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
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Event Type
Search
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).
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.
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.
Teams are a vital part of an effective multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) across both academics and behavior as well as special education. Making connections across the across the various teams used in MTSS and special education can be challenging. This resource from NCII and the PBIS Center, provides information about how DBI can support IEP implementation and provides a table with key considerations for teams working across the MTSS system.
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.
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.
In this video, Mary Randel, a doctoral candidate in Special Education at Michigan State University & NCII Coach for the Swartz Creek School District, addresses the importance of ensuring that students with disabilities have access to supports across the tiers of a tiered frameworks, especially intensive intervention.
In this video, Dr. Catherine Bradshaw, Deputy Director of the John Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Co-Director of the John Hopkins Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, discusses PBIS, who it works for, and under what conditions it works best.
In this video, Dr. Catherine Bradshaw, Associate Dean for Research for the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, Deputy Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention of Youth Violence, and Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, discusses how PBIS can be combined with other programs, such as social-emotional learning curriculum, to support students.