Intensive intervention teams can use these checklists to monitor implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process during initial planning and ongoing review (progress monitoring) meetings in order to ensure teams develop high quality student plans. These detailed checklists may be most beneficial for less experienced teams. As teams become more familiar with DBI implementation, they may choose to use the checklists less frequently or focus on only a subset of items.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Event Type
Search
This log can be used as a daily and weekly record of the implementation of an individual student’s intensive intervention plan. This information, along with progress monitoring graphs, can inform team intervention and data review meetings. You may choose to supplement the logs with additional items or more detailed intervention notes.
This checklist can be used by intervention providers or planning teams to review, document, and improve implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and monitor whether the student intervention plans were implemented as intended.
In this video, Nicole Bucka, NCII coach and MTSS professional development provider for Rhode Island discuss lessons learned from implementing intensive intervention at the middle and secondary level.
In this video, Mary Randel, a doctoral candidate in Special Education at Michigan State University & NCII Coach for the Swartz Creek School District, addresses the importance of ensuring that students with disabilities have access to supports across the tiers of a tiered frameworks, especially intensive intervention.
In this video, Dr. Evelyn Johnson, Associate Professor at Boise State University, discusses how data can be used to support eligibility decisions for students with disabilities.
In this video, Dr. Luann Purcell, Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Administrators of Special Education and NCII Advisor, discusses how special educators can work collaboratively with general education teachers and staff to support students with persistent and severe learning and/or behavioral needs.
In this video, Dr. Devin Kearns, an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Education Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and NCII Trainer & Coach, discusses importance of consistency when selecting, administering, and scoring progress monitoring tools.
In this video, Mike Jacobsen, Assessment and Curriculum Director, White River School District in Washington State discusses how their districts planned for and implemented intensive intervention within the districts RTI model.
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.