First, teachers, related service professionals, and family members work together to select three priority goals from the learner’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). It is critical to the scaling process that the selected goals are observable and measurable. If not, they need to be revised. Next, a five-point scale is developed to quantify progress on each selected goal. The lowest point on this scale, ‘much less than expected’, describes the learner’s present level of performance at the beginning of the academic year. The second point, ‘somewhat less than expected’, describes a benchmark between the present level of performance and the annual goal described in the IEP. The third point, ‘expected level of outcome’, describes the progress expected to be made by the end of the academic year, as described by the selected annual goal from the IEP. The fourth and fifth points on the scale, ‘somewhat more than expected’ and ‘much more than expected’ describe learner performance that goes above and beyond the level of performance described in the IEP goal or IFSP outcome.

At regular points throughout  the academic year, learner progress is gauged using the GAS, and a point is selected at the end of the academic year that best describes the learner’s level of performance for a given goal. This final rating summarizes the learner’s progress relative to the expected annual outcome. Thinking in terms of GAS gives educational teams a framework to work with families to select priority goals, identify appropriate expectations for a learner, and to closely monitor learner outcomes. Please see the resources sections for a GAS powerpoint presentation, GAS procedures form, and a GAS template.

The Age and Domain graph included in the resources section identifies the 24 evidence based practices by which domains of instruction and age groups were targeted in the research. While this format provides professionals with information on what practices may be most useful in targeting certain skills, it is not meant to be restrictive.

The NPDC sometimes encourages teams to identify a single EBP to use with an individual goal. This is especially helpful for teams who are hesitant about the process and/or less confident in their teaching skills. However, few practices are ever really used in isolation. Prompting and reinforcement, for example, are used in almost all of the other practices. Task analysis, too, is used prior to teaching skills through video modeling, visual supports, etc. Teams are encouraged, through coaching and mentoring, to explore the overlap of practices. For example, video modeling can be used to teach a self-management system. A social narrative can be written to explain the routine of a social skills training group. A speech generating device may be used by a learner in the context of a peer-mediated intervention. The understanding required to use practices concurrently, while still being mindful of fidelity of implementation, is an important component in the development of skillful teachers and practitioners.

Not all students are alike, which is why experienced educators know that no single teaching practice will work for all students. The value in having a list of identified evidence-based focused interventions is that the characteristics of individual learners can be the foremost consideration when selecting practices for instruction. There are four areas for consideration when identifying EBP for individual students, including: 1) learning style, 2) temperament, 3) interest and motivators, and 4) history of what has and has not worked.

Combining scientific understanding with professional wisdom has always been considered best instructional practice.  Teachers and other practitioners are encouraged to look at their own strengths and interests in the selection of EBP. Technology-minded professionals may be interested in exploring the use of video modeling; other professionals may be more inclined to initiate a parent-implemented intervention. Environmental factors also may influence the selection of EBP. For example, if a classroom is already set up as a structured teaching environment, then structured work systems may be an obvious place to start. If a student is to be served in an inclusive preschool setting, naturalistic interventions may be most appropriate. The NPDC encourages practitioners to build on strengths and interests, but also cautions that not every EBP will work for every learner.

Samples of other instruments that collect baseline and ending data can be found in the resources section. These other instruments are briefly described below:

Target Student EBP Checklist: This is a list of the 24 EBP, and teachers are asked to identify which practices were currently being used with each target student. They are told not to report only on practices being used to fidelity, but any practice that is being used with the student.

Baseline Implementation Checklists: Coaches fill out a baseline implementation checklist for any practice that is targeted by a team. If it is a practice that the team is already using, the checklist is filled out based on observations of implementation. If the team has not yet used the practice, the checklist is filled out with all “zeros” for baseline.

Family Demographic Survey: This survey provides the project with information related to the targeted students and their families.

Family Program Questionnaire: This survey provides the project with information about the family’s overall satisfaction with their child’s education program.

Both the Family Demographic Survey and the Family Program Questionnaire are usually given to the families by the learner’s teacher, and then mailed back to the partnering NPDC site in a provided and pre-paid envelope.