National Center for Intensive
Intervention: Data-Driven Tertiary
Services
Lou Danielson, Ph.D. Lee Kern, Ph.D.
T. Chris Riley-Tillman, Ph.D
What we know about students with
disabilities
Low academic achievement
Above average dropout rates
Higher than average arrest rates
For more information: Sanford et al., 2011; NAEP, 2013; Planty et
al., 2008, Aud et al., 2012
2
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
Vision for RDA
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
Slide adapted from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven
Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html
4
SSIP Activities by Phase
Year 1— FFY 2013
Delivered by April 2015
Year 2—FFY 2014
Delivered by Feb 2016
Years 3-6—FFY 2015-18
Feb 2017- Feb 2020
Phase I
Analysis
Phase II
Plan
Phase III
Evaluation
• Data Analysis;
• Multi-year plan
addressing:
• Reporting on Progress
including:
• Infrastructure Analysis;
• State-identified
measureable result;
• Infrastructure
Development;
• Results of Ongoing
Evaluation;
• Coherent Improvement
Strategies;
• Support EIS
Program/LEA in
Implementing
Evidence-Based
Practices;
• Extent of Progress.
• Theory of Action.
• Revisions to the SPP.
• Evaluation Plan.
Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability
(RDA) Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html
• Evaluation of progress annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP
Phase III
• Initiate Data Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify problem area
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
SSIP
Phase I
SSIP
SSIP
Phase I and II
• Search/evaluate
evidencebased solutions
(Exploration Phase)
What shall
we do
about it?
• Develop action steps
(address barriers/use
leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
SSIP
Phase I
• Conduct root
cause analysis
(including
infrastructure) to
identify
contributing
factors
• For each contributing
factor, identify both
barriers and leverage
points for improvement
Why is it
happening?
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
SiMR
 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.
7
What are states focusing on?
In a May 2014 NASDSE survey of SEAs (32 respondents)
States shared their potential focus areas. These included:
Part C
Part B
• Approximately 21 states identified
reading
• Approximately 18 states identified
social/emotional outcomes
• Approximately 9 states identified
high school graduation.
• 7 identified outcomes knowledge and skills
• Approximately 6 states identified
math
• Approximately 6 identified
outcomes - unspecified
• 3 identified preschool outcomes
• Approximately 4 identified
parent/family outcomes
• 2 identified other outcomes
• 1 identified other
8
Supporting Students through
Intensive Intervention
9
What can we do?
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)
10
Mean Effect Sizes for Students With Reading
Difficulties Provided Intensive Interventions
Student Outcome
Early Elementary K–3
Comprehension
.46
No. of
Effects
25
Reading Fluency
.34
Word Reading
Spelling
.09
No. of
Effects
37
11
.12
8
.56
53
.20
22
.40
24
.20
5
Mean ES
Note: ES = effect size
Upper Grades 4–9
Mean ES
(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
(NCII, 2013a)
12
Patterns Observed in High-Performing Sites:
Lessons From Knowledge Development Sites
 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
(NCII, 2013a)
13
What Intensive Intervention…
Is…
Is Not…
 Individualized based on
student needs
 More intense, often with
substantively different
content AND pedagogy
 Comprised of more
frequent and precise
progress monitoring




A single approach
A manual
A preset program
More of the same Tier 1
instruction
 More of the same Tier 2
instruction
14
What is NCII’s Approach to
Intensive Intervention?
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.
15
DBI Assumptions
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).
16
DBI Assumptions
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.
17
DBI Assumptions
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).
18
Who Needs DBI?
• 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
19
A Bird’s Eye
View of DBI
20
Case Example: Behavior
21
Case Example: Jeff
• 12-years-old
• Problem behavior: aggression, disruption,
calling out, talking back, interrupting peers
• Tier 1 intervention: School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support
22
Decision Rules: Tier 1
 Tier 1 Responsiveness:
• NO MORE THAN 2 ODRs ACROSS 2+ MONTHS
23
Jeff’s Rates of Office Discipline Referrals
(ODRs) Before Tier 2 Intervention
24
Decision Rules: Tier 2 CICO
 Tier 2 Responsiveness:
• EARNS 70% OF POINTS DAILY
25
Percentage of Points Earned
Jeff’s Percentage of Points Earned
in Tier 2 Intervention for Two Weeks
Tier 2
Intervention
Introduced
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
26
Tier 2 Intensified
 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
27
Percentage of Points Earned
Jeff’s Percentage of Points Earned in
Tier 2 Intervention for Two Weeks
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tier 2
2
4
6
Tier 2 Intensified
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
28
Tier 3 Assessment
 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
29
Results of Functional Assessment
 Escape Function
• Difficult work
– Assignments with reading
• Lengthy tasks
 Attention Function
• Adult
• Peer
30
Jeff’s Target Behavior Questionnaire
(Case Sample 1)
31
Jeff’s Anecdotal Reports
(Case Sample 2)
Mrs. Coleman completed a series of anecdotal checklists,
recording the times and conditions when the behaviors
occurred.
32
Identifying Potential Target
Behaviors
Mrs. Coleman identified the following potential target
behaviors for Jeff:
 Out of seat
 Curses
 Talks out
 Threatens
 Fights
 Argues
 Hits, kicks
33
Prioritizing Problem Behavior for
Intervention (Janney & Snell)
 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
Jeff’s Target Behavior Prioritization
 Jeff’s target behaviors for progress monitoring:
• Hitting / kicking
• Threatening
35
Tier 3 Intervention
 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
36
Data Collection
 Hitting/Kicking: Frequency count
 Threatening: Daily Behavior Report (DBR) rating
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.
(Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman,
& Christ, 2010)
38
Management Process for Jeff’s
DBR Data
 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
39
Jeff’s Target Behavior Data:
Hitting/Kicking
4
Tier 2 Intensified
Tier 3
Frequency
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
40
Jeff’s Target Behavior Data:
Threatening
41
Scaling Intensive Intervention
42
Key Lessons From our TA work





Staff commitment
Student plans
Student meetings
Valid, reliable data
Inclusion of students with disabilities
43
Staff Commitment
Key Element
Commitment of:
 Principal
 Intervention staff
 Special educators
Flexibility Within
Implementation
 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
Key Element
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
Flexibility Within
Implementation
 Content area(s)
 Number of student plans
 Grade level(s)
45
Student Meetings
Key Element
 Student meetings are
data driven.
 There is a regularly
scheduled time to meet.
 Meetings are structured
to maximize efficiency
and focused problem
solving
Flexibility Within
Implementation
 Frequency
 Schedule
 Team members
46
Progress Monitoring
Key Element
Flexibility Within
Implementation
 Valid, reliable progress
 Choice of tool
monitoring tools are used.  Use of progress Data are graphed.
monitoring data at
 Data are collected at
other tiers
regular intervals.
47
Students With Disabilities
Key Element
 Students with disabilities
must have access to
intensive intervention.
Flexibility Within
Implementation
 Who delivers intervention
for students with
disabilities
 Inclusion of students with
and without IEPs
48
Universal Technical Assistance
www.intensiveintervention.org
49
Tools
Charts
Academic Progress Monitoring
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/char
t/progress-monitoring
Academic Intervention
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/char
t/instructional-intervention-tools
Behavioral Progress Monitoring
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/char
t/behavioral-progress-monitoring-tools
Behavioral Intervention
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/char
t/behavioral-intervention-chart
50
DBI Training Series
 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
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/content/dbi-training-series
51
Webinars
View archived
webinars and look for
announcements about
the next live webinar:
www.intensiveintervention.org
52
Examples of
StandardsAligned
Instruction
Across Tiers
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/illustration-standardsrelevant-instruction-across-levels-tiered-system
53
Sample
Activities
and Materials
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources/samplelessons-activities/mathematics
54
Connect to NCII
 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
55
Disclaimer
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.
56
References
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
57
References
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-frameworkintensive-intervention
58
References
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
59
National Center on Intensive Intervention
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
866-577-5787
www.intensiveintervention.org
ncii@air.org
@TheNCII
60