This brief reviews provides considerations for creating readiness to implement DBI to support successful implementation and scale-up in schools.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
State education agencies (SEAs) have an important role in initiating, supporting, and sustaining district- and school-level implementation of intensive intervention for students with severe and persistent learning and behavior needs. This document outlines five recommendations offered by SEA personnel who successfully led DBI capacity-building efforts in their states.
This video features reflections from Bill Rasplica, the former executive director of Franklin Pierce Schools, about his experiences implementing DBI, lessons learned, and recommendations for other district leaders.
In this Voices from the Field post, we archive the presentations from day 1 of the NCII 10-year celebration of the implementation of intensive intervention. On this day, panelists shared stories focused on creating the systems to support implementation of intensive intervention.
This three-part Voices from the Field video series profiles how Education Service Center (ESC) 15 in Texas approached implementing the DBI process in San Saba Independent School District (ISD). In these videos, Dedra Carter and Valerie Moos from ESC 15 and Jenna McSherry from San Saba ISD, discuss their experiences and recommendations for other districts implementing DBI.
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.
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.
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).
In this video, Drs. Mitch Yell and Tessie Bailey share information about the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. They highlight implications for writing a student's IEP and discuss the importance of setting setting ambitious IEP goals to ensure that students make progress in light of their individual circumstances.
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.