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

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

What Is Intensive Intervention?

2

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

Five Data-Based Individualization (DBI) Steps

3

4

A Bird’s Eye View of DBI

5

High-Performing Sites: What Have We Learned?Allison Gruner GandhiAmerican Institutes for Research

6

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

National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) Knowledge Development Sites

7

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

NCII Knowledge Development Sites

8

Okaloosa, Florida Scituate, Massachusetts

9

Hancock, West Virginia Jenison, Michigan

10

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)

11

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.

Lesson 1

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.

Lesson 2

12

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.

Lesson 3

13

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.

Lesson 4

14

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 decision-making processes for special education from their tiered intervention system.

Lesson 5

15

16

Confronting Challenges in NCII Implementation SitesRebecca ZumetaAmerican Institutes for Research

17

Michigan• Covert

• Grand Haven

• Saline

• Schwartz Creek

Minnesota• Minneapolis

Missouri• Columbia

• Hazelwood

• Southern Boone

Rhode Island• Bristol-Warren

• Coventry

• South Kingstown

• West Warwick

Intensive Technical Assistance (TA) Sites

18

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

Intensive TA Activities

19

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

Trends in Sites

20

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.

What We Have Learned

21

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

Providing Responsive TA

22

23

Fidelity of Intervention in DBIChris LemonsVanderbilt University

24

What is it? Why does it matter? What might it look like? Things to consider

Overview

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/

What Is It?

25

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)?

Why Does It Matter?

26

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.

What Might It Look Like?

27

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.

What Might It Look Like?

28

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.

What Might It Look Like?

29

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.

Things to Consider

30

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.

Things to Consider

31

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.

Things to Consider

32

33

Summary and ConclusionsLou DanielsonAmerican Institutes for Research

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.

Summary and Conclusions

34

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.

Summary and Conclusions

35

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 ncii@air.org, www.intensiveintervention.org 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street NWWashington, DC 20007-3835866-577-5787

Summary and Conclusions

36

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.

References

37

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.

National Center on Intensive Intervention

38