1

Intensive Intervention’s Role in Results-Driven Accountability

Lou Danielson, Ph.D. January 28, 2015

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 3

Example: NAEP Reading, Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students at or Above “Proficient” (1998

–

2013)

(http://nationsreportcard.gov/) Students w/ no identified disability Students w/ disabilities 4

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

5

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

Data Analysis; Infrastructure Analysis; State-identified measureable result; Coherent Improvement Strategies; Theory of Action.

•

Phase II Plan

Multi-year plan addressing: • Infrastructure Development; • Support EIS Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices; • Evaluation Plan.

• •

Phase III Evaluation

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 http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

•

Evaluation

of progress annually • Adjust plan as needed • Initiate

Data Analysis

• Conduct broad

Infrastructure Analysis

• Identify problem area

SSIP Phase III How well is the solution working?

What is the problem ?

SSIP Phase I SSIP SSIP Phase I SSIP Phase I and II What shall

• Search/evaluate evidence based solutions (Exploration Phase) • Develop action steps (address barriers/use leverage points) • Develop

Theory of Action

• Develop

Plan for Improvement

(Implementation Framework)

we do about it?

Why is it happening?

• Conduct root cause analysis (including infrastructure) to identify contributing factors • For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html

7

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. 8

What are states focusing on?

In a May 2014 NASDSE survey of SEAs (32 respondents) States shared their potential focus areas. These included: 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

9

Supporting Students through Intensive Intervention

10

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) 11

Mean Effect Sizes for Students With Reading Difficulties Provided Intensive Interventions

Student Outcome Comprehension Reading Fluency Word Reading Spelling Early Elementary K – 3

Mean ES .46

No. of Effects 25 Mean ES .09

Upper Grades 4 – 9

No. of Effects 37 .34

.56

.40

11 53 24 .12

.20

.20

8 22 5

Note:

ES = effect size (Wanzek et al., 2013) 12

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) 13

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) 14

What Intensive Intervention…

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 15

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.

16

DBI Assumptions

More Help More Practice

Validated programs are not universally effective programs; 3 to 5 percent of students need more help (Fuchs et al., 2008; NCII, 2013b). Students with intensive needs often require 10 –30 times more practice than peers to learn new information (Gersten et al., 2008). 17

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. 18

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). 19

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 20

21

Illustrations of Standards Aligned Instruction Across the Tiers

22

A Bird’s Eye View of DBI

23

Case Example: Reading

24

Steps of DBI in Reading

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Secondary prevention with greater intensity Progress monitoring Diagnostic assessment Adaptation of the intervention Iterations

3 4 1 2

Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Lemons, Kearns, & Davidson, 2014

5

25

Meet Kelsey

She is in fourth grade Reads at a second-grade level Participated in a secondary intervention using a research-validated program Group of six Explicit instruction 30 minutes, 4 times a week, for 7 weeks Led by knowledgeable paraprofessional 26

Kelsey’s Secondary Intervention Progress

Progress monitored on a measure of passage reading fluency Baseline Initial Instruction Instructional Change 60 40 20 0 140 120 100 80 Goal Line Her aim/goal line (where we want her weekly scores to be) Her progress (her actual scores)

Date

27

Quantitative Changes Time 4 days



5 days Group 6 students



3 students

1

28

Kelsey’s Progress After Intensified Intervention

2

Baseline Initial Instruction Instructional Change 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Goal Line

Date

29

Conduct Informal Diagnostic Assessment and Use Results

1.

2.

3.

Review the diagnostic assessments Come up with a theory about what might be causing the student’s academic difficulty Start considering adaptations

3 Spellings include all sounds

knife twin

Good sight word knowledge PM errors are mainly

spin … IDK count?

30

Adaptation for Kelsey: Qualitative Changes

Skip ahead in the scope and sequence to the polysyllabic lessons Supplement with polysyllabic strategies … Lovett, Lacarenza, & Borden, 2000 4 Peeling off

“I peel off (affix) at the beginning (or end) of the word. The root is ____. The word is ____.” (p. 468)

Vowel alert

“First, I will try /

first pronunciation

/, then I will try /

second pronunciation

/, and see which gives me a real word.” (p. 469)

Results of Adaptation

2

32

5

Evaluation of Kelsey’s Progress

 Kelsey’s reading is improving but not fast enough to achieve her goal. Another instructional change is needed.  Kelsey’s teacher may collect additional diagnostic data if needed to make an informed instructional change.  Kelsey’s teacher will continue to collect progress monitoring data and meet with the intervention team to evaluate progress and modify the plan as needed. 33

Things to Remember About DBI

 DBI is intense —relatively few students should need it (3 percent to 5 percent of the school population).

 DBI is an ongoing process that may take multiple rounds of adaptation to meet student needs.

 Academic and behavior supports do not exist in isolation.

 Areas of need may vary by domain (e.g, reading, math, writing)  Every student presents unique needs so interventions will look different. 34

Scaling Intensive Intervention

35

Key Lessons From our TA work

 Staff commitment  Student plans  Student meetings  Valid, reliable data  Inclusion of students with disabilities 36

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) 37

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) 38

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 39

Progress Monitoring

Key Element

   Valid, reliable progress monitoring tools are used.

Data are graphed.

Data are collected at regular intervals.

Flexibility Within Implementation

  Choice of tool Use of progress monitoring data at other tiers 40

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 41

How can we scale intensive intervention to support states?

 Initiated communication with the states where we are providing TA to discuss potential state level capacity building • • Connecting to state level technical assistance networks Holding a focus group about how we may scale DBI and intensive intervention within state • Provide training to professional development providers through Train the Trainer framework 42

How can we scale intensive intervention to support states?

 Collaboration with the National Center on Systemic Improvement.

• • Supporting the implementation of evidence-based approaches Supporting the use of data Learn more at http://ncsi.wested.org/ 43

Universal Technical Assistance

www.intensiveintervention.org

44

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 45

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 46

Webinars

View archived webinars and look for announcements about the next live webinar: www.intensiveintervention.org

Next live webinar is tomorrow at 3pm ET focused on fractions instruction. Visit our website to register 47

Examples of Standards Aligned Instruction Across Tiers

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/illustration-standards relevant-instruction-across-levels-tiered-system 48

Sample Activities and Materials

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources/sample lessons-activities/mathematics 49

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

50

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.

51

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 52

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-framework intensive-intervention 53

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

54

National Center on Intensive Intervention 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 866-577-5787 www.intensiveintervention.org

[email protected]

@TheNCII 55

Please click this link to complete a quick evaluation of this webinar: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TACCwebinar series And please don’t miss our next upcoming Webinar!

“The Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR)”

Thursday, Feb 5th, 1pm EST (15-20 min)