National Center for Intensive Intervention: Data-Driven Tertiary Services

Lou Danielson, Ph.D. Lee Kern, Ph.D. T. Chris Riley-Tillman, Ph.D

Low academic achievement

Above average dropout rates

Higher than average arrest rates

What we know about students with disabilities

2

For more information: Sanford et al., 2011; NAEP, 2013; Planty et al., 2008, Aud et al., 2012

Example: NAEP Reading, Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students at or Above “Proficient” (1998–2013)

Students w/ no identified disability

Students w/ disabilities(http://nationsreportcard.gov/)

3

All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in

improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families.

Shift from Compliance to Results + Compliance

Vision for RDA

4Slide adapted from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

SSIP Activities by PhaseYear 1— FFY 2013Delivered by April 2015

Year 2—FFY 2014Delivered by Feb 2016

Years 3-6—FFY 2015-18Feb 2017- Feb 2020

Phase IAnalysis

Phase IIPlan

Phase IIIEvaluation

• Data Analysis;

• Infrastructure Analysis;

• State-identified measureable result;

• Coherent Improvement Strategies;

• Theory of Action.

• Multi-year plan addressing:

• Infrastructure Development;

• Support EIS Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices;

• Evaluation Plan.

• Reporting on Progress including:

• Results of Ongoing Evaluation;

• Extent of Progress.

• Revisions to the SPP.

Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

6

• Conduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factors

• For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement

• Search/evaluate evidence-based solutions (Exploration Phase)

• Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points)

• Develop Theory of Action• Develop Plan for Improvement

(Implementation Framework)

• Initiate Data Analysis• Conduct broad

Infrastructure Analysis• Identify problem area

• Evaluation of progress annually• Adjust plan as needed

How well is the solution

working?What is the problem?

Why is it happening?

What shall we do

about it?

SSIP

SSIP Phase I

SSIP Phase I and II

SSIP Phase III

SSIP Phase I

Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

State-identified Measurable Result(s) (SiMR)• A child-level (or family-level, for Part C) outcome

• Not a process or system result.

• May be a single result or a cluster of related results.

Identified based on analysis of data.

SiMR

7

Part B• Approximately 21 states identified

reading

• Approximately 9 states identified high school graduation.

• Approximately 6 states identified math

• 3 identified preschool outcomes

• 2 identified other outcomes

Part C• Approximately 18 states identified

social/emotional outcomes

• 7 identified outcomes - knowledge and skills

• Approximately 6 identified outcomes - unspecified

• Approximately 4 identified parent/family outcomes

• 1 identified other

What are states focusing on?

8

In a May 2014 NASDSE survey of SEAs (32 respondents) States shared their potential focus areas. These included:

Supporting Students through Intensive Intervention

9

Positive outcomes are possible! Reading intervention research

• Intensive intervention is associated with improved reading across skills and grades

High-performing sites• Our knowledge development activities found that students with

disabilities in innovative districts are more likely to do well on state achievement tests (NCII, 2013a)

What can we do?

10

Mean Effect Sizes for Students With Reading Difficulties Provided Intensive Interventions

Student Outcome Early Elementary K–3 Upper Grades 4–9

  Mean ES No. of Effects

Mean ES No. of Effects

Comprehension .46 25 .09 37

Reading Fluency .34 11 .12 8

Word Reading .56 53 .20 22

Spelling .40 24 .20 5

Note: ES = effect size 

(Wanzek et al., 2013)

11

Okaloosa, Florida: Average percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on the state reading and mathematics tests, compared to the state average: 2007–2011

12(NCII, 2013a)

Intensive intervention is embedded within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) such as Response to Intervention (RTI) or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS).

Progress monitoring data collected to determine response to intervention.

Challenges remain:• Unclear distinction between secondary (Tier 2) and intensive (tertiary/Tier 3)

interventions

• Intensity of intervention defined more often in “quantitative” ways than in “qualitative” ways

• Use of progress monitoring data more clearly defined and well established in reading than in mathematics or behavior

Patterns Observed in High-Performing Sites: Lessons From Knowledge Development Sites

13

(NCII, 2013a)

Is… Individualized based on

student needs More intense, often with

substantively different content AND pedagogy

Comprised of more frequent and precise progress monitoring

Is Not… A single approach A manual A preset program More of the same Tier 1

instruction More of the same Tier 2

instruction

What Intensive Intervention…

14

15

Data-Based Individualization (DBI): A systematic method for using data to determine when and how to provide more intensive intervention:• Origins in data-based program modification/experimental teaching

were first developed at the University of Minnesota (Deno & Mirkin, 1977).

• It is a process, not a single intervention program or strategy.

• It is not a one-time fix, but an ongoing process comprising intervention and assessment adjusted over time.

What is NCII’s Approach toIntensive Intervention?

More Help

Validated programs are not universally effective programs; 3 to 5 percent of students need more help (Fuchs et al., 2008; NCII, 2013b).

More Practice

Students with intensive needs often require 10–30 times more practice than peers to learn new information (Gersten et al., 2008).

DBI Assumptions

16

Students with disabilities who require special education need specially designed instruction to progress toward standards.

A data-driven, systematized approach can help educators develop programs likely to yield success for students with intensive needs.

DBI Assumptions

17

DBI is a distinctively different and more intensive approach to intervention, compared to primary prevention’s (Tier 1’s) core program and secondary prevention’s (Tier 2’s) validated, supplementary programs (NCII, 2013b).

In a longstanding program of field-based randomized controlled trials, DBI has demonstrated improved reading, math, and spelling outcomes, compared with business-as-usual special education practice (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989).

DBI Assumptions

18

19

• Students with disabilities who are not making adequate progress in their current instructional program

• Students who present with very low academic achievement and/or high-intensity or high-frequency behavior problems (typically those with disabilities)

• Students in a tiered intervention system who have not responded to secondary intervention programs delivered with fidelity

Who Needs DBI?

A Bird’s Eye View of DBI

20

Case Example: Behavior

21

• 12-years-old • Problem behavior: aggression, disruption,

calling out, talking back, interrupting peers• Tier 1 intervention: School-Wide Positive

Behavior Support

Case Example: Jeff

22

Tier 1 Responsiveness:• NO MORE THAN 2 ODRs ACROSS 2+ MONTHS

Decision Rules: Tier 1

23

Jeff’s Rates of Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) Before Tier 2 Intervention

24

Tier 2 Responsiveness:• EARNS 70% OF POINTS DAILY

Decision Rules: Tier 2 CICO

25

Jeff’s Percentage of Points Earned in Tier 2 Intervention for Two Weeks

Tier 2 Intervention Introduced

26

Per

cent

age

of P

oint

s E

arne

d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

102030405060708090

100

Check In Check Out• FACTS

– Attention function

– Escape Function

CICO Intensified• Mid-day Check In added

• Phone call home at night when 75% of points earned

Tier 2 Intensified

27

Jeff’s Percentage of Points Earned inTier 2 Intervention for Two Weeks

28

Per

cent

age

of P

oint

s E

arne

d

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

102030405060708090

100Tier 2 Tier 2 Intensified

Teacher completed FBA questionnaire Student completed FBA questionnaire All academic teachers collected ABC data across 2 weeks School psychologist observed Jeff’s behavior five times

over a two-week period

Tier 3 Assessment

29

Escape Function• Difficult work

– Assignments with reading

• Lengthy tasks

Attention Function• Adult

• Peer

Results of Functional Assessment

30

Jeff’s Target Behavior Questionnaire (Case Sample 1)

31

Mrs. Coleman completed a series of anecdotal checklists, recording the times and conditions when the behaviors occurred.

Jeff’s Anecdotal Reports (Case Sample 2)

32

Mrs. Coleman identified the following potential target behaviors for Jeff: Out of seat Curses Talks out Threatens Fights Argues Hits, kicks

Identifying Potential Target Behaviors

33

First priority: Destructive behavior• Behavior that is harmful or health/life-threatening to the individual or others

Second priority: Disruptive behavior• Behavior that interferes with learning (self or other) or social relationships,

prevents student from participating in school, home, or community activities, results in destruction of materials, is likely to become destructive

Third priority: Distracting behavior• Behavior that interferes with social acceptance, has a negative impact on

individual’s image, damages (not destroys) materials, is likely to become disruptive

Prioritizing Problem Behavior for Intervention (Janney & Snell)

Jeff’s target behaviors for progress monitoring:• Hitting / kicking

• Threatening

Jeff’s Target Behavior Prioritization

35

Preventive• Tier 2 reading instruction

• Read instructions aloud

• After school homework support

• Two breaks/period

Instructional• Prompted at start and middle of period to request assistance or ask for break

• Seated next to friend and permitted to request help

Response• Reminders to ask for help or a break

• Points removed

Tier 3 Intervention

36

Hitting/Kicking: Frequency count Threatening: Daily Behavior Report (DBR) rating

Data Collection

37

Jeff’s Direct Behavior Rating Form

Threats are verbal statements that refer to harming other people, including peers or teachers. Anchors are 0 = 0 threats per observation, 1 = 1−2 per observation, 2 = 3 per observation, 5 = 6 per observation, 9 = 10 per observation, 10 = >10 per observation.

38

(Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman, & Christ, 2010)

All academic teachers will complete the DBR form each day.

Once a week, school psychologist will graph frequency and transfer the data to the DBR Graphing Template to automatically generate a graph.

School psychologist will review the data once a week and communicate progress to all teachers

Full team will meet after four weeks to review progress

Management Process for Jeff’s DBR Data

39

Jeff’s Target Behavior Data: Hitting/Kicking

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4Tier 2 Intensified Tier 3

Fre

quen

cy

Jeff’s Target Behavior Data: Threatening

41

Scaling Intensive Intervention

42

Staff commitment Student plans Student meetings Valid, reliable data Inclusion of students with disabilities

Key Lessons From our TA work

43

Staff Commitment

Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation

Commitment of: Principal Intervention staff Special educators

Specific intervention staff involved including staff who work with students with intensive needs in the area(s) of concern. (e.g., reading specialists, social workers) 

44

Student Plans

45

Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation

Student plans are developed and reflect: Accurate and timely student

data Goal(s) for the intervention

based on valid, reliable assessment tools

Timeline for executing and revisiting the intervention plan

Content area(s) Number of student plans Grade level(s)

Student Meetings

46

Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation

Student meetings are data driven.

There is a regularly scheduled time to meet.

Meetings are structured to maximize efficiency and focused problem solving

Frequency Schedule Team members  

Progress Monitoring

47

Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation

Valid, reliable progress monitoring tools are used.

Data are graphed. Data are collected at

regular intervals.

Choice of tool Use of progress-

monitoring data at other tiers

Students With Disabilities

48

Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation

Students with disabilities must have access to intensive intervention.

Who delivers intervention for students with disabilities

Inclusion of students with and without IEPs

49

www.intensiveintervention.org

Universal Technical Assistance

Tools Charts

50

Academic Progress Monitoring http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring

Academic Intervention http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools

Behavioral Progress Monitoring http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/behavioral-progress-monitoring-tools

Behavioral Intervention http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/behavioral-intervention-chart

Eight training modules focusing on components of DBI for academics and behavior

Additional module on

readiness & planning Include:

• Slides and speaker notes

• Activities

• Coaching guides

DBI Training Series

51

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/content/dbi-training-series

Webinars

52

View archived webinars and look for announcements about the next live webinar: www.intensiveintervention.org

53

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/illustration-standards-relevant-instruction-across-levels-tiered-system

Examples of Standards-Aligned Instruction Across Tiers

Sample Activities and Materials

54

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources/sample-lessons-activities/mathematics

Sign up on our website to receive our newsletter and announcements

Follow us on YouTube and Twitter• YouTube Channel:

National Center on Intensive Intervention

• Twitter handle: @TheNCII

Connect to NCII

55

This module was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

Disclaimer

56

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, et al. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf

Danielson, L. & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization, Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 6-12.

Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Minneapolis, MN: Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43–52.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Cirino, P.T., & Fletcher, J.M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79-92.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=3

References

57

Lemons, C. J., Kearns, D. M., & Davidson, K. A. (2014). Data-based individualization in reading: Intensifying interventions for students with significant reading disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 20-29.

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Nation's Report Card, A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading. Institute for Education Sciences. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014451

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013a). Implementing intensive intervention: Lessons learned from the field. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. http://www.intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Lessons_Learned_From_Field_0.pdf

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013b). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education. http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resource/data-based-individualization-framework-intensive-intervention

References

58

59

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., et al. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf

Sanford, C., Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A.-M., and Shaver, D. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school: Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/nlts2/reports/2011_09/nlts2_report_2011_09_complete.pdf

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K. L., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., et al. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. doi: 10.3102/0034654313477212

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2014). OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

References

National Center on Intensive Intervention1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NWWashington, DC 20007-3835

866-577-5787

www.intensiveintervention.org

ncii@air.org@TheNCII

60