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.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
On May 8, 2019, Drs. Mitch Yell, David Bateman, Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx presented Recommendations and Resources for Preparing Educators in the Endrew Era. In this webinar, Drs. Yell and Bateman draw on their recent article Free Appropriate Public Education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for Personnel Preparation in Teacher Education and Special Education. They provide an overview of Endrew’s impact on individualized instruction for students with disabilities and share six recommendations for preparing educators to meet the clarified requirements under Endrew. Drs. Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx, experts from the National Center on Intensive Intervention, illustrate how NCII resources and technical assistance supports can assist states, local agencies, and educators to address these recommendations and improve design and delivery of individualized instruction in academics and behavior.
In this video, Amy McKenna, a special educator in Bristol Warren Regional School District shares her experience with data-based individualization (DBI). Amy discusses how she learned about DBI, the impact her use of the DBI process had on students she worked with, and how DBI helped changed her practice as a special educator.
In this article, Dr. Carrie Thomas Beck from the Oregon Department of Education discusses the dyslexia law in Oregon, the role of intensive intervention in Oregon’s dyslexia initiative, and provides advice for states defining their dyslexia frameworks.
In this article, Dr. Jennifer Ledford shares information about single-case design research and how it relates to intensive intervention as well as resources from the Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research (CEC DR).
This module focuses primarily on selecting evidence-based interventions that align with the functions of behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and behavior needs. The emphasis of this training will include four main content areas: (a) relating assessment to function, (b) selecting evidence-based interventions that align with functions of behavior, (c) linking assessment and monitoring, and (d) connecting data with the evidence-based interventions selected. The overarching goal is to connect concepts and theories in behavior and begin planning how intensive intervention can be put into practice to support students with intensive behavioral needs.
This is part 4 of the module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part of the module is intended to provide participants with guidance for identifying skills to target in reading and math interventions.
This is part 3 of the larger module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part is intended to provide participants with an introduction to error analysis of curriculum-based measures for the purpose of identifying skill deficits and providing examples of error analysis in reading and mathematics. Part 4, “Identifying Target Skills,” will further link these skill deficits to intervention.
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 training module, includes four sections that (a) provide an overview of administering common general outcome measures for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, (b) review graphed progress monitoring data, and (c) provide guidance on identifying what type of skills the intervention should target to be most effective in reading and mathematics.