The Behavior Education Program (BEP): A Tier 2 Check-in, Check-out Intervention to Prevent Severe Problem Behavior in Schools

Transcription

1 The Behavior Education Program (BEP): A Tier 2 Check-in, Check-out Intervention to Prevent Severe Problem Behavior in Schools by michaelh March 19, :59 pm To be effective in supporting all students, schools need to implement a continuum of positive behavior support, from less intensive to more intensive, based on the severity of the problem behavior students exhibit. This continuum of support includes Tier 1 prevention strategies such as implementing school-wide positive behavior support (SW-PBS), Tier 2 prevention/intervention strategies to target the 10-15% of students at-risk, and Tier 3 prevention strategies for approximately 5% of the student population who need intensive intervention. Many schools in Utah and across the country have been successful in implementing SW-PBS, which has led to reductions in office discipline referrals and increases in academic engaged time. The next step in preventing problem behavior involves implementing efficient and effective Tier 2 interventions for students who are at-risk but not currently engaging in severe problem behavior. In this article we will provide an overview of one type of Tier 2 intervention called the Behavior Education Program or BEP. Behavior Education Program (BEP) The BEP, also referred to as Check-in, Check-out (CICO), is implemented with students who are just beginning to engage in problem behavior. The BEP process involves the following five elements: First, students check in daily with a paraprofessional before school (See Figure 1). [1]

2 [2] Figure 1 The paraprofessional provides the student with a Daily Progress Report (DPR) form (see Figures 2 & 3 for sample DPRs), similar to a behavior contract, which is carried to class for feedback throughout the day. When students check in, they are asked if they have their DPR signed from their parents from the day before and if they have their materials to be ready for the school day. They receive praise and a lottery ticket for a weekly drawing for checking in. Also during check-in, students are asked to identify daily goals and are given feedback to encourage success. For some of the younger students the DPR is delivered to them in their classrooms by the paraprofessional.

3 [3] Figure 2 Second, during natural transitions in the school day (i.e., after language arts, after math, etc.), teachers provide students with feedback on their DPR. Teachers provide feedback on student behavior at the end of each time period by rating either 0 did not meet expectations, 1 somewhat met expectations, or 2 met expectations. The expectations for all students on the BEP are the same as the school-wide expectations such as (a) keep hands, feet and objects to self, (b) use kind words and actions, (c) follow directions, and (d) work completion. Teachers also provide immediate verbal praise for students who meet behavioral expectations for that time period and corrective feedback if students do not meet the expectations. [4]

4 Figure 3 Third, at the end of the school day, students take the DPR to the paraprofessional to check out. Percentage of points for the day is calculated for each student and students receive praise and rewards if they meet their daily point goal. Each school implements the reward component of the BEP differently. In some schools, rewards are randomly selected each day using a spinner system and include small pieces of candy, school-wide tokens, or a bonus move on a sticker chart system. For most students, 80-85% of the total points earned (i.e. 40 out of 50 total points) is their daily point goal. If students do not meet their daily goal, the paraprofessional provides information on what to work on for the following school day. Fourth, students then take their DPR home to be signed by a parent/guardian, and fifth, the DPR is signed by a parent and returned the next morning. The percentage of points earned by each student is summarized daily or weekly by the BEP Coordinator. A targeted systems team, which is usually a subset of the school-wide behavior support team, meets bimonthly to examine student progress on the intervention. During these meetings, the targeted systems team examines student progress data to determine whether or not to continue the student on the intervention, make modifications, or begin fading the intervention. The primary reason for the targeted systems team to convene at least bi-monthly, is to be able to make timely decisions regarding student response to the BEP intervention. Research on the Behavior Education Program Over the past 10 years there has been an increase in the number of studies that have evaluated the impact of the BEP. The BEP has been found to be effective in reducing problem behavior with elementary school students (e.g., Bergman, 2010; Cheney et al., 2009; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, O Neill, & MacLeod, 2011; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; McCurdy, 2007; Cheney, Lynass, Flower, Waugh, Iwaszuk, Mielenz, & Hawken, 2010; Todd, Kaufman, Meyer, & Horner, 2007), middle school students (Hawken, 2006; Hawken & Horner, 2003; Lane, Capizzi, Fisher & Ennis, 2012; March & Horner, 2002), and high school students (Swain-Bradway, 2009). In addition, studies have documented increases in academic engagement (e.g., Campbell & Anderson, 2011; Hawken & Horner, 2003; Swain-Bradway, 2009) and reductions in referrals for Tier 3 support and special education. (Cheney, et al., 2010; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007). A recent review of the literature found that across group (i.e., experimental and quasi-experimental) and single subject studies, the overall effectiveness rate of the BEP intervention was 75% (Hawken, O Keeffe, Bundock, 2012). Effectiveness across studies was documented using a variety of dependent measures including direct observation, office discipline referrals (ODRs), and percentage of points on Daily Progress Reports. Overall, BEP was found to be more effective in reducing problem behavior in elementary than in middle school settings (Hawken et al, 2012). Increasing Sustainability of the Behavior Education Program One of the most common obstacles of sustaining the BEP is the ability for schools to dedicate personnel time to the daily process of checking students in and out of the program. Depending on school size and resources, each BEP coordinator can support up to students in elementary school and from students in secondary settings (Crone, Hawken, & Horner, 2010). For many schools, this is a very small percentage of their student population. For example, for a middle school with 600 students, if only 30 students are able to receive the BEP intervention, this is only 5% of the student population. It s anticipated that 10-15% of the student population will benefit from Tier 2 behavior support. To increase the number of students who can receive the BEP intervention, many schools and districts are using a model that involves multiple people in the school building serving as BEP facilitators (e.g., The BEP facilitators are school staff (e.g., teachers, librarians, custodians) who agree to check-in and check-out 1-5 students every day. In addition, the school assigns one person to serve as the BEP coordinator who is responsible for organizing the intervention, graphing daily data from

5 the DPR and sharing data with targeted systems team. Schools and districts who use the model of multiple BEP facilitators have been able to support between 10-13% of their student population with the BEP and have seen improvement in their overall positive behavior school climate (Hawken, Bundock, Eber, Breen & Phillips, 2013). Another way to ensure the sustainability of the BEP is to solicit feedback regarding the acceptability of the BEP intervention from students, parents, and teachers. Encouraging the collaboration between schools and families, through the promotion of communication links, is essential in order to increase the likelihood of student success with the intervention. In summary, the BEP is an efficient and effective Tier 2 intervention that can be implemented school-wide to prevent students from engaging in severe problem behavior. If your school or district is interested in implementing the BEP, see resources listed below. Authors: Leanne S. Hawken, University of Utah, Mishele Stein Carroll, Colorado Department of Education, & Kaitlin Bundock, University of Utah References & Resources for Implementing the Behavior Education Program Leanne.hawken@utah.edu[5] for an invitation to a Dropbox folder of BEP materials. BEP DVD Hawken, L., Pettersson, H., Mootz, J. & Anderson, C. (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-in, Check-out Intervention for Students At Risk (DVD). Guilford Press. Book Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York, NY: Guilford Press. References Bergman, K.D. (2010). Effects of check-in/check-out (CICO) procedures on special education students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Texas Digital Library. (7838). Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, doi: /jaba Cheney, D., Stage, S. A., Hawken, L., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C. & Waugh, M. (2009). A Two-Year Outcome Study of the Check, Connect, and Expect Intervention for Students At-Risk for Severe Behavior Problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, Cheney, D., Lynass, L., Flower, A., Waugh, M., Iwaszuk, W., Mielenz, C., & Hawken, L. (2010). The check, connect, and expect program: A targeted, tier 2 intervention in the schoolwide positive behavior support model. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H., (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program (2nd Ed.) New York: Guilford Press. Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: An evaluation of a classroom system of behavior support for second grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, Filter, K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. (2007). Check-in/Check out: A post hoc evaluation of an efficient secondary level intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, Hawken, L. H. & Hess, R.S. (2006). School psychologists as leaders in the implementation of a targeted intervention: The Behavior Education Program (BEP). School Psychology Quarterly, 21, Hawken, L.S., Bundock, K., Eber, L., Breen, K., Phillips, D., & Illinois PBIS network. (2013). Large

6 scale implementation and evaluation of Check-in, Check-out (CICO). (In preperation). Hawken, L. H. & Horner, R. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted group intervention within a school-wide system of behavior support, Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, Hawken, L., MacLeod, K. & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the Behavior Education Program (BEP) on problem behavior with elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, Hawken, L., S., O Keeffe, B., & Bundock, K. (2012). Reviewing the evidence of the effectiveness of the Behavior Education Program. Poster presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis International Annual Convention, Seattle, WA. Hawken, L. S., O Neill, R. E., &, MacLeod, K. S. (2011). An investigation of the impact of function of problem behavior on effectiveness of the behavior education program (BEP). Education and Treatment of Children, 34, Illinois PBIS Network (2011). Illinois PBIS Network. Retrieved from Lane, K.L., Capizzi, A.M., Fisher, M.H., Ennis, R.P. (2012). Secondary prevention efforts at the middle school level: An application of the behavior education program. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(1), March, R. E., & Horner, R.H. (2002). Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, McCurdy, B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school: Implementing the behavior education program. Preventing School Failure, 51, Swain-Bradway, J. L. (2009). An analysis of a secondary level intervention for high school students at risk of school failure: The high school behavior education program. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (10262). Todd, A. W., Kaufman, A., Meyer, G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The Effects of a Targeted Intervention to Reduce Problem Behaviors: Elementary School Implementation of Check In Check Out. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 10, Endnotes: 1. [Image]: 2. [Image]: 3. [Image]: 4. [Image]: 5. Leanne.hawken@utah.edu: mailto:leanne.hawken@utah.edu Source URL: Copyright 2013 Essential Educator unless otherwise noted.