# data[].attributes.body
Great survey questions!

# data[].attributes.body
Great example!

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan
April Martin

# data[].attributes.body
Tier 3 interventions are designed to help students who have severe behavioral or academic issues that need additional attention. The wraparound process is a perfect example of a tier 3 intervention, because the wrap around process focuses on family and the students.But also an additional meting with the student, parent, and principal would help. If the intervention in tier 1 and 2 do not help, then a meeting with the principal, the social workers, the student, and parent would need to be made.

# data[].attributes.body
Tier 2 interventions are designed to cater to group interventions that are targeted to a specific group of students that are experiencing behavioral and academic issues. It is the social workers job to decide what intervention would work better for the students. An example would be maybe organizing a way so that the students are getting additional time to learn the material that they may be struggling with. Like organizing groups to have additional 30 minutes to an hour for additional group reading or math or any other subject that they maybe struggling with.

# data[].attributes.body
Tier one interventions are general and are provided for all the students at the school. They are universal but they are there to improve academic and behavioral problems. An Example of an EIP intervention would be to conduct  workshops for students that talk about different behaviors and to motivate them to stay in school. Maybe even have students that have graduated can come and talk to the students so that it can be more relate-able for the students.

# data[].attributes.body
My role as a social worker would be to partner up with the principals, teachers, parents, and school administrators ensure that the academic and behavioral needs are met for the student, so that they can perform their very best when they at school.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Great Example of the roles of a School Social Worker when working with At-Risk Population

# data[].attributes.subject
A Great Example of the roles of a School Social Worker when working with At-Risk Population

# data[].attributes.headline
This policy focuses on Young African-American males and the struggles that some face as early as in their middle-school years.

# data[].attributes.subject
This policy focuses on Young African-American males and the struggles that some face as early as in their middle-school years.

# data[].attributes.headline
11 Facts About High School Dropout Rates

# data[].attributes.subject
11 Facts About High School Dropout Rates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
11 facts about high school dropout rates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Facts About High School Dropout Rates | DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get high school dropout facts and statistics and learn why dropping out of high school can have negative affects on a young person's life. Find high school dropout prevention solutions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Example of a plan for At-Risk Students and Improving the Dropout Rates

# data[].attributes.subject
Example of a plan for At-Risk Students and Improving the Dropout Rates

# data[].attributes.body
Funds for the At-Risk Program in the Baldwin County Public School System are funds allocated by the Alabama legislature, which are designed to provide school systems across the state additional resources to identify and assist students who are "at-risk" of dropping out of school before successfully completing their education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reasons for school failure or non-completion may be due to situations, circumstances, and/or conditions (e.g., environment, family, health, and other) over which they may have limited control. By providing focused attention and assistance in identified areas of need, students will be given opportunities to experience school success.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Example Tier-Three Model for School Social Workers and At-Risk Students

# data[].attributes.subject
An Example Tier-Three Model for School Social Workers and At-Risk Students

# data[].attributes.body
Provided by NASW Illinois Chapter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tuesday, January 4

For School Social Workers: PBIS and At-Risk Students

Brenda Coble Lindsey, EdD, MSW, LCSW, and Margaret White, MSW, LCSW

Published with permission from Lyceum Books

Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) is a school-wide approach for promoting socially appropriate behavior among students. PBIS requires that schools create uniform behavior expectations for all classrooms and building locations, develop systematic procedures for teaching and reinforcing expectations for students and staff, and utilize school teams that employ data-based decision-making to guide implementation (Sugai & Horner, 2002). Schools implementing PBIS with fidelity have reported reductions in discipline referrals, decreased amounts of administrative time devoted to addressing problem behavior, and improved positive school climate (Carr, et al., 2002; Horner, et al., 2004; Irvin, et al., 2006; Irvin, et al., 2004; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Luiselli, Putnam & Sunderland, 2002; Scott, 2001; Scott & Barrett, 2004; Sugai, et al., 1999; Sugai, Sprague, Horner & Walker, 2000; Sugai, et al., 2000; Sugai & Horner, 2002). These findings suggest that PBIS is an effective behavior intervention.

PBIS uses a three-tier model to illustrate an integrated school-wide approach for providing academic and behavior interventions (Sugai, 2006). Tier one interventions are universal, provided to all students to prevent academic and behavior problems. Examples of tier one academic interventions include scientifically validated reading and math curriculums taught in general education classrooms. Tier one behavior interventions establish and provide methods to teach all students how to display expected behaviors, proactively pre-correct students, and acknowledge students for exhibiting the expected behaviors. PBIS expects that 80-90% of students will respond to tier one intervention.

Tier two interventions are specially designed group interventions that target students at risk of displaying challenging academic and behavior problems. These interventions are designed to be quickly accessed, highly efficient, flexible, and bring about rapid improvement (Hawken & Horner, 2003). PBIS estimates that 10-15% of students will need tier two level interventions to be successful in school. An example of a tier two academic intervention is an additional thirty minutes of small group reading instruction that is provided to students over and above the amount of reading instruction they receive in general education classrooms. Tier two behavior interventions include specially designed small group counseling interventions provided by school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors, and other behavioral specialists (Crone, Horner & Hawken, 2004).

Tier three interventions are provided to students with highly intensive academic and/or behavioral needs. Interventions at this level are individualized and tailored to meet the unique academic and/or behavioral needs of students. An example of a tier three academic intervention is an extra sixty minutes of concentrated small group reading instruction that is provided in addition to the time devoted to reading instruction in general education classrooms. Tier three behavior interventions include Wraparound. Wraparound is a planning process based on student strengths and needs across home, school, and community. Individualized intervention plans are developed and tailored to meet the unique needs of students that exhibit chronic problem behaviors (Scott & Eber, 2003). PBIS predicts that 1-5% of students will require tier three level interventions. All three tiers work together to provide a continuum of school-wide instructional and behavioral support.

The purpose of this article is to describe several examples of tier two behavior interventions for students at risk of developing problem behaviors due to poor social skills, low academic achievement, and/or challenging family situations (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). These students require added support over and above the tier one interventions that are provided to all students but do not require the type of interventions associated with tier three. Tier two interventions offer at-risk students additional opportunities to learn expected behaviors that lead to educational success (Lee, Sugai & Horner, 1999). Key components of tier two interventions include continuous availability, minimal staff effort, voluntary student participation, and ongoing data collection and evaluation which guide implementation.

School social workers frequently provide or coordinate tier two interventions. Students are identified in need of tier two behavior interventions by analyzing trends in the number of office discipline referrals, suspensions, detentions, attendance, and tardies. Those students with a greater number of incidents are targeted to receive additional support. Tier two interventions must reflect the frequency and complexity of students' problem behaviors (Sugai, Sprague, Horner & Walker, 2000). Student progress is monitored over time to determine if the identified problem behaviors have decreased or if tier three interventions should be considered. A common method of evaluating progress is through rating scales that require teachers or another adult to record their opinion of a specific problem behavior during a class period (Sandomierski, Kincaid & Algozzine, 2007). The rater should provide verbal feedback to students that explain why they received a given score. Additional methods for evaluating progress include reductions in the number of office discipline referrals, suspensions, detentions, and tardies. Other progress indicators are increased attendance days as well as pre/post-group intervention testing. By integrating ongoing data evaluation methods into tier two interventions, progress is monitored continuously to ensure implementation efforts meet student needs.

Tier two interventions integrate evidence-based practices that are developed based upon the best available research. Interventions must be implemented consistently and correctly before a decision can be made regarding student progress. This means that attention must be paid to what interventions are implemented as well as how they are administered. The remainder of this article will describe examples of effective tier two interventions that can be implemented for students at risk of various problem behaviors.

Cueing and Group Social Skills Instruction

Children and adolescents with poor impulse control frequently talk out of turn, fail to listen to directions, blurt out answers before being called upon, and have difficulty waiting their turn. Posavac, Sheridan & Posavac (1999) described an effective behavior intervention for students that demonstrate disruptive classroom behaviors. These students received social skills instruction as part of a small group counseling intervention that focused on enhancing listening and anger management skills. In addition, students were assigned a target goal behavior to focus on for the duration of the intervention. The goals were stated in positive terms such as "Keeping hands to myself." A critical component of the intervention involved a cueing procedure that required students to evaluate themselves as well as their fellow group members at five-minute timed intervals during social skill instruction periods as to whether they had met their goal. The cueing procedure culminated with the group leader making the final determination regarding goal attainment. Students were recognized and positively reinforced for performing the identified behavior. The cueing procedure, provided in conjunction with small group social skills instruction for children that displayed disruptive classroom behaviors, resulted in a decrease in impulsive behaviors.

The Journey: A Group Counseling Intervention
The Journey is a six-week, small group, school-based counseling intervention for students with Attention Deficient with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Webb & Myrick, 2003.) The group sessions include structured learning activities that teach students cognitive behavioral strategies designed to increase their ability to pay attention, listen closely to instructions, and identify personal cues to manage difficult situations. Using the metaphor of ADHD as a journey, students learned that even though their ADHD symptoms can make their school experience different from that of other students, it is possible to be successful. Each of the six sessions presents a different social skill and includes opportunities for guided practice:

1. Our journey. This session introduces the notion that students with ADHD must learn to be a different kind of traveler and learn new ways to demonstrate socially appropriate behavior at school.

2. Pack it up. The need to learn effective organizational skills is emphasized and students are exposed to assorted organizational strategies that facilitate classroom learning.

3. Stop lights and traffic cops. Students learn various strategies designed to help them pay close attention when faced with distractions.

4. Using road signs as a guide. This session helps students identify personal cues that lead to socially appropriate classroom behavior.

5. Road holes and detours. Students are instructed on selected cognitive behavioral techniques intended to help identify and maneuver around obstacles that interfere with classroom learning.

6. Roadside help and being your own mechanic. This session emphasizes previously learned social skills with the expectation that students use the skills to self-manage their behavior.

The Journey is most effective when combined with teacher reinforcement in the classroom of social skills acquired during the group intervention.

Tier two behavior interventions, implemented as part of a systematic approach to promote socially appropriate behavior on a school-wide basis, provide additional support to at-risk students. The interventions highlighted in this article are evidence-based practices that can be implemented by school social workers. Tier two interventions should match the frequency and intensity of student needs and incorporate ongoing data collection to monitor student progress. By providing tier two behavior interventions to at-risk students, school social workers can effectively meet the needs of children experiencing social difficulties at school.

Carr, E., Dunlap, G., Horner, R., Koegel, R., Turnbull, Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Albin, R., Koegel, L., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 4(1), 4-16.

Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York: Guilford Press.

Hawken, L. & Horner, R. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 225-240.

Horner, R., Todd, A., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. (2004). The School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12.

Irvin, L., Horner, R., Ingram, K., Todd, A., Sugai, G., Sampson, N., Boland, J. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 23.

Irvin, L., Tobin, T., Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 131-147.

Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Effect of component skill instruction on math performance and on-task, problem, and off-task behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 195-204.

Lewis & Sugai (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Effective School Practices, 17(4) 47-53.

Luiselli, J., Putnam, R., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(3), 182-188.

Posavac, H., Sheridan, S., & Posavac, S. (1999). A cueing procedure to control impulsivity in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Behavior Modification, 23(2), 234-253.

Sandomierski, T., Kincaid, D., Algozzine, B. (2007). Response to intervention and Positive Behavior Support: Brothers from different mothers or sisters with different misters? Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 4(2). Retrieved October 10, 2007 from http://pbis.org/news/New/Newsletters/Newsletter4-2.aspx.

Scott, T. (2001). A schoolwide example of positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(2), 88-94.

Scott, T. & Barrett, S. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 21-27.

Scott, T. & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 131-143.

Sugai, G. (2006, February 13). School-wide positive behavior support: Getting started. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://www.pbis.org/files/George/co0206a.ppt.

Sugai, G., Horner, R., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T., Nelson, C., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A., Turnbull, H., Wickham, D., Reuff, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support, 2, 131-143.

Sugai, G. & Horner, R., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T., Nelson, C., Scott, T., & Liaupsin, C. (1999). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools: Technical Assistance Guide. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support.

Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1/2), 23-50.

Sugai, G., Sprague, J., Horner, R., & Walker, H. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2) 94-101.

Webb, L. & Myrick, R. (2003). A group counseling intervention for children with Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder. Professional School Counseling, 7(2), 108-115.

Brenda Lindsey is clinical associate professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She teaches courses in school social work and is also the BSW program director. Her research interests include school-wide positive behavior approaches for students with challenging behavioral problems. She is a former school social worker and has EdD and MSW degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Margaret White is coordinator for the Illinois PBIS Network. She is a former school worker and adjunct instructor for the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She has an MSW degree from the University of Iowa and completed the post-MSW Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Posted on 01/04/11 at 02:00 PM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For School Social Workers: PBIS and At-Risk Students | NASWIL.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tuesday, January 4 Brenda Coble Lindsey, EdD, MSW, LCSW, and Margaret White, MSW, LCSW Published with permission from Lyceum Books Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) is a school-wide approach for promoting socially appropriate behavior among students.

# data[].attributes.body
These statistics show that between females and males, males are more likely to drop out of high school.It also shows that Hispanic and African-American students are more likely to drop out than any other race.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Condition of Education - Elementary and Secondary Education - Student Effort, Persistence and Progress - Status Dropout Rates - Indicator April (2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) more...

# data[].attributes.headline
Example of Positive Reinforcement program for young at-risk males that live in inner-cities

# data[].attributes.subject
Example of Positive Reinforcement program for young at-risk males that live in inner-cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
McKee Staten Island Technical High School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How all-boys Eagle Academy is changing lives of at-risk youth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a public education success story for inner city kids. The Eagle Academy for young men is a system of six schools, open to grades six through 12, and they're strategically placed in high crime areas in all five boroughs of New York City and in Newark, New Jersey.

# data[].attributes.body
The term at-risk is often used to describe students or groups of students who are considered to have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of school. The term may be applied to students who face circumstances...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term is often used to describe students or groups of students who are considered to have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of school. The term may be applied to students who face circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to complete school, such as homelessness, incarceration, teenage pregnancy, serious health issues, domestic violence, transiency (as in the case of migrant-worker families), or other conditions, or it may refer to learning disabilities, low test scores, disciplinary problems, grade retentions, or other learning-related factors that could adversely affect the educational performance and attainment of some students. While educators often use the term at-risk to refer to general populations or categories of students, they may also apply the term to individual students who have raised concerns-based on specific behaviors observed over time-that indicate they are more likely to fail or drop out.

When the term is used in educational contexts without qualification, specific examples, or additional explanation, it may be difficult to determine precisely what "at-risk" is referring to. In fact, "at-risk" can encompass so many possible characteristics and conditions that the term, if left undefined, could be rendered effectively meaningless. Yet in certain technical, academic, and policy contexts-such as when federal or state agencies delineate "at-risk categories" to determine which students will receive specialized educational services, for example-the term is usually used in a precise and clearly defined manner. For example, states, districts, research studies, and organizations may create at-risk definitions that can encompass a broad range of specific student characteristics, such as the following:

Physical disabilities and learning disabilities

Prolonged or persistent health issues

Habitual truancy, incarceration history, or adjudicated delinquency

Family welfare or marital status

Parental educational attainment, income levels, employment status, or immigration status

Households in which the primary language spoken is not English

In most cases, "risk factors" are situational rather than innate. With the exception of certain characteristics such as learning disabilities, a student's perceived risk status is rarely related to his or her ability to learn or succeed academically, and largely or entirely related to a student's life circumstances. For example, attending a low-performing school could be considered a risk factor. If a school is underfunded and cannot provide essential services, or if its teaching quality and performance record are poor, the school could conceivably contribute to higher rates of student absenteeism, course failures, and attrition.

Reform

Generally speaking, the behaviors and characteristics associated with being an "at-risk student" are, in most cases, based on research and observable patterns in student demographics and school performance. Numerous academic studies have demonstrated correlations between certain risk factors and a student's likelihood of succeeding academically, graduating from high school, or pursuing postsecondary education. Such correlations have given rise to a variety of reform strategies aimed at identifying student risk factors and then intervening with assistance and support intended to help "at-risk" students succeed academically and complete school.

In terms of general education-reform trends, schools are increasingly taking a proactive approach to at-risk students (early identification of risk factors followed by support), rather than a passive or reactive approach (allowing students to drop out, fall behind their peers academically, or fail courses before intervening). The basic rationale motivating these reforms is that schools can help at-risk students by increasing exposure to "success factors"-such as the personal attention and guidance of an adult, for example-and mitigating any risk factors that are within their control, such as reducing expulsions and grade retentions, which can increase the chances that a student will drop out.

Debate

In addition to being imprecise, some educators dislike the term at-risk because they believe it can give rise to overgeneralizations that may stigmatize students, particularly when the term is applied to large, diverse groups such as minorities or students from lower-income households. They may also fear that such labels may perpetuate the very kinds of societal perceptions, generalizations, and stereotypes that contribute to students being at greater risk of failure or of dropping out in the first place. If minorities or students from lower-income households are consistently labeled "at-risk," for example, schools and educators may respond by treating them in ways that could inadvertently perpetuate their at-risk status. For example, schools may enroll non-English-speaking students in specialized programs that separate them from their English-speaking peers. While the intention in this case is to provide the specialized language instruction that the students need, the program may also give rise to feelings of cultural isolation, or it may lower academic expectations so that participating students fall further and further behind their peers academically. Consequently, these students may drop out because they don't feel connected to the larger school culture or see the value of education, or they may lose hope that they will ever catch up or graduate (for a more detailed discussion of this specific example, see dual-language education). Research on stereotype threat and the Pygmalion effect has provided some evidence to support these general claims.

Many educators and researchers have also noted that different individuals within the same demographic or risk categories may have very different innate abilities, familial resources, support systems, or other personal or situational characteristics that can lead them to be more resilient or successful than others; consequently, these students would be less "at-risk" than many of their peers. In this view, at-risk is an overly broad label that inevitably fails to take into account the true complexity of any particular student's situation. The concern is that, if schools act on general categorical assumptions, rather than diagnosing the specific learning needs of individual students and using that information to provide targeted academic support or more personalized learning experiences, the support they provide to students may be less useful or effective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term at-risk is often used to describe students or groups of students who are considered to have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of school. The term may be applied to students who face circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to complete school, such as homelessness, incarceration, teenage pregnancy, serious health ...