This worksheet and rubric can be used to collect information about the fidelity of coaching so that this information can be used by coaches and other educators to continuously improve upon how coaching occurs.
Error message
The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the words in the page you tried to access.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
The MTSS Fidelity of Implementation Rubric and Summary Sheet are for use by individuals responsible for monitoring the school-level fidelity of MTSS implementation.
Research tells us that ongoing coaching is essential for achieving practice change. And without ongoing coaching and practice opportunities, professional development is highly unlikely to lead to increased knowledge and skills to implement a new practice soundly. This rings especially true for complex processes like data-based individualization (DBI). DBI requires that educators commit to engaging in the iterative process of providing intervention, analyzing progress monitoring data, and making data-based decisions to adapt and individualize interventions when needed. To help schools effectively implement DBI, ongoing implementation support in the form of coaching that provides opportunities to learn critical information, apply and receive feedback, and troubleshoot problems when they occur is essential.
In this video, Dr. Steve Goodman, Director of Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative, discusses considerations for ensuring that intensive interventions are implemented with fidelity.
On May 8, 2019, Drs. Mitch Yell, David Bateman, Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx presented Recommendations and Resources for Preparing Educators in the Endrew Era. In this webinar, Drs. Yell and Bateman draw on their recent article Free Appropriate Public Education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for Personnel Preparation in Teacher Education and Special Education. They provide an overview of Endrew’s impact on individualized instruction for students with disabilities and share six recommendations for preparing educators to meet the clarified requirements under Endrew. Drs. Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx, experts from the National Center on Intensive Intervention, illustrate how NCII resources and technical assistance supports can assist states, local agencies, and educators to address these recommendations and improve design and delivery of individualized instruction in academics and behavior.
If you are like most educators, you agree with the idea of providing intensive intervention for students with the most intractable academic and behavior problems. The question you may be asking is, how do I find the time? This guide includes strategies that educators can consider when trying to determine how to find the time for this intensification within the constraints of busy school schedules. Supplemental resources, planning questions, and example schedules are also provided.
The DBI Implementation Rubric and the DBI Implementation Interview are intended to support monitoring of school-level implementation of data-based individualization (DBI). The rubric is based on the structure of the Center on Response to Intervention’s Integrity Rubric and is aligned with the essential components of DBI and the infrastructure that is necessary for successful implementation in Grades K–6. It describes levels of implementation on a 1–5 scale across DBI components. The rubric is accompanied by the DBI Implementation Interview which includes guiding questions that may be used for a self-assessment or structured interview of a school’s DBI leadership team.
This webinar models how practitioners can use data-based individualization (DBI) to develop and implement specially designed instruction (SDI) for students with disabilities.
In this video, Derrick Bushon, Special Education Director for Swartz Creek Community Schools, shares lessons learned from implementing DBI at the district level.
The purpose of this document is to provide content-specific examples of how to structure educator-level and/or systems-level coaching as a mechanism to ensure ongoing professional learning to support tiered intervention. This document provides examples of coaching supports, models, and functions within the context of tiered intervention (e.g., RtI, PBIS, MTSS) and data-based decision making (e.g., data-based individualization [DBI]) for educators who already have foundational knowledge and/or experience with coaching.