Maggie McCabe

SOCW 532_Section A
Assessment Assignment

Identified Student Group/s:

Summary of student identified: The student I have chosen to identify is a student that
was brought to the MTSS problem-solving committee in our building many times and
has quickly moved through the different tiered supports consistently demonstrating a
need for a higher level of support.

Student’s needs: The student I have identified is a freshman who has displayed
consistent challenges across her entire academic career. She is chronically absent from
school, utilizes drugs and alcohol (both inside and outside of the school building) to
cope with anxiety and depression, surrounds herself with peers that negatively influence
her ability to access the supports put in place for her to succeed, and due to the lack of
engagement in school over the years, struggles with her coursework.
She lives in a one parent household with her mother and four other siblings.
There are many other adults living within their apartment unit in order to help the mother
pay for rent, so therefore, the student sleeps on the floor in the living room along with
several other members of the household. She has reported that she has always
struggled with sleep due to this fact. Many of her peers also reside in this apartment
complex and she has been seen often skipping school to hang out with these friends.
Some of these peers are also school-aged and chronically absent, while others are far
older than the identified student. Her mother works endless hours to support her family
and is rarely home to provide supervision or accountability when it comes to attending
school. The mother has come into the building on several occasions for attendance
meetings, to which she has to miss work, therefore compromising her position at her
job. Our efforts to support the student in entering the building has proven to be very
challenging for the family. It often has felt like an ethical challenge to follow our typical
MTSS protocol with this family because we understand how much the process impedes
on the mother’s ability to maintain her job performance.
In middle school, the student attempted to commit suicide and has since been
referred for mental health support in the school, as well as outside of the school, but the
student has refused to receive those supports. When the student does enter the school
building, it is usually around noon and she has been found several times drinking or
smoking in the bathroom with peers. When in class, the student presents as withdrawn,
confused, and disengaged.
Barriers to learning: As briefly identified in the section above, the student faces many
barriers to learning that have a detrimental impact on her engagement in the building.
Firstly, the student’s living arrangements have resulted in several barriers to the
student’s access to learning. The student's mother is a single mother raising several
young children on her own while working 7 days of the week for many, many hours. The
mother is an undocumented citizen and therefore has a job that does not abide by any
regulations to the amount of hours she is able to work. She does her very best to
support her family, but is not often home to provide supervision to the many children
living in the home. Additionally, there are several other adults living in the home that pay
the mother rent so that she can afford to live there, despite it being subsidized housing.
In fact, several years ago, there was an adult in the home who was sexually assaulting
the student and when the mother took measures to get the adult in trouble, she was met
with legal consequences herself for collecting rent from residents that weren’t registered
to live in the home. The housing is located further from the school than many students
who are enrolled so walking to school is often challenging when the weather is harsh.
Additionally, the peers that also live in this complex face challenges themselves and
often also do not attend school. This certainly does not have a positive influence on the
identified student’s attendance.
Secondly, the student has struggled extensively with drugs and alcohol since
around the age of twelve. Many times she has shown up to school in the afternoon
drunk or hungover. She has also been found in the bathroom on several occasions
using drugs or alcohol with peers. This variable has been a tremendous barrier to the
student accessing support. Most recently, after the student was presented in the MTSS
problem-solving team meeting for Tier 3 supports, the special education administrator
shared that the student really shouldn’t be evaluated for an IEP because drug and
alcohol use is an exclusionary factor since you cannot determine true eligibility if there is
a risk of impairment. Many supports have been presented to the child and family to
address this need. Firstly, the student was presented with resources outside of the
building such as outside therapy, drug and alcohol counseling, intensive out-patient
programs, in-patient programs/rehab, etc. Considering all the barriers that the family
faced, such as a lack of transportation to these services, a lack of accountability for the
student to attend due to a decreased parental supervision, and a lack of funding to pay
for these resources they all went unaccessed. The school attempted to bring in an
outside agency, Rosecrance, to support the student in the building, but due to the
student’s inconsistent attendance and general opposition to receiving support, the
resource was discontinued by the agency.
Thirdly, the student’s general attitude on school and overall desire to be
successful in school posed a significant challenge when it came to supporting her. Since
the student was a young child, she struggled academically, struggled with peer and staff
relations, and felt a lack of belonging. In her mind, why would she put so much effort
into accessing help so that she could experience increased demands and more
consistent attendance in a place that she didn’t feel safe or comfortable. All support that
was presented to her felt like a punishment, or another negative view of her ability to be
successful. Due to a lack of school engagement, the student’s learning gap only
increased and when in attendance, she struggled to understand the content. Showing
up to school to be confronted with those challenges felt embarrassing and disheartening
for her.
Lastly, based on historical interventions attempted, a suicide attempt, referrals to
outside agencies, and student disclosures, the student faces many mental health
challenges. Many of these ongoing challenges continue to be unaddressed, therefore
manifesting into more complex issues as the student gets older. As previously
mentioned, the student utilizes unhealthy coping strategies to self-manage her anxiety
and depression. She uses drugs and alcohol to not only increase her feelings of
belonging among a social group that does the same, but to numb some of the negative
emotional experiences she faces on a regular basis. Her mother also reported in an
interview as a part of the MTSS process that the family has extensive mental health
history, and she herself, faces a great deal of anxiety and depression.
Despite there likely being various other barriers to learning that the student
experiences, these are the main themes we have gathered in our assessment of the
student as we work to get her more support tailored to her specific needs. Hopefully as
we establish a more trusting relationship with the student and family, we can uncover
any other barriers they experience and help to address those as well.

Assessment Process:
As a part of the MTSS process, we have weekly problem-solving meetings to
which the student has been brought up across every tier and support. The student came
to us as a freshman with access to all Tier 1 supports in our building. We have a
resource called The Drop-In Center, to which students can access if they are feeling
they need immediate mental health support. It is a large space staffed by various
different mental health professionals (social workers, psychologists, interventionists,
etc.) that are on standby to provide as-needed support to any student in the building.
The student was encouraged to attend The Drop-In Center one day when a teacher
noticed that she was crying over a relationship with a boy in her neighborhood. Despite
the fact that the student attended the support, she was not open with the provider and
was told that they could not force her to receive the help. She was then dismissed, but
The Drop-In Center staff referred her to more support through the MTSS committee.
Every quarter the MTSS team holds sessions called Batch Eligibility, where the
team reviews and analyzes various different data points for each student. A
spreadsheet is used to evaluate and document this data. On the first page of the
spreadsheet is a student roster of all students receiving MTSS support. It is organized
by grade-level. The student’s name, counselor’s name, primary interventions, target
academic area, reason for eligibility, and the start and end date of intervention are
listed. There is then a tab for each grade level which breaks down more specific data
and analyzes student needs much further. There are three main categories that data is
collected on, which include academics (grades), attendance rates, and SEL (based on a
survey conducted four times a year). Grades are then broken down and reported across
each academic area. If a student is receiving a D or lower, they are automatically
flagged for possibly needing more support. Our school-wide standardized testing data is
reported (STAR assessments) in order to identify if their testing shows consistent need
for urgent intervention across math and reading. We then evaluate the student’s assets.
Generally, the counselor, a related service provider, or teacher will provide many of
these assets. Some assets include, “developing relationships with trusted adults, social
capital, familial capital, strong self-advocate, linguistic capital, athlete, navigational
capital, general positive descriptors like kind and respectful, etc.” We then look at if the
student has any school-wide involvement. Involvement might include clubs or sports.
We look at if the student has a 504 plan or an IEP. We also look to see if the student is
identified as an English learner, what their racial identity is, and what language is
preferred. We look at risk factors, such as trauma. Lastly, we evaluate previously
referred students receiving interventions to see if they made progress with the
intervention and if they can exit support or need to receive more/different support.
The student that I am choosing to report on was flagged for attendance,
academic, and social-emotional factors. She was receiving multiple failing grades,
urgent intervention for STAR Reading assessments, had no involvement in school clubs
or athletics, did not have a 504 plan or an IEP, had a risk factor of trauma, and
displayed less than 80% of attendance. In response, she was receiving support in a Tier
2 intervention called Wellness where students are scheduled to receive mental health
support in a classroom staffed by a mental health professional, as well as an
attendance intervention. At the most recent batch eligibility meeting, it was reported that
despite the fact that she was responsive to the intervention and relationships she was
receiving through The Wellness Center, she still was failing her classes, not attending
school, and exhibiting consistent, concerning behavior that was impeding on her
well-being.
At this moment in time, she was referred for an special education initial
evaluation. The team argued that the concerns they had with this case far exceeded the
support that could be provided through a 504 plan, and it was encouraged by the
interventionists working with the student that they surpassed the next least restrictive
support in the process to get her more individualized support. Despite the special
education administrator sharing that alcohol and drug use was an exclusionary factor to
the process of an evaluation, the team argued that there were many more factors
contributing to the need for an evaluation and communicated that they would partner
with the special education department to ensure the student was sober when
undergoing evaluation (academic data collection, formulation of the SDS with student
interviews, etc.). An evaluation team was assigned to the student’s case and the efforts
to engage the student in academic testing began. As a part of this evaluation, the team
sought to collect rating scales, teacher feedback, student and parent interviews, an
SDS, student observations, FBA, and several standardized achievement testing. Some
of the assessments that would be included in this evaluation were the Woodcock
Johnson Test of Achievement, the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2),
and The Conners assessment.
Despite the fact that upon receiving parental permission to begin the evaluation
as a part of the Domain Meeting, it still took at least 60 days before eligibility could be
determined and an IEP could be developed. At the next MTSS problem-solving
meeting, the team, again, expressed extensive concerns with this timeline. At our
school, we try very hard not to diagnostically place students in special education, but
there are some cases where students really need the support immediately. In my career
at this school, there have only been four instances where I have seen a student
diagnostically placed in special education while undergoing evaluation. We have an
alternative education program at our school, which the team was recommending the
student to be placed in while the evaluation is completed. After several problem-solving
meetings with the Tier 2 team, Tier 3 team/special education department, and the
alternative education program staff, it was determined that the student needed more
support over the 60 days it would take to evaluate her. The student will be starting in the
program on Tuesday. It is the team’s home that with her in one centralized location in
the building, with staff she grows to trust and build a relationship with, we can be more
successful in assessing her and conducting an FBA/BIP. At this point in time, she is
either not in the building, or she is in the building, but not in class. With the concern that
she is engaging in unhealthy habits within the school (drugs and alcohol), increased
supervision was the focus of this decision.
Thus far, the student has completed the BASC-2 with the mental health
professional she trusts in The Wellness Program, and the team will begin observations
on Tuesday within the alternative education program to initiate the FBA/BIP. The SDS
has also been completed based off teacher interviews (lacking a lot of information
because they didn’t know the student well), the student herself, and the parent. Now,
the team must assess the student using various other assessment tools that will help
determine what strategies and supports need to be included in her individualized
education plan, pending we find her eligible for services. The team anticipates based on
the social and academic history, as well as current interventions tried, the SDS report
and BASC-2 data, that the student will qualify under an Emotional Disability and require
ongoing counseling support from a school social worker or school psychologist.
Assessment team:
Experience with collaboration: There are many members of the MTSS team and the
members that show up can be very different from week to week. The reason that the
team members are different each week are because they consist of stakeholders that
are tailored to each student and their needs. For example, in the case I have presented,
it was important that we had the student’s guidance counselor, the dean assigned to
that student, the mental health professional that runs The Wellness Center (the Tier 3
intervention that the student is a part of currently), the Special Education Coordinator,
the psychologist who would be conducting the evaluation, the social workers that would
conduct the FBA, behavioral rating scales, and SDS, as well as the MTSS coordinator.
This team would differ based on the interventions that each student partakes in, who
their assigned support team has been, who is referring the student for more tiered
supports, or which related service providers could potentially be assigned to the
evaluation team if the student is referred for an IEP.
Each member of the team ultimately wants what is best for students. Each week,
they show up with the necessary data needed to advocate for and implement more
support for each student that is flagged. Sometimes the same members of the team
show up week after week advocating for the same student. These meetings can get
intense and many can pose vastly different opinions. I remember as an intern in my first
MTSS meeting, I felt that the team members were arguing a lot or that the environment
was hostile. My supervisor shared that almost every week the meetings look like that
and that I would learn, over time, that nothing is taken personally and people are not
fighting, but rather, fiercely advocating. This couldn’t have been further from the truth as
I learned the more meetings I attended. If a new intern, or an individual who had not
attended an MTSS problem-solving meeting before had attended the meeting regarding
this specific student, they would definitely think that there were hard feelings towards
many different staff members. At certain points in the meeting, there were words of
desperation, disagreements and even tears. People who worked intimately with the
student knew she needed more help than was being offered to her, and fast. They were
not taking no for an answer and knew that we would have to jump through loopholes to
extend that level of support to her.
Nonetheless, this meeting was one of the most collaborative meetings I had been
a part of. People asked thought-provoking questions of one another, listened and
understood one another’s opinions, respected each other’s expertise, and offered to
play an active role in bridging the student into the alternative education program. Each
member of the team also assumed their role in the evaluation process. For example, the
psychologist did not know the student, but had heard that the student struggled with
meeting new adults and was concerned that the student would not be receptive to
engaging in the academic testing with her. Three members of the team that the student
was comfortable with offered to aid in the process. One offered to meet with the student
beforehand and explain the process and purpose to the student, one offered to escort
the student to the office space in order to begin the testing, and another offered to
introduce the student to the psychologist and, with the student’s request, sit with her
during the assessments.

Parental involvement in the process: The mother was very supportive throughout the
process, despite our apprehensions with involving her too often considering her
extremely tight schedule. If she wasn’t available to take a phone call during the day, she
was sure to call back immediately when she could. She came in before work to
complete the SDS parent interview and made herself available for any follow up
questions. She was supportive of our decisions to support her daughter and expressed
a great deal of trust in us to do what was right by her daughter. She had discussions
with her daughter about attending school and tried to help her put plans in place to get
there. She had been willing to take many days off of work to accommodate her
daughter’s needs, such as taking her to an outside therapist, driving her to school when
she could, coming in for attendance meetings, etc.
While she provided some important information regarding her daughter and her
specific needs, she was very brief. Due to her daughter not receiving a lot of support
throughout her academic career, or not being open to that support, she didn’t have a lot
of information involving many of the questions that were a part of the parent interview. A
lot of the questions have to do with medication, past interventions attempted, academic
challenges, etc., and there really wasn’t a wealth of information because the student
hadn’t had an active involvement in many of those areas. The mother was quick to sign
paperwork and give us permission to make changes to her child’s plan. When she
couldn’t attend meetings in person, she would call us over the phone during her lunch
break to meet. She is truly a mother doing what she can with the circumstances she
has.

Artifacts (2-3 artifacts):

1. Social Development Study: Please note that this SDS was cut down
tremendously for the sake of not having to read through the whole report
consisting of a lot of personal information.
Copy of SDS
2. Tier 3 Data Collection Form Attached: Attached is our data collection form that
we use to collect MTSS meeting data over time on a student. Please note, I have
 unlinked a lot of the linked documents because they would open up to other
forms that disclosed student identification data.
Tier 3 Data Collection Form
3. MTSS Spreadsheet Screenshot: This is a screenshot of page 1 and page 2, as
broken down in the assessment portion of this report. The highlighted red row is
the identified student.
Page #1 (overview page):

Page #2 (more specific data):

4. Attendance Data Screenshot: As you can see, the student has attended 34% of
the school year, and only 35% of the previous 20 school days.

5. ODR’s Screenshot: The student has received a total of 66 different behavioral

infractions this school year. They break down to:
● Unauthorized Absences: 56 referrals
● Tardiness to Class: 7 referrals
● Illicit Drug-Related: 3 referrals