State education agencies (SEAs) have an important role in initiating, supporting, and sustaining district- and school-level implementation of intensive intervention for students with severe and persistent learning and behavior needs. This document outlines five recommendations offered by SEA personnel who successfully led DBI capacity-building efforts in their states.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
This video features reflections from Bill Rasplica, the former executive director of Franklin Pierce Schools, about his experiences implementing DBI, lessons learned, and recommendations for other district leaders.
In this Voices from the Field post, we archive the presentations from day 1 of the NCII 10-year celebration of the implementation of intensive intervention. On this day, panelists shared stories focused on creating the systems to support implementation of intensive intervention.
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.
This three-part Voices from the Field video series profiles how Education Service Center (ESC) 15 in Texas approached implementing the DBI process in San Saba Independent School District (ISD). In these videos, Dedra Carter and Valerie Moos from ESC 15 and Jenna McSherry from San Saba ISD, discuss their experiences and recommendations for other districts implementing DBI.
At-home learning requires increased independence for students. With no bells signaling the beginning or end of class and no teacher leading the class for each subject, students must follow a virtual schedule. Within these schedules, students are responsible for accessing the appropriate links to class sessions and work activities. In addition, students often must populate usernames and passwords—most of which are unique for each different site or task.
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 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
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.