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
This two page handout defines the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity through guiding questions and highlights when the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used within the data-based individualization (DBI) process. Teams can use the dimensions to evaluate a current intervention, select a new intervention and intensify interventions when students do not respond.
In this Voices From the Field piece, the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) speaks to Cyndi Caniglia, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Education at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington about how she has meaningfully integrated the NCII Features of Explicit Instruction Course Content into her coursework.
In this article, Dr. Jennifer Ledford shares information about single-case design research and how it relates to intensive intervention as well as resources from the Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research (CEC DR).
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.
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
This toolkit provides activities and resources to assist practitioners in designing and delivering intensive interventions in reading and mathematics for K–12 students with significant learning difficulties and disabilities. Grounded in research, this toolkit is based on the Center on Instruction’s Intensive Interventions for Students Struggling in Reading and Mathematics: A Practice Guide, and includes the following resources:
The MTSS Fidelity of Implementation Rubric and Summary Sheet are for use by individuals responsible for monitoring the school-level fidelity of MTSS implementation.