High School-focused Secondary/Tertiary TOT September 1 & 2, 2010

1. High School-focusedSecondary/Tertiary TOT September 1 & 2, 2010 IL PBIS Network

2. OPENING ACTIVITY What: “I’m In” activity Why: transition from outside the meeting to inside the meeting How: at each table (approx 90 seconds per person) Introduce yourself (name, title, district) briefly name your mood & anything that might detract you from fully participating End with saying “I’m in”

3. Day 1 Agenda: 9:00 - 9:45HS Implementation: State of the State (& Nation) 9:45-10:30 Secondary Systems in High School 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-11:30 Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) in High School 11:30- 12:15 Lunch 12:15-1:00 Groups in High School 1:00-1:45 C&C and other Individualized Interventions 1:45-2:00 Break 2:00-2:45 Tertiary Systems in High School 2:45-3:30 RENEW: Case example in action

4. Acknowledgments • Jessica Swain-Bradway, Ph.D. • Educational and Community Supports • University of Oregon • jswainbr@uoregon.edu • Institute on Community Integration • University of Minnesota • www.ici.umn.edu • JoAnne Malloy, Johnathon Drake • RENEW • New Hampshire • Polly Neumann-Anderson • Wrap Facilitator Madison, WI

5. HS Implementation: State of the State (& Nation)

6. WHY STUDENTS DROP OUT • Most empirically robust predictor of drop out is academic failure(Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Berktold, Geis, & Kaufman, 1998; Harlow, 2003; Jordan McPartland, & Lara, 1999; Kemple, Herlihy & Smith, 2005; Markow & Scheer, 2002). • Students who drop out are NOT connected to school(Berktold, Geis, & Kaufman, 1998; Harlow, 2003 : Jerald, 2006; Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006). • 24% of students who drop out are unable to identify an adult in the school by whom they feel supported(2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement).

7. WHAT DROP OUT COSTS $10,000 less in average yearly income for students who drop out of school (HHS, 2006). Each student who drops out costs the federal government $260,000 over course of lifetime (Rouse, 2005). A 5% increase in graduation rates of male students alone would equate to savings of $8 billion in crime related costs (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).

8. SCHOOL RETENTION LITERATURE Adult feedback or interaction(Croninger & Lee, 2001; Dynarski, 2001; Fashola & Slavin, 1998; Hayward & Tallmadge, 1995; Kerr & Legters; Lee & Burkham, 2003; McPartland, 1994; Schargle & Smink, 2001; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003; Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995) Increase home / school connection (Dynarski, 2001; Fashol & Slavin, 1998; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003; Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995)

9. SCHOOL RETENTION LITERATURE Increase structure and predictability (Dynarski, 2000; Fashola and Slavin, 1998; Hayward and Tallmadge, 1995; Lee and Burkham, 2003; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, and Anderson, 2003) Both academic and social supports (Dynarski, 2001; Fashol & Slavin, 1998; Hayward & Tallmadge, 1995; Kemple, Herlihy, & Smith, 2005; McPartland, 1994; Schargle & Smink, 2001; Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995).

10. Tier 2/3 Supports Provide: • Increase structure and predictability • Increase positive adult feedback • Increase home/school communication • Rapid response/continuously available • Efficient system for linking academic and social performance • Ongoing data collection for decision making

11. Current Challenges Facing High Schools • School-wide (Universal) implementation (islands & silos) • Struggling most with teacher “buy-in” • Not many T2/T3 interventions beyond Sp.Ed. • Few teachers refer youth for extra support • No/minimal Universal screening & lack of data-based decision-making for behavior • Logistics: Scheduling issues, bell-schedule, hall passes • Difficulty “individualizing” interventions for youth (esp. if involves credits earned, minutes-late, pass/fail) • Discipline problems/approaches, Sp.Ed. Process (testing/placement) and “PBIS” operate as separate entities

12. State of the State (& Nation) for Tier 2/3 HS Implementation Tertiary Demos (K-I) Replication Sites (IL) National Center Tier 2/3 Demos (IL, MO, FL, OR) ICEPs Grant & evolution of project focus Demonstrate what works in High Schools at Tier 2/3

13. State of the State (& Nation) for Tier 2/3 HS Implementation Major (and recent) Developments: • National Center, High School Monograph • HS-BEP • CICO • Future’s Planning • RENEW

14. High School Implementation Features of T2/3 1. Coaching • Building-based • District-level • District-level focus/support • Systems-focused mtgs./conversations • Data-based decision-making • Continuum of T2 & T3 interventions • Evidence-based practices

15. High School T2/3:1) Coaching • Building-based • Assessment of current procedures • System refinement & development • Intervention delivery • Intervention coordination • Staff development • District-level • External support to multiple buildings • Financial/resource allocation • Advocacy at district-level • Training capacity & coordination • Use of data (identify trends & problem-solve)

16. High School T2/3:2) District-level Support • District-level Coaching for HS • Specialized trainings for HS • District Leadership Team focus on HS • Clarify model/expectations for HS implementation • Provide examples/samples for HSs to replicate • HS versions of tools/practices • PERMISSION & support for individualization of interventions (pass/fail, credits, schedules)

17. High School T2/3:3)Systems-focused Meetings

18. 3-Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) UniversalTeam Secondary Systems Team Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Plans SW & Class-wide supports Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time CICO Universal Support Brief FBA/BIP SAIG Complex FBA/BIP WRAP Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Sept. 1, 2009

19. High School T2/3:4)Data-based decision-making • Data-based Decisions-rules for youth: • access to, • progress-monitoring and • exiting of interventions • Monitoring intervention effectiveness • Universal Behavioral Screening • “By Halloween, students in need of support should • be receiving an intervention.” Rob Horner

20. High School T2/3:5)Continuum of T2 & T3 interventions

21. Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Tier 2/Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Check-in/ Check-out Intervention Assessment Social/Academic Instructional Groups Daily Progress Report (DPR)(Behavior and Academic Goals) Individualized Check-In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Wraparound Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug.,2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

22. TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS

23. High School-BEP • 45 minute class • 5 minutes: Entry Task, Check-In • 15 minutes skill building: foundational organizational skills • 25 minutes supported homework completion: application of organizational skills to homework activities • Daily class • First period of the day • Student participates in CICO cycle • First period HS-BEP class serves as morning check-in period • HS-BEP teacher coordinates CICO

24. HS-BEP

25. High School-BEP • Increases structure and predictability, • Daily class • Self-management / school adjustment skills • Students have support for homework completion • PBS foundations: explicit expectations, frequent reinforcement • Increases adult feedback and interaction, • Smaller class size than typical content area classroom • Daily in-class check in and check-out • Small group instruction / support within class

26. High School-BEP • Increases home school connection • CICO card home component • Combines academic and social supports • HS-BEP curriculum • School adjustment skills that allow access to academic success • Rapid response/continuously available • Class • Ongoing data collection for decision making • Academic data: classroom grades, in-class activities • CICO data

27. Our Journey… From Demos… to Replication…. to ‘Business as Usual’ Changes in Secondary and Tertiary courses Tools integrated Teaming structures better defined Now need full implementation in High Schools

28. Tier 2/3 Model Is Still Evolving… For example: Tracking Tool evolving into data-base system Tertiary Learning Community ISSET & self-assessment of fidelity (CISS/BAT) CICO, HS-BEP, C&C, RENEW still being evaluated and replicated This TOT is part of that evolution, thanks for being here to learn with us!

29. Secondary Systems in High School

30. Activity 1: Secondary Systems Team & Process You are at a High School coaches or team meeting and the following questions are asked: • What does the Secondary Systems Team and process look like? • What does the Secondary Systems Team do at their meetings? (Group Leader Responds to above questions for 5-7 minutes)

31. Activity 1: Follow up questions • When does this team actually talk about interventions for individual kids? • Our social worker already does a “lunch bunch” and an anger management group? Can we keep those? Are we supposed to talk about those groups too? • Other follow-up questions from team members? (Group Leader Responds to above additional questions for 5-7 minutes)

32. School-Wide Systems for Student Success:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5% • _____________________ • _____________________ • _____________________ • 1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • 5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15% • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • ___________________________ • Tier 1/Universal Interventions80-90% • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • 80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ • ____________________________ Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/school-wide.htm

33. What functions do your staff/teams serve at Tier 2? • Universal screening coordination? • Intervention provision? • Academic • Behavior • Intervention coordination? • College Preparation? • Family/Community/Mental Health liaison?

34. Tier 2/3 Guiding Questions:How does Tier 2 get started? • How does a simple Tier 2 intervention for a student get started? • What is the timeframe for the intervention? • How is a student simple tier two data collected? • How is a student’s data tracked? • Who enters the progress monitoring data?

35. 3-Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) UniversalTeam Secondary Systems Team Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Plans SW & Class-wide supports Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time CICO Universal Support Brief FBA/BIP SAIG Complex FBA/BIP WRAP Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Sept. 1, 2009

36. Teaming at Tier 2 Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’ Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and Brief FBA/BIP supports Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves Students are NOT discussed Problem Solving Team (‘conversation’) Develops & monitors plans for one student at a time Every school has this type of meeting Teachers and family are typically invited

37. Secondary Systems PlanningTeam Meeting Agenda Number of youth in CICO (record on TT)? Number of youth responding (record on TT)? * Send Reverse Request for Assistance to teachers of all youth not responding Number of new youth potentially entering intervention (share # of RFAs, Universal Screening info and/or youth who met the data-based decision-rule cut offs for Secondary support)? Repeat for S/AIG, Mentoring & Brief FBA/BIP If less than 70% of youth are responding to any of the interventions, the Secondary Systems team should review the integrityof the intervention and make adjustments as needed.

39. Then all participants will individually address the following question: What would you change/modify about your group presentation and/or how you’ve presented/taught this material in the past? (All write their reflections on the back of this sheet for 2 minutes and than group members will share their responses in their small group).

40. Break

41. Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) in High School

42. Activity 2: Check In Check Out (CICO) You are at a coaches or team meeting and the following questions are asked: • Can you describe how Check In Check Out (CICO) looks in a high school? • Is it the same or different as in an elementary or middle school? (Group Leader Responds to above questions for 5-7 minutes)

43. Activity 2: Follow up questions • Where do we find the time to have common check in and check out times? • Do we need to have some link between behavior (from ODR’s) and acadamics (from grades)? • How do we know who gets CICO, how they are doing, and when they exit interventions? • Other follow-up questions from team members? (Group Leader Responds to above additional questions for 5-7 minutes)

44. CICO @ Springfield High • 1449 students • 67% White, 23.5% African American, 2.2 Hispanic, 3.9 Asian, 3.1 Multi-racial, .3 Native American • 31% low income

45. THE GROUNDWORK & APPROACH MATTERYEAR ONE

46. HOLD YOUR NOSE & JUMPYEAR TWO

47. SYSTEMS • Universal • Systems meetings • Guiding questions • Decision rules; approaching students; parent letter, staff • Daily progress reports • Development & training

48. Systems Meetings • The Tier 2 systems team meeting met 2 times a month for 50 minutes. • 2 teachers (one of which was Tier 2 coach), external coach, pbis/counselor, 2 administrators • Reviewed data of those receiving Tier 2 interventions to assess fidelity of implementation. • Completed Guiding Questions Document

49. Guiding Questionssetting up the system

50. Springfield High Data Decision RulesHow Do they get in? Data-based decision rules for identification: 1) Data source #1: Office Discipline Referrals Rule for Inclusion in Intervention: >2 level 2 odr’s Time frame: school year 2) Data source #2: Grades/Report Cards/Progress Reports Rule for Inclusion in Intervention: 9th grade students with 2f’s Time frame: each quarter 3) Data source #3: Rule for Inclusion in Intervention: ____________________ Time frame: ____________________ ** Teacher Request for Assistance enters youth (circle one): Yes No not yet