Measuring the Effectiveness of a New Tiered Intervention ZAP Matrix and Tracking Database

1. Measuring the Effectiveness of a New Tiered Intervention ZAP Matrix and Tracking Database Steve Stay Professional School Counselor Carthage Junior High School

2. ZAPs in 2009-2010 • Step 1 – Teacher writes the ZAP • Step 2 – Teacher emails students’ names at the end of the day to the process coordinator • Step 3 – Process coordinator compiles all teachers’ submitted names in Excel spreadsheet, then creates a separate list to feed to the auto-dialer • Step 4 – Teachers write the next morning to say who needs a lunch detention • Step 5 – Process coordinator copies certain names to new spreadsheet for lunch detentions • Step 6 – All corrections are done manually by contacting process coordinator (if you can find her) • Step 7 – Lunch Detention supervisor emails list of students who served to process coordinator • Step 8 – If you want to examine ZAP data, you go to process coordinator and she creates reports for you

3. Problems • Human error (misspelled names, forgot to email, etc.) • Too much time involved in doing it manually • Data is opaque and overwhelming • Repeat offenders are hard to track • No consistent intervention policy in place once repeat offenders are identified • Only one intervention attempted, but too little too late (Organizational Skills Bootcamp) • Too little parent involvement

4. Changes Made for 2010-2011 • Counselor created ACCESS database on the network to automate the process of submitting, tracking, and reporting ZAPs and Lunch Detentions • Administrators and teachers collaborated to come up with 7 levels of increasing intervention for repeat offenders • Students write the ZAP instead of teachers

5. ZAPs in 2010-2011 • Step 1 – Students write the ZAP • Step 2 – Teachers select pre-typed names in database • Step 3 – Teachers click names who don’t need lunch detention the next morning (teachers can make corrections themselves in database) • Step 4 – Lunch Detention supervisor clicks names of students who attended • Step 5 – All staff receive automated reports by email and act according to predetermined matrix steps in handbook

6. Is it helping? • Qualitative reports from teachers, process coordinator, parents, counselors, and administrators say “Yes” • Less time devoted to it • Fewer repeat offenders • Everyone’s more informed • Fewer errors mean fewer students disciplined unnecessarily, so students are happier

7. Measuring the Improvement

8. Measuring the Improvement

9. Measuring the Improvement Fewer than half as many Ds and Fs as we had by this time last year! (44%)

10. So it is helping! • Qualitative and quantitative measures indicate that our streamlined process and increased interventions have combined to cut the total number of Ds and Fs by more than half!

11. What next? • Weekly Missing Assignments letters started after Spring Break this year • Automated Missing Assignments Report email next year • Slight tweaks in the intervention matrix being used now