1 / 42

Check in, Check Out- Part 1

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. Overview BEP/CICO Principles Where have we been and where are we going? BEP/CICO at the state/regional level .

waseemah
Télécharger la présentation

Check in, Check Out- Part 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Check in, Check Out- Part 1 Leanne S. Hawken, University of Utah Danielle Starkey, Missouri, SWPBS Ericka Dixon, Winfield Primary Illinois PBIS Forum, 2012

  2. Overview • 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

  4. In the Beginning……….. • 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

  5. Current BEP/CICO practice • 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)

  6. Manual on How to Implement BEP/CICO Crone, Hawken, & Horner (2010).Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press

  7. DVD on how to Implement BEP/CICO Hawken, Pettersson, Mootz, & Anderson (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-in, Check-out Intervention for Students at Risk. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Leanne S. Hawken, PhD - 2011

  8. Research on BEP/CICO • 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

  9. Research on 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)

  10. 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)

  11. Supporting Check-In, Check-Out Implementation Danielle Starkey, Regional SW-PBS Consultant Heart of Missouri Regional Professional Development Center

  12. Missouri SW-PBS Training Structure MO SW-PBS

  13. Missouri SW-PBS Personnel • State Coordinator (1) • State Data/Web Consultant (1) • Tier 2/3 Consultants (6) • Regional Consultants (24) MO SW-PBS

  14. Missouri SW-PBSTier 2 Readiness Indicators and Guidelines Building the Foundation for Effective Implementation of Check-In, Check-Out

  15. Readiness for Tier 2 • SW-PBS universal systems are consistently implemented with fidelity • Schoolwide • Non-Classroom • Classroom MO SW-PBS

  16. 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 place OR WITH MO SW-PBS

  17. 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

  18. Tier 2 Training Content

  19. 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

  20. Intervention Training • Check-in/Check-out (BEP-CICO) • Check & Connect • Social Skill Instructional Groups • Targeted Environmental Interventions MO SW-PBS

  21. 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

  22. Winfield Primary School’s Check-In / Check-Out(CICO) Program Winfield Primary Ericka Dixon erickadixon@winfield.k12.mo.us

  23. Winfield Primary at a Glance • Total Enrollment: 386-404 • Grade Levels Served: Pre-School-2nd Grade • Free and Reduced Lunch Rates:

  24. 2010-2011 First Year of Implementation • 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

  25. Big Five Data Report 2010-2011 Referrals: 133 2011-2012 Referrals: 204

  26. 2010-2011 CICO Year One Facts • 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

  27. 2010-2011 Staff Survey Results • 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 Positives Negatives

  28. 2011-2012- Second Year of Implementation • 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

  29. 2010-2012 CICO Results for Winfield Primary School

  30. 2011-2012 Staff Survey Results • 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 Positives Negatives

  31. Total Number of Students Serviced by CICO Intervention

  32. Future Plans for Winfield Primary School • Implement CICO in Pre-School • Implement Self-Monitoring Intervention • Implement Check-N-Connect Intervention • Implement Social Skills Intervention • Implement a Universal Behavior Screener • 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

  33. Winfield Primary’s CICO Forms

  34. Goals and Rewards

  35. Daily Progress Report (DPR) Ratio of at minimum 4:1 for Pre-corrects/Positives to Negative

  36. Daily Parent Report

  37. EntranceCriteria Student Data Inventory Teacher Nomination Universal Screening

  38. Questions If you need materials, advice, etc., please email Ericka Dixon. erickadixon@winfield.k12.mo.us

More Related