This toolkit provides activities and resources to assist practitioners in designing and delivering intensive interventions in reading and mathematics for K–12 students with significant learning difficulties and disabilities. Grounded in research, this toolkit is based on the Center on Instruction’s Intensive Interventions for Students Struggling in Reading and Mathematics: A Practice Guide, and includes the following resources:
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
Norms for oral reading fluency (ORF) can be used to help educators make decisions about which students might need intervention in reading and to help monitor students’ progress once instruction has begun. This paper describes the origins of the widely used curriculum-based measure of ORF and how the creation and use of ORF norms has evolved over time. Using data from three widely-used commercially available ORF assessments (DIBELS, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM), a new set of compiled ORF norms for grade 1-6 are presented here along with an analysis of how they differ from the norms created in 2006.
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 video, Dr. Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, Co-Director of NCII discusses the differences between the terms “multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS)” and “Response to Intervention (RtI).”
It is important that the instructional practices and interventions delivered within a school’s multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) be grounded in evidence. However, the “practice” that happens within each tier is different; therefore, the type of evidence that is required for each tier also must be different. A useful way to think about evidence-based practices in MTSS is to think about levels of evidence that vary and correspond to the different levels of intervention intensity at each tier. In the tables below, find resources to support the selection and evaluation of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 or intensive interventions.
Assessment is an essential part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Without technically sound assessment, which provides accurate, meaningful information, a teacher has no objective method for determining what a student needs or how to intensify instruction to meet those needs. The close connection between assessment and intervention is at the foundation of the DBI process. This connection is what drives teacher decision making. With the right assessment tools and guidance on how to use them, teachers can make sound, data-based decisions about who needs intensive intervention, when to make instructional changes, and what skills to focus on. In the tables below, find resources to support the selection and evaluation of screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic assessments.
Data teams serve multiple roles in the data-based individualization (DBI) process and across a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS). Although schools may have multiple teams that review different types of data across a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), the intensive intervention or DBI team is focused on the needs of individual students who are not making progress in their current intervention or special education program. It is critical that these meetings are driven by data, occur regularly, and use an efficient, consistent process that allows participants to review progress and make intervention decisions for students. NCII has created a series of tools to help teams establish efficient and effective individual student data meetings.
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.
Using multiple data sources, the teacher or team makes a decision to adapt the intervention program to better meet the student’s individual needs. The teacher or team outlines these adaptations in an individual student plan. The plan may include adaptation strategies along several dimensions. These strategies may include quantitative changes, such as providing more opportunities for a student to respond by increasing the length or frequency of the intervention, or decreasing the size of the intervention group.
When a student fails to respond to a validated intervention, teams need to identify why the student is not responding to determine how to adapt the intervention. Diagnostic data can assist teams in this process. They may be used to understand a student’s specific skill deficits and strengths or to identify the environmental events that predict and maintain the student’s problem behavior.