In this Voices from the Field post, we archive the presentations from day 2 of the NCII 10-year celebration of the implementation of intensive intervention. On this day, panelists shared stories focused on preparing in-service and pre-service educators and leaders to implement intensive intervention.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This handout briefly defines the seven dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity for academics and behavior. The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity was developed based on research to support educators in evaluating and building intervention intensity. The seven dimensions include strength, dosage, alignment, attention to transfer, comprehensiveness, behavior or academic support, and individualization.
This three-part Voices from the Field video series profiles how Education Service Center (ESC) 15 in Texas approached implementing the DBI process in San Saba Independent School District (ISD). In these videos, Dedra Carter and Valerie Moos from ESC 15 and Jenna McSherry from San Saba ISD, discuss their experiences and recommendations for other districts implementing DBI.
This example illustrates the virtual implementation of EL Education’s Decoding and Spelling assessments.
This resource developed by Sarah Thorud, Elementary Reading Specialist from Clatskanie School District in Oregon focuses on implementing screening and progress monitoring virtually. It includes guiding questions and considerations for implementation, video examples, and a sample sign-up sheet for screening and progress monitoring students virtually.
Successful implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) and, specifically, intensive intervention through the data-based individualization (DBI) process, demands the collection and analysis of data. As teams consider data collection, challenges may occur with assessment administration, scoring, and data entry (Taylor, 2009). This resource reviews three data collection and entry challenges and strategies to ensure data about risk status and responsiveness accurately represent student performance and minimize measurement errors.
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).
This two page handout defines the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity through guiding questions and highlights when the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used within the data-based individualization (DBI) process. Teams can use the dimensions to evaluate a current intervention, select a new intervention and intensify interventions when students do not respond.
If we don’t implement critical components of an intervention with consistency, we cannot link student outcomes to the instruction provided. Fidelity can help us to determine the effectiveness of an intervention, and identify if a student requires more intensive supports. This resource outlines five elements of fidelity and provides guiding questions for each.
In this video, Drs. Mitch Yell and Tessie Bailey share information about the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. They highlight implications for writing a student's IEP and discuss the importance of setting setting ambitious IEP goals to ensure that students make progress in light of their individual circumstances.