Supporting Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models of Prevention in Schools

Abstract

We report findings from a statewide survey of 365 site-level administrators developed to (a) learn about the extent to which schools across the state were implementing components of multi-tiered systems of support and (b) determine the areas in which these schools might need professional development or resources to support them. At least half of the administrators indicated a high level of implementation for all Tier 1 features, with the exception of instruction in school-wide behavioral expectations. Tier 2 and Tier 3 behavioral and social supports were reportedly less fully implemented than those focused on academic domains. Most differences between elementary and secondary schools existed in Tier 1 features, with implementation occurring more fully in elementary schools. More than half of the administrators indicated a high level of implementation of the 15 research-based educational practices and supports examined, with a statistically significant relation between administrators’ ratings of currently implemented practices and the desire for support for all educational practices and supports except for increasing behavior-specific praise. In terms of potential venues for professional development and learning, in-district, during-school workshops and practices guides were rated most favorably. We discuss avenues for supporting schools with implementation.

Predictive Validity of Student Risk Screening Scale—Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE) Scores in Elementary Schools

“…Prior to completing the SRSS-IE, teachers received information from their school's Ci3T Leadership Team on the rationale and logistics for completing screening tools. Professional learning opportunities were available for faculty and staff through a range of avenues including afterschool presentations by Ci3T Trainers, districtwide presentations, on-demand resources (e.g., YouTube videos), and practice guides (Lane, Carter, Jenkins, Magill, & Germer, 2015). Note.…”

Emotional and Behavioral Risk Configurations, Students With Disabilities, and Perceptions of the Middle School Ecology

“…First, MTSS focuses on students’ response to intervention and requires a range of comprehensive and successively intensive strategies that should encompass the broad needs of all students (Lewis, 2016; Sailor, 2015). Second, MTSS is an integrative framework and recognizes the need to address the interplay of academic, behavioral, and social aspects of students’ functioning and adaptation in the classroom (Lane, Carter, Jenkins, Dwiggins, & Germer, 2015; Sailor, 2015; Sutherland et al, 2018). Third, there is a preventive aspect of the MTSS approach that involves the early identification and provision of services before adjustment problems are fully manifested and are expressed as a disorder in a student’s functioning (Conroy, 2016; Sailor, 2015).…”

Systematic Screening for Behavior in K–12 Settings as Regular School Practice: Practical Considerations and Recommendations

“…Most recently, frameworks have been established to attend to students' multiple needs in a comprehensive manner, such as a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) integrating academic and behavioral domains (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016) and comprehensive, integrated, threetiered (Ci3T) model of prevention integrating academic, behavioral, and social skill domains (Lane, Carter, Jenkins, Magill, & Germer, 2015). Ci3T models offer a framework for meeting students' academic and behavioral needs as in MTSS models, but broaden the scope of the model for schools to address students' social and emotional needs at all three levels of prevention.…”

“…As part of Tier 1, all teachers take responsibility for using research-based strategies to maximize engagement and minimize disruptive behaviors. Professional learning on these topics is important for all faculty and staff (Lane, Carter, et al, 2015). Additional teacher supports such as coaching or performance feedback (Briere, Simonsen, Sugai, & Myers, 2015) may be considered when screening data suggest more than 20% of students in a given classroom score in elevated risk categories.…”