Within a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), intensive intervention, also known as Tier 3, is designed to support students with the most severe and persistent learning and/or behavior difficulties. 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.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
During fall 2020, educators provided virtual, in-person, and hybrid intervention with an ongoing need to engage with and support parents and families. Although the context and environment may have changed, the focus on providing high-quality interventions with validated practices, monitoring student progress, and adapting and intensifying supports based on student data as outlined in the data-based individualization (DBI) process continues to be applicable across virtual, in-person, or hybrid models. This document presents considerations for implementing DBI in light of COVID-19 with an emphasis on delivery in virtual settings.
This guide is a set of strategies and key practices with the ultimate goal of supporting students with the most intensive behavioral needs, their families, and educators in their transitions back to school during and following the global pandemic in a manner that prioritizes their health and safety, social and emotional needs, and behavioral and academic growth.
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.
The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs).
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.
NCII in collaboration with the National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI) presented a panel session at the 2015 OSEP Leadership Conference. Presenters included Dr. Sarah Arden, Dr. Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, Dr. Teri Marx and Rhode Island Department of Education's David Sienko. The session included an interactive discussion around the collaboration occurring between the NCII and the State of Rhode Island with regard to the development and implementation of their State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) to support outcomes for students with disabilities.
NCII presented a special session at the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 2016 Annual Convention. Presenters included Drs. Laura Berry Kuchle, Christopher Lemons, Chris Riley-Tillman, and Lou Danielson. The session (1) shared the importance of intensive intervention, (2) described data-based individualization (DBI), a process for adapting academic and behavioral interventions to meet individual needs, (3) described tools to evaluate implementation of key components of DBI, (4) discussed implementation patterns in NCII’s partner schools and lessons learned from NCII's technical assistance with schools and districts, and (5) shared resources available from NCII.
This white paper summarizes the proceedings of a summit that was focused on integrating research knowledge on promising approaches into intensive intervention and implementation to improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities who have severe and persistent learning need. In addition, it includes responses from three participants representing perspectives from policy (David Chard, Wheelock College), research (Nathan Clemens, University of Texas at Austin), and practice (Steve Goodman, Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative).
This webinar provides an overview of the ways in which intensive intervention connects to and supports key federal education policy initiatives such as Results Driven Accountability and how intensive intervention can support states in meeting the goals of their State Systemic Improvement Plan.