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
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
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.
Support from leaders is essential for effective DBI implementation. This resource illustrates how DBI can help principals and local level administrators leverage existing resources, integrate supports for academics and behavior, define Tier 3, align special education and MTSS, establish effective data meetings, and improve outcomes for students who are at-risk for poor learning outcomes. In addition, the resource shares strategies and resources available to support implementation
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.
In this video, Derrick Bushon, Director of Student Services for Swartz Creek Community Schools, discusses how his district took a systems approach to integrating DBI into schools.
In this video, Dr. Catherine Bradshaw, Associate Dean for Research for the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, Deputy Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention of Youth Violence, and Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, discusses how PBIS can be combined with other programs, such as social-emotional learning curriculum, to support students.
In this video, Dr. Devin Kearns, an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Education Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and NCII Trainer & Coach, discusses importance of consistency when selecting, administering, and scoring progress monitoring tools.
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, Dr. Catherine Bradshaw, Deputy Director of the John Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Co-Director of the John Hopkins Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, discusses PBIS, who it works for, and under what conditions it works best.
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.