This document highlights some common misconceptions about intensive academic and behavior interventions that experts from the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and NCII have observed in supporting the implementation of intensive intervention within the context of MTSS.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
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.
In this video, Mike Jacobsen, Assessment and Curriculum Director, White River School District in Washington State discusses how their districts planned for and implemented intensive intervention within the districts RTI model.
In this video, Russell Gersten, Senior Advisor to the National Center on Intensive Intervention and Professor Emeritus at the College of Education at the University of Oregon, discusses the relationship between foundational skills and the core curriculum within intensive interventions.
In this video, Lucille Eber, E.D., Statewide Coordinator of Illinois’ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) Network and an NCII Advisory Committee member, discusses the relationship between Tier II and Tier III behavior interventions and whether all kids need to access Tier II prior to Tier III.
In this video, Dr. Steve Goodman, Director of Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative, discusses the benefits of embedding intensive intervention within a multi-tiered system of support.
In this video, Dr. Evelyn Johnson, Associate Professor at Boise State University, discusses how data can be used to support eligibility decisions for students with disabilities.
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.
How do you know if an intervention, program, or practice is likely to be effective with a particular subgroup of students? What resources are there to help school, district, and State leaders identify and select evidence-based practices (EBPs)? EBPs play an increasingly prominent role in Federal education policy. In both State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) and provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), States are being asked to implement practices and programs that have evidence of effectiveness.
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.