Action Research Project Check In/Check Out

Melody Oswald, Spring 2013

Introduction Davenport Central High School is home to 1,415 students, with a diverse student population including a 55.6% Caucasian students, 24% African American students, 10.9% Hispanic, 7.8% Multi-race students and 1.3% Asian students. Central High School has 50.5% students that receive free or reduced lunch. Discipline and office referrals are a concern at Davenport Central High School. There are approximately 30 general education students that chronically disrupt classes, before and after school and lunch periods. Campbell and Anderson (2011) explained that the problem behavior includes chronic disruption, out of seat, non-compliance and verbal or physical interaction. Some students receive multiple office referrals in the same day. Interventions have been implemented, but with little success. Administrators have implemented after school detentions in the office, lunch detentions, detentions served with their teachers, in-school suspensions and out of school suspensions to give the students consequences. The total number of suspensions in the Davenport School District was 4,906 for the 2010-2011 school year. Davenport School District participates in PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports). According to Bui, Quirk and Almazan (2010) PBIS is a school wide conflict resolution that focuses on alternatives to violence and disciplinary actions. (p.1 ). If implemented effectively, PBIS will improve the climate of the school so that it is a positive place

to learn. The statement that is reinforced every day after announcements are read at Central High School is You must communicate with dignity and respect. It is Centrals belief that all students and staff should enjoy coming to school. It is also Centrals belief that positive relationships impact student achievement. The purpose of this study was to decrease the number of referrals of 13 at-risk students at Central High School. Data was collected for suspensions, tardies and absences also. The goal was to build relationships with the students to increase self-esteem, improve grades, attendance, behavior and overall student engagement. The idea of a check in/check out (CICO) program was introduced as an intervention to help the students want to come to school every day and be successful. Filter, et.al. (2009) explains that the CICO program was developed for secondary students to reduce behavior issues and is an evidence-based practice. The goal of this study is to have students attend school regularly and reduce office referrals by participating in the CICO program. Literature Review When reviewing literature based on the effects of CICO programs, research suggests that the program is a very successful intervention when used properly. Bui, Quirk, et.al. (2010) stated that the CICO program is considered a tier 2 intervention as a method of behavior support in school settings. Tier 1 supports are implemented with all students to prevent the development of social behavior problems. Tier 2 interventions are implemented with students who do not respond to the Tier 1 support. Tier 2 generally is designed to address 5-15% of the students who require more intensive support. Finally, tier 3 supports are for students with severe problem behavior that has not responded to Tier 1 or 2 interventions (p.5 ).

According to Bui, Quirk, et.al. (2010) CICO is designed for students who exhibit nondangerous problem behavior during academic routines and is designed to supplement the Tier 1 intervention by providing more frequent instruction regarding expected behavior. CICO is geared to reducing office referrals, increase academic engagement, significant decreases in problem behavior and improve attendance. Campbell and Anderson (2011) explained that CICO will also increase structured contact between students and adults in the school as well as receive feedback on their behavior. Research by Bui, Quirk, et.al. (2010) suggests that CICO is most effective for the student whose behavior is maintained by adult attention rather than students whose behavior is maintained by peer attention or avoidance of academic tasks. Students with behavior that was motivated by a desire to escape an event or activity did not experience significant improvement (p.6). Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, and Lehr (2004) (as cited in Bui, Quirk, et.al., 2010) investigated the impact of the quality (closeness) of relationships between CICO staff and students at an elementary school. Findings indicate that student and interventionist perceptions of the closeness of their relationship were associated with increased school attendance. There are many advantages with the program such as students receiving 1:1 attention from a staff person at least twice per day. There are explicit expectations and frequent reinforcement. It is a minimal effort on behalf of staff personnel. The students will start and end each day with a positive interaction with a staff person. The parents are aware of the program that is implemented with their child. The feedback the students get regarding their behavior with staff interaction is daily.

Some disadvantages to the CICO program are that the staff needs to be committed to the program every day. Staff will need to be trained and data needs to be kept daily. The program needs to be implemented daily. Since the program is based on developing teacher and student relationships, the student may not feel comfortable enough to CICO with a substitute teacher (Horner, et al.). Swain-Bradway and Mitchell (2008) explained that students with problem behaviors are more likely to drop out of school than their peers. Average lost instructional time from a disruptive student is an average of 20 minutes and for administrators and it is an additional 10-45 minutes dealing with the problem. Methodology After spending time with repeat offenders during the beginning of the school year, it was decided that the staff of the administrators office would try a new approach. After the associate principal and intern completed research, it was decided that the Check In/Check Out (CICO) program would be used. The question asked was Does the implementation of a Check In/Check Out program reduce the number of referrals of at-risk students in a comprehensive High School? The associate principal and teachers decided which students would be participating. There were a total of thirteen 11th grade students. There were ten males (6 African American, 4 Caucasian) and three females (2 Caucasian, 1 African American). The parents/guardians and students agreed to the CICO program. The students wrote a weekly goal and then checked in and checked out daily with an adult in the building. If a student earned 95% of their points in a two week cycle, they would earn their choice of lunch purchased by the associate principal every two weeks. There were four teachers and one administrator that the students were assigned to

check in with throughout the day. There was regular feedback and reinforcement from the staff daily when meeting with their assigned students. The students were to sign in when they came to school in the morning and talk about their goals with the staff. If a student did not sign in the morning, the staff would call the student in from their class. The students would earn one point in each class period if they did not receive a referral. At the end of the day, the students were to sign out and meet with their staff person again and talk about their day. Results and Data Data was taken from the students information summary from term B for a baseline. The program was implemented in term C and the same data was taken after term C ended. There were 15 students at the beginning of term B, but by the end of term C two students had moved to other schools. There were 10 males and three females in the study. They were all 11th graders at the school. Baselines were taken from S1T1 and S2T2 as shown on graphs #1, 2, 3, 4. Data was taken for tardies, absences, referrals and suspensions. Every area improved except for office referrals (graph #2). Graph #5 shows the improvements in tardies, absences and suspensions. The researcher wanted to share her observation with one particular student. The student had just moved to Davenport Central High at the beginning of the school year. By the end of first term she had been in two fights. The student was taken to the review board to recommend placing her in a 45 day alternative setting. The researcher was at the hearing and suggested Check In/Check Out instead of moving her to another school. By the end of 3rd term, the student had 0 suspensions, 0 office referrals, absences stayed the same and her tardies improved. The researcher considers this a success.

Graph 1: Total Tardies For All Blocks

40 35 30 25 20 15 S1T1-Total S1T2-Total

10 5 0

S2T1-Total

Graph 2:Total Absences For All Blocks

140 120 100 80 60 S1T1-Total S1T2-Total

40 20 0

S2T1-Total

Graph 3: Office Referrals

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 S1T1-Total S1T2-Total S2T1-Total

Graph 4: Suspensions
14 12 10 8

6
4 2 0

S1T1-Total S1T2-Total S2T1-Total

Graph 5: Student's Overall Outcome

12 10 8 6 4 Not Improved Improved

2 0 Tardies Absences Referrals Suspensions

Conclusion and Recommendations The results didnt show as much decrease in office referrals as the researcher would have liked; however the daily tardies decreased with every student. The key to CICO being successful is being consistent and the daily data record keeping showed that the students and staff were committed to the program. Originally, the staff wanted the students to earn 80% of their points every two weeks to earn a lunch from the associate principal, but that was determined to be too

easy to achieve. The staff knew immediately that we needed to increase it to 95% of the points earned. Although this may seem high, consider the vast majority of their same aged peers can go 100% without receiving a referral. There were 15 lunches purchased from various restaurants for students that earned 80% or more of their points in two week intervals within the nine week cycle. The students could choose to eat with a staff person or eat in the Associate principals room. Variables in the coursework taken for each term could have made a difference in the students behavior. Additionally, the time at which the students were given classes could have had an influence on the results. The environmental issues that schools have no control over can also add to the behavior problems. Campbell and Anderson (2011) stated that there are no explicit instructions on what the teacher is supposed to say to the student when they have had a positive or negative day. It could be possible that the meeting with the staff person could reduce the effectiveness of teacher attention as a reinforcer for the problem behavior. When the researcher talked with the students before starting the program, the students were asked what we could do to help them come to school and not get referrals. Many of the students felt like no one cared, they couldnt do the school work and that they didnt fit into the school. The researcher used exit interview questions from Swain-Bradway and Mitchell (2011) with each participating student. The questions were as follows with answers in italics: 1. What did you like about doing CICO? The students felt that someone cared about them and that they had someone to talk to.

2. Was there anything you did not like about CICO? They did not like signing in and didnt want their peers to know they were involved in the CICO program. 3. What changes do you suggest we make to the CICO program, if any? The students did not want to earn points or sign in and out daily. They just wanted to check in with the staff. 4. How are you going to continue to get successful grades without the CICO program? Most students did not know if they would continue to be good. Most wanted to check in/check out on a casual basis. 5. How will you continue to be successful with positive behavior without the CICO program? They learned what it feels like to behave in the classroom setting, but many of the students did not like being in a big class. 6. What skills did you learn that you plan to use in the future? The students mentioned that having a staff person they could go to for support was nice. They find it difficult not to want to go see their mentor while they are in class. It was agreed that students need to be approached positively, not punitively. The 11th grade staff will continue to participate in the CICO program regardless of what the data showed. The staff and students have enjoyed building the positive relationships and now the students have at least one more adult to go to if they need support. They will not be continuing with the point collection portion of the program. The plan is to include more interested teachers and students for the fall of 2013 to involve as many students as possible.

References Bui,X., Quirk,C., Almazan,S. (2010). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Research and Practice. Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education, 1-13. Campbell, A., Anderson, C. M., (2011) Check In Check Out: A Systematic Evaluation and Component Analysis, Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 44, 315-326. Filter, K. J., McKenna, M., Benedict, E., Horner, R., Todd, A., Watson, J., (2007) Check in/Check out: A Post-Hoc Evaluation of an Efficient, Secondary-Level Targeted Intervention for Reducing Problem Behaviors in Schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 69-84. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Todd, A., Rosetto-Dickey, C., Anderson, C., Scott, T. Check In Check Out: A Targeted Intervention. University of Oregon and University of Connecticut. Swain-Bradway, J., Mitchell, E., (2008). Secondary Level Interventions at High School: Walking the Continuum. University of Oregon, Elizabeth Mitchell, Springfield High School.