Providing more explicit instruction, captured within the comprehensiveness domain of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity, is critical within intensive intervention. The Recognizing Effective Special Education Teachers (RESET) project, funded by U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and led by Evelyn Johnson at Boise State University, developed a series of rubrics based on evidence-based practices for students with high incidence disabilities. One set of rubrics focuses on explicit instruction. Based on the main ideas of Explicit Instruction, the Explicit Instruction Rubric was designed for use by supervisors and administrators to reliably evaluate explicit instructional practice, to provide specific, accurate, and actionable feedback to special education teachers about the quality of their explicit instruction, and ultimately, improve the outcomes for students with disabilities.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
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.
The MTSS Fidelity of Implementation Rubric and Summary Sheet are for use by individuals responsible for monitoring the school-level fidelity of MTSS implementation.
This worksheet and rubric can be used to collect information about the fidelity of coaching so that this information can be used by coaches and other educators to continuously improve upon how coaching occurs.
The purpose of this implementation guide from the National Center for Systemic Improvement is to help practitioners systematically implement effective coaching practices. This guide outlines key questions to consider when using coaching as a pathway toward improving teaching and learning. Further, the guide specifies actions that should be taken to appropriately structure the system in which coaching occurs. Consideration of these questions and completion of these actions may help coaching achieve its intended goals and become a sustainable component of the learning environment.
The purpose of this brief from the National Center for Systemic Improvement is to synthesize research on coaching and to offer a framework of effective coaching practices. Part 1 provides general information on coaching, including the need for coaching and the goals of coaching. Part 2 describes critical coaching practices that are linked to improvements in teacher practice and learner outcomes. As these practices are most associated with such improvements, they are the recommended practices that should be central to the every-day routine of coaches working in general education or special education settings, as well in environments (e.g., homes, schools, childcare centers) with learners of all ages. Appendix A contains information about various coaching models commonly cited in research and applied in the field (e.g., literacy coaching, behavior coaching, math coaching).
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.
Fidelity refers to how closely prescribed procedures are followed and, in the context of schools, the degree to which educators implement programs, assessments, and implementation plans the way they were intended. When we implement interventions and assessments with fidelity, intervention teams can make more accurate decisions about an individual student’s progress and future intervention needs. In addition, fidelity of implementation to the data-based individualization (DBI) process as a whole and across multiple students in a school, helps to ensure that staff have the necessary resources and processes in place to support strong implementation for individual students. The following tools assess and support fidelity of DBI implementation at the school, interventionist, and student levels.