This study uses the state report cards published by the Tennessee Department of Education to compare the academic achievement grades to the value-added grades to determine if there is a relationship between the two grading systems. The data used for this study are from the 2001, 2002, and the 2003 state report cards published for each school using the five subject areas of reading, language, math, science, and social studies. One thousand sixty schools in the state of Tennessee were for this study. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the schools was used as a covariate to determine if the socioeconomic status of the school has an effect on the relationship between achievement grades and value-added grades on the state report card. Schools were grouped into one of three categories. Schools with 0 – 33% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as an upper SES school. Schools with 34-66% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as a middle SES school, and schools with 67-100% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as a lower SES school. The data used to determine the grades on the report card are based upon the results of the state mandated achievement tests given in the state of Tennessee. The 3 cumulative three year averages of the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) are used to determine the achievement grades while the cumulative three-year value-added percentages are used to determine the value-added grades on the state report cards. There was a statistically significant relationship between academic achievement grades and value-added grades in math, language, and social studies on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 state report cards. In reading, the 2002 state report card did not show a significant relationship between the grades while the 2001 and 2003 report cards did indicate a significant relationship. In science, the 2001 and 2003 report cards did not indicate a significant relationship between achievement and value-added grades while the 2002 report card did indicate a significant relationship between the grades.

No description available.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate if the effectiveness of a check-in, check-out (CICO) intervention varies based on the function maintaining students’ target behaviors as determined by functional analyses prior to the implementation of the intervention. Participants in the study consisted of 6 children enrolled in general education Kindergarten classes across 6 teachers in the Southeastern United States. Upon completion of a functional analysis, participants were determined to fit into functional groups (i.e., combined attention and escape, attention, and escape), then a modified between groups design with a component of a multiple-baseline across participants design was completed. Overall, the current study found that the CICO intervention increased desired behavior as measured by points earned on the daily behavior report card ratings across baseline to intervention phases. All functional groups displayed an increase in average points earned from baseline phase across intervention phases. The results of the current study have implications within the educational systems for selecting interventions within the response to intervention framework, utilizing functional analysis for the CICO intervention, and acceptability of evidence based interventions. Limitations and recommendations for future research are presented.

This study examined teacher perceptions of an intervention including a daily behavior report (DBRC) with a measure of treatment integrity present (Experimental Group) and without a measure of treatment integrity present (Control Group) The study was conducted in an analog (i.e., vignettes) online format with teacher participants from a southeastern school district. Each participant was presented with a vignette describing a student with problem classroom behaviors, a summary functional behavior assessment, and a sample behavior intervention plan including a DBRC. Only the Experimental Group was then presented with a direct observation measure of treatment integrity correlating to the DBRC. All teacher participants then rated the intervention using the Usage Rating Profile-Intervention (URP-I). On average teachers evaluated both the DBRC intervention with and without a treatment integrity component positively (i.e., means ranged from slightly agree to agree across all measures). A t-test indicated that no statistically significant differences existed between the Experimental and Control Groups’ total scores on the URP-I. This indicated that the measure of treatment integrity did not impact teachers’ ratings of the intervention on the URP-I. A MANOVA procedure found no statistically significant differences in teachers’ ratings of the intervention using each of the four factor scores of the URP-I (i.e., Acceptability, Understanding, Feasibility, and Systems Support). A multiple regression procedure used to examine various raters’ demographic characteristics found no statistically significant predictability for URP-I scores based on race, grades taught, years experience, and teaching setting (special/gifted versus general education). Cautious generalizations should be made due to limitations including the analog nature of the study, limited geographical area and participant characteristics. Additionally, the URP-I, a direct observation treatment integrity checklist, and a behavior intervention plan with an emphasis on a DBRC were all used. Use of other variables such as different interventions, rating scales and treatment integrity measures should be investigated. Suggestions for future research include conducting similar lines of research in naturalistic settings with school teachers and children, continued research in the different ways to collect treatment integrity research, and conducting acceptability and teacher perception research for other behavior interventions, target behaviors, and with other teacher groups.

No description available.

No description available.

A multi-tiered system of supports offers a comprehensive model for the prevention of academic and behavior problems in schools. To date, research has emphasized the impact of universal and intensive interventions. However, the need for research on secondary or targeted group interventions (Tier 2) for those students who do not respond to the universal level of support is growing. This study evaluated CICO, a Tier 2 intervention, in improving student behavior when it is used with three elementary students from a high-need population and in conjunction with student accountability tracking, designed to promote parental involvement. Functional assessments indicated that all three students had attention-maintained problem behavior during instruction sessions. The study employed a concurrent multiple baseline design across students to assess the effects of CICO and CICO with accountability tracking on academic engagement and problem behavior. Results indicated that the team members were able to implement CICO with fidelity and their implementation of the intervention was effective in increasing academic engagement and reducing problem behavior. The CICO with accountability tracking implementation with one student contributed to further improvement of his target behaviors. These effects were shown to be maintained moderately well for two students who underwent fading. Results are discussed in terms of the study limitations and implications for practice and future research.

An educational framework known as School Wide Positive Behavior Support being implemented in school systems across the country provides the schools with three tiers of support to address both academic and behavior challenges. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of peer tutors when applied to a Tier 2 intervention known as Check-In Check-Out (CICO). Peer tutors performed the morning check-in with the tutees by setting the expectations for the day and giving the tutees their Daily Progress Report (DPR) form. Throughout the day, the tutees took the DPR form to each class where they received a score from the teacher. At the end of the class period, the peer tutors provided the tutees with feedback on the scores received on the DPR form. Once the school day finished, the peer tutees checked-out with the tutors and received a reward if they met their percentage goal. The results of this study showed that CICO implemented by peers improved classroom behavior for all three participants.

No description available.

No description available.