This webinar challenges current thinking about how to set appropriately ambitious and measurable behavioral goals in light of the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the United States Supreme Court. Dr. Teri A. Marx from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Dr. Faith G. Miller from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, share how to set ambitious behavioral goals for students by using a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, and how to write measurable and realistic goals focused on the replacement behavior. This webinar is a companion to the Strategies for Setting Data-Driven Behavioral Individualized Education Program Goals Guide.
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).
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.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to define special education: specially-designed instruction, Tier 3 supports, and intensive intervention, but, do they mean the same thing? In this presentation, delivered at the 2017 OSEP Leadership Conference, state leaders of special education, David Sienko from the Rhode Island Department of Education and Glenna Gallo, from the Washington State Board of Education – alongside personnel from the National Center on Intensive Intervention – shared perspectives on how special education is defined to espouse commonalities across terminology and services to support students with disabilities. Presentation
This report from Jobs for the Future and Authored by Sharon Vaughn, Lou Danielson, Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, and Lynn Holdheide, 1) reviews previous efforts to promote better educational outcomes for students with disabilities, 2) describes research-based instructional strategies that can support them and other struggling learners, and 3) shares the kinds of policies and local resources needed to ensure that all young people have meaningful opportunities to learn deeply and become truly prepared to succeed in college, careers, and civic life.
Many students who require intensive intervention also are students with disabilities. Thus, when used school-wide, data-based individualization (DBI) can help school teams design and implement a prereferral process and high-quality special education services. Furthermore, DBI also provides schools with a validated approach for identifying and supporting students with severe and persistent learning and behavior problems, including students who may require special education. This is because the data collected through the DBI process can assist teams in assessing the need for specialized instruction, which is one of two requirements for determining eligibility for special education. In addition, data collected through the DBI process can support special education teachers in more accurately developing present levels, goals, and specialized instruction and support that will be included in the initial IEP.