Establishing District Guidelines for Math Screener Levels

Consistent, clearly communicated guidelines are the foundation of valid and equitable screening data. When different schools, teams, or individuals apply different criteria for determining which level of the Math Universal Screener a student receives, the resulting data cannot be reliably compared, growth cannot be accurately tracked, and the value of the screener is significantly diminished.

This article outlines the key components of an effective district guideline framework and provides a recommended decision-making protocol for screener level placement.

Why Written Guidelines Matter

Without written guidelines, screener level decisions are left to individual judgment and individual judgment varies. A student in one school may be assessed at their enrolled grade level while a student with a nearly identical profile in another school is assessed at a lower level. This inconsistency:

• Undermines data comparability across classrooms, schools, and programs
• Disrupts growth tracking, since scores from different screener levels cannot be directly compared
• Creates equity concerns, as placement decisions may reflect inconsistent practices rather than student need
• Compromises program evaluation, making it harder to determine whether interventions are producing results

What District Guidelines Should Include

Effective screener level guidelines should be developed collaboratively by curriculum directors, special education coordinators, assessment teams, and school administrators. They should address:

• The default expectation that all students — including those in Tier 3 or special education — are assessed at their enrolled grade level
• The specific criteria that justify a level adjustment and the evidence required to support that decision
• The approval process for level adjustments, including who has authority to authorize a change
• Documentation requirements for any adjustment made
• The expectation that the selected level is maintained across all three testing windows (fall, winter, spring) within a school year
• The annual review process for revisiting placement decisions at the start of each new school year
• Alignment with IEP accommodations, LRE principles, and state assessment participation requirements

Recommended Decision-Making Protocol

The following six-step protocol provides a structured, repeatable process for making screener level decisions consistently across a district:

• Step 1: Default to enrolled grade level Begin with the assumption that every student — including those in Tier 3 or special education programs — will be assessed at their enrolled grade level. This is the starting point, not a conclusion.
• Step 2: Review prior screener data If a student earned a score at or above the floor of the enrolled-grade screener in the prior administration, continue at the same level. A score above the floor indicates the screener is capturing meaningful information.
• Step 3: Consult district guidelines Determine whether the student meets the district's established criteria for a level adjustment. If a potential adjustment is warranted, document the specific rationale clearly and completely.
• Step 4: Obtain appropriate approval Any level adjustment must be authorized by the appropriate district or school-level authority — such as a special education coordinator or assessment director — before it is implemented. Do not make adjustments unilaterally.
• Step 5: Commit to the selected level for the full school year Once a level is selected, it should remain consistent across the fall, winter, and spring administrations. Changing the level mid-year disrupts longitudinal data and prevents accurate growth measurement. Changes between administrations require documented justification and formal approval.
• Step 6: Review the decision annually At the start of each new school year, revisit the screener level decision using current data and district guidelines. Do not carry forward prior-year decisions without reviewing whether they remain appropriate.

The Bottom Line