWD
IA-SWD
40
30
21
20
15
10
9 6
0
< Basic
Basic
2 1
Proficient Advanced
Reschly Disproportionality
24
From IA DOE
Report
Reschly Disproportionality
25
USA AND IA NAEP 4TH Grade Reading
Results for English Language Learner Students
80
70
70
65
60
50
USA-ELL
IA-ELL
40
30
23
28
20
6 7
10
0
< Basic
Basic
Proficient
Reschly Disproportionality
1 0
Advanced
26
Explanations: Can Something Be
Done?
Reschly Disproportionality
27
What did MD, FL, AL and other states
with large NAEP gains do?
Reschly Disproportionality
28
Importance of Prevention
• “ There is substantial evidence with regard to both
behavior and achievement that early identification
and intervention is more effective than later
identification and intervention.” Nat’l Academy Report
on Disproportionality p. 5
• “If antisocial behavior is not changed by the end of
grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic condition
much like diabetes. That is, it cannot be cured, but
managed with the appropriate supports and
continuing intervention.” (Walker et al., 1995, p. 6)
Reschly Disproportionality
29
Snow re reading (slightly paraphrased)

Reading intervention with a 2nd grader is like
changing the direction on a speedboat, with a 5th
grader it is like changing the direction of an oil
tanker. (Ed Week May 13, 2009, p.11
Reschly Disproportionality
30
Importance of Scientifically Based
Reading Instruction
 Reading is a gateway competence.
 Referrals to special education are dominated by
students with reading problems.
 Reading competence is related to several
important educational outcomes.
 Science of reading instruction
 Chall, 1967, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns,
and Griffin, 1998
 Florida Center for Reading Research (http://www.fcrr.org/)
 The University of Texas at Austin, Vaughn Gross Center for
Reading and Language Arts
(http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/)
 Science of reading instruction markedly
underutilized
31
Use of Course Syllabi
• Common practice across disciplines
• Syllabus is a contract
• Examine all courses in teacher education regarding
IC components, not just a single course
• Limitations of Syllabi
– Incomplete reflection of course content and activities
– Difficult to judge depth of experiences
– Some content on syllabus not taught and some content is
taught that is not on the syllabus
• Overall: Syllabi reflect major features of program
32
WWW.tqsource.org
Next Steps: Adopt scientifically-based
reading instruction

Reading Curricula content-Snow et al, 1998



Scientifically-based instruction




Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension PLUS
Direct, systematic, sequential instruction
Universal screening and formative evaluation
Problem of teacher preparation
VU-TQ Center Innovation configurations, reading,
classroom behavior, inclusive services, learning
strategies (Reschly, et al., 2007)
Reschly Disproportionality
33
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. &
Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998).
Preventing reading difficulties
in young children. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000).
Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Reschly Disproportionality
34
Chall, J. .S. (1967).
Learning to read: The great
debate. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
•Research review 1900-1965
•Early Reading, K-3
•Code vs Meaning Emphasis
•Phonics or Whole Word
•Code superior, especially for
struggling readers
Lamented the generally poor
Preparation of teachers
to teach reading
Reschly Disproportionality
35
Standards and Curriculum
• Establish standards that specify appropriate
reading content
• Adopt reading curricula aligned with standards
and reading content
• Develop assessments aligned with standards and
curriculum
• Establish progress monitoring formative
assessments
• Develop summative mechanisms with
consequences to teachers, schools, and individual
students
Reschly Disproportionality
36
IMPROVE TEACHER PREPARATION: PRE-SERVICE AND CPD
IHEs and
SBRI Five
Components
80
Source National Council on
Teacher Quality
http://www.nctq.org/
Sample
N=72
70
60
5 Components
• Phonemic
awareness
• Phonics
• Fluency
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension
# of Components
Taught Well
50
43%
40
N=31
30
20
15%
11% 7%
N=11 N=8
10
N=5
11%
13%
N=8
N=9
2
1
0
5
4
Reschly
Reschly Disproportionality
3
0
37 37
Iowa Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) in
Walsh et al. 2006 Study
Three Iowa IHEs Included: Number of
reading components taught well
Institution
Walsh et al Score
Buena Vista University
4 for 5
University of Iowa
0 for 5
University of Northern Iowa
1 for 5

Other 0 for 5 IHEs, U of MN, Ill State, U of NC
Reschly Disproportionality
38
Centrality of Teachers and Teacher
Preparation

Teacher effects are significant, especially for at-risk
students and students with disabilities.





Tennessee Value Added Assessment System: Three years of
highly effective teachers overcome effects of low
socioeconomic status
Teacher qualifications (e.g., degree level) have trivial effects
Teacher practices have large effects.
Research-based teaching practices exist but are not taught in
most teacher preparation programs.
Improved teacher preparation and professional
development are prerequisites to improved
achievement.
Reschly Disproportionality
39
Preparation of Special Education Teachers in
Scientifically-Based Reading
Instruction in 27 IHEs (Reschly et al., 2007)
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
SI EI
PA
SBRR
NCLB
Principles
FL
Progress
Monitoring
V C
Phonics
Inadequate
Most
Integration
Reschly Disproportionality
Universal
Screening
40
Reading Course Syllabi: Projects
1.
Explain your philosophy of literacy.
2.
Develop a bulletin board to motivate children to read.
3.
Produce journal explaining your personal experience in
learning to read.
4.
Analyze the social justice implications of literacy
5.
Describe the hegemony of western white males on
modern literacy
Reschly Disproportionality
41
Instruction and Reading
• “Currently our children experience a wide range of disparate
experiences that jumble together and end up requiring our
youngest learners to figure them out on their own. Our children
are not failing to learn. Our schools are failing to teach them
effectively.” (Foundation for Child Development, 2008, America’s
Vanishing Potential: The Case for PreK-3rd Education.)
• See also Early warning! Why reading by the end of third
grade matters (2011). Baltimore, MD: Anne E. Casey
Foundation. Downloaded June 30, 2011,
http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COU
NT/123/2010KCSpecReport/AEC_report_color_highres.pdf
Reschly Disproportionality
42
Some things do not make sense
Reschly Disproportionality
Reschly Behavior
43
43
Improve Teacher Preparation in
Reading
• Align teacher preparation program approval standards
with scientifically based reading curricula (CO, MA, AL,
MD)
• Adopt rigorous reading content and instruction test for
teacher education graduates (MA, MN, WI)
• Continuing professional development in readingleverage Iowa Reading First expertise?? (MA, AL, FL)
• Require current teachers pass rigorous reading test as
incentive for advanced status or, perhaps, for
continuation of license in grades K-8
Reschly Disproportionality
44
Reading Innovation Configuration (Smartt & Reschly, 2007)
• Define what should be taught in teacher preparation to
ensure evidence based practices
• Innovation configuration: Two dimensional tables
– Vertical dimension: Critical reading content with
indicators
– Horizontal dimension: Level of implementation
• Innovation configurations in reading, mathematics,
classroom organization and behavior management,
direct instruction, learning strategies, inclusion practices,
response to intervention
Reschly Disproportionality
45
Smartt, S. M., & Reschly, D. J
(2007). Barriers to the preparation of highly qualified
teachers
in reading. Washington DC:
National Comprehensive
Center on Teacher Quality.
http://www.tqsource.org/
publications/June2007Brief.pdf
Reschly & Wood-Garnett
(2009) Teacher Prep and RTI
at Middle and High Schools
http://www.tqsource.org/
publications/September200
9Brief.pdf
Reschly Disproportionality
46
SBRI Innovation Configuration
Reading Innovation
SeeConfiguration
Handout (with examples)
Key Essential
Component
None
Code =
0
Mention
Only
Code = 1
Mention Plus
Readings/
Tests
Code = 2
Plus
Assignments
Code = 3
Plus
Supervised
Practice
Code = 4
Phonemic
Awareness
Examples
Speech sounds,
no letters
Precursor to
phonics
Segmenting,
blending,
manipulating
phonemes
(sounds) ex. /b/
/a/ /t/ =bat
Reschly Disproportionality
47
Reading
absent
examples
SBRIInnovation
InnovationConfiguration
Configuration,
cont.
In each area
See Handout
Key Essential
Component
None
Code =
0
Mention
Only
Code = 1
Mention Plus
Readings/
Tests
Code = 2
Plus
Assignments
Code = 3
Plus
Supervised
Practice
Code = 4
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Systematic
Instruction
Explicit
Instruction
Universal
Screening &
Progress
Monitoring
Reschly Disproportionality
48
Apply Reading IC to Course Syllabi
• Examine 2 course syllabi
• Apply the Principles of Scientifically-based
Reading Instruction
• Use Reading IC and Syllabi
Reschly Disproportionality
49
Differences and Implications
• Differences
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reschly Disproportionality
50
Rigorous Assessment of Students’
Reading Development
• Universal Screening beginning Fall Kindergarten
(examples follow)
• Curriculum-based measures, beginning in Fall of
Kindergarten through 8th grade
• Reference CBM results to goals using benchmarks
above national norms
• Examine results by classroom, school, and district;
• Identify students below benchmarks early, intervene
early when interventions are less expensive and more
effective
• Rigorous nationally standardized tests to compare
performance to national standards, with a reading
scale tied to NAEP Reading
Reschly Disproportionality
51
Purposes of Universal
Screening
• Assess success of instructional program
– Percent of students at or above benchmarks
– If necessary, examine curriculum, instruction,
or both
• Identify students below benchmarks
– Interventions within general education
classroom
– Assess progress and consider need for more
intensive interventions at Tier II
52
WWW.tqsource.org
Tier I: Assessment: Academics

Academics



Academics: Screen all students, begin in
kindergarten; 3 times per year with appropriate
early literacy and math measures
More intense instruction and monitoring within
classroom for students below trajectories toward
passing state benchmark tests and increase
assessment to 2 Xs per month
Consider use of paraprofessionals (Pat Vadasy at U
of WA) in screening and delivery of interventions
Reschly Disproportionality
53
Universal Screening Results
• Assess success of instructional program
– Percent of students at or above benchmarks
– If necessary, examine curriculum, instruction, or
both
• Identify students below benchmarks
– Interventions within general education classroom
– Assess progress and consider need for more
intensive interventions at Tier II
Reschly RTI
54
Common Benchmarks
Benchmark is lowest level to still have an 80%
probability of passing high stakes reading tests
Age/Grade
Measure Fluency
(FL)
Letter Naming Fl
Initial Sound Fl
Criterion
Spring KTG
Phoneme Seg
35 sounds pm
Winter 1st gr.
Spring 1st gr.
Spring 2nd gr.
Spring 3rd gr.
Nonsense WD
Oral Rdg Fluency
Oral Rdg Fluency
Oral Rdg Fluency
50 sounds pm
40 wds pm
90 wds pm
110 wds pm
Winter KTG
Reschly
25 sounds per
minute (pm)
55
Benchmarks Vary By State: Minneapolis Data
and State of MN High Stakes Test
Cumulative Percent:
Passing 3rd Grade
State Test
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
60 wpm
80% pass test
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Number of Words Read Correctly per Minute
Spring of First Grade
Reschly
56
Consequences of Not Meeting Tier I Goals
• Upside down
• Overload Tier II and Tier III
• Low probability of passing high stakes reading
tests
• Markedly reduced likelihood of high school
completion and post-secondary educational
and career participation
Reschly
57
Analysis of Results
•
•
•
•
Do we really need graphs?
Don’t our teachers know who is behind?
Why look at the entire class?
Do results in classrooms and with different
teachers really vary that much?
• Upside down tiers: more students need Tier II
than are successful in Tier I
Reschly
58
Classroom 1: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to
Winter KTG: Correct Sounds per Minute
65
55
Benchmark=25
45
35
35
Fall
27
23
25
17
15
15
17
15
11
Winter
21
18
17
16
19
11
9
5
56 6
6
7
7
17
9
12
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Reschly Disproportionality
59
Classroom 2: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to
Winter KTG: Correct Sounds per Minute
Instruction Matters
65
Benchmark=25
64
64
55
43
45
38
35
25
15
5
-5
21
28
27
26
25
25
24
32
27
21
18
22 24 24
Fall
26
Winter
19
6 6 6 7 7
5
5
4
4
13 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
11
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 27 20 21
Reschly Disproportionality
60
Classroom 1: Correct Phoneme Segmentation per Minute
Winter to Spring Kindergarten
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Benchmark=35
58
54
53
49
45
35
32
30
25
1
5
1
1
5
2
23
8 10
1
13
35
5
3
4
5
6
10
11
18
12 13
16
17
0
7
8
January
9
May
Reschly Disproportionality
10
11
12
13
14
15
61
Classroom 2: Correct Phoneme Segmentation
per Minute Winter to Spring Kindergarten
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
75
Benchmark
56 57
70
74 74
68
60
56
67
63
56
51
46 46
22
10 11
74
47 47
74 74
66
69
57 58 59
54
51
50
42
40
38 38
18
16
14
25 26
23
21
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
January
May
Reschly Disproportionality
Instruction Matters!!
62
Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency
Benchmarks: Early 2nd=42 WCM; Winter=71 WCM End of 2nd=90 to 95
Good results? Poor results? Level is unsatisfactory. Progress is good.
Consider results at early 2nd grade
120
100
80
??
F
W
60
40
20
0
1
3
5
7
Students needing greater Gen’l Ed
monitoring and Interventions
9
11
13
Reschly Disproportionality
15
17
19
63
Hypothetical Iowa Goals and Hypothetical Results 4th Grade Reading
Percent Proficient and Advanced
55
50
45
40
35
30
34 33 35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
IA Goal
Goal: Raise % Proficient and
Advanced by 2% Per Year
25
Reschly Disproportionality
64
Behavior: Prevention?
Discussion: What can be done to prevent behavior
infractions that lead to suspension/expulsion and
contribute to special education referrals?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Reschly Disproportionality
65
Multi-tiered Interventions Varying in
Intensity and Measurement Precision
Progression to
higher and lower
tiers determined
by children’s RTI
Tier III
More intense, longer term
interventions
Decision Making
Tier II: More Intense
Academic and
Behavioral Interventions
Small group and
individual interventions using PS
and standard protoco
Tier I: Core Program Academics and
Behavior in General Education
Effective core instruction
Screening
In basic academic skills
School-wide PBIS
COBM
Teacher Assistance PS
Reschly Behavior
66
Barriers to RTI Implementation?
• Teacher knowledge of interventions
• Intervention resources
• Knowledge of methods to measure progress
Reschly Disproportionality
67
Prevention of Behavior Problems
• “If antisocial behavior is not changed by the
end of grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic
condition much like diabetes. That is, it cannot
be cured, but managed with the appropriate
supports and continuing intervention.” (Walker
et al., 1995, p. 6)
Reschly Disproportionality
68
Tier I: Screening for Behavior Problems
• Early indications of later serious behavior problems
appear by age 3-5
• Early identification-treatment more effective than
later interventions, especially with aggression
• Behavior referrals often occur too late for maximum
effect of interventions
• Identification as ED and Sp Ed placement most often
occur at age 10, 11, or older when interventions are
less effective and more resistant
Tier 1 Screening Procedures
• Proactive rather than reactive
• Multiple respondents and settings
• Earlier is better
– i.e. preschool or kindergarten
• Include multiple measures after initial teacher
nominations/rankings
– Direct observations, record reviews, parent ratings,
other sources
Kauffman, 2005
Systematic Screening for
Behavior Disorders (SSBD)
• Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic
Screening of Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
• Multiple “gating” procedure
– Externalizing vs. internalizing
• Identifying at-risk students grades 1-6
• Every child is screened in general education
• Child must have been in classroom a minimum
of 30 days to be screened
Walker & Severson, 1992
Stage 1—Objectives
• To provide standards, definitions, and criteria
for teacher use
• To provide structure for teachers to use in
referring students
• To reduce the likelihood that a particular
student in need of services will not be referred
• To give each student an equal chance
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Stage 1—Teacher Screening
1. Identify groups of students whose
characteristic behavior patterns most closely
match the internalizing and externalizing
profiles
2. Rank order students in the two groups
according to the degree or extent to which
each one matches the behavioral profile in
question
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Stage 1—Teacher Screening
Step 1
• Select 10 students who most closely match
each of the behavior profiles
• Mutually exclusive—either/or not both
Step 2
• Rank order
**Three highest on each category pass Gate 1
Walker & Severson, 1992
Internalizing Items: Identify 10 students, then identify
the 3 highest (SSBD, Walker & Severson, 1996)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Having low or restricted activity levels
Not talking to other children
Being shy, timid, and/or unassertive
Avoiding or withdrawing from social situations
Preferring to play or spend time alone
Acting in a fearful manner
Not participating in games or activities
Being unresponsive to social initiations by others
Not standing up for one’s self
Externalizing Items: Identify 10 students, then identify
the 3 highest (SSBD, Walker & Severson, 1996)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Displaying aggression toward objects or persons
Arguing
Forcing the submission of others
Defying the teacher
Being out of seat
Not complying with teacher instructions or directives
Having tantrums
Being hyperactive
Disturbing others
Stealing
Not following teacher- or school-imposed rules
Pass Gate 1
SSBD Stage 2—Objectives
• To describe the specific content of the behavior
problems experienced by 3 highest ranked
externalizing and internalizing students
• To provide a basis for making normative comparisons
on the checklists to determine whether student should
be assessed at Stage 3
• To provide important information to determine
eligibility for special services and designing effective
interventions
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Stage 2—Teacher Rating
Teacher completes 2 checklists:
Critical Events Checklist for Externalizing and Internalizing
Behavior (CEI)
– 33 maladaptive behavioral indicators
– Place a check next to any behavior exhibited one or more times
Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive
Behavior (CFI)
– 23 items measuring teacher-related and peer-to-peer behavior
adjustment(s) using a continuous scale 1 – 5
– Estimates frequency in which each item occurs
**Children exceeding normative criteria on CEI or CFI pass Gate 2
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Pass Gate 2
SSBD Stage 3—Objectives
• Verify or confirm the teacher’s ranking/ratings
of student behavior in Stages 1 and 2
• Provide a direct measure of the 2 most
important behavioral adjustments children are
required to make (to teachers and peers)
• Make it possible to assess the student’s
normative level(s) in relation to classroom and
peer adjustment areas
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Stage 3—Direct Observations
• Classroom and playground settings
• Can use non-referred, average student as a peer
comparison
• 2 observation sessions per setting (15-20
minutes each)
• Observer is someone other than teacher (e.g.,
school psychologist, social worker)
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Stage 3—Direct Observations
• Academic Engaged Time (AET)
– The amount of time a student spends actively
engaged in attending to and working on relevant
academic material
• Peer Social Behavior Observation (PSB)
– Observations of social engagement, participation,
parallel play, and alone
** Children exceeding normative criteria on
AET and PSB pass Gate 3
Walker & Severson, 1992
SSBD Pass Gate 3
Behavioral Earthquakes

Critical Behavioral Events
 High impact-great intensity-low frequency
behaviors: Behavioral Earthquakes



Fire setting, cruelty, extreme aggressiveness,
suicide threats/attempts, physical confrontation,
use of weapons, etc.
Should provoke immediate referral
School Archival Records Search (SARS)-Sopris
Principles of Strong Classroom Organization and
Management
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engaging instruction
Structuring the environment
Monitoring behavior and academic engagement
Classroom rules and behavioral routines
Encourage and reinforce appropriate behavior
Behavior reduction strategies
• Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Improving student outcomes in
general and special education: Effective classroom management.
Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates, National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality.
http://www.tqsource.org/topics/effectiveClassroomManagement. pdf
Reschly Behavior
88
Tier I: Behavior: Classroom Organization and
Behavior Management
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/classroommgmt.as
p

Kellam, Baltimore Schools
 Students randomly assigned to 1st grade teachers,
then classroom was the unit of analysis
 Classrooms observed during first 9 wks., high rates
of disruptive behavior and aggression, large
differences across classrooms
 Classrooms randomly assigned to,


Experimental condition: Good Behavior Game (Barrish, et
al, 1969; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991) vs.
Control condition of in-service on general curriculum
Reschly Behavior
89
issues
Kellam Research: Classroom Organization and
Management

Good Behavior Game (Barrish, et al., 1969)





Group contingency
Two groups formed into teams
Define rules and positive behaviors
Teams compete for positive consequences
Team with highest rate of appropriate behaviors earn
“rewards”
 Lining up first, Help teacher pick-up classroom,
free time, etc.
Reschly Behavior
90
Kellam Research: Effects of Good Behavior
Game Were Statistically Significant
• Aggression and disruptive behavior continued in control
classrooms
• Marked reduction in experimental condition
• Experimental classrooms had higher academic
productivity and achievement
• Aggressive students in both conditions followed
through 6th grade and first grade classroom effects
persisted
• First grade experience sets academic and behavioral
trajectory
Reschly Behavior
91
Exp Agg
Baseline
Exp On task
Exp Work
Con Agg
Con On Task
Reschly Behavior
GB 10
GB 9
GB 8
GB 7
GB 6
GB 5
GB 4
GB 3
GB 2
Good Beh 1
Baseline 4
Baseline 3
Baseline 2
Con Work
Baseline 1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Good Behavior Game
92
Implications of Classroom
Organization and Behavior Management
• Classroom organization and behavior management are
crucial to student success
– “Teacher’s skills at classroom management were then
critical to children’s socialization, particularly in the face
of family poverty.” (Kellam, et al., 1998a, p. 182)
– “Teacher training typically does not provide effective
methods and experience in classroom behavior
management.” (Kellam, et al., 1998, p. 182).
• Bradshaw, C. P., Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S. G., & Ialongo, N. S.
(2009). Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive
interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 926-937.
Reschly Behavior
93
Classroom Organization
and Behavior Management
• Classrooms vary significantly in organization and
management
• Influences engaged time and academic productivity
• Influences incidence of behavior problems
• Discipline issues: major cause for teacher attrition
• Most new teachers to not believe they are adequately
prepared, especially for classrooms with culturally
diverse, economically disadvantaged students
• Teacher preparation vs teacher needs
Reschly Behavior
94
Classroom Organization and Behavior
Management Innovation Configuration
Reschly Disproportionality
95
Reschly Disproportionality
96
SBRI
Innovation
COBM
InnovationConfiguration,
Configuration cont.
See Handout
Key Essential
None
Mention
Mention Plus
Plus
Component
Code =
0
Only
Code = 1
Readings/
Tests
Code = 2
Assignment
s
Code = 3
Plus
Supervised
Practice
Code = 4
Structured
Environment
• Daily schedule is
posted and clearly
visible to
students.
• Environment is
arranged for ease
of flow of traffic
and distractions
minimized.
Reschly Disproportionality
97
SBRI
Innovation
COBM
InnovationConfiguration,
Configuration cont.
See Handout
Key Essential
Component
Active Supervision and Student Engagement
Teacher scans, moves in unpredictable
ways, and monitors student behavior.
Teacher uses more positive than negative
teacher-student interactions.
Teacher provides high rates of
opportunities for students to respond.
Teacher utilizes multiple observable ways
to engage students (e.g., response cards, peer tutoring).
Reschly Disproportionality
Reschly Disproportionality
98
98
SBRI
Innovation
COBM
InnovationConfiguration,
Configuration cont.
See Handout
Key Essential
Component
School-wide Behavioral Expectations
• A few, positively stated behavioral expectations are
posted, systematically taught, reinforced, and
monitored.
Classroom Rules
• A few, positively stated behavioral rules are linked to
school-wide expectations.
• Rules are posted, systematically taught,
reinforced, and monitored.
Reschly Disproportionality
Reschly Disproportionality
99
99
SBRI
Innovation
COBM
InnovationConfiguration,
Configuration cont.
See Handout
Key Essential
Component
Classroom Routines
• Classroom routines are systematically taught, reinforced, and
monitored within the context of the classroom (e.g., turning in
homework, requesting assistance).
Encouragement of Appropriate Behavior
• Procedures acknowledge appropriate behavior at the group
level (e.g., specific, contingent praise, tokens, activities, group
contingencies, Good Behavior Game).
• Procedures encourage appropriate behavior at the individual
student level (e.g., specific, contingent praise; behavior
contracts).
• Data are collected on the
frequency of appropriate behavior100
Reschly Disproportionality
Reschly Disproportionality
100
within the classroom environment.
SBRI
Innovation
COBM
InnovationConfiguration,
Configuration cont.
See Handout
Key Essential Component
Behavior Reduction Strategies
• Antecedent strategies are used to prevent inappropriate
behavior (e.g., precorrection, prompts, environmental
arrangements).
• Multiple procedures are used to respond to
inappropriate behavior.
• Procedures are used to teach replacement behaviors and
reteach appropriate behavior (e.g., overcorrection).
• There is differential reinforcement (e.g., reinforcing
other, competing behaviors).
• There is effective use of consequences (e.g., planned
ignoring, time-out from positive reinforcement,
Reschly Disproportionality
101
Reschly Disproportionality
101
reinforcing around target
student).
Characteristics of Current Teacher Preparation
Programs Re: Behavior
Discussion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reschly Disproportionality
102
Proportion of University Syllabi with
Evidence of Component vs. No Evidence
(Oliver & Reschly, 2010)
100
80
46
35
38
58
50
81
60
%
100
40
54
20
65
62
42
50
19
0
0
code =Reschly
1-4 RTI
code = 0
Reschly Disproportionality
103
103
Basic Problem Solving
(Teacher and School Teams)
•
Define the Problem
(Screening and Diagnostic Assessment)
What is the problem and why is it happening?
• Evaluate
• Develop a Plan
(Progress Monitoring
Assessment)
Did our plan work?
(Goal Setting and
Planning)
What are we going to
do?
• Implement Plan
(Treatment Integrity)
Carry out the
intervention
Reschly
Behavior
Heartland AEA 11
104
Royal Kiss? Grace van Cutsem Not Impressed
Enough Already: Time for me to sit down!!
Reschly
105
Sense of Humor
Three things that are real: God, human folly, and
laughter;
The first two are beyond our comprehension
So we must do what we can with the third. John
F. Kennedy
Best wishes to you for a great convention and year