Search

The prevalence of students with visual impairments varies across the United States, yet limited analysis exists on how many students receive special education services. The following study collected population data on students with visual impairments for the 2017-2018 school year and ran focus groups with state-level administrators to understand current and future options to collect population data. Twenty-three of 50 states responding to the survey reported total population data. On average, states supported 3.6 times the number of students with visual impairments reported in their federal Child Count data reports. State administrators agreed a federal mandate requiring states to collect total population data on students with visual impairments is needed. The ramifications of preparing for and supporting an unknown population of students with disabilities was discussed. A federal mandate for total population data collection is unlikely in the near future. Therefore, practical implications, including key factors and logistics, that state administrators should consider are outlined.

When student behavior problems persist despite effective classroom management and vary in intensity depending on factors outside of teacher control, teachers are often left feeling discouraged and ineffective (Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008). Teachers may know how to handle behavior problems associated with classroom-based antecedents (i.e., events that occur immediately before, or "trigger," challenging behavior) and consequences (i.e., events that occur immediately after, and reinforce, challenging behavior; Borgmeier, Loman, & Strickland-Cohen, 2017) but not those affected by events that took place hours before the student came to school. In these cases, understanding and intervening on behavior problems based solely on their immediate antecedents and consequences may be less effective. One productive way of addressing these out-of-school factors, and returning a sense of control over student behavior, is to view them as "distal setting events" (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). This article explains the concept and how to address distal setting events in the classroom.

Commonly used in research settings, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function-based intervention for decreasing challenging behaviors (Carr, Severtson, & Lepper, 2009). Function-based interventions effectively change behavior through detailed analysis of why the behavior occurs (Lane, Kalberg, & Shepcaro, 2009). Practitioners implementing NCR provide a known reinforcer (e.g., preferred item, teacher attention) to the student at predetermined intervals, regardless of the students' behavior (Panahon & Martens, 2013). At the same time, the practitioner withholds reinforcing the target, undesirable behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). This combination reduces the students' motivation to engage in the inappropriate behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). NCR is effective for addressing relatively minor (e.g., disruption, inappropriate speech, stereotypy) and more serious challenging behaviors (e.g., aggression); therefore, it is considered an excellent intervention strategy for teachers (Richman et al., 2015). Following clinical implementation guidelines and considerations (e.g., Tucker, Sigafoos, & Bushell, 1998), this article outlines the five steps to implementing NCR in the classroom: (1) establish context; (2) identify potential reinforcers; (3) deliver reinforcers; (4) finalize the plan; and (5) implement and assess.