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.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This tool is designed to help educators collect and graph academic progress monitoring data across multiple measures as a part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process. This tool allows educators to store data for multiple students (across multiple measures), graph student progress, and set individualized goals for a student on specific measures.
These two modules from the IRIS Center introduce users to progress monitoring in reading and mathematics. Progress monitoring is a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers. Because the overall progress monitoring process is almost identical for any subject area, the content in the two modules is very similar.
How do you know if an intervention, program, or practice is likely to be effective with a particular subgroup of students? What resources are there to help school, district, and State leaders identify and select evidence-based practices (EBPs)? EBPs play an increasingly prominent role in Federal education policy. In both State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) and provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), States are being asked to implement practices and programs that have evidence of effectiveness.
This three-part series of IRIS STAR Legacy Modules includes information for selecting, implementing, and monitoring evidence-based practices.
This IRIS Star Legacy Module explores the basic principles of behavior and the importance of discovering the reasons that students engage in problem behavior. The steps to conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and developing a behavior plan are described.
Teachers often note that students struggle with the transition between core instruction and intervention in mathematics. Thus, the purpose of these curriculum crosswalks is to identify points of alignment and misalignment between commonly used mathematics intervention and core instructional materials, with a particular focus on mathematics practice standards and vocabulary. We offer recommendations for improving alignment to help students more successfully participate in math instruction across settings. Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 1 Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 2 Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 3
An effective and efficient data system is essential for successful implementation of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). However, prior to selecting an appropriate system, schools and districts must identify what its staff and community need and what resources the district or school has to support an MTSS data system. This two-step tool can help teams to consider both what their needs are and to evaluate available tools against those needs. Step 1 can help your team systematically identify and document your MTSS data system needs and current context and step 2 focuses on selecting and evaluating a data system for conducting screening and progress monitoring within a tiered system of support based on the identified needs and context from step 1
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.