This rubric uses descriptors of the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity to support teams in selecting and evaluating validated interventions for small groups or individual students. Teams may consider using data available on the National Center on Intensive Intervention Academic Tools Chart and the publishers’ websites as well as results from previous implementation efforts. Each dimension will be rated on a scale of 0– Fails to Address Standard to 3 – Addresses Standard Well. Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity: Academic Rating Rubric Related Resources Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity Resources
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
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.
If you are like most educators, you agree with the idea of providing intensive intervention for students with the most intractable academic and behavior problems. The question you may be asking is, how do I find the time? This guide includes strategies that educators can consider when trying to determine how to find the time for this intensification within the constraints of busy school schedules. Supplemental resources, planning questions, and example schedules are also provided.
Support from leaders is essential for effective DBI implementation. This resource illustrates how DBI can help principals and local level administrators leverage existing resources, integrate supports for academics and behavior, define Tier 3, align special education and MTSS, establish effective data meetings, and improve outcomes for students who are at-risk for poor learning outcomes. In addition, the resource shares strategies and resources available to support implementation
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Center’s accomplishments and to highlight a set of lessons learned from the 26 schools that implemented intensive intervention while receiving technical support from the Center.
This log can be used as a daily and weekly record of the implementation of an individual student’s intensive intervention plan. This information, along with progress monitoring graphs, can inform team intervention and data review meetings. You may choose to supplement the logs with additional items or more detailed intervention notes.
This report presents findings from an exploratory study of how five high-performing districts, which we refer to as NCII’s knowledge development sites, defined and implemented intensive intervention. The findings offer lessons that other schools and districts can use when planning for, implementing and working to sustain their own initiatives to provide intensive intervention for students with the most severe and persistent learning and/or behavioral needs.
Providing more explicit instruction, captured within the comprehensiveness domain of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity, is critical within intensive intervention. The Recognizing Effective Special Education Teachers (RESET) project, funded by U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and led by Evelyn Johnson at Boise State University, developed a series of rubrics based on evidence-based practices for students with high incidence disabilities. One set of rubrics focuses on explicit instruction. Based on the main ideas of Explicit Instruction, the Explicit Instruction Rubric was designed for use by supervisors and administrators to reliably evaluate explicit instructional practice, to provide specific, accurate, and actionable feedback to special education teachers about the quality of their explicit instruction, and ultimately, improve the outcomes for students with disabilities.
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
The MTSS Fidelity of Implementation Rubric and Summary Sheet are for use by individuals responsible for monitoring the school-level fidelity of MTSS implementation.