The intervention process provided mechanisms for early identification and intervention for the student with a behavioral problem, assessing problem status and monitoring progress, and following the student to assure continuity of the care process. The Instructional Aide (IA) typically had the most direct contact with the student and was given the primary role in the intervention process, supported through the use of a problem solving protocol. About half of the Instructional Aides (IA's) had a high school education and on-the- job experience ranged from 2 to 20 years.
The protocol was designed to incorporate the steps of the problem solving process as defined by Weed 6 and is shown in Figure 1. Fourteen items of information were chosen as the minimum data set required to identify the student with an emotional problem. Behaviors were selected which the IA could observe without a great deal of special training and these were viewed not as individual behavioral problems, but rather as symptoms of a larger problem complex.
The required information was collected as either a simple yes-no response or as a frequency with which the behavior was observed. As a student was observed and the response categories circled as shown in Figure 1, the IA could make an assessment of severity by stage by selecting the highest stage with any single circled response. The protocol further specified therapeutic tasks appropriate for each assessed stage of severity. The IA initialed each task while beginning it and documented the date that it was completed.
in the performance of the tasks and the use of the protocol, followed by periodic half-day refresher sessions.
Administrative exigencies prevented a random selection of students to participate in the project. However, the intervention process was implemented in the fall of 1975 in the two Title I dormitories on the basis of a history of behavioral problems and scores on the California Achievement Test, usually scoring three or more grade-years below the mean. All students of the Title I dormitories participated in the project.
The Instructional Aide (IA) initiated a protocol on each student noted to exhibit any of the specified behaviors. Once initiated, the same protocol was used to monitor behavior for one week, before a second protocol was initiated. Treatment tasks, including referrals, were performed as a function of stage of severity as specified on the protocol. Students exhibiting Stage I behavior were treated by the IA, utilizing the treatment tasks 1-6 of the protocol. Students exhibiting any single behavior of Stage II were treated by the IA as in Stage I and also the dormitory manager, counselor or social worker utilizing treatment tasks 7 through 16 on the protocol. Any student noted to exhibit a single behavior of Stage III was treated as for Stage II and additionally brought to the immediate attention of the project review staff who made the specific problem assessment and triage to an appropriate agency as indicated on the protocol as treatment task 17.
Each week the project staff, consisting of the Director of Mental Health and the dormitory supervisors reviewed each protocol, monitoring the IA's compliance with the protocol and assessing student progress by stage of severity. Specific therapy was prescribed, including continuation of treatment tasks 1-16 and other therapeutic approaches tailored to the nature of the student's problem. In general, each student was followed with a protocol for at least one week after all behaviors had returned to Stage 0.
19 RESULTS
In order to determine the impact of the intervention process, two measures of school drop out were utilized. The gross drop out rate was calculated as the proportion of students who dropped out during the school year. This also expresses the probability that a student who enters the school program in the fall will drop out of school during the school year. The mean duration in school was computed as the number of months a student remained in school, divided by the number of months of the school year, aggregated for all students in the student body. Data were collected from school records regarding age, sex, year in school, date of admission, and date of leaving school.
Since a non-random process was used to assign students to the study (Title I) dormitories, we compared four student cohorts by age, sex, and year in school, and the outcome measures of school drop out. Group A included the 71 students who participated in the study. Group B consisted of a sample of 27 students from the Title I dormitory in the year prior to the study, 1974-75. Groups C and D included a random sample of 50 students
from non-Title I dormitories during the year of the study (1975-76) and the year prior to the study (1974-75), respectively. Table 1 summarizes this data.
The student characteristics did not significantly differ among any of the groups (p> .05). Nor were there any significant differences observed in the gross drop out rate or mean duration in school between groups B and C or groups C and D. However, the study group (Group A) experienced a significantly lower gross drop out rate (p <.01) and a significantly higher mean duration in school (p <.01) than did the comparable group from the Title I dormitories of the previous year (Group B).
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a coordinated approach to the identification and prevention of drop out behavior in an Indian boarding school. The protocol provided specific guidelines for the problem solving activities of the Instructional Aide and promoted a consistent therapeutic response from the entire staff.
A key attribute of the project is its demonstrated impact within existing resource constraints at the school. A great deal of attention was directed toward existing personnel in maintaining the therapeutic approach outlined by the protocol. No additional personnel were added for the project and the cost of printing the protocols was minimal. After the initial training session, weekly in-service training was provided as a part of the routine staff development efforts.
Table 1
Group A Group B Group C Group D (study group) Title I
Dorms non-Title I non-Title Title Dorms, 1 974 197 - 75 Dorms Dorms 1975-76 n=27 1975-76 1974-75 N=71 n=50 n=50 Age 17.6 17.8 17.9 17.0 mean range 15-22 16-22 15-22 15-21 Mean year in school * 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.5
Drop-out
Rate .32 .56 .50 .44
Mean Duration
in School .84 .58 .65 .70
* freshman = 9, sophomore = 10, junior = 11, senior = 12
Table 1: COMPARISON OF STUDY GROUPS. Group A includes all 71 students who participated in the study. Group B consists of a sample of 27 students of the Title I dormitory of the year prior to the study. Group C and D consist of a sample of 50 students from non- Title I dormitories of the year and the year prior to the study, respectively.
The chain of command in the Guidance Program of Intermountain School is quite explicit. The Instructional Aide has the primary contact with the students and is supervised by the Dormitory Manager, who is supervised by the Home Living Specialist, who in turn reports to the Director of Guidance. The IA's protocol was designed initially in such a way as to facilitate supervision by the dormitory manager, who could monitor compliance with the problem solving process as defined by the protocol. However, initial experience gained from this study indicated the need also to make explicit the supervisory function of the dormitory manager as a problem solving process.
Therefore the information gathering and assessment tasks were defined and incorporated into a supervisory protocol to guide the dormitory manager through the process of monitoring the IA and assessing his performance. The protocol further specified the required supervisory action to be taken, such as additional training, resources, or reprimand, and noted the follow-up tasks needed to close the problem solving loop. Specific training in the supervisory tasks and use of the supervisory protocol was provided to the dormitory manager. Data are not yet available to suggest the incremental impact this may have on the efficacy of the intervention process.
This study has demonstrated that the problem solving protocol has significant impact in an institutional setting. This process may have application in other institutions when program direction and staff communication are in need of structure and therapeutic direction. The methodology should be further studied in a variety of settings.