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.
This guide is a set of strategies and key practices with the ultimate goal of supporting students with the most intensive behavioral needs, their families, and educators in their transitions back to school during and following the global pandemic in a manner that prioritizes their health and safety, social and emotional needs, and behavioral and academic growth.
In this article, Dr. Carrie Thomas Beck from the Oregon Department of Education discusses the dyslexia law in Oregon, the role of intensive intervention in Oregon’s dyslexia initiative, and provides advice for states defining their dyslexia frameworks.
For children with the most severe and persistent academic and/or behavioral challenges, parent and family involvement is vital. School teams can use this guide to better understand intensive intervention and how to engage parents and families with the process.
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 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 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
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.