Check‐In/Check‐Out Intervention With Peer Monitoring for a Student With Emotional‐Behavioral Difficulties

In response to the Individual and Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; U.S. Department of Education, 2004), educational administrators have prioritized the use of interventions that are supported by empirical evidence. As a result, the roles and functions of school counselors have changed in an effort to implement multitiered strategies, such as Response to Intervention (RTI; Hunley & McNamara, 2010), to promote student development (Fagan & Wise, 2007; Gruman & Hoelzen, 2011). Within an RTI framework, school counselors provide teacher consultation to facilitate problem solving among student support teams, improve classroom instruction experiences, and monitor progress (Powers, Hagans, & Busse, 2008). Likewise, school counselors are required to collect and use data about student experiences to make programming decisions (Dimmitt, Carey, & Hatch, 2007; Gruman & Hoelzen, 2011). Thus, there is an increased emphasis on the role of school counselors to evaluate progress in individual students while making decisions that promote development for all students. In recent years, educational administrators have recognized that solely fostering the academic achievement of students may not meet their developmental needs. As a result, school-based services that address social, emotional, and behavioral functioning have become a contemporary imperative within the educational system (Jones, Brown, & Lawrence Aber, 2011). To meet this challenge, school counselors have been called to identify and implement interventions with demonstrated efficacy (Rowley, 2000). Increases in child poverty, cultural diversity, and changing family structures have resulted in schools dealing with more frequent social, emotional, and behavioral issues (Fass & Cauthen, 2007; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008). Such issues have compelled school counselors to provide services related to these concerns through workshops for teachers, consultation, parent education, and direct counseling services (Tarver-Behring & Spagna, 2004). In turn, more emphasis has been placed on data-based decision making for the implementation of interventions, especially for social, emotional, and behavioral services provided by school counselors (American School Counselor Association, 2010). One strategy associated with the RTI framework is a collaborative check-in/check-out (CICO) intervention. CICO was designed to improve a student's behavior in the school setting by providing frequent feedback and monitoring of behavioral progress by school personnel who have regular contact with target students (Hawken & Homer, 2003). Crone, Homer, and Hawken (2004) suggested that a team approach among school personnel may be best when implementing CICO for students with emotional-behavioral difficulties (EBD). CICO teams consist of individuals, such as an administrator, school counselor, or related professional, who are responsible for identifying students who are at risk for severe emotional and behavioral difficulties, selecting and pairing students with a mentor, developing intervention materials, and providing training (Swoszowski, 2013). From this perspective, CICO is ideal for ensuring a multidisciplinary approach to addressing the academic and behavioral difficulties of students. Brief Overview of CICO Crone et al. (2004) suggested that the primary goal of CICO is to provide support for students who are at risk for severe emotional and behavioral difficulties, through mentor-based teaching, modeling, practicing, and delivering feedback. Several authors agree that CICO is generally composed of the following activities: (a) assessing the functional relationship of problem behavior, (b) checking in with a mentor to learn expected behaviors, (c) earning daily points for displaying desirable behaviors, (d) receiving feedback from instructional staff, (e) checking out with a mentor to evaluate progress and provide feedback and reinforcement, and (f) communicating with parents (Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski, & Johnson, 2012; Hawken, 2006; Swoszowski, 2013; Swoszowski, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Heflin, 2012). …