Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Who, What, When, Where, Why, & How of Intensive Intervention
Lou Danielson, Ph.D., Center DirectorJoe Wehby, Ph.D., Senior AdvisorRebecca Zumeta, Ph.D., TA&D Coordinator
OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting
July 25, 2012
22
Why intensive intervention?
33
NAEP: 4th Grade Reading, Students with Disabilities (2011: 68% below basic)
44
NAEP 4th Grade Math, Students with Disabilities (2011: 45% below basic)
55
Why intensive intervention?
• 1/3 of students with disabilities have a discipline problem (NLTS-2)
• More than 1/3 drop out of high school without graduating (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2006)
• 4/5 are either unemployed or work in low-paying jobs as young adults (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).
• Many tiered intervention initiatives have not sufficiently addressed students with the most intensive needs.
66
Who requires and delivers intensive intervention?
77
Who requires intensive intervention?
• Students with disabilities are not making adequate progress in their current instructional program
• Students with disabilities who present with very low academic achievement, and/or intense behavior problems
• Students in a tiered intervention program who have not responded to secondary intervention programs delivered with fidelity
88
Who requires intensive intervention?
• 2.5 million students (5% of the general school population) require intensive academic interventions
• 1.5 million students (3% of the general school population) require intensive behavioral interventions
99
Who delivers intensive intervention?
• Skilled teachers who have expertise delivering interventions to struggling students (e.g., special education teacher, reading or math specialist)
• Students with the most significant needs should work with the most qualified available staff.
1010
What is NCII’s approach to intensive intervention ?
1111
Data-Based Individualization (DBI)
• Set an ambitious performance goal
• Begin with a validated tutoring program, but increase intensity We refer to this initial program as the
intervention platform National Center on RTI’s Tools Chart
provides sample intervention platforms NCII—developing a similar chart for
behavior platforms
1212
1313
Data-Based Individualization
• Each week, collect progress-monitoring data using a validated assessment tool.
• When student progress is inadequate, introduce an adaptation to the intervention program.
• We use Adaptation Guides to assist teachers in selecting productive program adaptations that match the nature of the student’s difficulty.
• Continue to monitor progress to evaluate adapted instruction
• Evaluate fidelity to DBI process & individualized plan
1414
When & Where should intensive intervention take place?
• Student need should drive placement
• Instructional time should be increased, and should supplement core instruction when possible
• In some cases, supplanted instruction may be necessary. This decision should be team-based, data-driven, and evaluated regularly
1515
How is intensive intervention delivered?
161616
Kelsey’s Case Study
• Kelsey emerged with serious reading problems at the end of 3rd grade, despite strong primary and secondary prevention.
• In 4th grade, Kelsey entered intensive intervention, using data-based individualization.
• Given the seriousness of Kelsey’s reading problems, his teacher, Mrs. Hayes set an ambitious, individualized instructional goal
1717
Reading Graph for Kelsey
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
. 4-Oct
5-Oct
6-Oct
11-Oct
13-Oct
18-Oct
20-Oct
25-Oct
27-Oct
2-Nov
4-Nov
9-Nov
11-Nov
16-Nov
18-Nov
1-Dec
3-Dec
8-Dec
10-Dec
Date
Nu
mb
er o
f w
ord
s re
ad c
orr
ectl
y in
1 m
inu
te
Baseline
Goal Line
181818
Next Steps
• She began working with an intervention program that provides explicit instruction in decoding and fluency, but conducted sessions more intensively (daily, each time for 30 minutes, on a 1:1 basis).
• She also implemented formal progress monitoring each week, using passage reading fluency (PRF) assessments sensitive to improvement
191919
After Seven Weeks of Implementing
the Intensified Program…
• Mrs. Hayes evaluated Kelsey’s progress.
• On his graph, Kelsey’s scores were below his goal line. Research tells us that with this pattern, Kelsey is not likely to achieve the year-end goal.
• Mrs. Hayes needs to revise Kelsey’s instructional program to foster greater progress.
2020
Time to Make A Change
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Date
Nu
mb
er
of
wo
rds r
ead
co
rrectl
y in
1 m
inu
te
Baseline
Goal Line
Initial Instruction
Instructional Change
212121
Determining the Change
• To determine the nature of the instructional change needed, Mrs. Hayes conducts a Quick Miscue Analysis during Kelsey’s regular progress monitoring assessment.
• The Quick Miscue Analysis is one strategy for conducting a diagnostic analysis of reading strategies to determine productive directions for program adaptation
2222
Word Written
Word Spoken
Grapho-phonemic
Syntax Semantics
was saw no yes no
very him no no no
excited ----- no no no
just our no no no
brought b minimal no no
brother mother yes yes no
were was minimal yes yes
very much no yes yes
surprised sorpray yes no no
puppy pup yes yes yes
Quick Miscue Analysis 30% 50% 30%
232323
Kelsey’s Instructional Change
• Given Kelsey’s inadequate reliance on the semantics of the passage, Mrs. Hayes decided to introduce a tape recorder activity, whereby Kelsey monitored semantic miscues in his own reading.
• Given Kelsey’s poor use of grapho-phonemic strategies, Mrs. Hayes also conducted a diagnostic assessment of Kelsey’s decoding skills. She learned that Kelsey had difficulty with vowel teams and decided to target vowel teams for intensive review in and out of contextualized reading.
• These changes were incorporated into Kelsey’s reading program.
2424
After Seven Weeks with the Adapted Program…
• Mrs. Hayes again studied Kelsey’s progress—He had improved substantially with this revised program.
• However, Kelsey’s most recent 4 passage reading scores all fell below his goal line.
• Research tells us that with this pattern, Kelsey is not likely to achieve his year-end goal. Another change is needed.
2525
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nu
mb
er o
f w
ord
s read
co
rrectl
y in
1 m
inu
te
Date
Reading Graph for Kelsey
Baseline
Goal Line
Guided-reading
Guided-reading + decoding practice
Guided-reading + decoding practice + comprehension
2626
Kelsey’s Next Instructional Change
• So, Mrs. Hayes planned another adaptation.
• Based on her work with Kelsey, she hypothesized that Kelsey’s motivation to work hard was insufficient.
• She introduces a systematic reinforcement program to reward on-task behavior and hard, accurate work during reading time.
• She continues to monitor progress
272727
In This Way…
• Mrs. Hayes continues her iterative process over time, using the data to formatively design an individualized program that works for Kelsey.
• Field-based randomized control trials show that when teachers use progress monitoring in this way, they plan more differentiated instruction, and they produce better student outcomes.
282828
Ryan ’s Case Study
• Ryan was identified as having externalizing behavior problems in February during his 4th grade year, despite strong primary and secondary prevention.
• Ryan entered intensive intervention, using data-based individualization.
2929
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
. 4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 1-Nov 8-Nov 15-Nov 22-Nov 29-Nov 2-Dec 9-Dec 16-Dec
Nu
mb
er o
f OD
Rs
per
Wee
k
Date
Office Discipline Referral Graph for Ryan
303030
Next Steps
• Because of Ryan’s excessive ODR’s, a daily mentoring program with the school social worker was implemented.
313131
After Seven Weeks of Implementing
the Intensified Mentoring Program
• Mrs. Hayes evaluated Ryan’s progress.
• On his graph, ODRs were below his goal line and Ryan is not likely to achieve the year-end goal.
• Mrs. Hayes needs to revise Ryan’s behavior support program to foster greater progress.
3232
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
. 4-Oct
11-Oct
18-Oct
25-Oct
1-Nov
8-Nov
15-Nov
22-Nov
29-Nov
2-Dec
9-Dec
16-Dec
16-Jan
23-Jan
30-Jan
3-Feb
10-Feb
17-Feb
Nu
mb
er o
f OD
Rs
per
Wee
k
Date
Office Discipline Referral Graph for Ryan
333333
Determining the Change
• To determine the nature of the behavior change needed, Mrs. Hayes, with the help of a behavior support team, conducts a Function Behavior Analysis.
• An FBA is one strategy for conducting a diagnostic analysis of behavior issues to determine productive directions for program adaptation
343434
Ryan’s Instructional Change
• Results for the FBA that part of Ryan’s problem behavior seem to function as a way to escape academic activities that he found difficult. In addition, is was determined that Ryan did not adhere to his prescribed medication regiment for ADHD>
• Mrs. Hayes developed a behavior change program that taught Ryan various means to request a break from his academic work. In addition, more frequent progress monitoring of reading was introduced to identify if instructional modifications were also needed. Finally, social worker contacted family to determine support needed for better adherence to medication schedule
3535
What’s next?
Intensive Technical Assistance• Fall, 2012• 12 districts in 3 states• Training & coaching to support DBI
implementation
Products, Website, & Supports • Research syntheses• Model sites report• Instructional adaptation guides• Training materials• Webinars• Ask the Expert videos• Communities of practice
3636
Questions
1. How might implementation of intensive interventions impact the role that special educators play in their school? How can NCII support special educators in filling that role?
2. What systemic challenges will schools, districts, and states experience in implementing intensive interventions? What kind of support can NCII provide to help overcome these challenges?
3. How might NCII engage multiple stakeholders and perspectives in their work?
3737
National Center on Intensive Intervention
American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
General Information: 866-577-5787
Website: www.IntensiveIntervention.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
3838
Disclaimer
This presentation 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.
