### Case Study

# Paperless Tracking: Counselor in the Cloud

### Intervention Management

#### Improving school culture, student character, and safety.

---

# About this Study

In this study, we showcase a Response to Intervention (RTI) program in an upper middle class suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. While the school was currently running an established, effective RTI program, it was not without issue. Challenges included manual paper tracking of behavioral factors, manual data collation and analysis, and distribution of trends involving sending sensitive information over email or hand-delivered printouts.

A few of the major points we tackle in this study:

- Customized Assessment factors are customized. Some behavior factors are shared across all students, others are specific to a single student or group.
- Continual Student behavior is assessed with simple micro-assessments at a frequent, ongoing Tracking schedule.
- Automatic All assessment values are stored, processed, and re-presented to the users of the system immediately, in real-time.
- Targets and Each student is optionally assigned a behavior target, facilitating counselor-student conversations. This gives feedback on progress with context and direction.

Mr. Elmer is an education software company with the goal of “Improving school culture, student character, and safety”. We are a team of educators, data scientists, and entrepreneurs delivering simplifications to the modern data driven school. Our web-based software complements a school’s existing student information systems and student behavior programs.

These case studies are our opportunity to showcase best practices and highlight successes in the many ways our software can be applied. We are excited to share this study with you, and grateful for your interest in improving efficacy of behavior management and student character, especially with PBIS, RTI, IEPs, and 504s.

Sincerely, Doug Mackay

## Founder, Mr. Elmer

---

### Setting
In this study, our focus is on a Midwestern school that had a successful, established RTI program with paper-driven data collection and manual analysis. "We’re doing great, but want to improve even more," is the problem most schools certainly want to have.

Together, we saw an opportunity for improvement to push an already effective program to an entirely new level. Over the course of a school year, we were able to target the 8 students within Tier 3 for extended, continual behavior assessments. We were able to analyze and share the trends with teachers, counselors, and students alike.

In collecting and sharing data, we were able to bring a new level of attention to the student’s behavior management. The common root cause of our challenges: paper. The pre-existing process of data collection was manual, paper-based, and dependent on the student shuttling forms to teachers and counseling staff. Needless to say, this was time consuming and error prone.

**Challenges**  
Together with the school counseling staff, our goals were:

- simplify behavior data collection,
- make distribution of analysis faster,

Once paper data arrived, we had a second challenge in the analysis. Their only way to do analysis was manual data entry, calculation, and trending. As with data collection, data analysis with a manual component holds risks of manual error.

Finally, distribution of this analysis was through email or printout, leading to slow, unsure information distribution. These issues with distribution made communication of strategies, targets, and trends difficult.

### Approach
Starting with an existing RTI program means our first step was deciding which population to include in the system. Our initial group was the Tier 3 students only. An explainer of the RTI tiers is given below.

**Table 1: Descriptions of the RTI tiers.** Note tiers are cumulative, such that any student in Tier 2 is also in Tier 1 and Tier 3 students are in both Tier 2 and Tier 1.

| RTI Tier | % of Student Population | Description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tier 1 | 80%-90% | All students in Tier 1 receive high-quality, scientifically based instruction, differentiated to meet their needs, and are screened on a periodic basis to identify struggling learners who need additional support. |
| Tier 2 | 5%-10% | In Tier 2, students not making adequate progress in the core curriculum are provided with increasingly intensive instruction matched to their needs on the basis of levels of performance and rates of progress. |
| Tier 3 | 1%-5% | At this level, students receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the students' skill deficits for the remediation of existing problems and the prevention of more severe problems. |

---

Given each student in Tier 3 is provided one-on-one support, we had to support a unique set of behavioral factors for each. In this case, we configured 4 factors common across all students as the "school code" as well as 12 student-specific factors. Students were assigned these factors according to their unique needs. Some ended up being entirely for one student, others for a few. They are given in the table below.

**Table 2: Sample common and student or student group specific factors in this study.** Students may have had a mix and match of any above factors.

| Common Factors | Student Specific Factors |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Respectful | Classroom Behavior | On Time to Class |
| Responsible | Classroom Tasks | Physical Behavior |
| Safe | Classwork Completed | Prepared for Class |
| Show Self Control | Focused on Self-Control | Respect to Property |
|  | Follows Instruction | Student Communication |
|  | Homework Turned In | Used Calming Strategies |

---

Each time a teacher made an assessment, their data was added to the existing data set of their peers and analyzed. This data was immediately available. Reviewing the data took only a handful of minutes and requires no schedule coordination with peers.

## Results
Over the study period, 24 teachers supplied over 3,000 samples for 8 students. This translates to roughly 3 full assessments per week per student, over the course of a full, two-semester school year. Over the course of these semesters, we were able to establish:

- assessment scheduling  
- directional trending  
- shared student behavioral targets

Over 300 additional hours of staff attention without actually taking 300 hours out of the teachers’ days. Based on measurements and logs, we saw activity on the order of a once-per-week review – even if just a glance at the trends - of each student from an involved teacher. Comparing this time to what would easily amount to a 15-minute discussion amongst peers, we see what would have been an investment of over 300 hours. These figures were from a typical student having 4 involved staff and measurements once-per-week from each.

## How This Can Work for You
Each behavior factor, measurement style, student, and user is configured to a school’s need. Any population of students with any complexity of factors can be brought into the system. This applies to factors from school-specific “codes of conduct” to factors for a unique student need.

Automated, electric behavior analysis is time efficient, reliable, and lets teachers and counselors get on the same page - continually. Assessments are short, simple, and take a couple of minutes or less. Setting and sharing targets for student behavior drives consistent delivery in implementing strategies.

We were able to track and manage the behavior trends of 8 students across two semesters while improving reliability and reducing the time commitments of manual paper processes. In doing so, we allowed for the equivalent of over 300 additional hours of staff attention to student behavior without actually taking 300 hours out of the teachers’ days.

In this study, we focus on an RTI program and a handful of students. This can be applied similarly to all Tier 3 and Tier 2 students in an RTI program, a group of IEP students, a school-wide PBIS program, or a whole district. Analysis at the student level lets peers share results and strategies. Analysis at the school level shows whole school culture and opportunities for macro-level improvement.

### Parent Involvement
While not part of this case study, we feel it is important to mention parent involvement. After automated behavior tracking is established as a mature process within a school, parents may be invited to collaborate on their children. We ensure the parent has restricted access to only their children.

Parents may be requested to provide behavior assessments right alongside teachers. This data is viewed exactly the same, with the same analytical implications. The system understands the trends of a parent, the calibration of a parent with the teachers, and any deviations therein.

Involving parents helps twofold. First, parents and teachers can coordinate consistent behavior mitigation strategies. Second, parents will be aware of behavior trends and changes before ever setting foot in an IEP, 504, or other parent-teacher meeting. Surprises for the parent are removed and the focus is entirely on the success of the student.

---

# Appendix A: Example Student Report  
Figure 1: A student report cover page with overview and outline of factors.

Figure 2: See all collaborators and factors on a student charted through time.

---

# Appendix B: Example Student Assessment  
Figure 3: An example of a simple micro-assessment. Assessing four factors requires a total of five mouse clicks – four to choose assessment values, one to submit the assessment.

---