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.
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.
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).
This fourteen minute video shares Wyoming’s journey in building the capacity of educators to implement data-based individualization (DBI) to improve academic and behavior outcomes for students with disabilities as part of their state systemic improvement plan (SSIP). Wyoming administrators, teachers, parents and students from Laramie County School District # 1 and preschool sites share how DBI implementation impacted teacher efficacy, team meetings, quality of services, student confidence, and state and local collaboration.
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).
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 module discusses approaches to intensifying academic interventions for students with severe and persistent learning needs. The module describes how intensification fits into DBI process and introduces four categories of intensification practices. It uses examples to illustrate concepts and provides activities to support development of teams’ understanding of these practices, and how they might be used to design effective individualized programs for students with intensive needs.
This presentation from the CASE-NASDSE Conference (2016, September) featured directors at the Rhode Island Department of Education, a local district, and personnel from national technical assistance centers (NCII, NCSI, CEEDAR). Lessons learned from a state-local partnership focused on implementing intensive intervention were shared from school, district, state, and national perspectives. Implementation efforts were discussed in the context of the Office of Special Education Programs’ Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) framework. Considerations for other states and districts engaging in implementation efforts under RDA were also highlighted.
This training module, includes four sections that (a) provide an overview of administering common general outcome measures for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, (b) review graphed progress monitoring data, and (c) provide guidance on identifying what type of skills the intervention should target to be most effective in reading and mathematics.
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.