This is part 4 of the module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part of the module is intended to provide participants with guidance for identifying skills to target in reading and math interventions.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This module serves as an introduction to important concepts and processes for implementing functional behavior assessment (FBA), including behavior basics such as reinforcement and punishment. Throughout this module, participants will discuss both real world and school based examples to become familiar with the FBA process and develop a deeper understanding and awareness of the functions of the behavior. Key topics include (a) defining FBAs in the context of DBI; (b) basic concepts in behavior, including antecedents, behaviors, and consequences; (c) levels of FBAs; and (d) considerations and procedures for conducting FBAs.
This module discusses approaches to intensifying academic interventions for students with severe and persistent learning needs. The module describes how intensification fits into DBI process and introduces four categories of intensification practices. It uses examples to illustrate concepts and provides activities to support development of teams’ understanding of these practices, and how they might be used to design effective individualized programs for students with intensive needs.
The purpose of this module is to introduce schools interested in implementing intensive intervention to the infrastructure needed to implement data-based individualization (DBI). The module includes presentation slides with integrated activities and handouts to help teams determine their readiness and develop an action plan for implementation.
The DBI Implementation Rubric and the DBI Implementation Interview are intended to support monitoring of school-level implementation of data-based individualization (DBI). The rubric is based on the structure of the Center on Response to Intervention’s Integrity Rubric and is aligned with the essential components of DBI and the infrastructure that is necessary for successful implementation in Grades K–6. It describes levels of implementation on a 1–5 scale across DBI components. The rubric is accompanied by the DBI Implementation Interview which includes guiding questions that may be used for a self-assessment or structured interview of a school’s DBI leadership team.
This checklist can be used by intervention providers or planning teams to review, document, and improve implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and monitor whether the student intervention plans were implemented as intended.
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
This webinar describes contextual factors that can support or impede the implementation of intensive intervention.
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.
This report from Jobs for the Future and Authored by Sharon Vaughn, Lou Danielson, Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, and Lynn Holdheide, 1) reviews previous efforts to promote better educational outcomes for students with disabilities, 2) describes research-based instructional strategies that can support them and other struggling learners, and 3) shares the kinds of policies and local resources needed to ensure that all young people have meaningful opportunities to learn deeply and become truly prepared to succeed in college, careers, and civic life.