Transcript Intensifying Interventions for Struggling Students through

Improving Results for All: The
Role of Intensive Intervention in
Federal Education Policy
Allison Gandhi, Ed.D., National Center on Intensive Intervention
Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D., University of Texas–Austin
Lee Kern, Ph.D., Lehigh University
Larry Wexler, Ed.D., U.S. Office of Special Education Programs
April 9, 2015
Results-Driven Accountability: Vision
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
2
State Systemic Improvement Plan
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
 Multiyear plan addressing:
 Reporting on progress
including:
 Infrastructure
analysis
 State-identified
measureable result
 Coherent
improvement
strategies
• Infrastructure development
• Support early intervening
services program and local
education agencies in
implementing evidencebased practices
• Results of ongoing
evaluation
• Extent of progress
 Revisions to the State
Performance Plan
• Evaluation plan
 Theory of action
Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability
(RDA) Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html
3
State-identified Measurable
Result(s)
 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
4
On What Are States Focusing?
In a May 2014 National Association of State Directors of Special Education survey
of state education agencies (32 respondents), states shared their potential focus
areas. These included the following:
Part B
Part C
 Approximately 21 states identified
 Approximately 18 states identified
reading.
social/emotional outcomes.
 Approximately 9 states identified
 Seven identified outcomes—
high school graduation.
knowledge and skills.
 Approximately six states identified
 Approximately six identified
mathematics.
outcomes—unspecified.
 Three identified preschool
 Approximately four identified
outcomes.
parent/family outcomes.
 Two identified other outcomes.
 One identified other.
5
Why Is This Important?
 Meeting SiMR goals will require a focus on improving
instruction.
 States will be in need of support on how to provide
intensive intervention for the kids who need it the most,
including:
• Evidence-based intervention strategies
• Overcoming implementation barriers
• Making connections to other state, district, and school initiatives
6
Intensive Intervention
Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D.
University of Texas, Meadows Center for
Preventing Educational Risk
7
Goals
 Participants will understand:
• How intensive intervention supports access to the Common Core
State Standards
• How to intensify instruction within a response to intervention
framework
• How to provide deeper learning opportunities for students with
learning disabilities
8
What Is Deeper Learning?
 “…the process through which an individual becomes
capable of taking what was learned in one situation and
applying it to new situations (i.e., transfer).”
– National Research Council, 2012, p. 4
9
Postsecondary Success Depends on
Deeper Learning in K–12
 Federal laws (No Child Left
Behind, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act)
have increased the focus on
accountability. Students with
disabilities are included in
assessment and data reports,
bringing the spotlight onto the
need to improve learning
outcomes for this population.
10
What Do Teachers Do to Make Deeper Learning
Accessible for Students With Disabilities?
 Most common suggestion: “Differentiate instruction for
each learner.”
 Sounds like good advice, but…
 “the actual implementation is enough to physically and
psychologically exhaust even the most capable and
motivated teachers.”
11
Our Best Thinking on Making Deeper
Learning Accessible
 Though learning challenges manifest across subject areas,
it is important to focus on developing students’ BASIC skills
(reading, writing, mathematics).
 However, do not limit instruction to ONLY these skills.
Students need rich opportunities to learn content.
12
13
Intensive Intervention
What is it?
14
How does intensive
intervention relate to
the data-based
individualization (DBI)
process and the
Common Core?
Intensification
Evidence
15
Intensive Intervention
 Individualized based on student needs
 More intense, often with substantively different content
and pedagogy
 More frequent and precise progress monitoring
 It is not instruction in core content but supports
students’ access to content by focusing on
foundational, underlying skills (e.g., a student cannot
access science text without the ability to read the
words).
16
What Can We Learn From Research
About Intensive Intervention?
 Little empirical research demonstrates specific effective
intervention programs for the lowest 3 percent to 5 percent
of readers.
 Intervention practices are typically based on expert
recommendations from a body of research.
 Monitoring progress is essential to determine impact and
intensity required for individual students.
17
More information
 For more information on intensifying intervention, see
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) webinar,
“So What Do I Do Now? Strategies for Intensifying
Intervention When Standard Approaches Don’t Work”:
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/video-resource/sowhat-do-i-do-now-strategies-intensifying-interventionwhen-standard-approaches-d-0
18
How NCII’s Approach to
Intensive Intervention for
Behavior Aligns With Recent
Federal Initiatives
Lee Kern, Ph.D.
Lehigh University
19
20
Guiding Principles
“No school can be a great school—and
ultimately prepare all students for
success—if it is not first a safe school.”
– U.S. Department of Education (2014)
21
NCII Approach to Behavior
Intervention
• Tiered Intervention
– Tier 1—Universal
– Tier 2—Targeted
– Tier 2—Intensified
– Tier 3—Function-based individualized support
• Data-Based Individualization
– Ongoing progress monitoring
– Data-based decision making
22
Tiered Intervention
 Tier 1
• Schoolwide rules
 Tier 2
• Targeted intervention for nonresponders
– Check In Check Out (CICO)
– Social skills instruction
 Tier 2 Intensified
• Modified Tier 2 based on individual data
– CICO with frequent monitoring
 Tier 3
• Functional assessment-based intervention
23
Three Guiding Principles for Improving
School Climate and Discipline
1. Climate and Prevention
2. Clear, Appropriate, and Consistent
Expectations and Consequences
3. Equity and Continuous Improvement
24
Principle 1: Climate and Prevention
 Schools that foster positive school climates can help to
engage all students in learning by preventing problem
behaviors and intervening effectively to support struggling
and at-risk students.
25
Climate and Prevention:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Prioritize the use of evidence- based
prevention strategies, such as tiered
supports.
Tiered approach to intervention
Promote social and emotional
learning.
(“[I]ntegrate into tiered support.”)
Instruction on expectations
Provide regular training and supports
to all school personnel.
Instruction for all staff
Tier 2 and 3 social skills for
nonresponders
Expertise at Tiers 2 and 3
26
Principle 2: Expectations and
Consequences
 Schools that have discipline policies or codes of conduct
with clear, appropriate, and consistently applied
expectations and consequences will help students improve
behavior, increase engagement, and boost achievement.
27
Expectations and Consequences:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Set high expectations for behavior and
adopt an instructional approach to
discipline.
(“[R]eteach behavioral expectations
and help students develop new
behavior skills.”)
Instructional approach at all tiers
Tier 1—expectations
Tier 2—small group
Tier 3—multicomponent support with
alternative behavioral strategies
Involve families, students, and school
personnel, and communicate regularly
and clearly.
Support teams
Regular communication about
progress (e.g., CICO)
28
Expectations and Consequences:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Ensure that clear, developmentally
appropriate, and proportional
consequences apply for misbehavior.
(“[B]ase disciplinary penalties on
specific and objective criteria
whenever possible” and “written
policies in…language the reader can
understand, sanctions imposed for
specific offenses, and opportunities to
provide feedback to ensure common
understanding.”)
Clear expectations, stated positively in
developmentally appropriate simple
language
Specific guidelines for behavioral
infractions and consequences
29
Expectations and Consequences:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Create policies that include
Tier 3 intervention
appropriate procedures for students
- Individualized
with disabilities and due process for all - Linked to assessment information
students.
(“[C]omply with the federal and state
Progress monitoring
laws that provide special requirements
for the discipline of students with
disabilities.”)
30
Expectations and Consequences:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Remove students from the classroom
only as a last resort, ensure that
alternative settings provide academic
instruction, and return students to
class as soon as possible.
(“Ensure that discipline policies
emphasize constructive interventions,
such as behavioral instruction and
tiered supports to keep students in the
classroom.”)
Tiered system of support
Intervention focus on instruction
31
Principle 3: Equity and Continuous
Improvement
 Schools that build staff capacity and continuously evaluate
the school’s discipline policies and practices are more
likely to ensure fairness and equity and promote
achievement for all students.
32
Equity and Continuous Improvement:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Train all school staff to apply school discipline
policies and practices in a fair and equitable
manner.
(“Ensure fairness and equity to all students.”
“Educators and other school personnel need
to be equipped with knowledge and skills to
prevent and address conflicts, meet the
behavioral needs of diverse students, and
fairly and equitably apply discipline policies
and practices. Staff should also be equipped
to apply discipline using individualized
approaches….”)
Staff training
Individualized approach to
intervention
33
Equity and Continuous Improvement:
Action Steps
Action Step
NCII Protocol
Use proactive, data-driven, and continuous
efforts, including gathering feedback from
families, students, teachers, and school
personnel to prevent, identify, reduce, and
eliminate discriminatory discipline and
unintended consequences.
(“Train all school staff to apply school
discipline policies and practices in a fair and
equitable manner”; “Recordkeeping
system…disaggregated”; “establish
procedures for regular and frequent
review.”)
Ongoing data collection
Systems for data collection
designed to easily disaggregate
data
All decision making based on
data
34
Why Focus on Intensive
Intervention?
Larry Wexler, Ed.D.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs
35
Federal Perspective






IDEA is an Individual Entitlement
Challenge of Minimal responders to E-B Instruction
Low incidence: Traditional Definition
Low incidence is a high priority
Academics
Behavior
Redefined Low Incidence to include
• …persistent and severe learning and behavioral problems that need the
most intensive individualized supports
36
Federal Investments:
Intensive Intervention




National Center on Intensive Intervention
Individual Doctoral Training Grants
Consortia Doctoral Training Grant
Masters Level Teacher Training
37
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.
38
References
 National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing
Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Committee on Defining
Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J.W. Pellegrino and M.L. Hilton,
Editors. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
 U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for
improving school climate and discipline. Washington, DC: Author.
39
National Center on Intensive Intervention
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
866-577-5787
www.intensiveintervention.org
Email:[email protected]
Twitter: @TheNCII
40