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
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
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 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.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to define special education: specially-designed instruction, Tier 3 supports, and intensive intervention, but, do they mean the same thing? In this presentation, delivered at the 2017 OSEP Leadership Conference, state leaders of special education, David Sienko from the Rhode Island Department of Education and Glenna Gallo, from the Washington State Board of Education – alongside personnel from the National Center on Intensive Intervention – shared perspectives on how special education is defined to espouse commonalities across terminology and services to support students with disabilities. Presentation
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.
In this video, Mike Jacobsen, Assessment and Curriculum Director, White River School District in Washington State discusses how their districts planned for and implemented intensive intervention within the districts RTI model.
In this video, Russell Gersten, Senior Advisor to the National Center on Intensive Intervention and Professor Emeritus at the College of Education at the University of Oregon, discusses the relationship between foundational skills and the core curriculum within intensive interventions.
In this video, Dr. Joe Wehby, Senior Advisor to the National Center for Intensive Intervention and Associate Professor in the Vanderbilt University Department of Special Education, discusses the number of data points needed to make decisions for students with intensive behavior needs.
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.
In this video, Dr. Steve Goodman, Director of Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative, discusses the benefits of embedding intensive intervention within a multi-tiered system of support.