This module focuses primarily on selecting evidence-based interventions that align with the functions of behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and behavior needs. The emphasis of this training will include four main content areas: (a) relating assessment to function, (b) selecting evidence-based interventions that align with functions of behavior, (c) linking assessment and monitoring, and (d) connecting data with the evidence-based interventions selected. The overarching goal is to connect concepts and theories in behavior and begin planning how intensive intervention can be put into practice to support students with intensive behavioral needs.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
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.
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 training module demonstrates how academic progress monitoring fits into the Data-Based Individualization (DBI) process by (a) providing approaches and tools for academic progress monitoring and (b) showing how to use progress monitoring data to set ambitious goals, make instructional decisions, and plan programs for individual students with intensive needs.
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 worksheet and rubric can be used to collect information about the fidelity of coaching so that this information can be used by coaches and other educators to continuously improve upon how coaching occurs.
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.
The purpose of this brief from the National Center for Systemic Improvement is to synthesize research on coaching and to offer a framework of effective coaching practices. Part 1 provides general information on coaching, including the need for coaching and the goals of coaching. Part 2 describes critical coaching practices that are linked to improvements in teacher practice and learner outcomes. As these practices are most associated with such improvements, they are the recommended practices that should be central to the every-day routine of coaches working in general education or special education settings, as well in environments (e.g., homes, schools, childcare centers) with learners of all ages. Appendix A contains information about various coaching models commonly cited in research and applied in the field (e.g., literacy coaching, behavior coaching, math coaching).
The purpose of this implementation guide from the National Center for Systemic Improvement is to help practitioners systematically implement effective coaching practices. This guide outlines key questions to consider when using coaching as a pathway toward improving teaching and learning. Further, the guide specifies actions that should be taken to appropriately structure the system in which coaching occurs. Consideration of these questions and completion of these actions may help coaching achieve its intended goals and become a sustainable component of the learning environment.