- Universal Screening for Social-Emotional Competencies and Behavior Within MTSS
- Preparing for Universal Social-Emotional and Behavioral (SEB) Screening
- Reviewing Social-Emotional and Behavioral Screening Data
- Using Additional Data for SEB Screening
- Conclusion
- Effectively Leverage Your SEL & Behavior Data to Support the Whole Child
Don't Have Time To Read?
1. Universal Screening for Social-Emotional Competencies and Behavior Within MTSS
Universal screening is an essential component of any healthy Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). Educators need an accurate understanding of the strengths and needs of students. While there has historically been a focus on academic skills, more schools have seen the benefits of including social-emotional and behavioral (SEB) screening within their MTSS practice. Specifically, universal screening for social-emotional and behavioral health allows educators to:
Identify subgroups that need additional Tier 1 support.
Understand the impact of various social-emotional supports, programs, and initiatives.
Identify students at an increased risk for adverse social-emotional or behavioral outcomes.
Unfortunately, many schools rely exclusively on teacher nominations for identifying students with behavioral concerns.
Drawbacks to using a teacher referral process for student identification:
MISSED STUDENTS:
Students with externalizing behavioral challenges like aggression are often referred more frequently, while students with internalizing or social issues like withdrawal might get missed. High-quality assessments for student behavioral and social-emotional competencies include questions beyond disruptive behaviors and measure a broad range of student skills.
WASTED TIME:
It can take months for student behavior to reach a level where a teacher refers them for behavioral support. One of the benefits of universal screening is that it is implemented after the first few weeks of school so that identification can happen early
SUBJECTIVITY:
Teacher referrals are more likely to be subject to biases. Research has shown that when a referral process is used, students of color, specifically Black and Hispanic/Latino students, are more likely to be referred for behavioral discipline. In addition, teachers’ own demographic background and level of experience are associated with the number of behavioral referrals they make, as well as which students get referred.
THIS GUIDE
provides school leadership and key stakeholders with the information required to effectively implement universal screening for SEB competencies, as well as how to leverage the results to improve support for all students. Schools may have different goals and needs regarding universal screening — this guide was designed to provide overarching recommendations that can be applied to different screening assessments and tools.
2. Preparing for Universal Social-Emotional and Behavioral (SEB) Screening
Effective SEB screening requires a lot of planning, organization, and capacity building, especially if this practice is new to your district or school. The entire process might seem overwhelming, and leadership teams may not know where to begin. Here are key steps to help streamline the preparation process for SEB screening:
Selecting a Screening Tool
Many different tools are available for schools to use for assessing students’ social-emotional and behavioral health. When making this selection, educators should think through the following questions to help guide their decision:
Which skills are we interested in measuring?
Some assessment tools focus on social and emotional skills, like prosocial behaviors, relationships, and emotional awareness and regulation, while others assess indicators of behavioral risk or student mental health. Think about the challenges that your school is currently facing.
-
Review existing data on office discipline referrals and meet with classroom teachers, parents, and students to help further understand the range of SEB needs.
-
Align your screening tool with an existing SEL initiative or program you are currently implementing. For example, if a current focus in your school is building healthy relationships, it would be ideal to use an assessment that measures students’ relationship skills and their sense of connectedness with their peers and teachers.
What is the research base supporting this screener/assessment?
Once you have narrowed down your list of potential screeners, review the evidence on its reliability and validity. The CASEL assessment guide includes research summaries for several SEB assessments. The assessment provider should also have research findings readily available for review.
-
Pay close attention to the sample demographics, such as grade, race, ethnicity, and locale, that were used to validate the assessment.
-
If the screener has recommended cut points to identify students at risk, review the research that was used to determine those cut points as well as the sensitivity and specificity of the tool (i.e., the percentage of students who are accurately identified).
Is the screener using teacher-report, student-report, or parent-report?
Unlike an academic screener, most behavior and social-emotional assessments require subjective reporting from either a teacher, student, or parent. When selecting a universal SEB screener, It is important to be aware of the pros and cons of each reporter option.
-
Student-report, especially when the student is below 4th grade, is generally the least consistent and reliable method of screening. This does not mean that students are not aware of their own skills and behaviors, but the way that most surveys and assessments are designed and implemented makes it difficult for younger students to adequately report on their own competencies.
The Branching Minds platform provides schools the ability to integrate data from several SEL and Behavioral Health assessments. The Social-Emotional Competency Assessment (SECA), a student-facing survey, is available through the platform and is directly aligned with the CASEL framework.
.png?width=145&height=145&name=Icons%20for%20blogsite%20(2).png)
Older students can be a good source of information about their own skills and feelings. Even so, they may require help when completing a self-assessment. When reviewing screener options, note the language used in the questions to determine whether students will need each question read aloud. Some studentreport assessments offer versions in different languages, which may be ideal for schools that have a large population of ELL students.
-
Teacher-report screening is generally the most predictive in terms of long-term student outcomes. This is because most classroom teachers have a good sense of typical behavioral patterns and are aware of when students deviate from them. When using teacher-report, it is ideal for a classroom teacher who is spending a significant amount of time with the student to complete the screener. Of course, it is important to be aware of potential biases when it comes to teacher reports, and there are ways to do this outlined below.
-
Parent-report is another method for universal screening that can provide valuable information but also comes with its challenges. Parents or guardians may have additional insights into student behavior and social-emotional well-being. Using a parent-report alongside a teacher and student-report can help provide a deeper understanding of student behavior and how it might differ by setting. However, it can be very challenging to collect data from a large number of parents, which is why not many schools choose this method for universal screening.
How much time is required to complete the screening assessment?
Many school hours are dedicated to assessments and standardized tests. Teacher and student time is precious, so you want to select a screener that is as brief as possible. A SEB screener should ideally not take more than one classroom period to complete for the entire class.
What kind of training is involved?
Some screeners require training for results to be reliable and valid. This is often the case with teacher-reported screening. Training can help reporters level set and get on the same page when observing and rating student behavior. It can also make them aware of potential biases. Staff will also require procedural information on how to access and complete the screening tools.
Planning Screening Administration
Once a screener is selected, careful planning is required to get all stakeholders on the same page and ensure that screening goes smoothly.
.png "check-box (1)")
Get teacher buy-in. Classroom teachers play an important role in screener implementation. Given the amount of time already dedicated to academic screening, school leadership shouldn’t be surprised if they receive some pushback from teachers regarding screening for social-emotional and behavioral health. Teachers should have a clear understanding of why the screener is being implemented and what their role will be throughout the practice. Having teachers involved in selecting the screener can also help with buy-in. What is essential is that all staff are aware of the why behind universal screening.
Get teacher buy-in. Classroom teachers play an important role in screener implementation. Given the amount of time already dedicated to academic screening, school leadership shouldn’t be surprised if they receive some pushback from teachers regarding screening for social-emotional and behavioral health. Teachers should have a clear understanding of why the screener is being implemented and what their role will be throughout the practice. Having teachers involved in selecting the screener can also help with buy-in. What is essential is that all staff are aware of the why behind universal screening.
Obtain parent consent and student assent. Depending on the laws and regulations in your state or region, parent consent may be required for any kind of SEB assessment. Whether using an active or passive consent process, parents and families should always be informed about school screening practices. Being transparent with families about the purpose of screening for social-emotional or behavioral skills, what kinds of questions are included in the screener, and how the data will be stored and used, will ultimately help strengthen this practice.
-
Active Consent: Parent consent could be active, meaning that each student’s parent or guardian must provide signed permission in order for them to participate in the screening.
-
Passive Consent: Parents are informed of the screening, and participation is assumed unless the parent specifically requests that their child not be included. A non-response assumes that they give their consent.
-
Student Assent: Transparency is also critical when using student self-report assessments. Students should understand why they are being asked to complete an assessment as well as how the results and data will be used. You can have students provide their own assent to participating in the self-assessment. Some students may not feel comfortable completing these screeners.
A student should never be forced to report on their own social-emotional skills, behaviors, or other kinds of internalizing or externalizing symptoms. They should also be allowed to stop part-way through the assessment if they wish.
.png?width=250&height=250&name=check-box%20(1).png "check-box (1)")
Plan screening windows. There are often questions regarding when exactly screening for social-emotional and behavioral health should take place.
-
Most social-emotional and behavioral screeners should be completed after students have been in school for at least 4 weeks. This allows teachers time to observe typical student behaviors as well as students themselves to acclimate to their classroom and school environment.
-
It is also recommended that schools screen for social-emotional and behavioral health 2-3x per year. This allows the documentation of progress across the school year with enough time between each screening window to implement interventions and supports.
Schedule data review sessions. Once each screening window is complete, school and grade-level teams will need time to review the data from the social-emotional and behavioral screener. These sessions should be built into the screening schedule to ensure that there is not too much time between the end of a screening window and the beginning of the data review. Having a clear plan for how the data will be reviewed can help expedite this process (more details on this below).
3. Reviewing Social-Emotional and Behavioral Screening Data
Planning for universal screening may require the most organizational effort, but knowing how to review data and make decisions based on your results is the most pertinent. All data should be reviewed in alignment with the overarching MTSS framework. In other words, data should be reviewed with each tier level of support in mind. There are key differences between reviewing social-emotional and behavioral screener data at the Tier 1 or universal level as compared to Tier 2 and 3 levels of more targeted and individualized support.
Reviewing SEB data in support of Tier 1 practices
Universal screening is often seen primarily as a way to identify students at risk of adverse educational outcomes; however, this is not the sole purpose of screening. Universal screening can provide critical insights into a school’s Tier 1 curricula, programs, and practices. Supporting students’ social-emotional development and fostering positive behaviors in the classroom should be addressed at the Tier 1 Universal level. This means that all students are being taught these skills through explicit instruction and by integrating key competencies into academic learning and the everyday life of the school.
Universal screening can provide critical insights into a school’s Tier 1 curricula, programs, and practices.
Review data at the school level to see if there are any overarching trends that might need to be addressed through school-wide policies and practices. These data should also be disaggregated by key student demographic variables, such as race, ethnicity, special education status, and gender, to identify any subgroups that are not being adequately supported at the Tier 1 level. Looking at the data this way can also help identify any potential reporting biases of the assessment being used.
Review data at the grade/department and classroom level to determine if there are any specific trends or issues impacting certain students based on their stage of development. This also allows schools to allocate their resources more effectively. For example, if there seem to be many students struggling behaviorally at the 4th and 5th-grade level, the school could have a counselor or behavioral specialist work specifically with teachers in those grades on their Tier 1 implementation of positive classroom behavioral supports.
Who should have access to SEB data?
Some schools may be hesitant to give classroom teachers access to the results from SEB screening assessments and only allow school leaders and specialists to view these data. However, it is helpful and appropriate for teachers to review the results of screeners in some form, whether that be school-level reports (that do not include specific student data), classroom-wide reports, or the overall score or level for each student in their classroom. Seeing the data can help motivate teachers and bring their awareness to their students’ needs. Not allowing teachers to view the results can also diminish their buy-in and commitment to universal screening. The exception to this is any kind of mental health or behavioral diagnostic that is completed by a specialist, psychologist, or physician; in these cases, the results are not always shared with classroom teachers.
Identifying Students Needing Tier 2 and 3 Support
Although screening is commonly used to identify students needing targeted and intensive support, not all SEB screeners are designed for this purpose. It is important to pay attention to your screening tool’s recommended cut points for risk identification and whether or not those have been validated through research. If the screening tool does have normed and validated cut points for tier-level identification, then it is okay to use those as a starting point. In some cases, local cut points can be used to identify students, but there should be some process to verify these cut points against other data points.
Consistent cut scores:
- Provide an accurate understanding of student needs, regardless of what school they attend
- Allow districts to allocate resources more equitably
Cut points should be used consistently across grade levels and schools. A common mistake in universal screening is to have individual schools across a district adjust their cut scores to avoid having “too many” students identified as needing support. This practice ultimately creates issues around inequity and disproportionality of support across a district.
Verifying Student Tier Level of Support
Once cut scores have been applied to the results from a universal SEB screener, teams often review and verify tier levels for students. This verification process is often vague, as educators are only told to “use additional data to verify student tier levels.” Sometimes, educators try to use every piece of data they have and create complex decision trees to help make these determinations. It is also common for educators to fall back on anecdotal behavioral observations to make their final decisions regarding student tier level of support, undercutting the screening process.
Instead, keep the verification process as simple and systematic as possible, in line with MTSS principles.
-
Focus on verifying tier-level recommendations for those students whose identified tier level has changed from the last screening period. Using historical student data is one of the best ways to understand whether a student has been trending in a certain direction and is likely in need of support, or if their score is not in line with what has been observed or documented in the past.
-
Understand that students’ social-emotional competencies and behaviors in the classroom may change quite suddenly due to circumstances in a student’s life inside or outside of the classroom. These external factors should not be ignored, but they should also not exclude the student from receiving targeted support. If their behaviors or social-emotional needs are ultimately impacting their learning, then efforts should be made to intervene.
-
Review any behavioral or social-emotional intervention or progress monitoring data that has been previously collected for the student. For example, if the student was receiving Check-In/Check-Out intervention or had a Daily Behavioral Report Card, those data can provide insight into their progress since the last screening window, and if their current tier-level recommendation is aligned.
Sometimes students don’t progress as expected because their intervention plan has not been delivered with fidelity, or not delivered at all! Instead of adjusting the student’s tier level of support, the focus should be on improving the fidelity of the intervention implementation.
4. Using Additional Data for SEB Screening
Students can also be identified for targeted support using data beyond assessments and screeners. Early Warning Indicator (EWI) systems have become increasingly common, especially with the use of technology-based platforms that pull together relevant data to help educators identify students at risk for adverse outcomes. Attendance and Suspensions are typically included in these EWI systems for students in middle and high school, along with data on course completion.
ATTENDANCE
Chronic absenteeism can be indicative of underlying emotional, social, or behavioral issues. If a student is frequently absent, it may also mean that SEB screening with an assessment is not possible or reliable, given the infrequency that the student is in school. Systematically flagging students with attendance concerns is an effective way to identify at-risk students who may be missed via universal screening.
RESOURCE: How To Track and Support Student Attendance in MTSS
SUSPENSIONS:
One or more suspensions typically indicate serious behavioral issues. Students identified through a SEB screening tool are at a higher risk for out-of-school suspensions. However, many school districts are making efforts to reduce the number of student suspensions and are using other forms of disciplinary action instead. Thus, only relying on suspensions as a way to identify students at risk will likely mean that many students who need support will not get it.
OFFICE DISCIPLINE REFERRALS (ODRs)
ODRs and behavioral incident reporting are frequently used to decide which students require targeted and intensive intervention. However, research has consistently shown limitations with these approaches in that they tend to be biased. Black and Hispanic students are far more likely to receive a behavioral referral compared to White students. This is even the case when the exhibited behavior is the same.
Did you know?
There is research showing that referrals are more reflective of the level of experience and beliefs of the teacher rather than the student’s behavioral needs. This is why educators should be cautious when using ODRs and incident reporting as part of their system for SEB screening.
6. Conclusion
Universal screening for social-emotional competencies and behaviors is a crucial component of a healthy Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). This practice provides a comprehensive understanding of student strengths and needs, moving beyond traditional behavioral referral practices. By implementing SEB universal screening, schools can achieve several key objectives:
- Identifying subgroups in need of additional support
- Evaluating the impact of social-emotional initiatives
- Pinpointing students at risk for adverse social-emotional or behavioral outcomes
Screening is the first step in the larger problem-solving practice and provides key information for helping students get the support that they need, as well as evaluating the overall social-emotional and behavioral health of a student population. Selecting the right screening tool, obtaining buy-in from all stakeholders, and establishing screening schedules are critical steps in the process. Furthermore, reviewing the data at different tiers of support and developing a system for accurately verifying tier levels helps ensure that SEB data is being used effectively.
Ultimately, universal screening for social-emotional competencies and behaviors has the potential to transform educational practices, fostering a more holistic and equitable approach to student support. By leveraging the insights gained through SEB screening assessments, schools can tailor interventions and resources to better meet the diverse needs of their students, creating an environment where every learner can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally.
.png "additional-resource (1)")
Downloadable Resource:
Social-Emotional and Behavioral Universal Screening Checklist
Use this resource to plan out your own Universal SEB Screening step-by-step.
Effectively Leverage Your SEL & Behavior Data to Support the Whole Child
The Branching Minds platform provides districts and schools the ability to integrate data from several SEL and Behavioral Health assessments. Results are presented alongside academic assessments, intervention plans, behavior incidents, progress monitoring, and other documents and communications, so that educators can effectively leverage the data to determine what students’ needs are and how they should be addressed.
Access Evidence-Based Social-Emotional Competency Assessments
Branching Minds offers districts and schools access to a set of evidence-based social-emotional competency assessments.
Both assessments are grounded in resilience theory and are directly aligned with the CASEL framework.
Completed by students or teachers.
Used to measure multiple social-emotional skill areas, including:
- Self-awareness
- Self-management
- Social-awareness
- Relationship skills
- Responsible decision-making
- Goal-directed behavior
Assessments can be administered up to three times across the school year to evaluate the progress of individuals or groups of students.
Learn more about how Branching Minds can help you support your students
Essie Sutton, Ph.D.
Dr. Sutton is an Applied Developmental Psychologist and the Director of Learning Science at Branching Minds. Her work brings together the fields of child development and education psychology to improve learning and development for all students. Dr. Sutton is responsible for studying the impacts of the Branching Minds platform on students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes. She also manages and curates the platform’s library of evidence-based supports and studies how different strategies, programs, and tools impact students’ educational outcomes.
Dr. Sutton received her Ph.D. in Applied Developmental Psychology from Fordham University, where her research focused on evaluating academic and social-emotional learning programs in elementary classrooms. Her work has also examined how classroom contexts and the quality of teacher-student interactions influence students’ learning and social development. She has also developed and studied assessments used to measure indicators of children’s well-being and teachers’ classroom practices. Dr. Sutton’s research has been published in Child Indicators Research and the Journal of Applied Developmental Science. She has also presented her work at national conferences, including the American Education Research Association and the Society for Research on Child Development. Dr. Sutton also has an M.A. in Human Development, Learning, and Culture from the University of British Columbia and a B.A. from McGill University.
References
Denham, S. A., Ji, P., & Hamre, B. (2010, October). Compendium of Preschool Through Elementary School Social‐Emotional Learning and Associated Assessment Measures. CASEL. https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CASEL-Resources-Compemdium-PreschoolToElementary.pdf
Girvan, E. J., Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Smolkowski, K. (2017). The Relative Contribution of Subjective Office Referrals to Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 392-404. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/spq-spq0000178.pdf
Liu, J. (2022, October). Who Refers Whom? The Effects of Teacher Characteristics on Disciplinary Office Referrals. EconStor. Retrieved September 14, 2023, from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/267400/1/dp15663.pdf
Pals, T., & Koenigsknecht, M. (2023, June 15). Study Finds That a Small Number of Teachers Effectively Double the Racial Gaps Among Students Referred for Disciplinary Action. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved September 14, 2023, from https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Study-Finds-That-a-Small-Number-of-Teachers-Effectively-Double-the-Racial-Gaps-Among-Students-Referred-for-Disciplinary-Action
Taylor, J. (2023, January 30). Disciplinary referrals, teachers, and the sources of racial disciplinary disproportionalities | Brookings. Brookings Institution. Retrieved September 14, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/disciplinary-referrals-teachers-and-the-sources-of-racial-disciplinary-disproportionalities/