Transcript Strand I: Using Intensive Intervention to Meet the

Strand I: Using Intensive Intervention
to Meet the Academic and Behavior
Needs of Struggling Learners
Session 4: Confronting Implementation Challenges
When Providing Intensive Intervention
Lou Danielson, Allison Gandhi, Rebecca Zumeta, Chris Lemons
What Is Intensive Intervention?
Intensive intervention addresses severe and
persistent learning or behavior difficulties. Intensive
intervention should be:
 Driven by data
 Characterized by increased intensity (e.g., smaller
group, expanded time) and individualization of
academic instruction and/or behavioral supports
2
Five Data-Based Individualization
(DBI) Steps
1. Secondary intervention program, delivered with greater
intensity
2. Progress monitoring
3. Informal diagnostic assessment
4. Adaptation
5. Continued progress monitoring, with adaptations
occurring whenever needed to ensure adequate
progress
3
A Bird’s Eye
View of DBI
4
High-Performing Sites:
What Have We Learned?
Allison Gruner Gandhi
American Institutes for Research
5
National Center on Intensive Intervention
(NCII) Knowledge Development Sites
 Purpose: to learn about strategies for implementing
intensive intervention from sites that have demonstrated
positive outcomes for students with disabilities (SWDs)
 Five sites:
• Alton, Illinois
• Hancock, West Virginia
• Jenison, Michigan
• Okaloosa, Florida
• Scituate, Massachusetts
6
NCII Knowledge Development Sites
 Selection criteria and process:
• Statistical analysis of state assessment data (Florida, Massachusetts, and West
Virginia)
– Sustained, strong, “better-than-predicted” academic performance for SWDs during the past five
years
• Telephone interviews
– Clearly articulated vision and strategy for intensive intervention
• Nominations from senior advisors
– Positive outcomes in behavior
• Represent diversity in size, geography, and demographics
 Data collection:
• Interviews with district and school administrators, interventionist staff, and parents
7
Okaloosa, Florida
Scituate, Massachusetts
8
Hancock, West Virginia
Jenison, Michigan
9
Alton, Illinois: Increased Implementation Fidelity (2009–11) and Reduction
in Tier 3 Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) (2006–11) Following
Comprehensive Implementation of Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS)
10
Lesson 1
 Intensive intervention is most likely to be facilitated
when implemented as a component of a multi-tiered
system of support (MTSS).
• In all sites, intensive intervention was defined as a component of an MTSS.
These systems provided an infrastructure to support services for students
with the most intensive needs, including those with disabilities, within the
general education system.
11
Lesson 2
 Family engagement can be challenging, but is
important to pursue to achieve successful outcomes
for students with intensive needs.
• Staff in all sites described family involvement as important for ensuring
success in implementing intensive intervention.
12
Lesson 3
 Implementing intensive intervention in behavior brings
a unique set of challenges, due largely to a lack of
readily available tools.
• The use of data to drive instructional decision making was pervasive in all
sites; however, the use of behavioral progress monitoring data was less
defined and consistent, largely due to a lack of tools or guidance on how to
use such tools.
13
Lesson 4
 Lack of clarity regarding the distinction between Tiers
2 and 3 in a multi-tiered intervention system can make
it challenging to appropriately design and plan for
intensive intervention.
• These five districts lacked a structured system for determining when and
how adaptations to interventions should be made. This lack of structure
made it difficult for districts to design and plan resources appropriately when
implementing intensive intervention.
14
Lesson 5
 Schools and districts should identify and seek to avoid
hidden inefficiencies in the ways in which they use
staff, particularly skilled special education staff, within
the tiered intervention system.
• The five districts all found ways to be efficient when devoting resources to
intensive intervention. However, our staff also observed subtle ways in which
these sites may have been unknowingly and unnecessarily overtaxing their
available resources. These included (a) adapting and individualizing
secondary interventions too soon, and (b) separating teams and decisionmaking processes for special education from their tiered intervention system.
15
Confronting Challenges in
NCII Implementation Sites
Rebecca Zumeta
American Institutes for Research
16
Intensive Technical Assistance (TA)
Sites
 Michigan
 Missouri
• Covert
• Columbia
• Grand Haven
• Hazelwood
• Saline
• Southern Boone
• Schwartz Creek
 Minnesota
• Minneapolis
 Rhode Island
• Bristol-Warren
• Coventry
• South Kingstown
• West Warwick
17
Intensive TA Activities








On-site training on components of DBI
Implementation coaching to reinforce training content
Student-centered intervention planning
Coaching support for meetings, data review, and teacher
observations
Collaboration with state and regional TA networks
Evaluation of implementation
Support for capacity building
Planning for implementation in secondary schools
18
19
Trends in Sites
 Very few schools implemented tiered interventions consistently
across reading, math, and behavior.
 Most sites had difficulty differentiating Tiers 2 and 3 when work
began.
 Variable inclusion of SWDs in tiered interventions
 Inconsistent implementation of progress monitoring and
graphing of data
 Frequent need for booster sessions related to lower (e.g., Tier 1
or Tier 2) intervention
20
What We Have Learned




Leadership matters.
Training is not enough—implementation support is crucial.
Interventionists are essential recipients of TA.
Personnel changes and competing initiatives impact
implementation.
 Implementation barriers occur for a variety of reasons—
such as content knowledge, resources, time, and school or
district policies.
21
Providing Responsive TA






Individualized TA plans
Response to specific training requests
Variety of coaching formats
On-site support for student planning meetings
Flexible formats and timelines for providing TA
Evaluation of implementation fidelity and barriers
22
Fidelity of Intervention in DBI
Chris Lemons
Vanderbilt University
23
Overview




What is it?
Why does it matter?
What might it look like?
Things to consider
24
What Is It?
 Extent to which an intervention’s core components have
been implemented as planned (Nelson et al., 2012)
 For DBI, this includes the instructional platform, adapted
iterations of intervention, ongoing progress monitoring, and
decision-making procedures.
 See IRIS module for additional information:
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/fid/
25
Why Does It Matter?
 Necessary to document that DBI is being carried out as
intended
 Provides guidance on how to improve DBI implementation
• Does the teacher need additional training or support?
• Is an instructional adaptation needed?
• Is there a systems-level problem (e.g., scheduling prevents sufficient
intervention time, staff do not have access to evidence-based instructional
platforms)?
26
What Might It Look Like?
 Will likely include three levels:
• Delivery of intervention (teacher log, observations)
• DBI process (checklist and documentation paperwork used in frequent team
meetings)
• Systems-level rubric (Are essential components of DBI being implemented
consistently? Are there systems-level problems that hinder DBI
implementation?)
 NCII is currently developing these measures.
27
What Might It Look Like?
 Example from Lemons, Kearns, and Davidson, 2014. [Most
recent version of Teaching Exceptional Children]
 Mrs. Arnold, a special education teacher, is implementing
DBI with one student, Rashan, in the area of reading.
 She asks the reading specialist to observe her in the initial
weeks of implementing the new intervention to provide
feedback using a codeveloped checklist of essential
intervention features.
28
What Might It Look Like?
 Special education teacher used a daily log to document
content of instruction, student attendance, and
engagement.
 Special education teacher scheduled bimonthly meetings
to review data, adaptations, and DBI procedures with the
principal and general education teacher.
 In addition, a DBI team or external evaluator could use the
NCII fidelity rubric to evaluate consistent use of DBI across
a school or district if implementation had reached that
level.
29
Things to Consider
 Fidelity is like progress monitoring for the “responsiveness”
of the system.
• Can guide improvement efforts
• Provides a feedback loop
 At the student level, it is a type of ongoing formative
assessment to guide adaptations.
30
Things to Consider
 However, fidelity should focus on both “small” (individual
teacher-student interactions) and “big” (systems-level
features) components of DBI.
• So, it is not just about whether teachers have the knowledge to implement
DBI.
• It also is about whether the bigger system is working as intended.
• There is likely a need to build in contingency plans that outline responses
when things are NOT going as planned.
31
Things to Consider
 The primary focus of assessing fidelity in DBI should be to
improve outcomes for students.
• Problem-solving focus
• Collaborative team efforts
 Documenting and trying to understand challenges will help
lead to solutions.
32
Summary and Conclusions
Lou Danielson
American Institutes for Research
33
Summary and Conclusions
 Stakes are high—SWD performance is poor.
 DBI holds great promise.
 Implementing and sustaining innovations in education is
difficult work.
 NCII is providing high-quality training and coaching.
 Implementation still may be variable.
34
Summary and Conclusions
 NCII is assessing implementation fidelity (formative
evaluation) at three levels:
• System level
• Staff level
• Student level
 Will follow up with sites based on implementation issues.
 A summative evaluation to assess student outcomes also
is in process.
35
Summary and Conclusions
 Last session of strand—We hope you understand the
potential of DBI to address the challenge before us.
Please visit our website for more information. Also, see the
current issue of Teaching Exceptional Children.
Contact us at [email protected], www.intensiveintervention.org
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
866-577-5787
36
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.
 Nelson, M. C., Cordray, D. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Sommer,
E. C. (2012). A procedure for assessing intervention fidelity
in experiments testing educational and behavioral
interventions. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services &
Research, 39(4), 374-396.
37
National Center on Intensive
Intervention
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.
38