This checklist can be used by teams to help identify ideas to intensify interventions based on their hypothesis for why the student may not be responding to an intervention. The checklist is aligned with the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
This question bank includes questions that teams can use to develop a hypothesis about why an individual or group of students may not be responding to an intervention. The hypothesis should help guide intervention planning and selection of intensification strategies using the Intervention Intensification Strategy Checklist. When developing a hypothesis, teams should consider the intervention design, fidelity of implementation, and learner needs. Intervention fidelity data collected using the Student Intervention Implementation Log and informal diagnostic data may help teams answer the questions included in the question bank.
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.
Progress monitoring is an essential part of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) and, specifically, the data-based individualization (DBI) process. It allows educators and administrators to understand whether students are responding to intervention and if adaptations are needed. In addition, these data are often used to set high-quality academic and behavioral goals within the individualized education program (IEP) for students with disabilities. With the closure of schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic, educators and administrators need to rethink how they collect and analyze progress monitoring data in a virtual setting. This collection of frequently asked questions is intended to provide a starting place for consideration.
This template is intended to assist with the planning and documentation of dimensions of an intervention for small groups or an individual student within the data-based individualization (DBI) process.
This webinar challenges current thinking about how to set appropriately ambitious and measurable behavioral goals in light of the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the United States Supreme Court. Dr. Teri A. Marx from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Dr. Faith G. Miller from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, share how to set ambitious behavioral goals for students by using a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, and how to write measurable and realistic goals focused on the replacement behavior. This webinar is a companion to the Strategies for Setting Data-Driven Behavioral Individualized Education Program Goals Guide.
In this webinar, Drs. Tessie Rose Bailey and Zach Weingarten from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Thom Jones from the Wyoming Department of Education and Justine Essex from Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming shared how to set ambitious goals for students by selecting a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, establishing baseline performance, choosing a strategy, and writing a measurable goal.
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).
The 2017 Supreme Court decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District highlighted the importance of monitoring students’ progress toward appropriately challenging individualized educational program (IEP) annual goals and making changes to students’ educational programs when needed. In this guide, we explain how educators can establish IEP goals that are measurable, ambitious, and appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.
On May 8, 2019, Drs. Mitch Yell, David Bateman, Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx presented Recommendations and Resources for Preparing Educators in the Endrew Era. In this webinar, Drs. Yell and Bateman draw on their recent article Free Appropriate Public Education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for Personnel Preparation in Teacher Education and Special Education. They provide an overview of Endrew’s impact on individualized instruction for students with disabilities and share six recommendations for preparing educators to meet the clarified requirements under Endrew. Drs. Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx, experts from the National Center on Intensive Intervention, illustrate how NCII resources and technical assistance supports can assist states, local agencies, and educators to address these recommendations and improve design and delivery of individualized instruction in academics and behavior.