No description available.

Several research studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of check-in/ check-out (CICO) procedures in behavior education programs (BEPs). However, little research has been conducted on implementing CICO procedures specifically for special education students. This study examined the effects of CICO procedures on six junior high students receiving special education services. Baseline data of targeted behaviors were collected during the first two weeks of the third six weeks grading period. The participants were receiving special education services due to a previous Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee decision. CICO procedures are part of a secondary level behavior support system typically found in the BEP. The CICO procedures include a morning check-in, teacher feedback on a daily behavior report card (DBRC), an afternoon check-out, and weekly parent notification of student performance. A token economy system and behavior team meetings are two components also involved in implementing the CICO procedures. Intervention data were collected during implementation of the CICO procedures during the remaining three weeks of the third six weeks grading period. The intervention was not implemented the last week of the grading period due to final exams. The CICO procedures had high social validity ratings. Reliability, limitations and implications for future research on the current study are discussed.

Research on self-monitoring in the classroom setting has shown decreases in problem behavior and increases in academic engagement in students. Behavior rating scales can be used by teachers to monitor student progress or by students as a self-monitoring tool. The current study examined the impact of using the Individualized Behavior Rating Scale Tool (IBRST) as a self-monitoring tool on problem and on-task behavior in students in a high-need public elementary school. The results indicated that the self-monitoring with the IBRST successfully decreased disruptive behavior and increased on-task behavior in all 3 participating students during targeted academic time periods, evidenced by both direct observations and teacher- collected IBRST data. Improved levels of behaviors were maintained during fading with all 3 students and at 1-week follow-up with 2 students. The results also showed that both teachers and students had high levels of satisfaction with the self-monitoring procedures using the IBRST.

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine elementary education teacher perceptions of the change process that occurred in a public-school district during the four-year transition from a traditional grade reporting process to a standards-based system. The director of elementary education and a district leadership team provided oversight as the initial teacher cohort participated in a full school year of planning and designing the new standards-based report card for kindergarten and was executed the following school year. First-grade cohort teachers began their initial year of planning and design the same year kindergarten began implementation. The second-grade teacher cohort followed with the same progression. This study was designed to collect qualitative data from district cohort teachers who participated in the shift to the standards-based report card. The evidence was used to determine the successes and challenges involved with the collaborative reform process between district leaders and grade level cohort members in designing, creating, and implementing the standards-based report card. The system-change that occurred was explored and compared to Fullan’s (2016b) three dimensions of change model. The results of this study demonstrate a general interpretation of how cohort teachers perceived the relationships and interactions that influenced the leadership quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of change.

The concept and practice of watershed management have evolved since the early twentieth century and continue to change. Contemporary watershed management, as a means to improve environmental, social, and economic well-being, is generally accepted world-wide and is gaining popularity. Recognition of the ever-changing, complex, conflicting, and unpredictable nature of the forces that influence ecological and human systems has given rise to concepts and principles related to ecological or watershed health, sustainability, and good governance. Numerous terms have emerged to describe and explain contemporary watershed management processes that incorporate these concepts and principles, including ‘integrated’ and ‘sustainable’ watershed management. While there is growing consensus that integrated or sustainable watershed management should be practiced, there is little agreement on what these two terms mean and how they differ. The rational comprehensive or synoptic model is a widely-accepted normative framework to guide watershed management processes. This model presumes a ‘top-down’ linear, systematic, and logical sequence of steps characterized by complete knowledge of the issues and consequences of actions and dominated by rational decision making – circumstances that rarely happen in real life. Implementation gaps between theory and practice exist because of persistent and common challenges relating to complexity, conflict, uncertainty, and change in human and ecological systems. Failure to account for these factors has restricted the utility of this model for guiding watershed management processes, prompting questions about how the model might be adjusted to incorporate concepts and principles associated with watershed health, sustainability, and good governance. In response to the need to demonstrate progress towards watershed health and sustainability, a growing number of watershed organizations in Canada are pioneering the development of indicator-based assessment reports. The actual versus anticipated outcomes of watershed indicator reports and their existing and potential role in the watershed management process have not been systematically assessed or compared. A review of academic and professional literature and a mixed methods research approach comparing 13 case studies from 7 provinces across Canada were used to explore these knowledge gaps. A more in-depth investigation of two of the case studies, the Fraser Basin Council and the Humber Watershed Alliance, was also completed. Contextual factors influencing the practice of watershed management and the process used for developing watershed report cards are identified through an analysis of available documents. This information is supplemented with opinions gathered from 109 in-depth and semi-structured interviews/questionnaires. In addition, informants provided viewpoints regarding the usefulness, effectiveness, benefits, and value of watershed report cards, along with ideas about how they can be improved. This study concludes that while sustainable watershed management (SWM) and integrated watershed management (IWM) are closely aligned concepts, the distinguishing factor is scope. The primary goal of SWM is environmental, social, and economic sustainability within a watershed unit, whereas the central focus of IWM is the protection and/or restoration of water and land resources within a watershed to sustain human well-being. In Canada, IWM rather than SWM is generally pursued. Nevertheless, sustainability is an ultimate goal of IWM. Sustainability principles are acknowledged, valued, and applied. This study concludes that IWM can play a significant role in supporting a broad sustainability agenda. This study contributes to a growing body of knowledge seeking to enrich the theory of watershed management and improve and streamline practice. To improve the utility of the rational comprehensive model for guiding contemporary watershed management, modifications are presented which include separate phases for visioning and learning and couch the process within an overall conceptual framework that balances management, research, and monitoring activities. These adjustments reflect the concepts of integration, collaboration, and shared learning and acknowledge the shift away from ‘command and control’ bureaucratic processes to collaborative ‘middle ground’ polycentric governance structures. Rather than focusing strictly on a sequence of steps and a prescribed process, the consideration of a series of context-specific questions is advocated to help scope and streamline processes to match stakeholder capacity, address issues of greatest concern, and sustain interest and enthusiasm. However, concerted effort is required to counteract competing and entrenched socio-political and economic doctrines and traditions. Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting are key components in the IWM process. Study findings reveal that watershed report cards in Canada are a fledgling tool and no standard approach exists. Each case-study watershed organization has a unique approach to selecting, organizing, and presenting indicators. As a result, report card styles and formats vary. Despite a general consensus that watershed report cards are worthwhile, expectations often exceed outcomes, and common traits which challenge their effectiveness exist. The usefulness and effectiveness of watershed report cards are hampered by several common shortfalls: (1) universal lack of consistent, spatially-specific, and timely data, (2) inconsistent measures and indicators between successive watershed reports, (3) ambiguous or non-existent goals, objectives, targets, and benchmarks, and (4) messages that are unclear, difficult to understand, or fail to resonate with the target audiences. The ‘lessons learned’ from an assessment of the attributes and perceived benefits of watershed report cards parallel those discovered for community indicator initiatives. Building on this research, recommendations for improvement include (1) focus on stakeholder issues of prime concern, (2) use consistent measures and indicators, (3) limit the number of indicators and simplify report card styles and formats, (4) select spatially explicit, temporally relevant, and science-based indicators and measures, (5) explain and illustrate major cause-effect linkages, (6) use the report card process to build a constituency of support, (7) incorporate marketing and outreach activities, and (8) introduce performance measures to assess efficiency and how well collective practice demonstrates sustainability principles. This study concludes that opportunities exist for improving watershed report cards and boosting their multi-purpose role as a predominant planning, assessment, advocacy, communication, learning, and research tool in support of IWM, and ultimately, sustainability.

The concept and practice of watershed management have evolved since the early twentieth century and continue to change. Contemporary watershed management, as a means to improve environmental, social, and economic well-being, is generally accepted world-wide and is gaining popularity. Recognition of the ever-changing, complex, conflicting, and unpredictable nature of the forces that influence ecological and human systems has given rise to concepts and principles related to ecological or watershed health, sustainability, and good governance. Numerous terms have emerged to describe and explain contemporary watershed management processes that incorporate these concepts and principles, including ‘integrated’ and ‘sustainable’ watershed management. While there is growing consensus that integrated or sustainable watershed management should be practiced, there is little agreement on what these two terms mean and how they differ. The rational comprehensive or synoptic model is a widely-accepted normative framework to guide watershed management processes. This model presumes a ‘top-down’ linear, systematic, and logical sequence of steps characterized by complete knowledge of the issues and consequences of actions and dominated by rational decision making – circumstances that rarely happen in real life. Implementation gaps between theory and practice exist because of persistent and common challenges relating to complexity, conflict, uncertainty, and change in human and ecological systems. Failure to account for these factors has restricted the utility of this model for guiding watershed management processes, prompting questions about how the model might be adjusted to incorporate concepts and principles associated with watershed health, sustainability, and good governance. In response to the need to demonstrate progress towards watershed health and sustainability, a growing number of watershed organizations in Canada are pioneering the development of indicator-based assessment reports. The actual versus anticipated outcomes of watershed indicator reports and their existing and potential role in the watershed management process have not been systematically assessed or compared. A review of academic and professional literature and a mixed methods research approach comparing 13 case studies from 7 provinces across Canada were used to explore these knowledge gaps. A more in-depth investigation of two of the case studies, the Fraser Basin Council and the Humber Watershed Alliance, was also completed. Contextual factors influencing the practice of watershed management and the process used for developing watershed report cards are identified through an analysis of available documents. This information is supplemented with opinions gathered from 109 in-depth and semi-structured interviews/questionnaires. In addition, informants provided viewpoints regarding the usefulness, effectiveness, benefits, and value of watershed report cards, along with ideas about how they can be improved. This study concludes that while sustainable watershed management (SWM) and integrated watershed management (IWM) are closely aligned concepts, the distinguishing factor is scope. The primary goal of SWM is environmental, social, and economic sustainability within a watershed unit, whereas the central focus of IWM is the protection and/or restoration of water and land resources within a watershed to sustain human well-being. In Canada, IWM rather than SWM is generally pursued. Nevertheless, sustainability is an ultimate goal of IWM. Sustainability principles are acknowledged, valued, and applied. This study concludes that IWM can play a significant role in supporting a broad sustainability agenda. This study contributes to a growing body of knowledge seeking to enrich the theory of watershed management and improve and streamline practice. To improve the utility of the rational comprehensive model for guiding contemporary watershed management, modifications are presented which include separate phases for visioning and learning and couch the process within an overall conceptual framework that balances management, research, and monitoring activities. These adjustments reflect the concepts of integration, collaboration, and shared learning and acknowledge the shift away from ‘command and control’ bureaucratic processes to collaborative ‘middle ground’ polycentric governance structures. Rather than focusing strictly on a sequence of steps and a prescribed process, the consideration of a series of context-specific questions is advocated to help scope and streamline processes to match stakeholder capacity, address issues of greatest concern, and sustain interest and enthusiasm. However, concerted effort is required to counteract competing and entrenched socio-political and economic doctrines and traditions. Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting are key components in the IWM process. Study findings reveal that watershed report cards in Canada are a fledgling tool and no standard approach exists. Each case-study watershed organization has a unique approach to selecting, organizing, and presenting indicators. As a result, report card styles and formats vary. Despite a general consensus that watershed report cards are worthwhile, expectations often exceed outcomes, and common traits which challenge their effectiveness exist. The usefulness and effectiveness of watershed report cards are hampered by several common shortfalls: (1) universal lack of consistent, spatially-specific, and timely data, (2) inconsistent measures and indicators between successive watershed reports, (3) ambiguous or non-existent goals, objectives, targets, and benchmarks, and (4) messages that are unclear, difficult to understand, or fail to resonate with the target audiences. The ‘lessons learned’ from an assessment of the attributes and perceived benefits of watershed report cards parallel those discovered for community indicator initiatives. Building on this research, recommendations for improvement include (1) focus on stakeholder issues of prime concern, (2) use consistent measures and indicators, (3) limit the number of indicators and simplify report card styles and formats, (4) select spatially explicit, temporally relevant, and science-based indicators and measures, (5) explain and illustrate major cause-effect linkages, (6) use the report card process to build a constituency of support, (7) incorporate marketing and outreach activities, and (8) introduce performance measures to assess efficiency and how well collective practice demonstrates sustainability principles. This study concludes that opportunities exist for improving watershed report cards and boosting their multi-purpose role as a predominant planning, assessment, advocacy, communication, learning, and research tool in support of IWM, and ultimately, sustainability.

The purpose of this research was to determine if a multi-component consultation intervention was effective in improving pragmatic performance in students with ADHD. Participants for this study consisted of 7 children for whom 3 data points were obtained by a parent or 2 data points by a teacher. Changes in pragmatic performance were measured by comparing reports provided by parents or teachers pre- and post- intervention. Descriptive analysis procedures were completed to summarize changes in pragmatic behavior. Results revealed the mean overall change in pragmatic behavior for children in the MCC condition (Χ=1.133) was greater than the change seen in the CAU condition (.334) after 2 months of intervention as per parent reported data. Data indicated improvement in each behavior but incongruence between teachers and parents was found. Results support the hypothesis that the multi-component consultation intervention is effective in improving the pragmatic language performance of children with ADHD.

The initial and maintenance effects of a Daily Behavior Report Card (DBRC) intervention and fading procedure on Academic Engaged Time (AET) of a 6-year-old boy with Developmental Delay and Attention Deficits were evaluated with a reversal design. Following an initial baseline, the DBRC was implemented and then completely removed followed by reapplication of the DBRC. Subsequently, the report card was gradually reduced in the frequency of its use from very daily to every other day. Increased AET reliably varied with the application and then removal of the DBRC. Whereas complete removal of the DBRC resulted in substantial decreases in AET, response dependent fading of the card was associated with AET of 80% or above. Teacher intervention ratings demonstrated social validity of the intervention in terms of its effectiveness, acceptability and efficiency. Research and practical issues are discussed.

The United States education system has experienced an evolution of school accountability systems that has led to changes and variation in state school grading systems. This study shows that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, a recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, provides greater autonomy to individual states in evaluating and reporting school accountability than in preceding years and provides opportunities for states to implement a more holistic or well-rounded approach to school grading. ESSA policy and this study encourages states to choose to evaluate schools more holistically by implementing a wider and more balanced range of indicators that are used to formulate publicly reported school grades. Many issues and historical events, both in the nation and in Utah, are shared to show their influence on the evolution of school accountability. The relevant components of ESSA are explored. An historical overview of school accountability, standardized testing, school grading, and public educational reporting in the state of Utah is included. Scholarly perspectives about school accountability and reporting systems are also presented. This descriptive study incorporates archival research through a review of grades K-8 school grading systems. The school report card systems and indicators are collected and compared from two sequential time periods: first, the time period after NCLB and before ESSA plans were approved is referred, and second, the current time period, based off of data from currently implemented state ESSA plans. Data from all 50 states and Washington D.C. are analyzed and contrasted with Utah's data. Special focus is placed on the indicators that are not dictated by the federal government but those which are chosen by the state that promote a more holistic measure of accountability. The results from this study show that while a more holistic approach to school grading across the states has resulted from ESSA implementation, Utah's ESSA plan and school grading system, along with the other 49 states and Washington D.C., do not currently reflect an adequate holistic measure of school accountability. State Legislators and State School Board Members will find this study to be enlightening as they create more holistic school grading systems.

The United States education system has experienced an evolution of school accountability systems that has led to changes and variation in state school grading systems. This study shows that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, a recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, provides greater autonomy to individual states in evaluating and reporting school accountability than in preceding years and provides opportunities for states to implement a more holistic or well-rounded approach to school grading. ESSA policy and this study encourages states to choose to evaluate schools more holistically by implementing a wider and more balanced range of indicators that are used to formulate publicly reported school grades. Many issues and historical events, both in the nation and in Utah, are shared to show their influence on the evolution of school accountability. The relevant components of ESSA are explored. An historical overview of school accountability, standardized testing, school grading, and public educational reporting in the state of Utah is included. Scholarly perspectives about school accountability and reporting systems are also presented. This descriptive study incorporates archival research through a review of grades K-8 school grading systems. The school report card systems and indicators are collected and compared from two sequential time periods: first, the time period after NCLB and before ESSA plans were approved is referred, and second, the current time period, based off of data from currently implemented state ESSA plans. Data from all 50 states and Washington D.C. are analyzed and contrasted with Utah's data. Special focus is placed on the indicators that are not dictated by the federal government but those which are chosen by the state that promote a more holistic measure of accountability. The results from this study show that while a more holistic approach to school grading across the states has resulted from ESSA implementation, Utah's ESSA plan and school grading system, along with the other 49 states and Washington D.C., do not currently reflect an adequate holistic measure of school accountability. State Legislators and State School Board Members will find this study to be enlightening as they create more holistic school grading systems.