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.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
This Innovation Configuration can serve as a foundation for strengthening existing preparation programs so that educators exit with the ability to use various forms of assessment to make data-based educational and instructional decisions within an MTSS. The expectation is that these skills can be further honed and supported through inservice as practicing teachers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).