This checklist can be used by teams to help identify ideas to intensify interventions based on their hypothesis for why the student may not be responding to an intervention. The checklist is aligned with the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
This question bank includes questions that teams can use to develop a hypothesis about why an individual or group of students may not be responding to an intervention. The hypothesis should help guide intervention planning and selection of intensification strategies using the Intervention Intensification Strategy Checklist. When developing a hypothesis, teams should consider the intervention design, fidelity of implementation, and learner needs. Intervention fidelity data collected using the Student Intervention Implementation Log and informal diagnostic data may help teams answer the questions included in the question bank.
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
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.
If you are like most educators, you agree with the idea of providing intensive intervention for students with the most intractable academic and behavior problems. The question you may be asking is, how do I find the time? This guide includes strategies that educators can consider when trying to determine how to find the time for this intensification within the constraints of busy school schedules. Supplemental resources, planning questions, and example schedules are also provided.
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.