This IRIS Star Legacy Module, the second in a series on intensive intervention, offers information on making data-based instructional decisions. Specifically, the resource discusses collecting and analyzing progress monitoring and diagnostic assessment data. Developed in collaboration with the IRIS Center and the CEEDAR Center, this resource is designed for individuals who will be implementing intensive interventions (e.g., special education teachers, reading specialists, interventionists).
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Event Type
Search
This Innovation Configuration can serve as a foundation for strengthening existing preparation programs so that educators exit with the ability to use various forms of assessment to make data-based educational and instructional decisions within an MTSS. The expectation is that these skills can be further honed and supported through inservice as practicing teachers.
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 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).
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
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 updated training module provides a rationale for intensive intervention and an overview of data-based individualization (DBI), NCII’s approach to providing intensive intervention. DBI is a research-based process for individualizing validated interventions through the systematic use of assessment data to determine when and how to intensify intervention. Two case studies, one academic and one behavioral, are used to illustrate the process and highlight considerations for implementation.
What is an evidence-based practice? How do I know if evidence shows that a practice will be right for my students? Many practitioners ask these critical questions every day as they are faced with making decisions regarding how to best meet the needs of their students.
These documents are intended to illustrate how college- and career-ready standards can be addressed across levels of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or response to intervention framework in reading and mathematics. They provide examples of how to apply standards relevant instruction across core instruction (Tier 1), secondary intervention (Tier 2), intensive intervention (Tier 3) and for to support students with significant cognitive challenges.
Norms for oral reading fluency (ORF) can be used to help educators make decisions about which students might need intervention in reading and to help monitor students’ progress once instruction has begun. This paper describes the origins of the widely used curriculum-based measure of ORF and how the creation and use of ORF norms has evolved over time. Using data from three widely-used commercially available ORF assessments (DIBELS, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM), a new set of compiled ORF norms for grade 1-6 are presented here along with an analysis of how they differ from the norms created in 2006.