Running Head: UTILIZING 1

Gabriela Botzman

Utilizing Kickboard to Manage Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports Systems and
Determine Tier Two Intervention Groups at Alliance Elementary School as Piloted by the Third
Grade Team

Submitted to University of Mount Union in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of
Master in Education

Onsite Mentor: Mr. Cory Muller

Internship Supervisor: Dr. Donna Bishop

April 10, 2023

UTILIZING 2

Introduction

This internship improvement project was completed during the 2022-2023 school year at
Alliance Elementary School, a small urban elementary school located in Alliance, Ohio serving
417 students in the second and third grade. This improvement project focused on the Third Grade
Team of students and teachers in the Green Hallway, which will be referred to as the Target Third
Grade Team. This Target Third Grade Team represents the demographics of the school overall on
a smaller scale. The target population was 121 of the 213 total number of third grade students
attending Alliance Elementary School (AES). This target group of third grade students
represented 57% of all third grade students.

Table 1 Demographics of Alliance Elementary School

Alliance Elementary School at Rockhill Demographic Data

White Black Multi- Hispanic Students Economically Gifted

Racial with Disadvantaged Identified
Disabilities Students

Percentage 65.7% 12.7% 19.7% Not 18.0% 100% 9.1%

Calculated

Number of 274 53 82 0 75 417 37

Students

Table 2 Demographics of Target Third Grade Team

Target Third Grade Team Demographic Data

White Black Multi- Hispanic Students Economically Gifted

Racial with Disadvantaged Identified
Disabilities Students

Percentage 65% 17% 19% Not 20% 100% 23%

Calculated

Number of 79 20 22 0 24 121 28
Students
UTILIZING 3

During the completion of this improvement project, I continued serving as a third grade English
Language Arts teacher and was learning under the mentorship of Cory Muller, our building
principal. I am one of the three English Language Arts teachers, and one of six overall teachers
in the Target Third Grade Team. There are two math teachers, two reading teachers, one teacher
that teaches math and reading, and one interventionist included on our green third grade team.
Five of us are female along with one male teacher.

The Target Third Grade Team serves the students identified as gifted for the whole grade level,
and serves the students with IEPs that have the highest amount of need. The students that are not
identified as gifted or have an IEP are then divided between the homeroom teachers on our team,
splitting up the behaviors first, and then core academic classes are grouped by achievement level.
In total, we have 121 third grade students that we serve, of which 55 are female and 66 are male.
In our hallway, there are 24 students that have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and 28
students that are identified as gifted in either reading or math.

The improvement project focused on using Kickboard as a management system in our Positive
Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) implementation and using it as a data source to
determine which students will be included in the Tier Two intervention group. Additionally, this
project further sought to identify an effective strategy for Tire Two intervention known as the
“Check In/Check Out” (CICO) strategy. Research was conducted on the implementation of the
CICO process and I, as the intern, created a process and guidelines for usage of this strategy.

Along with the guidance of the principal, the Kickboard positivity percentage was used to
determine that twenty one students were identified as in need of Tier Two support from October
to January. We decided to use CICO as the Tier Two intervention during this time frame. After
utilizing the CICO intervention for the second nine weeks (Q2) of the 2022-2023 school year, the
effectiveness was analyzed and the students involved in our Tier Two intervention group were
altered to reflect the new data in Kickboard. Again in March, more data was collected to
determine effectiveness of the CICO process from the third nine weeks (Q3) of the school year,
and to reconfigure the group of students involved in the Tier Two intervention group.

Identification of Needs

The needs for my project were determined through conversation with my mentor, and through
conducting the focus needs report part one and two. As a result of those needs reports, it was
determined that PBIS would be the focus of the improvement project, specifically how students
included in Tier Two interventions would be determined and supported. AES had switched from
using a color coded “clip chart” (Appendix A) only one year prior during the 2021-2022 school
year, and had only begun utilizing Kickboard in August of the 2022-2023 school year.
UTILIZING 4

As we know, for a behavior system to be PBIS, there needs to be interventions and support in
addition to the Tier One, or universal support provided to all students. At the beginning of this
improvement project, AES was recognizing that there are behaviors needing addressed, but was
not actively doing anything to reteach them in more than a Tier One setting, and even then the
Tier One universal behavior instruction was not consistent. There have been some students who
have a functional behavior assessment completed, and have been put on a behavior plan, but this
is not based on data. This has been done by the guidance counselor without a team being utilized,
and is not part of an official or documented process.

As the principal intern, I determined that the Tier Two intervention group would be the focus of
my improvement project because though we considered AES to be a school utilizing PBIS,
previously there was not a clear and documented Tier Two or Tier Three identified, and there
were no behavior interventions put in place that were determined using data. Since we had just
begun using Kickboard as a management tool, there was plenty of data to be utilized and it
provided the perfect opportunity to use that data to form a clear Tier Two intervention group.

I also observed and listened to my coworkers and spoke to them about what changes would bring
about really positive things in our building for both staff and students. In both of the focus needs
reports, I conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat (SWOT) analysis to
begin brainstorming ideas for the project, and to clarify what I wanted to work on. These SWOT
analyses are from the very beginning of the brainstorming process for the improvement project,
and the focus for my project has drastically changed since originally completing them.

Table 3 SWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

Strengths:
We have a lot of programs and systems in
place to support students academically,
socially-emotionally, and behaviorally.
There are a lot of staff who have plenty of
time to routinely dedicate to these supports.
Weaknesses:
We have all of these supports, but no
overarching organization to them. There were
also not any tiers to how they are provided to
students at different levels. They are more
general, the same for all who need that
support.

Opportunities:
I think knowing that this is true is one
opportunity for our school, because we have
everything already in place, we just need a
little bit of organization to the process. This is
why I want to focus my project for this course
on some of these MTSS frameworks.
Threats:
We have a few teachers who have been in
the same placement for quite a long time and
are amazing teachers, but are very much
interested in doing things the way that works
for them and has been working for them.
There is nothing wrong with that, we just have
to ensure that there is buying from the staff in
UTILIZING 5

We have a new school psychologist this year order to put these multi-tiered systems of
who was really interested in streamlining and support in place to truly support students. If
making the process for recommending they are not implemented with fidelity, we will
students to be evaluated and actually not truly know if our efforts are working or if
evaluating them. I think through that they need to be reconfigured again.
happening we will have the opportunity to
also improve how we collect data on students
and how we support students in the different
areas of academics, attendance, behavior,
socially, and emotionally.

Part of the research that was completed while I was working to identify the focus of my
improvement project was analyzing the demographics of the Aviator Profile award winners, as
well as the students who are recognized as being Difference Makers, which has previously been
known as Student of the Month. At AES, each nine weeks every teacher will choose one student
from their homeroom to be recognized as a Difference Maker, and each team will choose
students from their teams that fit the Aviator Profile. The Aviator Profile has students who are
named the Collaborator, Creative Innovator, Courageous Risk Taker, Caring Citizen, and Critical
Thinker (Appendix B).

Though these recognitions were not an area identified as a need, the demographics of the
students chosen as a recipient could show if there was an equity issue that also needed to be
addressed. It was determined through an analysis of office referral data that there was an
inconsistent amount of boys receiving referrals, specifically Black boys, even though Black
students are not the majority of our student population.

Table 4 Behavior Referrals for 2022-2023 School Year

2022-2023 School Year Quarter One

Total number of Total number of Total Number of Total 2nd Grade Total 3rd grade
write ups Out of School Student Write Ups write ups
Suspensions Improvement Labs

2 students 3 students 51 99
As of 10/03/22-
150

Total White Total Black Total mixed race Total male Total female
students that students that students that students that students that
received a write up received a write up received a write received a write received a write
up up up

89/150 44/150 37/150 113/150 write-ups 37/150 write-ups

UTILIZING 6

Background Information on Using Kickboard as a Data Collection Tool

Kickboard is advertised as being a “Comprehensive solution to create a positive school culture

and achieve equitable outcomes (Kickboard, 2023).” It is a system that can be purchased by
school districts, and integrates with the PowerSchool systems that a lot of districts use to manage
attendance, grades, and discipline referrals. In short, we began the year only using the very basic
part of Kickboard’s system which gives each student a little avatar that tracks their positive
interactions along with their negative interactions, which both follow the behavior expectations
of Alliance Elementary.

Students can earn positive interactions, or stars as we call them, for following our school’s three
behavior expectations of Being Kind, Giving Their Best Effort, and Being a Role Model. On the
opposite side, students can earn negative interactions, which we call reminders that are labeled
chronologically in the order that they earn them titled Press Pause, Get Your Mind Right, Step
Up, and Privilege Loss (Appendix C). Kickboard keeps track of their positivity percentage,
which is the data point we have decided to use to determine which students are participating in
Tier 2 interventions, and those that are participating in additional behavior incentives. Kickboard
also provides a detailed breakdown for individual students which shows all of their time stamped
interactions, who they were given by, and any notes provided from the interaction (Appendix D).

For data that is being analyzed, I am going to be looking at the positivity percentage that
Kickboard provides for all students in the Target Third Grade Team.

Research

My research this far has given me plenty of ideas on how to best to further implement PBIS into
my building. I want to begin with my team, then move to my grade level, and hopefully have the
whole building adopt a shared PBIS framework eventually. It is important to start with a smaller
group so that we can test the system out, and find solutions to any issues that arise. My research
began on the Center for PBIS website, so that I could ensure my knowledge of the basic
implementation framework was sufficient even though overall implementation was not my focus.
I had visited this website before, but was already finding a huge amount of new information,
especially that this website was developed with a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. I
did not know that the Department of Education had a stake in PBIS or its implementation
overall. Some other information that I learned that was interesting is that PBIS has been around
and been used in schools since the early 2000s. I had wrongfully assumed that it was a newer
concept, but understand that it was not widely practiced until much later on.
UTILIZING 7

Additionally, The Center on PBIS website helped me to identify and understand the five
elements of PBIS. The five elements are noted as being equity, systems, data, practices, and
outcomes. Two resources that I downloaded and am excited about using are the School Climate
Surveys and the Action Planning Guide for School Wide PBIS. I intend to use the climate
surveys as the basis of the implementation, and to be sure the needs of students, families, and
staff are being met with the implementation of PBIS. Another area of this website that was
helpful is the section on equity, which is a topic of conversation that is always important in
schools but especially when considering the demographics of my building. We are a primarily
white school, but we have a very high percentage of office referrals written for Black boys. We
also do quarterly recognitions for outstanding behavior and effort at school called the Aviator
Profile and Difference Maker, and the amount of white females that are chosen for those
recognitions is exceptionally higher than the amount of Black or multiracial males. Equity and
cultural responsiveness is clearly an area where we need support as a building.

I really enjoyed reading the journal article on Ten Common Misses in PBIS Implementation
because it was so different from many of the other PBIS resources available. I liked that it gave
examples of ideas and things that do not work because it answered a lot of questions that I had as
I was beginning to think about how implementation would look in my building. The “miss” that
spoke out to me the most was Miss #2 of students needing consequences or punishments on top
of just earning rewards. I feel like this is a very common mentality in my building, and it is
definitely something I will be hearing from other staff members when we begin implementation.
Sometimes it feels like a consequence for student behavior is more for the teacher than the
student, it makes the teacher feel “better” about the behaviors, and the student’s behavior is
rarely changed.

Additionally, I found some resources that are specific to the use of check-in/check-out (CICO) as
our Tier Two intervention. The website PBIS Rewards had a large article on CICO and best
practices surrounding the intervention. The source said “Successful CICO doesn’t focus on the
student’s struggles in behavior. Instead, it centers on the positive behavioral goals met and the
efforts made by the student to attain those goals.” This sentence was what really impacted our
decision to use this as our first Tier Two intervention. We wanted these students to know that
there is a staff member in the building who cares about them, and wants to see them succeed.
Since we are not the teachers of these students, which the source details as being one of the key
components of CICO, we are not the people responsible for the discipline of that child and are
slightly removed from their day to day behavior in class. Our PBIS team decided to use
Kickboard as our data sheet, instead of filling out a separate inventory for each child since we
wanted to see exactly how much we could gain from using Kickboard.

The same source, PBIS Rewards, gave us an idea of how to transition students from the Tier Two
intervention list and assimilate them back into only receiving Tier 1 behavior supports. PBIS
UTILIZING 8

Rewards said “The criteria for graduation will differ from school to school and student to
student. However, do not pull a student from CICO suddenly. The student may suffer a setback
in behavior from an abrupt end to the support. Instead, step the student down from CICO by
adjusting the duration and frequency of their goals. CICO should not be a long-term intervention;
once the student has consistently attained their goals, move them into Tier 1 supports.” Using
this research, my building principal and I are creating a plan to slowly transition students out of
the Tier Two intervention group, which includes giving them a certificate congratulating them on
their achievements.

Using Kickboard as Our Behavior Data Collection Tool

We are using Kickboard as our data for monitoring our overall PBIS implementation system, and
for determining which students will be included in our Tier Two intervention group. We will also
use the positivity percentage given on Kickboard to determine if students are making growth
towards meeting our school-wide expectation for positive percentage, which the PBIS committee
has set at 80%. Our school district also uses Powerschool, but our district Information
Technology (IT) department has not decided to sync Kickboard and Powerschool, even though it
is able to be used in sync. As a district, we know that we are not using Kickboard fully as it is
intended to be used. This was a decision made by our IT department since it is still our pilot year,
and they wanted to determine how much the teachers in the district used it before spending
money on its full services.

We use the Conduct Referrals section of Powerschool to document behaviors of individual

students that are considered to be an immediate office referral, such as stealing, violence, and
repeated bullying. We also use the Conduct Referrals section of Powerschool to document when
students reach four reminders on Kickboard (Appendix E).

The final source I am citing now is the PBIS portion of the Ohio Department of Education
(ODE) website. This website has been the most helpful to me as I begin planning and thinking
about implementation. What I have been using the most are the guidelines for the bronze, silver,
and gold PBIS recognitions. I like these rubrics to see what ODE expects of schools and districts
that are implementing PBIS, and then I can plan better and prepare to be meeting those
expectations. I also have spent a lot of time in the PBIS for Administrators section. The most
helpful document here is the packet of resources for family engagement that can be used. We
struggle with family engagement, and are always trying to build that, so I appreciate having that
resource readily available.
UTILIZING 9

Implementation Plan

The schoolwide PBIS team at this time is meeting once a semester, so as a focus of this
improvement project I am piloting a plan that can be brought back to the team for review. The
team will then decide if this is something that will be implemented school wide. I am starting
with the Target Third Grade as my primary student population. Ideally by the end of the school
year, the other teams within our building, the administration and PBIS committee will see the
value in what we have done with the students on our team. Then it can be adopted and
implemented by the building so that the PBIS team can enforce and manage the true fidelity and
efficient implementation of the Tier Two intervention group throughout the building. Even
though we are starting just with just the Target Third Grade, we will be targeting all types of
students in the grade level, students of all races and ethnicities, students with all types of learning
exceptionalities, as well as all genders.

As a team, we will determine which of our students qualify for needing Tier Two interventions
following the guidelines set in the implementation plan. The interventions determined by the
PBIS team will directly serve students in the Tier Two intervention group, while all students are
members of Tier One and are still receiving universal content in our social emotional and
behavior learning plan. That being said, our Tier One universal instruction and social emotional
learning plan is lacking, which is a known area for improvement in the building but is not a focus
of this project.

The PBIS committee has determined that it is a priority to utilize the data provided by Kickboard
to determine which students qualify for receiving Tier Two interventions. We determined that
one of the areas of improvement that we really need to focus on is using data to drive decision
making, in academic areas as well as behavior needs. While it is not the focus of the
improvement project, eventually the project will provide data that can be additionally utilized to
determine which students need a functional behavior assessment completed, rather than just
using anecdotal notes from the guidance counselor.

The PBIS committee determined that our expectation for students is to have an 80% positivity
rating on Kickboard for a full nine weeks. It was a team decision that students at or under a 50%
positivity rating would be included in receiving the Tier Two intervention of check-in check-out
(CICO). At the end of the nine weeks, students that have raised their positivity percentage to
65% will be slowly exited from the intervention group, and any students that dropped below 50%
positivity will be added in their place.

At the change of the nine weeks, the data was analyzed by my mentor and me, and we are in the
process of bringing it back to the PBIS committee to determine which students are slowly going
UTILIZING 10

to be exited from the Tier Two intervention group and will rejoin the universal content of Tier
One.

I worked to identify the students that were at or below a 50% positivity rating on Kickboard for
the first nine weeks of the school year. My mentor and I took that list of students into the teacher
based team (TBT) meetings and asked teachers that know those students best if there was a
reason that they were at or below 50% positivity, such as they were very new to the school and
did not have much of a chance to build their positivity percentage yet or if they had withdrawn
and did not need to be included. We also gave teachers the opportunity to add other students onto
the list just based on their discretion. For example, we had a student who recently lost one of
their parents and it was decided that the student would be added to our Tier Two intervention list
as a way to provide extra support to that student during a time of need.

I then created a finalized spreadsheet (Appendix F) of the students that would be involved in our
Tier Two intervention of CICO. Included in the spreadsheet were any anecdotal notes that the
teacher wanted to include about why that student was chosen to be in the intervention group, and
who their teachers are at different parts of the day so that the staff member doing their check-in
would be able to locate the student easily. The spreadsheet was shared with all staff in the
building, and staff could sign up to be the check-in check-out person for students that they chose.
At a minimum staff are asked to check in with the student(s) that they choose twice a week.

When staff are checking in with their student, they come to an area of the building where there is
a check in agenda posted on a bulletin board in kid friendly terms, and conversation starters
available to them as a way to help build a relationship between the staff member and the student.
There are two plastic cups attached to the bulletin board that are filled with popsicle sticks with
“get to know you” questions written on them. The posted agenda has the students and staff talk
about their day so far, choose at least one stick to discuss and get to know each other about, and
then do a check-in of their Kickboard data live for that day, or for the previous few days
(Appendix G). This should be a quick process, and usually is taking staff about five minutes per
check in.

It was determined during a PBIS committee meeting that this was a quick and easy process so
that it was not detracting from the students' academic time. It was a concern brought up by
teachers during the TBT meetings that the students included in the Tier Two intervention group
are also ones that are typically struggling in their core classes, so we try to make it a simplified
process that is meaningful but not detracting from their time during class.

Staff have also been provided with forms (Appendix H and Appendix I) that can be used during
CICO where students reflect on their amount of positive and negative interactions from the
previous day, from that day so far, from the previous week, or from the previous month. They are
UTILIZING 11

able to make a goal on the sheet of what they want their positivity percentage to look like, and
they are able to reflect on what went well and what needs improvement.

Though not a focus of this improvement project, the PBIS committee also determined that it was
a need of ours to use one of the specials that students attend each week to teach our behavior
expectations explicitly, and create a stronger Tier One universal foundation for creating those
behavior expectations and lessons. There was an issue with staffing that delayed our progress to
be made with this need, but a permanent librarian was just hired who is prepared and ready to
teach behavior and social emotional lessons once a week to each class. Since each of our classes
attend each special twice a week, they will not be losing out on any of their designated special
times, but we can ensure that each class is receiving the same Tier One information.

The adults essential to carrying out my improvement plan are all adults in the building, as all
adults need to be aware of the Tier Two intervention group and its purpose. This is to include
classroom teachers, exceptional children teachers, specialists, support staff, and office staff.
Some of the most essential staff to the implementation plan will be those that serve on the PBIS
committee. At the beginning of my improvement project, Alliance Elementary did have a PBIS
committee but it was only made up of administrators, and the guidance counselor. Since these
people are dealing with a very small number of students directly involved in the Tier Two
intervention group, this team will need to grow in order to include interdisciplinary members of
the building. By November 2022, the PBIS team has grown to include general education teachers
and representatives from the team of interventionists, but does not have a parent member or a
representative from the special area teachers. It has been an area that we still need to work on to
get consistent PBIS committee meetings scheduled, but it is on the radar of our administration
that we do need one soon in order to continue making progress. This is also included in my
suggestions for the PBIS team for next school year.

Connection to Alliance City Schools Mission and Vision

The mission statement of Alliance City Schools says “Our mission is for all students to reach
their fullest potential and become productive citizens through staff who establish high
expectations, a safe, positive and engaging learning environment, and content that supports
critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity.” The vision that I have for my
improvement project directly correlates to the mission statement of Alliance City Schools.
Through the implementation of PBIS and providing interventions for students, students will be
able to reach their fullest potential because they're following the high expectations set for them in
the school, which will enable them to learn in the best way possible. By having interventions for
students who are not currently meeting our expectations, we are teaching students to be
productive citizens, to be safe, and to be able to collaborate, communicate, and be around others
successfully.
UTILIZING 12

Looking at the big picture of this improvement project, there will ideally be less time focused on
redirecting behaviors throughout the school day, there will be less classroom disruptions which
allow students to focus more on their core instruction and be provided better support for
academic learning. This will be impacting students to reach their highest potential while
maintaining a positive and engaging learning environment. Through reviewing the data of
students that are included in the Tier Two behavior intervention group and which students are
included in Tiers Two and Three of academic Response to Intervention (RTI) groups, it was
determined that many of our students who most often struggle to meet the behavior expectations
at AES are also students who are requiring additional support in their academic classes
(Appendix J).

Smart Goals

Adult Implementation Goals

By February 27, 2023, the Target Third Grade Team teachers will determine consistent
procedures for daily positive and negative data entry in Kickboard and will agree to follow those
procedures with fidelity from Feb 28-March 28, 2023.

Starting on February 21, each Grade 3 Green Team member will have a week in which they
report out to the rest of the team those students at or below the 50% positivity level as measured
by Kickboard and lead the data analysis discussion looking for progress of those currently in Tier
2 Intervention and then other observations regarding the data.

By March 30, the intern will have created the procedural guidelines “handbook” - either in hard
copy and/or digital for ease of access to be used within the Target Third Grade pilot.

By January 2023, procedures for the CICO Tier Two intervention will be in place and
implemented with fidelity as measured by a “self-report” continuum questionnaire.

Student Impact Goals

By the end of March 2023, the number of Target Third Grade students in need of Tier Two CICO
intervention will decrease by 33%, or seven students.

By the end of March 2023, seven Target Third Grade students will graduate from the Tier Two
CICO intervention and receive a certificate (Appendix K) as measured by the nine weeks in
which they are above a 50% positivity score on Kickboard.
UTILIZING 13

Family engagement Goal

By February 19, the intern will create a communication (Appendix L) describing the three
behavior expectations at AES and the four cueing phrases that help students to regulate their
actions before a privilege loss, and an overview of what the positivity percentage on Kickboard
is used for.

Evaluation Plan

I monitored the effectiveness of the implementation using some strategies that we already have
in place, and using some strategies that will be new to our building. We currently use Kickboard
as a management system in our Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS)
implementation and will continue using it as the data source to determine which students will be
included in the Tier Two intervention group.

After determining as a Target Third Grade team the consistent procedures for daily positive and
negative data entry in Kickboard and agreeing to follow those procedures with fidelity, we know
that our data is accurate and unbiased. This was a crucial step, because without this we would not
have accurate data to use. We determined that students would earn stars for finishing their Reflex
math each day, and for working diligently on their iReady lessons.

We have determined that students at or below a 50% positivity percentage for a sustained six
week period on Kickboard will qualify for Tier Two interventions, and will be included in the
CICO process. One data point that we hope to see come from this is a decrease in the amount of
students that are requiring Tier Two interventions, and the students who are involved in Tier Two
interventions to be able to be gradually released from needing them. We want to see those
students transition fully back to Tier One eventually.

The effectiveness of the strategies will be determined by seeing an improvement in the system
we have that monitors our school-wide behaviors, and a decrease in students that are needing
Tier Two interventions consistently. In any age group, we will always have to continue to reteach
our routine behaviors that we experience every day, but through the behavior interventions in
place we should be able to see a decrease in the more extreme and consistent behaviors. The plan
will be effective when we see these changes, and both the staff and students are responding
positively to implementation.

Again, this is a pilot being completed by the Target Third Grade team. We are meeting weekly to
discuss behavior data to ensure that we are remaining consistent with our behavior input and the
process followed. We have not taken this to a PBIS team yet, and will do that before the end of
the school year with our results. Every week, we are checking on the Kickboard data for all of
UTILIZING 14

the students in our Target Third Grade team, especially those who are included in our Tier Two
intervention. We are trying to recognize patterns and ensure that our intervention is supporting
the students in a consistent manner.

If this is adopted by the PBIS team to be school-wide, ideally the beginning of the
implementation of the Tier Two CICO and consistent data collection will be monitored every
other week by the PBIS team. After some consistency is established, that will turn into a once a
month review by the PBIS team. I think it is important that even when implementation has
already been successful, the PBIS team continues to meet and review how the plan is
progressing. Though the PBIS team will be meeting more frequently, each meeting will not be an
official time to monitor the data, which will be done every three months so that the interventions
have time to work.

Right now, the monitoring team are the teachers on the Target Third Grade team, with input from
our building principal. Since we are the pilot, there are not as many people involved yet. If the
PBIS team decides to adopt our plan, the monitoring team will be the same people who are on
the PBIS team. That will include the school administration, both the building principal, and the
dean of students. It will also include the guidance counselor, and a representative from each team
using the PBIS system. Ideally there will also be a parent/guardian representative that sits in on
the meetings to give the perspective from outside the building. At least one of the grade level
representatives should have knowledge of which students are on IEPs and 504 plans, as well as
any exceptionalities the students maintain.

The baseline data is the positivity percentage pulled from Kickboard for the students in the
Target Third Grade team from the first nine weeks of the 2022-2023 school year, from
September 6th through October 21st. A second data point was collected at the end of the second
nine weeks, which was in mid January, and a final data point will be collected at the end of the
third nine weeks in March.

Professional Development and Training

When this improvement project started, my professional development began with the very basics
of PBIS implementation, with a focus on sustainability for PBIS systems in place at the
elementary level. After gaining that foundation of knowledge, I was able to continue my research
on using data to create a student group for the Tier Two interventions, and what type of
intervention would be appropriate. Once the CICO intervention was determined by my mentor
and me, that became the focus of my research and professional development.

I continued to attend virtual professional development webinars, continued to read scholarly

research papers, utilized the various online resources, participated in the PBIS module from the
UTILIZING 15

Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC), and continued to use the Ohio Department of
Education's PBIS resources to reach their silver and gold levels.

I also visited Minerva Elementary School for a day to learn about their PBIS system and how
they achieve success with their implementation with sustainability. Many of the smaller details of
implementation, especially those that support our Tier One universal instruction, came from my
visit to Minerva Elementary School. This was an extremely rewarding experience for me, and an
opportunity to see a successful implementation in action was more impactful than simply reading
about it.

The professional development that is needed for the other staff members in my building is a
refresher on what Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) really is, and some common
misconceptions concerning the framework and implementation. Knowing the people and
personalities in my building, this professional development will be backed up by research as
proof as to why we are implementing the way that we are. There has been a lot of resistance in
the past in regards to switching from the clip it system to Kickboard because it has been utilized
within the building for so long. I do feel like that will be aided by using the research and proven
strategies during the professional development sessions for other staff members.

My team has been piloting the implementation that I will be training the rest of the school on so
we have found solutions to a lot of the problems that might arise early on an implementation. It
will also be helpful to talk about the problems that we've already seen and ways that we have
addressed them as the team piloting the program so that the rest of the staff understands that we
have maintained best practices as well as recognizing that our implementation has not been
perfect on the first try. This is the continuous training aspect of our plan, we have tried multiple
things and will continue to problem solve to make the transition as easy as possible.

Table 5 Kickboard Document To Be Shared With Staff

Things Going Well

● Not keeping track of cards has been amazing!

● Easy to add comments on the website and app as you’re giving star/reminder- you
don’t have to try to remember on Friday what each mark was for
● Giving out way more stars than before because it is easier
● More instructional time without having to find/handle cards
● Less transitions to go back and get the card if they forgot it
● Students cannot intentionally lose their cards to hide reminders and comments
● We love the website/app- so much easier to keep track of than the cards. You can
quickly see how many positives/reminders for the entire class
● Students can access their stars at the end of class or the end of the day
● Teacher can display the positives at the end of the day for students to quickly add
stamps (not humiliation because negatives are not shown, it is the same as displaying
stamp cards)
UTILIZING 16

● Doesn’t take up all of our homeroom time on Friday so we can actually do GAT or
character education
● We switched away from pom poms completely to just doing one behavior incentive a
month on the last Friday of the month

Things Needing Attention Solutions

● Not knowing how many reminders
students have/when to write up from
class to class
● Do we need to have “Press Pause”,
“Get Your Mind Right”, “Step Up”,
“Privilege Loss”?
● Specialists/Sloane/Elliott/Cafeteria
having to follow multiple plans with us
piloting without the cards
● Students are not grasping how many
reminders they have
● Teacher is absent
● Flags for reminders are showing up as
two separate things when looked at in
the analysis, a flag and a reminder.
● Can we put flags to indicate how
many reminders students already
have?
○ This is now programmed in the
system, but we have had a few
issues with it.
● Can the reminders just say “reminder”
instead of the labels?
● Will they pilot in real time, put it in a
spreadsheet, or put it on a clipboard?
● Made a sheet to be taken on a
clipboard every day to
specials/lunch/Sloane/Elliott
● Have students check at the end of
block?
● Use a sheet like we do with
specials/lunch/Sloane/Elliot

As my Target Third Grade team is piloting, we have been engaging in professional development
together through the process of identifying best practices for our data input and how we carry out
the Tier Two intervention of CICO.

When I present the professional development to the rest of the staff, I want to have a lot of
materials prepared for them to be used as resources so there is little for them to do on their own.
Since there is resistance to change within the building, I think having everything already
prepared as much as possible will be helpful because it does not ask for the other staff members
to spend their own time working on implementation. The important factor here will be that their
feedback and concerns are still heard, which will be one of the focus points of the PBIS team.

Data

My plan for data analysis is to continue to use Kickboard to gather information and data on the
effects of our Tier Two intervention implementation. Within Kickboard, students are able to earn
“Stars” or positive interaction points during each of their classes (homeroom, reading, math, and
specials) as all teachers have access to the website and app. When students earn a reminder,
which is our version of a negative interaction points, there are flags that show teachers how
many reminders each student has, but none of the students' points are removed (Appendix M).
What students can earn positive points for is aligned with our PBIS guidelines of "Be Kind, Be a
UTILIZING 17

Role Model, and Give Your Best Effort." When students are given reminders they are labeled as
"Press Pause, Get Your Mind Right, Step Up, and Privilege Loss."

Students track their positive points as well in the classroom on a chart, and when they hit 15 they
get to choose an individual award (Appendix N). We like this display because it is something that
the students manage and it is hands on for them to track their points. Students' charts have all
different amounts of stamps on them, and they get a new chart when they reach 15. Since they
get new charts, it is hard for the other students to be aware of which students are earning more
positives than others (for example, if a student has no stamps on their chart, it is most likely
because they just got a new chart and not because they have not been earning any stars). As a
homeroom, on the last Friday of the month there is a behavior incentive for all the students who
have a certain percentage of positive points. Some examples are that in September, students who
were at 50% positive points earned extra recess and popsicles, in March all the students who had
a 75% positivity percentage earned time to play board games for a half hour (Appendix O).

Within Kickboard, there is an abundance of data that can be analyzed. We can analyze the
amount of positive interactions, the amount of negative interactions, the positivity percentage, as
well as how many times each student has passed that 15 positive interactions mark and earned an
individual reward.

My mentor and I determined that we would have students who were at or under a 50% positivity
percentage on Kickboard be the students we moved to the Tier Two intervention level of PBIS.
We then looked at that list, and removed students who truly did not need to be on that list. Maybe
they had just moved to the district and hadn't had very much time to earn their points for various
other reasons. We also, with the teacher's guidance, added other students who had a higher
percentage, but still needed that extra intervention. For example some students were added who
have just lost one of their parents, and we included them so that they would get some extra
support at school. With that list we made our Tier Two group and are trying the intervention of
check-in check-out with the students. Every staff member in the building had the opportunity to
sign up for as many students as they wanted to check in with throughout the week (Appendix P).

The minimum expectation is to check in with their student(s) two days per week. Part of my
involvement in the project was creating a station in the hallway that you can bring your student
to and there are conversation starters that can help guide conversation to get to know the student,
set goals, and reflect on how the school year is going so far. I also used the data to determine the
first list of students involved in the Tier Two intervention, and then helped to match staff
members with students. The goal of our Tier Two intervention is to eventually have our students
graduate from this and be able to return to members of the Tier One whole group.
UTILIZING 18

Table 6 Baseline Data

Baseline Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q1)

Target Third Grade 21 total students Male: 17 students Female: 4 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 14 students 3 students

Our midpoint data was collected using the same means as our baseline data. We looked at how
many students are at or below 50% positivity, and used that to determine how effective our Tier
Two interventions are. The goal was that as we continued on, we wanted to see less students in
the 50% or less range, and we'll have more students that need to be there just based on the
teacher’s recommendation instead of having it as a specific behavior intervention.

Table 7 Mid-Point Data

Mid-Point Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q2)

Target Third Grade 17 total students Male: 14 students Female: 3 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 10 students 4 students

Students transitioned out of Tier Two: New students added to Tier Two:
7 students 3 students

Table 8 Endpoint Data

End Point Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q3)

Target Third Grade 17 total students Male: 14 students Female: 3 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 11 students 4 students

Students transitioned out of Tier Two: New students added to Tier Two for Q4:
4 students 6 students

Students who were previously exited, that are

returning to Tier Two:
1 student
UTILIZING 19

Monitoring and Evaluation Midpoint Data and Results

As determined at the beginning of my improvement project, our data would be focused on the
students involved in our Tier Two intervention group. My principal and I, along with the PBIS
committee, determined that students at or below a 50% positivity rating would be included in the
Tier Two intervention group receiving the Check In/Check Out intervention. The guidelines set
for this intervention are the same as the ones displayed in the implementation plan. The baseline
data displays the students that were chosen to be included in the Tier Two intervention group
based on their behavior interactions on Kickboard during the first nine weeks of the school year,
or quarter one (Q1).

Table 9 Baseline Data

Baseline Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q1, Implemented During Q2)

Target Third Grade 21 total students Male: 17 students Female: 4 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 14 students 3 students

After providing the intervention of Check-In/Check-Out for a full nine weeks, the data was
reviewed using Kickboard to determine the positivity percentage of every student in the Target
Third Grade Team. A new set of students that would be receiving the Check-In/Check-Out Tier
Two intervention was determined, using the same positivity percentage on Kickboard as used in
the baseline data. This data was documented during the first week of January at the end of the
second nine weeks or quarter two (Q2), it was analyzed during the second week during January,
and then implemented beginning in the last week of January throughout the whole third quarter
(Q3).

Table 10 Midpoint Data

Mid-Point Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q2, Implemented During Q3)

Target Third Grade 17 total students Male: 14 students Female: 3 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 10 students 4 students

Students transitioned out of Tier Two: New students added to Tier Two:
7 students 3 students
UTILIZING 20

Analysis of Midpoint Data

I was the person who pulled all of the Kickboard data to review, and I created the document that
compared the individual positivity percentage for the students in Tier Two of the Third Grade
Target Team from the end of the first nine weeks of the school year to their positivity percentage
from the end of the second nine weeks of the school year. After I pulled this data from
Kickboard, and compiled it into an organized document, my principal and I sat down to review
what we were finding, and to determine whether we wanted to maintain our Tier Two
intervention plan or change it. We determined that we were going to maintain our Tier Two
intervention plan because the data suggests that the intervention we are providing to students
seems to be working.

At the midpoint review, we determined that seven students would be exited from the Tier Two
intervention group, and released fully back into only receiving Tier 1 supports with the
remainder of our student population. With the release of those seven students, we only
determined that four new students needed to be included in our Tier Two intervention group.
Overall the size of our group decreased from 21 students to 17 students involved. With this
decrease in total students involved, we are closer to the suggested percentage of a Tier Two
group. During the second nine weeks (Q2) 18% of the Target Third Grade Team were in Tier
Two, and during the third nine weeks (Q3) we were down to 14% of our population being
involved in Tier Two.
Of the 14 students that remained in the Tier Two group from the second nine weeks to the third
nine weeks, nine of them had an increase in their positivity percentage, with the mean increase
being 10%.

Table 11 Analysis of Midpoint Data of Tier Two CICO

Student First Nine Second Nine Percent Change Remaining in
Weeks Positivity Weeks Positivity the Tier Two
Percentage Percentage Intervention
Group?

H. W. 50% 57% 7% yes

E. B. 50% 57% 7% yes

S. S. 49% 76% 27% No, graduated

M. W. 49% 51% 2% yes

P. P. 47% 33% -14% yes

R. F. 47% 70% 23% No, graduated

UTILIZING 21

M. K. 45% 79% 34% No, graduated

W. K. 42% 24% -18% yes

T. B. 39% 49% 10% yes

K. H. 39% 51% 12% yes

C. C. 34% 44% 10% yes

A. E. 33% 76% 43% No, graduated

A. H. 31% 49% 18% yes

C. T. B. 31% 45% 14% yes

B. B. 22% 61% 39% yes

C. B. 53% 53% 0% yes

J. C. 67% 62% -5% yes

J. S. 52% 23% -29% yes

C. G. 82% 75% -7% No, graduated

J. S. 65% 87% 22% No, graduated

E. H. 55% 69% 14% No, graduated

Total Mean 47% 57% 10%

Scores:

This data does suggest that the method we are using to determine the students who are included
in our Tier Two intervention, and the process we are following during that Tier Two intervention
time is working with most of the students involved. It is interesting to note again, that at the
baseline data collection point, we are at the very highest end of the recommended percentage for
students involved in a Tier Two group for the total number of students we have on our Target
team. We are much closer to being on track number-wise for the third nine weeks (Q3), but we
are still at a high end of that recommended range. This does suggest that there are improvements
that could be made in our Tier One, however the focus of this project is on Tier Two, which does
seem to be impacting the students involved positively. My recommendations for the overall Tier
One implementation can be found later in this report.
UTILIZING 22

Changes as a Result of the Midpoint Data

Over the course of this improvement project, there have been multiple changes to the focus of
my project and the implementation of the project and strategies used. Since early on in the
project, I have narrowed down my focus from school wide PBIS implementation to the
implementation of a Tier Two behavior intervention for the Target Third Grade. With this, my
research had to change and be narrowed down to reflect the different focus and strategy, though
my original research was still important in ensuring that the Tier Two intervention plan I was
creating was following PBIS best practices. I completed new research specific to the CICO
intervention chosen by the PBIS team, and edited my goals and focus to reflect that update.

The midpoint data led me to see many successes of the implementation thus far as well as many
new opportunities that we were able to begin during the second nine weeks of implementation. In
addition to this, I have multiple suggestions to bring to the AES PBIS team regarding the overall
implementation of PBIS in the building. While those are shared later within the paper, the
changes made based on the evaluation of midpoint data are shared here and implemented during
the third nine weeks.

In regards to implementing the Tier Two intervention plan, my team did make some adjustments
at the midpoint of our data collection. We wanted to find ways that we could support all of the
students in additional ways. It was understood that we had students exiting the intervention
group, and our students at this time were still not truly receiving any Tier One instruction or
support in the area of behavior management. While a lot of these changes deal with Tier One
instruction, they are also being put in place so that our students involved in Tier Two are able to
exit successfully.

Many of these were driven from the research for my Networking and Diversity of Placement
visit to Minerva Elementary School (MES). The easiest change, and the first one we
implemented was the process for tracking students’ progress towards individual behavior
rewards. We already had a way to track our students’ positive behavior interactions on their
individual incentive cards (Appendix N), but these were displayed in the classroom and it had
been a goal of ours to try to get away from the public display. Students at Minerva each have an
individual incentive chart that is kept in a folder at the teacher’s desk so it is not displayed. This
is also where the students, with the help of the teacher, determine an individual behavior goal
that they need to be working towards. That one on one conversation that every student has with
their homeroom teacher at the end of the week is similar to the check ins that our students in Tier
Two are receiving. The intention is that all students are receiving an additional opportunity for
UTILIZING 23

one on one time with an adult that cares about them, while also resolving the public display of
their behavior incentive cards.

We adapted the plan that Minerva uses, and created our version of a new individualized incentive
chart where students still earn an individual reward when earning fifteen stars (Appendix Q). We
also really liked the idea of each student having a behavior goal that they are working towards,
so that was included on their new incentive chart. As a resource, I also created a list of example
behavior goals for teachers and students to use as a guide (Appendix R). We have also made it a
point to discuss these individualized behavior goals during at least one of the weekly check-ins
for the students in our Tier Two interventions. We wanted to make the check in opportunities be
somewhat more consistent, while also reinforcing our behavior expectations specifically.

In addition to this change, my team has decided to pilot a flow chart for how to manage minor
behaviors that happen throughout the school day (Appendix S) which was adapted from the
Minerva PBIS flow chart. As our main data point, their positivity percentage cannot be
something that is another variable, and teachers need to establish consistency for entering
reminders. Kickboard is used best when it is used in real time, which we learned during the first
nine weeks of our implementation. This knowledge has also influenced some of the suggestions
made to the PBIS team later in this paper. But as the Target Third Grade Team, we wanted to do
everything we could as a pilot to establish our own consistency.

In order for the flow chart to work, we agreed upon a list of major and minor behaviors, and
appropriate consequences for each (Appendix T). Both of these documents, the flow chart and
major/minor behaviors, are necessary so that there is consistency between teachers in how we
react to and manage behaviors. This directly impacts the students and their positivity percentage,
because it helps to establish guidelines for when they are given stars and reminders. These
documents came as a result of the research I participated in to complete my Networking and
Diversity of Placement visit to Minerva Elementary School, which came about three weeks after
the midpoint data was initially pulled. The timing came out to be about a week after we began
our round of implementation, which is still early enough on to have enough time to make an
impact.

At this point in the implementation plan, we have also decided to begin a Zero Club, which I also
learned from my experience at MES. This was very simple, and was a way that we could
recognize the students who are always following their behavior expectations. My third grade
team has already implemented this weekly and monthly. Every Friday, we take the students who
did not earn any reminders for the week into the hallway for a photograph that can be posted on
our school wide communication and those students earn a piece of candy or a couple minutes of
free Chromebook time. At the end of every month, we gather all the students from our hallway
that earned zero reminders that month and they take a group photo that is posted on the Alliance
UTILIZING 24

City Schools social media pages. They also earn an incentive from their homeroom teacher, such
as candy or free Chromebook time. It was a concern of ours previously that we spend so much
time during the day redirecting behaviors, that our students who are always doing what they
should be actually get less attention and recognition. So, implementing this is one way we are
trying to address this concern and ensure that all students get the recognition they deserve. It also
gives something for students to aspire to earn, which has made an impact on all students as well
because they want to be in the photo too.

At this midpoint time it was also determined that we wanted a way to track and manage how
consistently the adults in our building were completing their check-ins with students. This is not
a way that we want to evaluate our adults, but is a way to control other variables and see the
effectiveness of our intervention. We thought of a couple different ways that we could try to do
this, but we thought a Google Form might be the easiest. We did create the Google Form, but we
did not choose to implement it because while we wanted to make that change, there were other
ideas that we wanted to put a priority on instead. Ideally, this one Google form would be used
with all staff members completing check-ins with students. The PBIS team could then use this
data to ensure consistency, and to help them determine the reasons why the intervention might
not be working with some students but is working with others. This is discussed further, in my
suggestions to the AES PBIS team.

Depending on how these processes work for us during the second part of our implementation
during the third nine weeks (Q3) of the school year, these can be adjusted to match what we have
learned while using them. If we find them beneficial, they will then be taken to the AES PBIS
team to see if they will be adapted for the whole building.

Analysis of Final Results

Again, I was the person who pulled all of the Kickboard data to review, and I created the
document that compared the individual positivity percentage for the students in Tier Two of the
Third Grade Target Team from the beginning of the third nine weeks of the school year to their
positivity percentage from the end of the third nine weeks of the school year. After I pulled this
updated information from Kickboard, and compiled it into a second tab in my data document, my
principal and I sat down to review what we were finding, and to determine whether we wanted to
maintain our Tier Two intervention plan or change it. We determined that we were going to
maintain our Tier Two intervention plan because the data suggests that the intervention we are
providing to students is working.

At the ending data point review, it was determined that four students would be exited from the
Tier Two intervention group, and released fully back into only receiving Tier 1 supports with the
UTILIZING 25

remainder of our student population. With the release of those four students, we determined that
six new students needed to be included in our Tier Two intervention group, and one student who
was previously exited from the group could be added back in. For this student in particular, we
saw a large increase in their positivity percentage during the second nine weeks, but then it
dropped again when exited from the intervention group. This is a crucial part of the
implementation plan that had not been considered until analyzing the midpoint and final results.
We knew that it would be important to slowly release the students from intervention, but did not
have a plan to continue monitoring their data.

With the release of four students and the addition of six new students, the size of our group
would be increasing from 17 students to 19 students. This change is still a decrease in the amount
involved from our first data point, of having 21 students involved. By having 19 students
included in the Tier Two group, that is 16% of our Target Third Grade population.

Of the 17 students that remained in the Tier Two group during the third nine weeks (Q3), eight of
them had an increase in their positivity percentage with the mean increase being 4%. For the
three additional students added into the Tier Two group during our second nine weeks of
implementation, two of the three students had an increase in their positivity percentage, and their
mean increase was 3%. These increases were not as large as the increase we saw at the midpoint
check in; however I am still pleased with the results.

Table 12 Endpoint Data

End Point Tier Two Intervention: Check-In Check-Out (End of Q3)

Target Third Grade 17 total students Male: 14 students Female: 3 students

Team:
Black/Multi-Race: White: Students with IEPs:
7 students 11 students 4 students

Students transitioned out of Tier Two: New students added to Tier Two:

4 students 6 students

Students who were previously exited, that are

returning to Tier Two:
1 student

Table 13 Analysis of Endpoint Data of Tier Two CICO

Student First Nine Second Percent Remaining Third Nine Percent Remaining
Weeks Nine Change in the Tier Weeks Change in the Tier
Positivity Weeks Two Positivity Two
UTILIZING 26

Percentage Positivity Intervention Percentage Intervention

Percentage Group? Group?

H. W. 50% 57% 7% yes 67% 10% no

E. B. 50% 57% 7% yes 50% -7% yes

S. S. 49% 76% 27% No,

graduated

M. W. 49% 51% 2% yes 48% -3% yes

P. P. 47% 33% -14% yes 58% 25% yes

R. F. 47% 70% 23% No,

graduated

M. K. 45% 79% 34% No, 60% Added back

graduated in for fourth
nine weeks

W. K. 42% 24% -18% yes 25% 1% yes

T. B. 39% 49% 10% yes 59% 10% yes

K. H. 39% 51% 12% yes 56% 5% yes

C. C. 34% 44% 10% yes 21% -23% yes

A. E. 33% 76% 43% No,

graduated

A. H. 31% 49% 18% yes 63% 14% No,

graduated

C. T. B. 31% 45% 14% yes 63% 18% No,

graduated

B. B. 22% 61% 39% yes 77% 16% No,

graduated

C. B. 53% 53% 0% yes 39% -14% yes

J. C. 67% 62% -5% yes 61% -1% No,

graduated

J. S. 52% 23% -29% yes moved n/a n/a

C. G. 82% 75% -7% No,

UTILIZING 27

graduated

J. S. 65% 87% 22% No,

graduated

E. H. 55% 69% 14% No,

graduated

Total 47% 57% 10% 4%

Mean
Scores:

New Additions to Tier Two at the End of the 2nd Nine Weeks

Student First Nine Second Percent Remaining Third Nine Percent Remaining
Weeks Nine Change in the Tier Weeks Change in the Tier
Positivity Weeks Two Positivity Two
Percentage Positivity Intervention Percentage Intervention
Percentage Group? Group?

Z. M. 31% 26% -5% yes

M.

C. M. 46% 47% 1% yes

P. L. 47% 60% 13% No,

graduated

Total 41% 44% 3%

Mean
Scores:

I thought it would be interesting to also analyze the overall increase from our baseline data to our
final data point from the students who had been involved throughout the whole implementation.
While our final data point seemed less impressive, I think the following table shows that our
efforts made an impact on many students. The students who had an overall increase in their
positivity percentage from our baseline data to the final data, had a mean increase of 12%.

Table 14 Analysis of Students Throughout All Three Data Checkpoints

Student First Nine Second Nine Third Nine Overall Percent
Weeks Positivity Weeks Positivity Weeks Positivity Change
Percentage Percentage Percentage

H. W. 50% 57% 67% 17%

E. B. 50% 57% 50% 0%

UTILIZING 28

M. W. 49% 51% 48% -1%

P. P. 47% 33% 58% 11%

W. K. 42% 24% 25% -17%

T. B. 39% 49% 59% 20%

K. H. 39% 51% 56% 17%

C. C. 34% 44% 21% 13%

A. H. 31% 49% 63% 32%

C. T. B. 31% 45% 63% 32%

B. B. 22% 61% 77% 55%

C. B. 53% 53% 39% -14%

J. C. 67% 62% 61% -6%

Total Mean 12%

Scores:

During the initial process of beginning my improvement project, I wrote seven SMARTgoals that
I hoped to accomplish with my project. I can confidently say that all seven of the SMART goals
were implemented in some way, though some were more in depth than others. For example,
many of the documents I created could be used in a procedural handbook, however they have not
been compiled into an official handbook thus far.

During the analysis of the midpoint data, we determined that we needed some way to track the
consistency in which students were pulled for their check-ins with their adult mentor. We
determined that this would be easiest through a Google Form, but did not actually get that into
place. Looking back, I wish that it had been implemented during the improvement project
because I am wondering if there was not as much consistency after the midpoint data, and that is
why we did not see the same levels of increase in the positivity percentages at the final data
point. This is especially so with the three students that were newly added into our Tier Two
group.

As a result of analyzing the final data, I have multiple suggestions to bring to the PBIS team at
the completion of my improvement project. Many of the initial suggestions are to strengthen our
Tier One or universal supports for our PBIS plan. Without these being in place, it is very
challenging to implement a successful Tier Two intervention plan. In order to fully implement
our Tier Two plan in our Target Third Grade Team, we implemented some additional procedures
UTILIZING 29

to make our Tier Two implementation work. It is with these Tier One supports that we will be
able to have a manageable number of students included in our Tier Two intervention group.

My first suggestion is for the AES PBIS team to be comprised of one teacher per team, including
one from the special areas team, as well as our guidance counselor, and our building
administrators. One of the teachers should be an interventionist so that their expertise and ideas
are also included. It is also important that this team meets monthly, so that the team can be
utilized to its full potential. This would also ensure that there is clear and consistent information
being shared with all the staff. The teachers on this team need to be positive, be willing to
collaborate, and be willing to try new things. I do not see it being necessary that the teachers on
the PBIS team are the same as those included on the building leadership team. These two teams
have separate purposes, and if it helps to relieve staff of potential burnout they can be made of
two separate groups of people. That being said, they need to work together when possible. It will
be imperative that the PBIS team keeps the building leadership team up to date and included in
the process.

Another thing that I believe the PBIS team should implement is making sure that all staff
members are putting in their own stars and reminders into Kickboard, so the data is in real time
and as accurate as can be. Throughout the 2022-2023 school year, the special area teachers and
academic tutors are reporting their stars and reminders to the homeroom teacher to be input into
Kickboard. If all staff are inputting their behavior interactions in real time like the academic
teachers are, there is more information that can be gained from the Kickboard data. For example,
we can see if there needs to be stronger core instruction on expectations in specials, or in the
cafeteria. We can also see if students are earning more of their reminders in the morning or
afternoon, possibly letting us know how students are impacted when medication might be
wearing off or when they are around different groups of their peers.

My third suggestion for the PBIS team is to establish norms for what types of behaviors qualify
for stars, and what types of behaviors earn reminders. For example, are we giving stars for things
like iReady and Reflex? These types of procedures need to be consistent across the school so that
our data is not skewed. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The Target Third Grade
Team has established a process that we are planning to present to the PBIS team, and can be
found in appendix (Appendix U). We need this process to be consistent so that the data we use
for our Tier Two CICO process is also consistent. If some students are receiving daily stars for
completing their Reflex work and iReady assignments, but others are not, their positivity
percentage would be affected differently.

An aspect of the flow chart is that reminders cannot be given out more than one at a time, and
there is a process to be followed when giving out reminders. We have assigned buddy teachers in
order to implement a buddy teacher time out, and I created a similar reflection sheet for students
UTILIZING 30

to fill out during this time (Appendix V). Since we are piloting this program, our interventionist
decided that she would be the adult for the climate room time out, where students will have
another reflection sheet that they work on (Appendix W).

Additionally, I suggest that the PBIS team reviews the current AES behavior matrix and ensures
that it is something that we can agree on to be teaching and enforcing as our behavior
expectations. As a pilot team, the Target Third Grade Team modified the old AES behavior
matrix (Appendix X) and decided consistent behaviors that we want to teach our students and
what each of our behavior expectations look like around the building. We also have discussed
how these behavior matrices should be posted around the building, and used during the explicit
instruction of our behavior expectations.

One other change that my team has decided to pilot and that we will be implementing at AES as
a result of my time at Minerva is the Behavior Boot Camp that all students experience every
year. We have decided to implement this, but recognize that it will not be implemented until the
fourth nine weeks of the school year, after the completion of this improvement project. We know
this will not take place until then because we need time to plan it, and due to state testing
timelines there just is not the time to make it happen during the middle of the year. However, it is
hopefully a solution to a new need based on the midpoint data.

At the beginning of each school year, every student at MES completes a Behavior Boot Camp
that reviews all the behavior expectations and individually goes over the procedures for each area
of the building. My team decided that we would do a Behavior Boot Camp this spring where we
each take an area of the building, and teach the procedures for that area using our PBIS behavior
matrix while the students rotate through. A process that we want to implement, but have not
completed yet, is creating lesson plans and videos like MES has done so that all students in the
building are hearing the same expectations and are being taught the same procedures.

During our analysis of the midpoint data, we determined that we need a way to track how
consistently the students are being pulled for a check-in check-out with their adult staff member.
We did not want to plan something that would be an extra burden on staff. Instead we wanted
something that would be easy to implement, but would also provide us a lot of extra data and
information. While we did not get to implement this during the actual improvement project, we
did decide on what needed to be included in the consistency tracking and decided to make a
Google Form (Appendix Y) that all staff could use. the PBIS committee would have access to
the results, and be able to use that data.
UTILIZING 31

Reflection of Self as a Leader of Improvement

Strengths
As a future school leader, I think I found many strengths in myself. This whole process was new
to me, and it definitely made me step out of my comfort zone. I think that I learned a lot about
myself as how I think through new processes, and keep ideas and data organized. I don't always
consider myself to be an overly organized person, but I do not think that applies to how I
implemented this project. Another strength of mine that I learned about during this project was
the ability to utilize data in productive ways.

Opportunities for Improvement

There are still many opportunities for improvement. Towards the beginning of my
implementation, I was too broad-minded, and could not refine my focus. This was a challenge
for me, and it slowed me down overall with completing my project because I was trying to do
too many things at once. What I learned from this situation is that improvement can happen in
small pieces that make large impacts. I've also learned that through delegation comes the most
possibility for sustainability. I tend to do things on my own as much as possible, and this project
taught me that that will not be an option whenever I am a school leader. I could not imagine
implementing something like this while also being an administrator, as it was challenging
enough to keep up with it while I was continuing to teach. At AES right now there is not a strong
PBIS team, and I think if that were in place implementing changes like this would have been
much easier because there would have been other people involved, that I could delegate to.

Which Principal Standards does this project serve as excellent evidence/why?

This improvement project aligns to multiple of the Ohio Standards for Principals. I think the
main standard that it applies to is Standard Three: School Improvement, because of the nature of
it being an improvement project. One of the indicators for Standard Three is to identify the areas
of greatest need, develop a focus plan with processes and procedures for implementation, to
implement and monitor the strategies to align them with district and building goals as well as
making necessary adjustments, and to engage staff to create a culture of continuous support. All
those are things that have been part of this improvement project. Within other descriptors for
Standard Three, the Ohio Department of Education states that school improvement is done in a
collaborative manner, is data driven, and is evidence-based. I am proud of the ways that this
improvement project was collaborative with my target third grade team, administration, and the
amount of data utilized to make decisions.

In addition to Standard Three, this improvement project also addresses Standard Four:
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment. The descriptors for Standard Four say that students are
in a learning environment that is personalized, and conducive to their needs. As we know,
students are not able to learn to their fullest potential when learning environments are distracting
UTILIZING 32

due to student behaviors, whether they are their own, or someone else's. By trying to decrease
some of the behaviors that we see, we are trying to improve the way that students are learning.

This project also addresses Standard Six: Equity and Cultural Responsiveness. Throughout
multiple points of my improvement project, I analyzed the data to determine whether there were
any discrepancies in the amount of students represented in our Tier Two groups between genders,
races, and ability levels. Though it was not the focus of this project, it was very important to me
that this data was analyzed along with the increase in positivity percentage so that we are being
responsive to the population that we serve and are not overly targeting any of our populations.

Standard Seven is also addressed by this project, which is creating a community of care and
support. The descriptors for Standard Seven say that we are creating positive partnerships
between staff and students, which I do believe the check-in check-out system has done as well as
having students conference once a week with their homeroom teacher. These are two ways that
we have built relationships with our students in a new way as a result of this project. With our
goal of family engagement, I do feel like we are working towards a community of care and
support. Not only through family engagement, but ensuring that students know that they are
cared for, respected, and supported at school we are meeting the standard. It is one of the
indicators for Standard Seven that we are committed to the education of the whole child, which
is part of providing the behavior interventions and reteaching the expected behaviors instead of
just disciplining the students. The second indicator says that an effective educational leader also
will use and sustain a system of social and emotional support to meet the needs of each student,
which is also met by our interventions in place for our students. Again there is still more work to
be done, but this project is evidence that we are moving towards meeting those standards.

Finally, I think that this improvement project addresses Standard Ten, which is school operations.
The descriptors for school operations say that school leaders are creating a positive environment
through structures that enhance student learning.

Challenges
One of the challenges that I met with in this improvement project was resistance from
other staff members and trying to work against the idea that PBIS is just another idea that won't
work, and that students need negative consequences for negative behaviors. What I have done so
far for my improvement project has been focused on my own grade level, and nothing has been
said directly to me about my project not working, but there is an attitude through some teachers
that this is just another thing that we have to do that probably will not make any difference.
There are some teachers that believe what works for other students will not work for ours, etc.
Knowing that, I know I have a lot of people to win over if this is to become a school-wide
implementation plan. We are also gaining a new principal, and assistant principal next year, and
UTILIZING 33

it is hard to guarantee that all the positive work we have started this year will be continued under
completely new leadership.

What’s next?
A lot of what comes next was put into my suggestions for the PBIS team. I want to at least bring
my findings to the PBIS team and to our future administrators as a process that we know works,
and can remain consistent for the next year. I think that my target third grade team has figured
out a lot of the ways that we can improve this process, and have made it manageable for the rest
of the staff members to take on with us.
UTILIZING 34

References

Alliance City School District. District Profile. (2023). Retrieved February 17, 2023, from
https://www.alliancecityschools.org/page/district-profile

Botzman, G., Ferrell, guidance counselor, D., & Ruff, principal, D. (2023). Diversity
Placement Observation at Minerva Elementary School. personal.

Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: a systematic evaluation and

component analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 44(2), 315–326.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-315

Council, O. L. A. (n.d.). Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Module Overview.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports | Ohio Leadership Advisory Council.

Retrieved December 8, 2022, from https://ohioleadership.org/m/980

Epperson, A. (2018, May 16). Check-in/check-out behavior intervention & PBIS. PBIS Rewards.

Retrieved February 1, 2023, from

https://www.pbisrewards.com/blog/check-in-check-out-behavior-intervention/

House Bill 318. House Bill 318 | The Ohio Legislature. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2022,

from https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-318

Ohio Department of Education. (2018). Ohio Standards for Principals . Columbus .

Ohio Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. Ohio Department of Education. (2022,

August 19). Retrieved October 5, 2022, from

https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Student-Supports/Ohio-PBIS
UTILIZING 35

PBIS plan. Minerva Elementary School. (2023). Retrieved February 4, 2023, from

https://mes.mlsd.sparcc.org/pbis

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports . Center on PBIS. (2022). Retrieved October 6,

2022, from https://www.pbis.org/

Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted

intervention to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,

10(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300707311369

Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2021). Ten common misses in pbis implementation. Beyond

Behavior, 30(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295621996874

What is PBIS? Center on PBIS. (2023). Retrieved April 1, 2023, from

https://www.pbis.org/pbis/what-is-pbis
UTILIZING 36

Appendix

Appendix A:
UTILIZING 37

Appendix B:
UTILIZING 38

Appendix C:

Appendix D:
UTILIZING 39

Appendix E:

Appendix F:
UTILIZING 40

Appendix G:

Appendix H:
UTILIZING 41

Appendix I:
UTILIZING 42

Appendix J:

Appendix K:
UTILIZING 43

Appendix L:
UTILIZING 44

Appendix M:

Appendix N:
UTILIZING 45

Appendix O:
UTILIZING 46

Appendix P:
UTILIZING 47

Appendix Q:

Appendix R:
UTILIZING 48

Appendix S:
UTILIZING 49

Appendix T:
UTILIZING 50

Appendix U:
UTILIZING 51

Appendix V:
UTILIZING 52

Appendix W:
UTILIZING 53

Appendix X:
UTILIZING 54

Appendix Y: