Tier 2 Readiness Indicators and Guidelines

Report
Leanne S. Hawken, University of Utah
Danielle Starkey, Missouri, SWPBS
Ericka Dixon, Winfield Primary
Illinois PBIS Forum, 2012

Overview BEP/CICO Principles

Where have we been and where are we going?

BEP/CICO at the state/regional level.

BEP/CICO at the school level.
3
Student Recommended for BEP/CICO
BEP-CICO Implementation
Process
BEP/CICO Implemented
BEP Coordinator
Summarizes Data
For Decision Making
Morning
Check-in/DPR
Pick-up
Parent
Feedback
Regular Teacher
Feedback
Bi-weekly BEP Meeting
to Assess Student
Progress
Afternoon
Check-out
Revise
Program
Exit
Program


Started at Fern Ridge Middle School, Elmira Oregon
Crone, Horner, & Hawken (2004). Responding to Problem
Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program. New
York, NY: Guilford Press

5 schools

One BEP Coordinator served:

Excel Data System
◦ 3 elementary
◦ 2 middle schools
◦ 15-20 students elementary
◦ 20-30 students secondary
◦ No web-based system

To support more students, some schools have
multiple BEP/CICO check-in, check out
facilitators.

Expanded to include high school & preschool
populations

New data system

Fidelity of Implementation
◦ SWIS CICO
◦ Current – 1999 schools K-12 use SWIS CICO data base.
◦ Individual Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SET)
Crone, Hawken, & Horner
(2010). Responding to
Problem Behavior in
Schools: The Behavior
Education Program (2nd
ed). New York, NY:
Guilford Press
7
Hawken, Pettersson,
Mootz, & Anderson
(2005). The Behavior
Education Program:
A Check-in, Checkout Intervention for
Students at Risk.
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Leanne S. Hawken, PhD - 2011
8

Effective in reducing problem behavior for:
◦ Elementary school students
(Cheney et al., 2009; Fairbanks, Sugai,
Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings,
2007; McCurdy, 2007; Stage, Cheney, Flower, Templeton, & Waugh, 2010; Todd,
Kaufman, Meyer, & Horner, 2007).
◦ Middle School Students
(Hawken, 2006; Hawken & Horner, 2003;
March & Horner, 2002)
◦ Students in Urban School Settings
◦ Students with disabilities
Hawken, & O’Neill, 2010)
(McCurdy, 2007)
(Hawken, et al., 2007, MacLeod,
***Problem behaviors measured via direct observation, rating scales,
changes in percentage of points earned on DPRs, & reductions in
ODRs

Effective in increasing academic engagement,
including for students in high school settings
(Hawken & Horner, 2003, Swain-Bradway, 2009)

Reduced need for Tier 3 and special education
supports following CICO implementation
(Hawken, et al., 2007)

Overall range of effectiveness of CICO ranges
from 40% to 70% (Fairbanks, et al., 2007) (Hawken, et al., 2007)

More effective with students with attentionmaintained problem behavior (March & Horner, 2002;
McIntosh, et., al., 2009, Campbell & Anderson, 2008)

Effective across behavioral functions (Hawken,
O’Neill, & MacLeod, 2011)

Students who do not respond to CICO benefit
from function-based, individualized
interventions (Fairbanks, et., al., 2007, March & Horner, 2002;
Macleod, Hawken, & O’Neill, 2010)
Supporting Check-In, Check-Out
Implementation
Danielle Starkey,
Regional SW-PBS Consultant
Heart of Missouri Regional Professional Development Center
Missouri SW-PBS Training Structure
MO SW-PBS
Missouri SW-PBS Personnel
•
•
•
•
State Coordinator (1)
State Data/Web Consultant (1)
Tier 2/3 Consultants (6)
Regional Consultants (24)
MO SW-PBS
Missouri SW-PBS
Tier 2 Readiness Indicators and
Guidelines
Building the Foundation for Effective
Implementation of
Check-In, Check-Out
Readiness for Tier 2
• SW-PBS universal systems are consistently
implemented with fidelity
– Schoolwide
– Non-Classroom
– Classroom
MO SW-PBS
Readiness for Tier 2
• SW-PBS Universal System Outcomes
– Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET)
• Score (80/80) within past 12 months
OR
– Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ)
• Score of 80% or higher
WITH
– Self-Assessment Survey (SAS)
• 80% of staff report that Schoolwide, Non-Classroom &
Classroom Systems are in place
MO SW-PBS
Readiness for Tier 2
• Office referral data indicates 80 percent of
students in the 0-1 referral range
• System in place to document classroom
minors
• Consistent use of school-wide data for making
decisions as evidenced by monthly Big 5 Data
Reports
MO SW-PBS
Tier 2 Training Content
Systems Training
• Foundational Knowledge
• The Tier 2 Team
• Student Identification Process
– Nominations
– Existing school data
– Screening instrument scores
• Monitoring Progress & Evaluating Outcomes
using the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers
MO SW-PBS
Intervention Training
•
•
•
•
Check-in/Check-out (BEP-CICO)
Check & Connect
Social Skill Instructional Groups
Targeted Environmental Interventions
MO SW-PBS
Lessons Learned – CICO/BEP
• Higher level of success with implementation
when solid Tier 1 is in place.
• Staff training on intervention components is
essential, with a review each school year.
• Tier 2 Systems in place are critical
– Team
– Student Identification Process
– Monitoring Progress & Evaluating Outcomes
MO SW-PBS
Winfield Primary
Ericka Dixon
[email protected]

Total Enrollment: 386-404

Grade Levels Served: Pre-School-2nd Grade

Free and Reduced Lunch Rates:
2009-2010
2011-2012
2010-2011

Big Five Data Showing Increases in Problem
Behavior

Intervention to Build Relationship

65% of the day spent on discipline

Received Verbal Permission from Parents for
Students to enter CICO Intervention
2010-2011 Referrals:
133
2011-2012 Referrals:
204

22 Students Utilized the CICO Intervention

17 Staff Members were Utilized as
Coordinators

7 Students were dismissed

9 Students Continued

3 Students Moved

3 Students Moved to Tier III Intervention
Positives


Intervention Built
Relationships
Saw Some
Improvements in
Behaviors
Negatives







One More Thing to Do
Time Consuming for Both
the Classroom Teacher
and Staff Coordinator
Minimal Successes
No Set Criteria to Exit the
Program
No End Result Known
No Real Training in the
Intervention-felt thrown
in
Coordinators felt like
counselors









Received Professional Development from our PBIS
RPDC Representatives
Designed Entrance and Exit Criteria
Created a Teacher Recommendation Form
Created a Daily Points Sheet
Created a Flow Chart and Celebrations for Fading
CICO Students
Created a Letter to Inform Parents of the CICO
Program
Made Personal Phone Calls to CICO Student Parents
Received Written Permission from Parents to Start and
Exit CICO
Offered On-Going Professional Development to Staff
2011-2012 CICO Year Two
Facts
Total Participating (25)
Faded (3)
Discontinued and
Moved to Tier III (2)
600
500
2010-2011
400
300
200
2011-2012
100
0
# of Referrals # of Students # of Students
Receiving a
without any
Major
Referral
Referral
% Decrease/%
Increase






Major Behavior Referrals
Decreased
Staff Members felt
Supported
Professional Development
Improved Implementation
Process
Students began to SelfMonitor Behavior
Parents began to get
involved
Coordinators felt like
support teams instead of
counselors
Positives


Classroom Teachers
continued to struggle
with effective feedback
after each classroom
activity.
This intervention was
not working for Tier III
Students
Negatives
2010-2012
Total Number
Participating
Graduated
Fading
Discontinued
Remaining in CICO



Continued Professional
Development on CICO
Intervention
Continued Revising,
Refining, and Monitor of
CICO Intervention
Continued Staff
Development for all Tier I
and Tier II Interventions




Implement CICO in
Pre-School
Implement SelfMonitoring
Intervention
Implement Check-NConnect Intervention
Implement Social Skills
Intervention
Ratio of at minimum 4:1 for Pre-corrects/Positives to Negative
1. Student Data Inventory
2. Teacher Nomination
3. Universal Screening
If you need materials, advice, etc., please email
Ericka Dixon.
[email protected]

similar documents