The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs).
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
The 2017 Supreme Court decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District highlighted the importance of monitoring students’ progress toward appropriately challenging individualized educational program (IEP) annual goals and making changes to students’ educational programs when needed. In this guide, we explain how educators can establish IEP goals that are measurable, ambitious, and appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.
This is part 2 of the module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part includes examples of graphed data and is intended to provide participants with guidance for reviewing progress monitoring data to determine if the instructional plan is working or if a change is needed.
This report from Jobs for the Future and Authored by Sharon Vaughn, Lou Danielson, Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, and Lynn Holdheide, 1) reviews previous efforts to promote better educational outcomes for students with disabilities, 2) describes research-based instructional strategies that can support them and other struggling learners, and 3) shares the kinds of policies and local resources needed to ensure that all young people have meaningful opportunities to learn deeply and become truly prepared to succeed in college, careers, and civic life.
In this webinar, Drs. Tessie Rose Bailey and Zach Weingarten from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Thom Jones from the Wyoming Department of Education and Justine Essex from Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming shared how to set ambitious goals for students by selecting a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, establishing baseline performance, choosing a strategy, and writing a measurable goal.
This webinar challenges current thinking about how to set appropriately ambitious and measurable behavioral goals in light of the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the United States Supreme Court. Dr. Teri A. Marx from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Dr. Faith G. Miller from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, share how to set ambitious behavioral goals for students by using a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, and how to write measurable and realistic goals focused on the replacement behavior.
Research tells us that ongoing coaching is essential for achieving practice change. And without ongoing coaching and practice opportunities, professional development is highly unlikely to lead to increased knowledge and skills to implement a new practice soundly. This rings especially true for complex processes like data-based individualization (DBI). DBI requires that educators commit to engaging in the iterative process of providing intervention, analyzing progress monitoring data, and making data-based decisions to adapt and individualize interventions when needed. To help schools effectively implement DBI, ongoing implementation support in the form of coaching that provides opportunities to learn critical information, apply and receive feedback, and troubleshoot problems when they occur is essential.
Many students who require intensive intervention also are students with disabilities. Thus, when used school-wide, data-based individualization (DBI) can help school teams design and implement a prereferral process and high-quality special education services. Furthermore, DBI also provides schools with a validated approach for identifying and supporting students with severe and persistent learning and behavior problems, including students who may require special education. This is because the data collected through the DBI process can assist teams in assessing the need for specialized instruction, which is one of two requirements for determining eligibility for special education. In addition, data collected through the DBI process can support special education teachers in more accurately developing present levels, goals, and specialized instruction and support that will be included in the initial IEP.