PBIS Final Research Paper

Tier 2 and Check and Connect

Hortense Happyfoot

National University

For:

Robert Boyd

ABA 611

July 4, 1776

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 2

Abstract

Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) is a growing intervention model that

is being used across the world. The three-tiered model of intervention uses universal

interventions for all students (tier 1), targeted interventions (tier 2), and intensive interventions

(tier 3). A popular model in tier 2 interventions is Check and Connect. The following paper will

examine the Check and Connect model and its successful effectiveness as an intervention, how

the relationship between the student and mentor is a key factor for success, as well as the

application in schools for a trained mentor who will stay with the students for two years.

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 3

Tier 2 and Check and Connect

Introduction and Topic Selection

Schools across the ages have consistently had difficulties with discipline. Misbehavior in

the school and teacher/principle discipline is common theme in the media portraying schools and

school aged students. However, it is also reflected statistically; in a study by Robers, Kemp, and

Truman over the 2009-2010 school year the most commonly discipline problem in the U.S.

public schools was bullying, disrespectful actions, verbal abuse of the teacher, and gang activity;

each occurring at least once per week (2013). The Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

program (PBIS) has cited success for teaching students’ positive behaviors in the classroom and

thus reducing the need for disciplining students as their misbehavior also decreases. A key

feature in of the PBIS program is the tiered model that gives additional support to students who

have been shown (through gathered data) to not be successful in the previous tier’s interventions

(Scheuermann and Hall, 2016). Tier two focuses on students who were not successful with the

universal tier 1 interventions (Scheuermann and Hall, 2016). A common program in tier 2 is the

Check and Connect intervention, a major factor in the effectiveness of this program is the strong

relationship that is built between the student and the adult who is implementing the program.

Background: Check and Connect

Universal interventions in the PBIS program are effective for 80-90% of students, when

they are not effective the students are moved to tier 2, these students may participate in the

Check and Connect program (Scheuermann and Hall, 2016). This program has also used a tiered

intervention approach where students move between the tiers (Basic and Basic Plus/Intensive

Intervention) depending on their success, then back to tier 1 or on to tier 3 per their overall

success in tier 2 (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004). In the

beginning of the day the mentor or coach checks in with the students and goes over their report

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 4

card and daily expectations (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al.,

2004). Teachers fill out the report cards with feedback after lessons and at the end of the day the

mentor checks in with the student about their targeted expectations, build rapport and give

reinforcement or plans to solve problems (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Lehr, Sinclair, et al.,

2004). The data is collected by the mentor and recorded for progress (Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004).

The mentors also communicate with the families on progress and understanding PBIS (Lehr,

Sinclair, et al., 2004).

The students in the Basic Plus/ intensive interventions of tier 2, continue to be apart of

the basic phase of tier 2 (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004).

They also join a small group or receive individual instruction on targeted skills or topics

(attendance, problem solving, etc.) the school is focused on teacher or the student needs to learn

(Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004). Some programs use

computers to teach theses targeted skills, while others are in person with the mentor (Cheney,

Lynass, et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Hoppe, 2004). The intensive services have

additional communication with the family which may include additional communication with the

family, helping to connect with social services, planning services, or tutors (Lehr, Sinclair, et al.,

2004). Behavior contracts, self-monitoring and alternatives to suspension are also utilized

(Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Hoppe, 2004).

The mentors use individualized interventions, track attendance and performance at

school, connect students to social services and resources, build one on one relationships with the

students, model problem-solving skills, and are available to the student for help outside of

scheduled times (Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Hoppe, 2004). They also communicate and

build a connection between the student, family and school through meetings, calls or home visits

(Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004). The mentors receive training and

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 5

mentorship before starting the job and on a consistent basis typically weekly or monthly

(Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017).

Research Findings

Many researchers have found the Check and Connect program to be successful with the

students’ learning the targeted skills and engaging in them consistently. Cheney, Lynass, et al.

ran their study with 500 students 84% of whom were successful in the Basic and Basic Plus

(intensive intervention) phases. The researchers hypothesized the catalyst for the success was the

trained mentor who built a strong rapport with the students and worked with them across the two

years (2009). In a study by Lehr, Sinclair, et al. the researchers worked with 142 students across

two years (2009). The results of the study found an increase in student’s attendance (84% of

students on time) verse the baseline (42% of students on time) (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009).

The study also found 85% of the middle school students in the study did not skip class by the

conclusion of the study (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009). Teachers rated the program with a high

social validity and commented about the positive relationship between the monitor and child is

supportive, and the students connected to the monitor emotionally (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009).

Cheney, Lynass, et al, also state that a caring environment at school will increase the student’s

supportive relationships, which will expand their opportunities for success (2009). Hoppe also

stated that a reason that the Check and Connect model works is due to the caring environment,

which is supportive and allows for communication between the student and mentor (2004). She

also points to the behavior support approach and training that uses a team approach which helped

the students to increase in their target areas (staying in school, learning interpersonal and

academic skills) (Hoppe, 2004).

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 6

Another study found statistically significant results for fifth through seventh graders who

were involved in a two-year study for their target goals (Guryan, Christenson, et. al, 2017).

Guryan and colleagues found the Check and Connect program had more effects upon the

students and their behaviors in the second year of treatment (2017). They hypothesized this to be

due to the development of a relationship over the two years and after it is built it can affect the

effectiveness of the intervention (Guryan, Christenson, et. al, 2017).

Sinclair, Christenson, et al. found that trust and familiarity develop between the student

and mentor throughout the two-year intervention (2003). They point out the foundation of the

program: relationship building, persistence, routine monitoring, personalized and timely

intervention, long-term work with students and families, problem solving, and a connection with

the school (Sinclair, Christenson, et al., 2007). They assert that the development of the

relationship between student and mentor is the essential component which is built through the

monitor persistently working across years with the student and families, advocating for the child,

supporting the child, modeling positive behaviors and building the mutual trust that the open

communication leads to. The authors emphasize, as the Check and Connect program is a long-

term intervention, it permits a deep relationship to build between the child and mentor which

helps support the intervention changes throughout the student’s engagement in the program and

target goals (Sinclair, Christenson, et. al., 2003).

Practical Application in the School Setting

The Check and Connect program in tier 2 has been shown over the years to be effective

in decreasing undesirable target behaviors such as absences, truancy, skipping classes, and

disciplinary actions as well as increasing desirable target behaviors such as attendance, social

skills and academics (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Hoppe,

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 7

2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004; Scheuermann and Hall, 2016; Sinclair, Christenson, et al.,

2003). The key to making this program successful is a trained mentor who will stay with the

same caseload of students for at least two years, though more may be ideal (Guryan, Christenson,

et. al, 2017). All the previous studies about Check and Connect were implemented over two-year

durations and were successful, with the majority of students improving in the target goals. Thus,

it is advised that schools also follow the model conducted in the research and only hire staff who

are willing to make a two-year commitment. This will help students to be successful in tier 2 and

the check and connect program.

The schools should also follow the example in the research for training mentors and

keeping their training ongoing, though it may be expensive. Despite this, Cheney, Lynass, et al.

and Guryan, Christenson, et al. found it to be a wise investment (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009;

Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017). Cheney and colleagues assert that a trained mentor is more

cost-effective than the tier 3 intervention costs or moving a student to special education (2009).

They also state that since the Check and Connect model with a trained mentor is extremely

successful, it should be heavily considered to use as an intervention (Cheney, Lynass, et al.,

2009). Guryan, and colleagues estimated the program to cost about $1,700 per student each year

verse a program that costs $5 per student per issue, which had less influential results (2017).

Ultimately the cost will be outweighed by the student’s success in the program and then the

student fading back to the tier 1 interventions.

The research also suggests a strong rapport is the underlying feature that influences the

student’s success in the program. Thus, the mentors in the Check and Connect intervention need

to build a strong rapport with each of their students as they work together. It could be

hypothesized that a strong rapport between teacher and student in the tier 1 universal

interventions may also mitigate the need for a student to move to a tier 2 intervention, though

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 8

more research should be conducted on this issue. If teachers are attempting to build a rapport

daily with each student, even over a few minutes each day, it may have enough positive effects

on the student’s acquisition of the target skills without needing to move to the tier 2 intervention

level.

Summary

A growing movement toward positive behavior supports and away from reactive

discipline approaches is spreading through schools. The PBIS program has been shown to be

successful in increasing the desirable behaviors and decreasing the undesirable behaviors by

students in school (Scheuermann and Hall, 2016). Specifically, the tier 2 intervention Check and

Connect has been successful with about 80% of students across the research who were not

successful in tier 1 interventions (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017;

Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004; Sinclair, Christenson, et al., 2003). The mitigating

factor in the program is a strong relationship between the mentor and student that may take up to

two years to develop (Cheney, Lynass, et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Hoppe,

2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004; Sinclair, Christenson, et al., 2003). Though this is a long time

and may be costly, it is cheaper than tier 3 interventions and special education for the students

and has been successful with a variety of students across many research studies (Cheney, Lynass,

et al., 2009; Guryan, Christenson, et al, 2017; Hoppe, 2004; Lehr, Sinclair, et al., 2004; Sinclair,

Christenson, et al., 2003). Schools using the PBIS system should invest in trained mentors who

will stay with the students for two years to build the essential relationship needed for the students

to be successful in school and beyond.

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 9

References

Cheney, D., Lynass, L., Flower, A., Waugh, M., Iwaszuk, W., Mielenz, C., & Hawken, L. (2009).

The Check, Connect, and Expect Program: A Targeted, Tier 2 Intervention in the Schoolwide

Positive Behavior Support Model. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(4), 226-

243. doi:10.1177/1063426609339186

Guryan, J., Christenson, S., Claessens, A., Engel, M., Lai, I., Ludwig, J., . . . Turner, M. C. (2017).

The Effect of Mentoring on School Attendance and Academic Outcomes: A Randomized

Evaluation of the Check & Connect Program. Northwestern Institute for Policy Research:

Working Paper Series.

Hoppe, S. E. (2004). Improving Transition Behavior in Students with Disabilities Using a

Multimedia Personal Development Program: Check and Connect. TechTrends: Linking Research

& Practice to Improve Learning,48(6), 43-46.

Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing Student Engagement and

Truancy Prevention During the Elementary School Years: A Replication Study of the Check and

Connect Model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,9, 3rd ser., 279-301.

doi:10.1207/s15327671espr0903_4

Lee, V.E., & Burkham, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school organization

and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 353–393.

Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Truman, J. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2012. National

Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice. NCES 2013-036/NCJ

241446

Tier 2 and Check and Connect 10

Scheuermann, B. K., & Hall, J. A. (2016). Positive Behavioral Supports for the Classroom (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating Student

Engagement: Lessons Learned from Check & Connect Longitudinal Studies. The California

School Psychologist,8, 29-41. Retrieved August 26, 2018.