The DBI Implementation Rubric and the DBI Implementation Interview are intended to support monitoring of school-level implementation of data-based individualization (DBI). The rubric is based on the structure of the Center on Response to Intervention’s Integrity Rubric and is aligned with the essential components of DBI and the infrastructure that is necessary for successful implementation in Grades K–6. It describes levels of implementation on a 1–5 scale across DBI components. The rubric is accompanied by the DBI Implementation Interview which includes guiding questions that may be used for a self-assessment or structured interview of a school’s DBI leadership team.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
In this video, Dr. Steve Goodman, Director of Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative, discusses the benefits of embedding intensive intervention within a multi-tiered system of support.
In this video, Nicole Bucka, M.Ed. MTSS Technical Assistance Provider in Rhode Island and NCII Coach, shares considerations for supporting students with intensive behavioral needs at the secondary level.
In this video, Lucille Eber, E.D.., Statewide Coordinator of Illinois’ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) Network, discusses how behavioral support staff can assist and collaborate with general education teachers to support students with intensive behavioral needs.
In this video, Lucille Eber, E.D., Statewide Coordinator of Illinois’ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) Network and an NCII Advisory Committee member, discusses the relationship between Tier II and Tier III behavior interventions and whether all kids need to access Tier II prior to Tier III.
In this video, Dr. Joe Wehby, Senior Advisor to the National Center for Intensive Intervention and Associate Professor in the Vanderbilt University Department of Special Education, discusses the number of data points needed to make decisions for students with intensive behavior needs.
In this video, Rob Horner, Professor of Special Education at the University of Oregon and co-Director of OSEP Technical Assistance Center on PBIS and the OSEP Research and Demonstration Center on School-wide Behavior Support, discusses how data systems can be used within the context of intensive intervention.
The purpose of this document is to increase the capacity of practitioners and educational leaders to support a broad range of learners who need more literacy supports to become skilled readers and writers by identifying a set of essential practices that are research-supported and should be the focus of professional development. These practices for intensifying literacy instruction apply to those learners with severe and persistent reading and writing challenges who have not responded when provided with instruction aligned with state academic standards, regardless of disability status.
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
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.