Advanced Training on Check In, Check Out: FAQs and High School Implementation

Leanne S. Hawken, PhDUniversity of Utah

Carrie Akins & Lisa AlfordNorth Point High School

Waldorf, MD

Objectives

• Describe ways to modify CICO to improve its effectiveness

• Learn answers to frequently asked questions regarding CICO implementation

• Learn effective ways to implement CICO in a high school setting

Student Recommended for BEP/CICO

BEP/CICO Implemented

ParentFeedback

Regular Teacher Feedback

AfternoonCheck-out

Morning Check-in/DPR

Pick-up

CICO CoordinatorSummarizes Data

For Decision Making

Bi-weekly CICO Meetingto Assess Student

Progress

Exit Program

ReviseProgram

BEP-CICO Implementation Process

Trouble Shooting/FAQs

Referrals to CICO• CICO should not be your only Tier 2 intervention

– 10-15% of population x 900 kids in school = 90 –135 kids who may need intervention.

• How much assessment/meeting time per referral?– FBA or No FBA prior to student receiving CICO?

• Academic Data• Mild problem behavior throughout the day

– Classroom-based intervention• Not dangerous or aggressive behavior

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Pre Post

Av

era

ge

Re

ferr

als

Pe

r W

ee

k

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Pre Post

Av

era

ge

Re

ferr

als

Pe

r W

ee

k

Series1

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Pre Post

Av

era

ge

Re

ferr

als

Pe

r W

ee

k

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Pre Post

Ave

rag

e R

efer

rals

Per

Wee

k

How much assessment/meeting time per referral?

• Need to ensure students access intervention quickly (e.g., less than a week if possible)

• Lengthy assessment should be saved for Tier 3/tertiary level support

• Need to balance number of students who receive intervention with capacity – Maximum # of kids that can be served- Guideline

• 15-20 per coordinator –elementary school level• 20-30 per coordinator – secondary school level

Collecting Baseline Data

• Give teacher a packet of 5 baseline DPR forms (colored paper- Not on NCR)

• Have teacher rate student on the DPR but NOT GIVE STUDENT FEEDBACK

• During baseline – student does not check-in or check-out

• Parental consent is being obtained during baseline

Wild Card Data for Student A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

School Days

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Po

ints

Baseline ROAR Program

Goal line

Wild Card Data for Student B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

School Days

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Po

ints

Baseline ROAR Program

Goal line

Check-in• Quick – not a counseling session• Can be conducted by multiple

coordinators– Need a data manager using this option

• Positive – not rote/repetitious• Private location• What to do if students don’t check-in

Teacher Feedback

• Phrasing “I’m going to give you” v. “you earned.”

• Each marking period is a teaching moment– Examples & non-examples of expected behavior

• DPR on teacher’s desk vs. student’s desk• Training on providing corrective feedback

Check-out• Scheduling

– After school v. last 10 minutes of day?• Increasing efficiency of check-out

– Have students calculate total points– Use goal calculator– If possible- stagger students check-out

• What to do if student does not check out?– Lottery tickets– Is coordinator reinforcing?

My Total Points Today

My Score Today

50 100%49 98%48 96%47 94%46 92%45 90%44 88%43 86%42 84%41 82%40 80%39 78%38 76%37 74%36 72%35 70%34 68%33 66%32 64%31 62%30 60%29 58%28 56%27 54%26 52%25 50%24 48%

CICO Goal Calculator

Manual on how to Implement the BEP/CICO

• Crone, Horner, & Hawken (2010). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press

DVD on how to Implement the BEP

Hawken, Pettersson, Mootz, & Anderson (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-in, Check-out Intervention for Students at Risk. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Not Just for Elementary Students! A Comprehensive Model for High School Level

Implementation of Check-in/Check-out

Carrie Akins & Lisa AlfordNorth Point High School

Waldorf, MD

• Suburban community, 30 miles Southeast of Wash. DC• Offer Science, Technology, and Industry programs; half

to 65% of our population is “zoned”; the others apply for STI programs and are bussed from home areas. Not all students at NPHS are in “STI” programs.

• Alternating Block Schedule; (A day/B day, most classes meet every other day) each class period 84 minutes.

• Currently in our 3rd year of our “one hour lunch” initiative.– One hour lunch allows for students to both eat as well as

participate in clubs, tutoring, and activities during the school day.

About North Point High School

• Approximately 2250 students:

Student Demographics

Race

African Amer-icanCaucasianAsianHispanicOther

Gender

MaleFemale

Tiered Supports History

• School opened grades 7 through 9 in 2006 – 2007. Implemented PBIS at opening.

• Added Check-in/Check-out (CICO) program in 2008-09 school year.

• In 2011-12, began participating in the MDS3 (Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools) grant which added additional Tier 2 supports and fostered the creation of our “Tier 2 Team” structure.

• In 2012-13, the Tier 2 Team structure is being fully implemented.

Chronological History of CICO

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-120

5

10

15

20

25

Students in ProgramTrained Mentors

Our Referral/Screening Process

Before Tier 2 Team Process• Most referrals from Student

Support Team (SST)– Teachers also able to refer directly,

but SST or administrators were primary source of referral

• Baseline data collection– Collected over period of 2 weeks (5

class periods).– Students with baseline over 85% or

under 50% not considered eligible for CICO.

• Emphasis on targeting students with “attention-seeking” behaviors.

With Tier 2 Team Process• RFA (Request for Assistance) form

– RFA coordinator reviews data for student and determines appropriate Tier 2 Intervention, including CICO

• Baseline data collection– Teachers “estimate” percentage for

each area assessed/targeted (materials, on-time, class participation, work completion, respectful behaviors)

• Emphasis on targeting students with “attention-seeking” behaviors and early intervention; screening for

Beginning the Intervention

• Contact with student and invitation to participate:– Administrator/CICO Program Lead makes first contact– Focus on “real world” concerns of teens: “Feeling better

about school,” “Making parents happy,” earned rewards, graduation

• Signed parent permission letter obtained.• Student is paired with a mentor.• Administrator/CICO Program Lead facilitates first

meeting between mentor and student.• Student begins meeting with mentor daily.

Considerations for Pairing Students with Mentors

• Individual mentors model (multiple “checkers”)– Eliminates stigma of being part of a “big group.” – Provides students an important relationship to build

upon (sustainable even after student exits the program)• Mentors considered based on specific needs of

student (such as male vs. female mentor match), “geographical” closeness and ease (location of mentor to student’s locker), or other recommendation or previous connection between mentor and student.

The CICO Process

The CICO Process: How it Works at the High School Level

• Creating and maintaining buy-in:– Rewards planning

• Students are actively engaged in the process of goal planning• 3 Days at 75% (or 15% increase over baseline, whichever is lower)• Continue in 3 day increments of achievement until student is at 75% • 5 Days at 80%• 10 Days at 85%• 15 Days at 85%• Allocated budget per student is $35

• Success: early and often – Daily rewards (“Eagle Bucks”) just for seeing the mentor in the morning or afternoon

• Focus on improvement over baseline• Involving students in their own data disaggregation

Exiting the Program

• After 6-10 weeks of success in the program (improvement over baseline to sustained 80-85%), we “step down” from the daily regimen.

• The student begins a 3-4 week “weekly check” process of meeting with the mentor.

• After 3-4 weeks of successful weekly checks, the student is fully exited. Student data (grades, behavior referrals) continue to be monitored through the remainder of the school year.

• If student shows signs of decrease in grades or increase in referrals, the student can be quickly restarted on the daily check process.

Data Tracking

Data Tracking

Data Lessons

Continued Mentor Responsibilities

• Daily monitoring and encouragement– Stressed importance on “checking out” on a bad day– Parent communication– Communication with student’s teachers– Assisting students in self-advocating and improving their own

behaviors• Planning for and obtaining rewards for student• Data tracking and input• Understanding of ethical aspects of mentor to student

relationship– Mentoring vs. “friend” or “parent” role

• Assistance with frequent fidelity checks of program

Frequent Fidelity Checks of Program

• Monthly meetings are held in order to discuss progress of students in the program, obstacles, and ongoing issues:– Teacher training (non-implementing teachers)– Student buy-in– Parent participation

• Look at both individual progress as well as aggregate progress of all students in the program.

• Determination of students who need to be advanced to Tier 3 (SST/IEP) supports or referred to additional or different Tier 2 programs (such as Check & Connect)

Working with the Teachers

• All staff members are trained in concepts of Check-in/Check-out

• Stress on providing daily positive feedback to the student – the most important role of the classroom teacher– Teacher guide (handout)– Ongoing staff training– Mentor/Program Lead specifically work with teachers

as needed– Admin involvement when needed

Snapshot of a CICO Mentor’s Experience: Lisa’s Story

With “Nicole” it started off a little rough. I had to gain her trust to where she would want to come and see me in the mornings and afternoons, even though it was only for a brief moment. At the time she started, she was in the 10th grade and was going through a dramatic experience at home. Once she realized that she could trust me, she began to come and see me on a regular basis, even at lunch time. It was clear that being part of the program helped give her attention that she was lacking and desperately seeking. Over time, “Nicole” started to enjoy the accountability that being in the program provided her. She was never very interested in the rewards – for her, it was more about the connection as well as the accountability of the check sheet. Because of the accountability she started to excel in her classes. Once she started to see for herself that she could do it and be successful, she really soared. Before long, she had obtained a quarterly GPA of 3.8. We eventually officially exited “Nicole” from the program. In the next school year, when she felt herself start to slip back to some old habits, she asked to come to be accountable again and we did.

Keys to Success• Well-trained and willing mentors• Identifying the RIGHT students for the intervention

– “Attention-seeking” students– Early identification/intervention

• Creating and maintaining student buy-in– Attention to “stigma” created by being “different.” – Emphasizing student’s small successes to create intrinsic motivation

• Parental Involvement– Mentors/coordinators must help to ensure that parents are

participating on the home front as much as possible. • Whole staff training

– Teachers must understand the mindset of our CICO students– Mentors/coordinators must monitor that teachers are providing

thoughtful, accurate feedback

Measures of SuccessIn the 2011-12 School Year, we did a data analysis of students who were identified for participation in CICO:• 22 Students were screened for CICO in SY 2011-12:

– 6 participated for greater than 10 weeks (one marking period)– 7 participated for 6-10 weeks and were moved to periodic monitoring

(rather than daily monitoring).– 2 were moved from CICO to a different intervention– Total of 15 students who actively, fully participated in the intervention

• Of the 9 students who did not fully participate in CICO for SY 2011-12:– 50% pass rate of classes overall– Median number of classes failed for the year was 5 of 8 classes.

• Of the 15 who participated , the students had – 78% pass rate of classes overall– Median number of classes failed for the year was one of 8 classes.

Please Contact Us for More Info

• Carrie Akins, Vice Principal, Tier 2 Interventions Coordinator– cakins@ccboe.com

• Lisa Alford, CICO Program Lead– lalford@ccboe.com

• Leanne Hawken– Leanne.hawken@utah.edu