The purpose of this document is to provide content-specific examples of how to structure educator-level and/or systems-level coaching as a mechanism to ensure ongoing professional learning to support tiered intervention. This document provides examples of coaching supports, models, and functions within the context of tiered intervention (e.g., RtI, PBIS, MTSS) and data-based decision making (e.g., data-based individualization [DBI]) for educators who already have foundational knowledge and/or experience with coaching.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
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.
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.
This updated training module provides a rationale for intensive intervention and an overview of data-based individualization (DBI), NCII’s approach to providing intensive intervention. DBI is a research-based process for individualizing validated interventions through the systematic use of assessment data to determine when and how to intensify intervention. Two case studies, one academic and one behavioral, are used to illustrate the process and highlight considerations for implementation.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Center’s accomplishments and to highlight a set of lessons learned from the 26 schools that implemented intensive intervention while receiving technical support from the Center.
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.
This webinar, presented by Laura Magnuson, a technical assistance provider for NCII, provides an overview of the rationale and purpose for secondary or Tier 2 interventions.
This webinar presented by Dr. Lori Newcomer, provides an overview of the key features of behavioral support systems and walked through a “Needs Assessment” document that can be used in various ways (self-assessment, interview, etc..) to examine a school’s behavioral support system and target areas for improvement.
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.
Implementing intensive intervention to improve outcomes for students with significant learning and behavior needs is challenging work! In this webinar, panelists share lessons learned from five years of implementing intensive intervention at the district and school level.