1. Team Final Report December 16, 2008 1 Revisiting the Catcher in the Rye: Dropout Prevention Breakthrough Team Mason County Break Through Team

2. "Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around - nobody big, I mean - except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. " ~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye 2

3.  Sponsors Terry Bergeson, OSPI, Superintendent of Public Instruction Cathy Davidson, OSPI, Chief of Staff Martin Mueller, OSPI, Assistant Superintendent of Student Support  Single Point of Accountability (SPA) Mona Johnson, OSPI, Director of Learning and Teaching Support  State Team Members 3 Shelton School District ESD 113OSPIWSIPC Joan ZookTodd JohnsonAnnie BlackledgeSue Furth Gordy HansonLynn NelsonRon Hertel Kitty Lundeen-NessMike Hickman**David Tudor Sue Beauregard

4. Goal: To develop a data system that identifies students “at risk” of dropping out and an intervention process. To be piloted in collaboration with Shelton School District (grades 8-12):  Shelton High School (Grades 10-12)  CHOICE (Challenging High School Opportunities in Continuing Education) High School (Grades 9-12)  Oakland Bay Junior High (Grades 8-9) 4

5.  The good news is... We achieved our goal!  A universal screening criteria and process has been developed  A catalog of interventions and codes has been created to track and monitor student progress  Local intervention teams have been established in pilot schools ◦ Shelton High School – 138 students participated ◦ CHOICE High School – 109 students participated ◦ Oakland Bay Junior High – 18 students participated 5

6. Define the Problem Clearly identify the deficit area Analyze the Cause Develop hypothesis: Why is this happening Develop Plan decide on intervention, timeframe frequency and provider Implement Plan Carry out intervention as planned Evaluate Plan Compare progress to the aimline. Did it work? 6 Scientific Method: The Problem Solving Process

7.  Universal Screening Criteria ** -Absences(+5) - Behind credits/retention -WASL Scores - Adjudication status **At risk- 3 out of 4  Ancillary dropout reports- “at risk” reports run for identified students - Foster Care - ELL - Migrant - D and F grades – Discipline - Health Concerns  Database Intervention Codes- to monitor identified student enrollment and progress 7

8.  Local team convened- school and community providers ◦ Catalogue of available interventions ◦ Intervention process developed- Response to Intervention model utilized ◦ Integration with current intervention processes- Building level  Building level intervention teams identified  Intervention team leads and backups trained on data systems 8

9. Parents, Staff, Teachers, and Community focused on High School Graduation!! 9 Goal Focused Define Problem Data Reviews Catalogue Interventions Evaluate Outcomes TEAMWORK – COMMUNICATION - REFLECTION

10. Dropout Early Warning and Intervention System  Classroom, School and District Improvement  Professional Development  Professional Learning Communities  Programs:  Readiness to Learn  Student Achievement  High School and Beyond Planning  Student Learning Plans  Navigation 101  Response to Intervention  American School Counselor Model:  A Framework for School Counseling Programs

11.  Complete Implementation Guide (First Edition) - A step by step “how to” for schools and districts  Phase II ◦ Continue building level intervention team meetings ◦ Additional RTI and data trainings ◦ Cycle through full student data and intervention process ◦ System evaluation and refinement 11