Exploring Directions for Professional Learning to Enhance Behavior Screening Within a Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention

Abstract

Integration of multitiered academic, behavioral, and social-emotional efforts, such as the implementation of a Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (Ci3T) model of prevention, is critical for supporting student development across domains of functioning. In particular, universal behavior screening has been shown to predict outcomes across these domains and as such is foundational to integrated systems. Thus, districts and schools are committed to continuing to learn how to implement behavior screening effectively and efficiently. As such, the purpose of this first qualitative study of systematic screening for behavior was to explore perspectives on benefits, challenges, and opportunities in behavior screening as gathered from members of school- and district-based leadership teams who were currently implementing Ci3T. Both individual interviews and focus groups were conducted, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes that could be used to enhance the implementation and use of behavior screening. Ci3T Leadership Team members indicated knowledge about behavior screening procedures and relayed challenges with respect to using behavior screening data. Taken together, a need emerged for broader professional learning for all school staff members around increasing knowledge and use of behavior screening data. We discuss limitations and directions for future research.

A Phenomenological Investigation of Universal Mental Health Screening: Making Meaning for School Counseling

“…Last, the current examination offers innovative content to the greater K–12 educational conversation on UMHS. Although research exists on UMHS outcomes (e.g., Splett et al, 2018; Weist et al, 2018; Wroblewski et al, 2018) and research on UMHS processes is emerging (e.g., Brann et al, 2021; Briesch et al, 2021), to our knowledge, these studies are void of school counseling. In acknowledging school counselors as experts in prevention, school culture and systemic change, data-driven practices, collaboration, and serving the whole student (academic, career, and social/emotional), the present investigation offers a distinctive perspective of UMHS, inclusive of school counselors and their unique role.…”

“…Research on UMHS and school counseling is burgeoning, including two practitioner-focused single-case studies (Donohue et al, 2016; Erickson & Abel, 2013) and the validation of UMHS instruments specifically for school counselors within comprehensive school counseling programs and MTSS (Kalkbrenner et al, 2020; Kalkbrenner & Goodman-Scott, 2021). Outside of school counseling-specific literature, two studies have examined school-based UMHS teams (Brann et al, 2021; Briesch et al, 2021), describing school staff integral in UMHS, such as school psychologists, teachers, and administrators; neither study named school counselors in their UMHS research.…”

“…According to Brann et al (2021), UMHS implementation is heavily driven by school-based teams; partner involvement and buy-in is particularly critical. Relatedly, Briesch et al (2021) reported that challenges to UMHS included inconsistent responses across teachers and lack of buy-in from partners. Thus, UMHS is often a part of MTSS and heavily reliant on school-based teams—and school counselors can be one member of MTSS and UMHS teams.…”

Independent factor structure replication of the SAEBRS teacher and student scales.

“…One approach to identifying which students will need services is universal screening for SEB needs. SEB screening can be helpful for identifying varying levels of SEB needs to help match student need with corresponding SEB skill supports (Briesch et al, 2021).…”

Editorial: Systematic screening to support well-being with PreK-12 students

“…For example, if more than 20%−25% of students are scoring in the moderate-to-high risk range for internalizing behavioral concerns (e.g., socially withdrawn, anxious), then it is likely necessary to shift Tier 1 practices to teach more intentionally self-awareness and selfregulation strategies (e.g., patterned breathing) to all students. Screening data can also be reviewed by individual teachers to shape practices during specific instructional contexts (Briesch et al, 2022). For example, teachers can review multiple sources of student data (e.g., academic and behavior screening data, ODRs, attendance) and if find many students are in the moderate to high risk range for math performance and also have higher than average externalizing behaviors (e.g., noncompliance, verbal aggression), then the teacher might adjust math instruction to build in increased opportunities to respond to maximize engagement along with increased used of behavior specific praise.…”