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 ( 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 4 Slide adapted from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from

SSIP Activities by Phase Year 1— FFY 2013 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2—FFY 2014 Delivered by Feb 2016 Years 3-6—FFY Feb Feb 2020 Phase I Analysis Phase II Plan Phase III Evaluation 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

6 Conduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factorsConduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvementFor each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Conduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factorsConduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvementFor each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Search/evaluate evidence- based solutions (Exploration Phase)Search/evaluate evidence- based solutions (Exploration Phase) Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points)Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points) Develop Theory of ActionDevelop Theory of Action Develop Plan for Improvement (Implementation Framework)Develop Plan for Improvement (Implementation Framework) Search/evaluate evidence- based solutions (Exploration Phase)Search/evaluate evidence- based solutions (Exploration Phase) Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points)Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points) Develop Theory of ActionDevelop Theory of Action Develop Plan for Improvement (Implementation Framework)Develop Plan for Improvement (Implementation Framework) Initiate Data AnalysisInitiate Data Analysis Conduct broad Infrastructure AnalysisConduct broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify problem areaIdentify problem area Initiate Data AnalysisInitiate Data Analysis Conduct broad Infrastructure AnalysisConduct broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify problem areaIdentify problem area Evaluation of progress annuallyEvaluation of progress annually Adjust plan as neededAdjust plan as needed Evaluation of progress annuallyEvaluation of progress annually Adjust plan as neededAdjust plan as needed How well is the solution working? What is the problem ? Why is it happening? What shall we do about it? 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

 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 – 3Upper Grades 4 – 9 Mean ES No. of Effects Mean ES No. of Effects Comprehension Reading Fluency Word Reading Spelling 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 – (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

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 to Intensive Intervention? 15

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

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? 19

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 Percentage of Points Earned

 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 in Tier 2 Intervention for Two Weeks 28 Percentage of Points Earned

 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 Tier 2 Intensified Tier 3 Frequency

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 Universal Technical Assistance

Tools Charts 50 Academic Progress Monitoring t/progress-monitoring t/progress-monitoring Academic Intervention t/instructional-intervention-tools t/instructional-intervention-tools Behavioral Progress Monitoring t/behavioral-progress-monitoring-tools t/behavioral-progress-monitoring-tools Behavioral Intervention t/behavioral-intervention-chart t/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

Webinars 52 View archived webinars and look for announcements about the next live webinar:

53 relevant-instruction-across-levels-tiered-system Examples of Standards- Aligned Instruction Across Tiers

Sample Activities and Materials 54 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 National Center on Intensive Intervention Twitter handle: Connect to NCII 55

This module was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q 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 ). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from Danielson, L. & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization, Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 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, 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 ). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from 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), National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Nation's Report Card, A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading. Institute for Education Sciences. 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. 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. intensive-interventionhttp:// intensive-intervention References 58

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., et al. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES ). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from 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 ). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from 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: / U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2014). OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from References 59

National Center on Intensive Intervention 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC