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.
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.
In this video, Amy McKenna, a special educator in Bristol Warren Regional School District shares her experience with data-based individualization (DBI). Amy discusses how she learned about DBI, the impact her use of the DBI process had on students she worked with, and how DBI helped changed her practice as a special educator.
Teams are a vital part of an effective multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) across both academics and behavior as well as special education. Making connections across the across the various teams used in MTSS and special education can be challenging. This resource from NCII and the PBIS Center, provides information about how DBI can support IEP implementation and provides a table with key considerations for teams working across the MTSS system.
In this article, Dr. Jennifer Ledford shares information about single-case design research and how it relates to intensive intervention as well as resources from the Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research (CEC DR).
NCII presented a strand at Center for Exceptional Children (CEC) 2016 Convention and Expo. The strand, Intensive Intervention 2.0: Integrating for Intensity, Learning from Implementation, and Refining our Understanding of Evidence, discuss lessons learned from NCII’s support for implementation of intensive intervention within a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework. The strand addresses (a) the integration of academic and behavioral intervention to support students with diverse learning needs; (b) successes and challenges observed by school and district leaders attempting to implement intensive intervention in high-needs schools, and; (c) considerations for understanding standards of evidence and identifying appropriate interventions and strategies across tiers of an MTSS system.
NCII presented a Strand at CEC 2014 Convention and Expo focused on intensive intervention. The Strand Using Intensive Intervention to Meet the Academic and Behavior Needs of Struggling Learners provided participants with an overview of how principles of intensive intervention may be applied to students with severe and persistent learning needs across reading, mathematics, and behavior. The Strand included three content-oriented sessions focused on reading, mathematics, and behavior and one panel session covering common implementation issues associated with provision of intensive services
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 checklist can be used by intervention providers or planning teams to review, document, and improve implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and monitor whether the student intervention plans were implemented as intended.
This report presents findings from an exploratory study of how five high-performing districts, which we refer to as NCII’s knowledge development sites, defined and implemented intensive intervention. The findings offer lessons that other schools and districts can use when planning for, implementing and working to sustain their own initiatives to provide intensive intervention for students with the most severe and persistent learning and/or behavioral needs.