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.
This tool was developed by Krystal Uricchio a special education teacher at Narragansett High School in Rhode Island. Choice making is a common goal for students with significant disabilities. However, conducting activities that involve choice making and collecting subsequent data about choice can be difficult, especially in a virtual or at-home setting. This challenge can be compounded when students are nonverbal or have areas of need related to expressive communication. This tool provides a method for collecting data about choice making using a Google Form or a Word Document. For each opportunity, the educator or family member will record the two choices provided and the level of support the student needed to identify the correct choice. A video example is provided to support parents in the successful implementation of the tool.
Support from leaders is essential for effective DBI implementation. This resource illustrates how DBI can help principals and local level administrators leverage existing resources, integrate supports for academics and behavior, define Tier 3, align special education and MTSS, establish effective data meetings, and improve outcomes for students who are at-risk for poor learning outcomes. In addition, the resource shares strategies and resources available to support implementation
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.
NCII in collaboration with the National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI) presented a panel session at the 2015 OSEP Leadership Conference. Presenters included Dr. Sarah Arden, Dr. Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, Dr. Teri Marx and Rhode Island Department of Education's David Sienko. The session included an interactive discussion around the collaboration occurring between the NCII and the State of Rhode Island with regard to the development and implementation of their State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) to support outcomes for students with disabilities.
NCII presented a strand at Center for Exceptional Children (CEC) 2015 Convention and Expo. The strand, "How Can We Make Intensive Intervention Happen? Considerations for Knowledge Development, Implementation, and Policy," address the range of issues schools and districts encounter as they attempt to implement intensive intervention—knowledge and skills, systems to support and evaluate implementation, and policy context.
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.
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
Teachers often note that students struggle with the transition between core instruction and intervention in mathematics. Thus, the purpose of these curriculum crosswalks is to identify points of alignment and misalignment between commonly used mathematics intervention and core instructional materials, with a particular focus on mathematics practice standards and vocabulary. We offer recommendations for improving alignment to help students more successfully participate in math instruction across settings. Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 1 Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 2 Math Curriculum Crosswalk: Grade 3