Why
We Need to Validate the “Experts’” Recommendations
Dear
Colleagues,
As I work with schools and
districts nationwide— helping them to address the needs of academically
struggling or behaviorally challenging students— I find it essential to ask a
series of “drill-down” questions so that I fully understand the students’
difficulties and what the school has learned or is doing with the students.
For example, when schools say
that they are “doing” Response-to-Intervention (RtI) or Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) or even the Transformational (federal) option
for school improvement-- exactly what
are they doing? We need to know the
functional components or activities being implemented. We need to know operational descriptions of
the specific steps being implemented.
And, we need to know the intended outcomes, how they are being
evaluated, and what the short- and long-term results are.
In the absence of this
information, we do not know if the correct instructional or intervention
approaches have been selected. . . if they have been implemented in an
evidence-based or research-based way. . . and whether they have been successful,
partially successful, partially unsuccessful, or completely unsuccessful.
If partially or completely
unsuccessful, we should not necessarily conclude that “the student has a more
complex or resistant problem” than we first thought. Instead, we need to complete a data-based
evaluation of the entire problem-solving process because, instead of this being
a student-centered issue, we may have:
* Identified or prioritized the wrong problem
* Analyzed the problem incorrectly or
incompletely
*
Prioritized the intervention targets incorrectly, or selected the wrong
intervention
* Implemented the intervention incorrectly, or
without the needed resources or level of intensity
* Used an incomplete approach to evaluation, or
evaluation tools that did not have the needed sensitivity or specificity
I am not trying to make the
problem-solving and evaluation process more complex or time-consuming. Instead--
knowing that we are already investing the time, energy, resources, and
expertise to solve the problem-- I am
suggesting that we get the “biggest bang for the buck”. . . or return on our
investment.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We Do What We Know (or
What We are Told to Do)
At times, we are required to
do something in our classroom, school, or district-- for example, by law, statute, or
mandate-- and we are left to
design and implement the specific approaches to functionally and successfully
address the requirement in a short period of time. When this occurs, in our busy, sometimes chaotic
and crisis-filled professional world, we usually depend on others’ expertise to
“work the problem.”
And, believe me, I do the same
thing.
But, at the same time, when I
solicit expertise to address my knowledge or skill weaknesses and gaps, I am
mindful that— especially for complex problems--
there are “many roads to Rome.”
That is, my “experts” are likely provide me with different opinions,
recommendations, supportive research studies, and solutions. Ultimately, I will need to differentiate,
validate, reconcile, and choose-- in an
informed way-- what I think is the best
pathway to my student- and staff-centered destination. But, in the end, it is still my
responsibility to both address the mandate, and choose the best solution
(regardless of the experts who have counseled me).
But, in my consultations
around the country, this sometimes does not occur. In fact, sometimes, the wrong solutions to
the right problems are selected because decision-makers:
* Don’t have the time to make the informed
choices
* Don’t have the information or skill to make
the informed choices
* Implicitly “trust” the experts and do not
externally validate their recommendations
* Cannot implement the right solutions due to
limited resources
* Do not have the needed political or
positional (e.g., within the “chain of command”) influence
Among the wrong educational
decisions still advocated by some national experts or national technical
assistance centers (and still being implemented across the country because of
the conditions above) are the following:
* Immediately accepting the results of a
screening tool and moving immediately to (Tier I or II) interventions
(Instead of validating the
results of the screener, and doing the diagnostic assessments to identify the
underlying problem that is then addressed by evidence- or research-based
interventions linked to the assessment results.)
_ _ _ _ _
* Assuming that the problem is
student-centered, and that when students “do not respond to an intervention”
that the student needs more intensive intervention
(Instead of assessing for
current or past instructional or curricular gaps or ineffective practices that
validate that the student can learn or behave appropriately, but was not
given the opportunity.)
_ _ _ _ _
* Keeping struggling students in the core
curriculum (with minimal remedial or intervention support) when their
instructional and functional gaps are so large that they cannot benefit from
either the core curriculum (because they do not have the prerequisite skills to
learn at that level) or the intervention (because it cannot be implemented long
enough or intensively enough)
(Rather than redesigning the
core curriculum for students functioning, for example, one or more grade levels
below their grade-level placements so that they are largely taught at their
instructional and optimal learning levels.)
_ _ _ _ _
* Waiting for students to exhibit
interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution,
and/or emotional coping challenges in the school or classroom, and then
providing them (Tier 2) social, emotional, or behavioral skill instruction in
pull-out groups that isolate them from their peer group and from the settings
where their challenging behavior occurs
(Rather than providing a
sequenced and scaffolded preschool through high school “Health, Mental Health,
and Wellness” regular classroom curriculum that teaches all students these
skills at the right developmental level--
focusing on prevention, positive school and classroom climates,
prosocial interactions, and academic engagement.)
_ _ _ _ _
* Utilizing a rigid Tier I to Tier II to Tier
III progression where students must “fail” at the previous tier level in order
to “qualify” for services at the next tier level
(Rather than immediately
matching the intensity level of services and supports needed to the severity of
the problem-- based on the diagnostic
assessments referenced above and immediately below.)
_ _ _ _ _
* Waiting until Tier III to get either an
initial or comprehensive historical, functional, and diagnostic picture of the
student and his/her underlying problems--
so that the services, supports, strategies, and/or programs needed to
address the situation are identified and implemented as quickly, intensively,
and successfully as possible.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What Would your Doctor Do
? The “First Things First”
When some of the above
practices have been implemented, they end up (a) not solving the problem, (b)
delaying the right services and supports to students, (c) making some students’
problems worse and/or more resistant to change, (d) blaming the student for the
“problem,” such that missing or ineffective instruction or curricular factors are
not evaluated, and (e) wasting time, energy, resources, and expertise.
In the latter situation-- where a review of the student’s status and
history, and a diagnostic assessment of the underlying reasons for the existing
problem are delayed-- one might
rhetorically ask, “Would your doctor do this?” That is, would your doctor begin a medical
treatment in the absence of your medical history, diagnostic medical tests, a
consultation (if she or he was uncertain regarding the best treatment), and the
scientific certainty that the selected intervention was the correct one.
With the rhetorical answer
being, “No,” below is a list of the “First Things First”— the first
things that any teacher or educator needs to do before formally
exploring the underlying reasons why a student is academically struggling or
presenting with behavioral challenges:
* Review the Records. Examine all of the existing cumulative,
attendance, assessment, and intervention records on the student that are
present in or available to the school (e.g., from previous schools or others)
so that the student’s history, progress, and instructional and intervention
successes and failures are catalogued.
* Determine the Student’s Current Functional
Skills. Complete the formal and informal
assessments needed to identify the current functional skill level of the
student in all academic and behavioral areas, how much progress the student has
made on an annual basis, and how big the skill gaps are relative to the
student’s chronological age and peers.
* Discount or Factor-in All Physical,
Medical, and Biological Factors.
Validate (or not) the presence (or absence) of vision and hearing, diet
and nutrition, sleep and stress, physical and physiological, neurological and
biochemical, genetic and family history, and other medical factors that may be
implicated in the academic or behavioral difficulties present.
* Interview the Parents/Guardians. To determine the student’s physical, social,
developmental, learning, and behavioral status and history, progress, and
changes over time; their perspectives of the current problem and when it began;
and their commitment to helping with interventions and other strategies.
* Interview Previous Teachers,
Administrators, and Intervention Specialists. To get their perspectives of the problem and
its history, the data and analyses that they collected and conducted, the
solutions that they tried along with their outcomes, and their interactions
with the student over time.
* Observe the Problem in Real-Time. Have someone observe the student in the
settings where the problem exists. . . during times when it is present and when
it is not present. These observations
provide both another objective perspective of the frequency, significance, and/or
intensity of the problems, as well as a beginning analysis of the setting and
situational factors that may co-exist with and/or trigger the problem.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary and Conclusions
Whether we are discussing a
student who has not passed a state’s high stakes proficiency test, or a student
who is not responding to effective instruction and classroom management with a
teacher, we need to design systems and implement specific strategies that
analyze why the problems exist so that the right instructional or intervention
approaches can be implemented to address the root causes in effective and
efficient ways.
Beyond this, we need to be
good “empirical consumers” so that, when we consult (directly or indirectly)
the other experts, we have the ability to make objective, informed, and
strategic choices as to whether their expertise is sound and what we need to
do.
While I know that all of this
takes time, as noted above, we often are already investing the time-- many times, with minimal pay-back. And so, the suggestion is to invest our time
wisely at the front-end, so that we end up spending less (or no) time at the
back-end. . . because the problem has been solved.
I hope that some of the
ideas above are thought-provoking, and motivate you to look at how you are
providing services and supports to all of your students. If these ideas
validate what you are doing. . . excellent !!! If they uncover areas of
improvement. . . I appreciate your willingness and dedication to the change and
improvement process.
Beyond all of this, as we approach the holidays and,
especially, Thanksgiving this week, I hope that you will take some time to
reflect on your accomplishments and the people in your life that share in these
successes.
None of us works in isolation. Whether to our
colleagues or our families, take the time to give thanks and to give them
thanks. Working in our field is not easy sometimes. . . but it is
important.
I thank you for everything that you do to
support your students, staff, and schools.
Best,
