Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Check in, Check Out- Part 1
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.
Overview
3
Student Recommended for BEP/CICO
BEP/CICO Implemented
ParentFeedback
Regular Teacher Feedback
AfternoonCheck-out
Morning Check-in/DPR
Pick-up
BEP CoordinatorSummarizes Data
For Decision Making
Bi-weekly BEP Meetingto Assess Student
Progress
Exit Program
ReviseProgram
BEP-CICO Implementation
Process
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◦ 3 elementary◦ 2 middle schools
One BEP Coordinator served:◦ 15-20 students elementary◦ 20-30 students secondary
Excel Data System◦ No web-based system
In the Beginning………..
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◦ SWIS CICO◦ Current – 1999 schools K-12 use SWIS CICO data base.
Fidelity of Implementation ◦ Individual Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SET)
Current BEP/CICO practice
Crone, Hawken, & Horner (2010). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press
7
Manual on How to Implement BEP/CICO
DVD on how to Implement BEP/CICO
Leanne S. Hawken, PhD - 2011 8
Hawken, Pettersson, Mootz, & Anderson (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-in, Check-out Intervention for Students at Risk. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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 (McCurdy, 2007)
◦ Students with disabilities (Hawken, et al., 2007, MacLeod, Hawken, & O’Neill, 2010)
***Problem behaviors measured via direct observation, rating scales, changes in percentage of points earned on DPRs, & reductions in ODRs
Research on BEP/CICO
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)
Research on CICO
More effective with students with attention-maintained 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)
Research on CICO
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-PBSTier 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
– Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ)• Score of 80% or higher
– Self-Assessment Survey (SAS)• 80% of staff report that Schoolwide, Non-Classroom &
Classroom Systems are in placeMO SW-PBS
OR
WITH
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 School’s Check-In / Check-Out
(CICO) Program
Winfield PrimaryEricka Dixon
Total Enrollment: 386-404
Grade Levels Served: Pre-School-2nd Grade
Free and Reduced Lunch Rates:
Winfield Primary at a Glance
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-201268% 59%
50%
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 First Year of Implementation
Big Five Data Report
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
2010-2011 CICO Year One Facts
2010-2011 Staff Survey ResultsPositives Negatives
Intervention Built Relationships
Saw Some Improvements in Behaviors
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- Second Year of Implementation
2011-2012 CICO Year Two Facts
Total Participating (25)Faded (3)Discontinued and Moved to Tier III (2)Graduated to Intermediate School 3-5 (11)
2010-2012 CICO Results for
Winfield Primary School
0
200
400
600
2010-20112011-2012% Decrease/% Increase
2011-2012 Staff Survey Results
Positives Negatives
Major Behavior Referrals Decreased
Staff Members felt Supported Professional Development
Improved Implementation Process
Students began to Self-Monitor Behavior
Parents began to get involved
Coordinators felt like support teams instead of counselors
Classroom Teachers continued to struggle with effective feedback after each classroom activity.
This intervention was not working for Tier III Students
Total Number of Students Serviced by CICO Intervention
2010-2012
Total Number Partic-ipatingGraduatedFadingDiscontinuedRemaining 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 Self-Monitoring Intervention
Implement Check-N-Connect Intervention
Implement Social Skills Intervention
Implement a Universal Behavior Screener
Future Plans for Winfield Primary School
Winfield Primary’s CICO Forms
Goals and Rewards
Daily Progress Report (DPR)
Ratio of at minimum 4:1 for Pre-corrects/Positives to Negative
Daily Parent Report
Entrance Criteria1. Student Data Inventory2. Teacher Nomination3. Universal Screening
