Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a coherent framework of evidence based, multilayered practices to support the educators and enable them to respond to the urgent issues at once. MTSS and its assessment framework can resolve both academic and behavioral issues. In the current case, the educators have targeted several difficulties that have to be addressed by a thorough and correct evaluation. First of all, it is not yet clear if Joe’s problem is a behavioral problem, academic issue, or the mixture of both. Secondly, the educators do not have the baseline information that would provide evidence about the previous history of academic issues and behavioral patterns of the student. Thirdly, it was revealed that the initial attempt to improve Joe’s academic productivity in math did not gain success. Finally, it is not clear from the myth if the student has problems only with math or other subjects as well.
System Evaluation
Performance of students in school is affected by their knowledge as well as the behavioral patterns manifested during the lessons. As it was evidenced by Gilbertson, Witt, Duhon, & Dufrene (2008), academic and behavioral issues co-occur for a lot of students, thus, there is a need to target both of them at once to gain success. Therefore, the evaluation interventions targeting Joe’s knowledge in math have to be followed by several behavioral tests. As MTSS is a flexible framework that allows applying a wide variety of tests, including the behavioral and math tests proposed by the MTSS system. By targeting both sets of issues, the educators will be able to reveal the core of the problem and use the following interventions to improve the productivity of the student and work towards the minimization or elimination of the cause.
While the educational establishments have certain practices in managing the students’ behavior, not in all cases these strategies are successful. For instance, a longitudinal study in behavior screening measures revealed that the students show non-response to the positive interventions targeting their academic success due to the disruptive behavior (McIntosh, Homer, Chard, Boland, & Good, 2006). At the same time, the reasons for the disruptive behavior may vary from student to student. In some cases, this type of behavior is caused by the family problems, low socio-economic status, or mental issues that have to be addressed by the specialists. Particularly, according to the research performed by Grothaus (2013), the disruptive behavior was caused by the low income in the household that triggered problems in the family. As the diagnosis is not the initial aim of the MTSS evaluation, the educators will have to use the screening of the student regarding its relation to the current academic issue.
The assessment has to include the behavioral evaluation and the mathematics testing proposed by MTSS framework. The entire assessment procedure has to match the three tier system, which includes intensive individualized assessment procedure, targeted and supplemental evaluation, and core universal standards of assessment. Therefore, the processes in place have to comply with the three tier system, such as being individualized, customized, and universal. The student has to be evaluated on the basis of his problem, not the general knowledge of a supposed issue. Even though the teachers have to use the preliminary analysis, peer-reviewed research, and the assessment of the other teachers, it is more effective to create individualized approach to the student. For instance, the research conducted by McIntosh, Frank, & Spaulding (2010) reveled that individualized approach benefits the students at risk due to the variety of factors triggering their behavior. In the current case, the teacher knows that Joe was home-schooled; therefore, he was not exposed to the extensive social environment that included his peers. Also, Joe was not supervised by the professional educator, thus, he cannot react to the teachers’ instructions in the same manner as the students who were educated in school.
In this case, the teacher will develop individualized approach that will take into account possible social problems of the student, including lack of communication, inability to open up to the strangers, and possibly failed communication skills. The teacher will have to be ready to the possible resistance or non-responsiveness to the tests, both in math and during the behavioral assessment. The educator may use the reward system to encourage the student to undergo the assessment. For example, the teacher may include a fun activity for a student in between the assessment processes to guarantee that the student will undergo the procedure.
Firstly, as Joe has encountered with the academic challenges in math, it is logical to evaluate his present knowledge in this subject by using Monitoring Basic Skills Progress: Computation and Concepts and Application tests for this purpose developed by the MTSS framework. Secondly, it is essential to assess his present behavioral patterns, thus Functional Behavior Assessment framework will be applied. A research analyzing this framework recognized its effectiveness in terms of assessment of students’ behavior and validity (Shriver, Anderson, & Proctor, 2001). The following evaluations have to be performed in the case of Joe:
Math evaluation assessment will include MTSS Math Intervention Recommendation Guide: Monitoring Basic Skills Progress—Computation and Concepts and Application tests for the 6th grade;
Behavioral evaluating will include Functional Behavior Assessment framework to identify possible disruptive behavior, collecting the information, hypothesizing the reasons of the behavior, and creating assessment plan.
It is considered that these two tests will help the teacher to recognize the disruptive behavior, reveal a specific academic issue related to mathematics, and create a further action plan in targeting the problem. The systematic approach requires certain structure that will benefit the students. Therefore, the teachers will implement two tests in math and will continue to observe the behavior of the student, his reaction to the tasks, and the communication patterns he will use during the process of evaluation.
The following step will engage the behavioral tests on the basis of functional behavior assessment. After the teacher reveals the problem, it will be possible to create a reaction intervention that will help the student to overcome the current problem. At the same time, the assessment process has to be implemented without the changes regarding the first step that includes math evaluation. On the basis of the preliminary observation and initial analysis, the functional behavioral assessment has to be developed and employed. Afterwards, the educator will summarize the results of the assessment and elaborate the intervention procedures.
As it was mentioned earlier, the student was home-schooled, thus, his reaction to the individual assessment can be challenging. At the same time, several studies emphasize that the home-schooled children react to the individual tasks more willingly and productively than to the group assignments due to the specificity of their learning (Filter & Horner, 2009). Therefore, it is expected that Joe will react positively on the individual tasks, yet, as the history of behavioral patterns is unknown in this case, it makes the expectations of outcomes quite challenging. At the same time, the students with the problems of disruptive behavior cannot be identified at once through only one instance or evaluation. Therefore, it is expected that the student will manifest the behavioral problems if he has such during the initial stage of evaluation, specifically, the assessment of his mathematics abilities.
As to the proposed math tests, they are designed to assess the student’s knowledge in basic calculations using the acquired knowledge provided during the classes. Particularly, the student will have to be assessed on his knowledge of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, reducing, and adding. Also, the student will have to be assessed regarding his knowledge of concepts in mathematics including fractions, measurements, number concept, charts, and number concepts. It is expected that the teachers will target the academic problem at once and will reveal how Joe reacts to it, the criticism of the teachers, and his attempts to improve his initial mistakes. This behavior will serve as a background for the functional evaluation of his behavioral patterns.
Overall, disruptive behavior in the classroom is usually addressed as a simple misbehavior “that is usually embodied in immorality, aggression, resistance to authority, disruption of class routine, and exponential laziness” (Leflot, 2010, p. 869). Disruptive behavior in the classroom is always an immense problem for the educators. While it is quite easy to see certain disorders in behavior, it is particularly difficult to connect it to the overall academic productivity. Especially, it is problematic to link it to a specific issue or failure in a certain academic discipline. All easily identifiable disruptive behavior manifestations are usually demonstrated by the students intentionally. In the case of Joe, the teachers did not report such a behavioral pattern usually targeting additional attention of the teacher and the students. Thus, it is important to mention that disruptive behavior can be typed as overt and covert. Overt behavior is, as it was mentioned, an active and an open manifestation of negative behavior, for example, a student will talk during the lesson, express his thoughts loudly; at the same time, covert behavior is usually passive and can be shown as sleeping during a lesson, not listening to the teacher, do some personal activities not easily identifiable by the educator (Mceachern & Snyder, 2012). Covert behavior is more difficult to identify and address at once. Usually teachers tend to neglect this behavior or simply not identify it.
It is a well known fact that the disruptive behavior in every situation may have various causes and reasons, and thus, the approach to evaluation may vary as well. For example, Masi et al. (2011) revealed the cause of disruptive behavior in certain environmental factors, like “the size of the class, maturation process, or excessive routine in the classroom” (p. 51). Others revealed the impact of social and inner causes, such as negative relationships in the family, low socio- economic level of the household, and mental impairment (Kisicki & French, 2011). At the same time, dealing with the covert behavior, like in the case of Joe, it will be important to assess the family history, his previous problems with the disruptive behavior at school and during the home-schooling process.
There are many effective approaches to evaluate the behavior in the class individually with every student, especially when the educator deals with the covert behavior. In the case of functional approach, it is expected that Joe will not resist it openly, yet the resistance may take place covertly. He may not respond to the questions about his problems, relationship with the family members, or communication issues with the peers. In order to implement the best evaluation practice, Joe’s behavior will be assessed regarding his relationship to his peers and family. Overall, the evaluation planned to be implemented for Joe will have to follow the steps:
Questions regarding Joe’s relationship with the family members;
Evaluation of the student’s relationship with the peers and teachers;
Analysis of his previous history of possible disruptive behavior;
Evaluation of his possible mental history, including the existence of such disorders, as ADHD, OCD, PTSD, depression-related impairments, or any other mental problems identified earlier.
The last two steps will have to be implemented without the availability of the student and either made preliminary or applied after the issue is cleared with the student. As the problem in Joe’s academic performance is a sudden problem that was not revealed before, it is possible to assume that certain events or experiences led to his academic failure regarding mathematics. Moreover, as the methods to eliminate the problem prevailed, the issue is still relevant for the student. Thus, it is recommended to pay the majority of attention to the step of researching the problem before being able to make a conclusion. It is usually claimed that disruptive behavior is a combination of several factors that can be interconnected or be manifested as a chain reaction (Wilkins & Shin, 2010). For instance, a student may live in the low-income household, where the lack of financial resources leads to constant conflicts in the family between the adults. Grothaus (2013) confirmed this statement emphasizing that the disruptive behavior is linked to the economic problems in the family.
A theoretical framework explaining the disruptive behavior proposed by Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, states that individual’s behavior is the result of “interaction between the personal traits, environmental conditions, and perception of the world” (Putman, 2009, p. 232). In general, effective classroom management may include the ability of educator to develop and maintain a productive learning environment, creating a list of instructions and procedures, dealing with the students’ academic performance and disruption in it, and stimulating them to invest their primary attention to the evaluation. This practice was confirmed by the research revealing that the behavior managing practices have to target instructions provided in the class and learning environment of the student (Nooruddin & Baig, 2014). It is crucial to bear in mind several reasons that will destroy any efforts to assess the disruptive behavior. Specifically, inability to react quickly, ignoring the situation, applying inadequate assessment, and conflicting with the student. Educators will need to elaborate a certain amount of authority to manage the classrooms, hence, the reason why it is important for teachers to receive training in behavior classroom management.
While evaluating modern assessment programs, Kaufman & Moss (2010) came to the conclusion that “students enrolled at the pedagogical universities showed a huge gap between their beliefs regarding classroom management and the actions they are willing to maintain in practice” (p. 120). This trend is particularly strange, as it was recognized that teachers indicated their comprehension of individual needs, students’ rights for creativity, and expression of their personal point of view. During the practice, however, a lot of teachers admit that they cannot pay much attention on the point of view of the students due to lack of time. In the case of Joe, he will not express his emotions, feelings, and opinions openly. Specifically, it was evidenced by the study in child’s psychology that covert disruptive behavior is manifested in the inability to express emotions freely (Longo, 2010). It is also possible to predict that the educators may not possess the necessary instruments to evaluate such students.
It is essential for the current case to evaluate Joe according to his needs and individual strivings. It is expected that Joe will rather make a mistake in the math tests than explain his behavior. Covert behavior is difficult to address or eliminate due to non-responsiveness of the students. This implies that in the current case the educator will not be able to target the issue at once by simply asking the questions. Overall, the behavioral problems connected one way or another to the psychological issues, have to be performed by the professional. In case when Joe does not react to the functional assessment of behavior, it is planned to use the help of the school psychologist and implement a qualified behavioral tests. However, the permission of the parents has to be obtained before making such actions. If Joe has a covert or overt behavior, the teacher will have to recommend the parents or caretakers to refer to the specialists on their own. The quality of modern education connects to educators’ understanding of novice tendencies and requirements of students, including the successful management of the classroom. The ability of teachers to maintain open-mindedness instead of authoritarian tools can relate, according to sources, “to the disruption between the theoretical basis of training programs and the reality of the classroom” (Craig, Bell, & Leschied, 2011, p, 23). It was emphasized that teachers are usually the subject of increased demands and at the same time, these educators do not receive enough credit for their work.
References
Craig, K., Bell, D., & Leschied, A. (2011). Pre-service teachers' knowledge and attitudes regarding school-based bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 21-33.
Gilbertson, D., Witt, J. C., Duhon, G., & Dufrene, B. (2008). Using Brief Assessments to Select Math Fluency and On-Task Behavior Interventions: An Investigation of Treatment Utility. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(2), 167-178.
Grothaus, T. (2013). School Counselors Serving Students with Disruptive Behavior Disorders. Professional School Counseling, 16(4), 245-255.
Filter, K. J., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 1–19.
Kisicki, M. D., M.D., & French, W., M.D. (2011). Assessment of disruptive behavior disorders. Pediatric Annals, 40(10), 506-511
Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A. C., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2010). The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with the good behavior game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(6), 869-82.
Masi, G., Manfredi, A., Milone, A., Muratori, P., Polidori, L., Ruglioni, L., & Muratori, F. (2011). Predictors of nonresponse to psychosocial treatment in children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 21(1), 51-55.
Mclntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & Spaulding, S. A. (2010). Establishing Research-Based Trajectories of Office Discipline Referrals for Individual Students. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 380-397.
Mclntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. H., III. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275–291.
Mceachern, A. D., & Snyder, J. (2012). The relationship of impulsivity-inattention and verbal ability to overt and covert antisocial behaviors in children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(8), 984-94.
Nooruddin, S., & Baig, S. (2014). Student Behavior Management: School Leader's Role in the Eyes of the Teachers and Students. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 10(2), 1-14.
Putman, S. M. (2009). Grappling with classroom management: The orientations of pre-service teachers and impact of students teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232-247.
Shriver, M. D., Anderson, C. M., & Proctor, B. (2001). Evaluating the Validity of Functional Behavior Assessment. School Psychology Review, 30(2). 15-19.
Wilkins, E. A., & Shin, E. (2010). Peer feedback: Who, what, when, why, & how. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(3), 112-117.
