Effective Research-to-Practice Multi-Tiered Approaches
that Facilitate All Students’ Success
Dear Colleagues,
A (Re)Introduction
[CLICK
HERE to read or re-read Part I of this two-part Blog discussion.]
The focus of this
two-part Blog discussion (this being Part II) involves the reality that:
* Many districts
and schools across the country are struggling to implement sound and
effective multi-tiered services that are actually demonstrating the outcomes
needed for academically struggling and behaviorally challenging students.
* Many schools have
limited intervention resources and resource people... but the
resources they have often do not have the deep and intensive intervention
expertise that they need, or they are not strategically deployed so that
they can provide the intensity of services needed by their students.
And most
critically, that:
* Many districts
and schools are using (or are “required” by their State Departments of Education
to use) obsolete and originally scientifically-unsound frameworks in the
areas of MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports), PBIS (Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports), and RtI (Response to Intervention).
Said a different
way:
* Many districts
and schools have professionals with (a) intervention gaps, that (b) are compounded
by unsound MTSS/RtI implementation processes (sometimes advocated by their
state through professional developers at their county school districts,
Regional Resource Centers, University Institutes and departmental faculty, etc.),
that (c) are based on the U.S. Department of Education’s (largely
through the Office of Special Education Programs—OSEP—and its
tax-dollar-funded National Technical Assistance Centers) less-than-effective MTSS,
PBIS, and RtI frameworks.
_ _ _ _ _
Part I of this
two-part series described (and included near-verbatim) sections of a state
grant MTSS proposal that was submitted for a district applying for school
improvement funds in a state that had largely codified OSEP’s MTSS/RtI process
in law and statute. This District had
numerous schools that were identified as “Focus” schools—in need of
improvement—based on the State’s Accountability Model.
As such, the grant
RFP appeared to require unsound practices that anyone with psychometric,
implementation science, and systems scale-up knowledge and experience would
know would not work, and would either delay services to or
educationally harm students.
As noted in Part
I: In writing the RFP, we addressed
this situation by:
* Presenting the
research-to-practice data and results that invalidated the unsound
practices in the state’s framework;
* Detailing the
research-to-practice data and results that validated our proposed
effective practices; and
* Framing our
proposal as one with “valued-added” procedures, services, supports, strategies,
and interventions that would (a) build on the defensible ones in the state’s
statute; (b) improve upon or substitute for the indefensible ones; (c) help
more effectively and efficiently meet the grant’s “ultimate”
student-focused outcomes; and that might (d) require some levels of waivers (if
needed).
And so, Part I of
this two-part Blog series shared the proposal’s description of the district and
state’s current MTSS system, followed by a section that we titled, Why the
RFP as Written will not Succeed.
Finally, Part I quoted from the proposal as it discussed Seven Flaws
that Need Attention in a Multi-Tiered Services Re-Design.
_ _ _ _ _
In reviewing the
feedback to Part I from our Blog-Readers: It was interesting that some questioned the
“wisdom” (from a grant-writing perspective) of including subheadings like, Why
the RFP as Written Will Not Succeed.
While you may agree
or disagree, please understand that this was done because:
* We know
that many department of education staff (who review grant proposals) know
that there are flaws in their state models and RFPs.
I know this because
I worked in the Arkansas Department of Education for 13 years, and saw many
faulty or unsound educational laws or procedures passed by our Legislature—laws
that were grounded in politics, and not educational integrity. Similarly, I saw state education statutes or
rules promoted and signed by Commissioners with virtually no educational
training, or Assistant Commissioners who were naïve, uninformed, or motivated
by power and control.
And yet, in those
same departments of education, there were professionals with expertise in the
substance of these laws or rules. And
while they were appalled by their passage or promotion, they could not say
anything publicly for fear of losing their jobs.
_ _ _ _ _
* We wanted to
transparently voice our MTSS concerns and outline our alternative approaches
with the State Department of Education—so that we would not be accused of changing
our approaches or being disingenuous later—after we won the grant award)
_ _ _ _ _
* We truly wanted
to educate the Department of Education’s professionals—some who “don’t know
what they don’t know,” because they have not been educated or are not experienced
in the psychometric, implementation science, and systems scale-up principles we
are discussing today.
_ _ _ _ _
Parenthetically. .
. (and with all due respect to those who do not “fit” this characterization), some
department of education staff (as well as some working in regional resource
centers, universities, and in other settings that provide “consultation” to
districts and schools) are providing “professional development” using “paint
by number approaches.”
That is, they recommend
and/or try to implement practices using faulty frameworks or protocols that
they have been “trained” on by “national experts.”
But they do not
have:
* The knowledge to
know when the training or practices are unsound;
* The experience or
expertise to know how to effectively tailor or modify their practices to individual
districts and schools; and
* They sometimes
(arrogantly) reject more effective models and practices because, for example,
they do not “fit” their protocols, they have been told to rigidly adhere to
their protocols, or they have been told not to use someone else’s (even if
effective) models or practices.
_ _ _ _ _
Today’s Part II
Today’s Part II completes
this Blog series by discussing Ten Resulting Practices that Need
Inclusion in a Multi-Tiered Services Re-Design, and making some concluding
comments.
The “Ten Practices”
are inextricably linked to the “Seven Flaws” discussed in Part I. Thus, a review or re-review of these in Part
I might be helpful now.
[CLICK
HERE to read or re-read Part I of this two-part Blog discussion.]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
State RtI or
multi-tiered services guidebooks need to provide blueprints, guidance, and
procedures that are (a) supported by sound (not self-selected) research; (b)
based on effective and diverse (not limited-trial) field tests; and that (c) result
in demonstrable (not hypothetical) student outcomes that are sustained over
time. Rigid, one-size-fits-all
approaches do not work.
Unfortunately. . .
especially when states adopt the MTSS/RtI framework from OSEP, they
(inadvertently? Not that this is a
defensible excuse). . . have not accomplished this.
Beyond this: Districts and schools need to be given the
flexibility, within the context of mandated federal and state laws and
regulations, to implement the best problem-solving, progress monitoring, and
multi-tiered system of support approaches for their academically struggling
and behaviorally challenging students.
To this end, below
are ten multi-tiered system of support, response to instruction and
intervention, and positive behavioral intervention and support practices that
address and/or alleviate the Seven Flaws discuss in Part I of this series, and
that either have been ignored by the frameworks advocated by OSEP (and/or its tax-funded
National Technical Assistance Centers), or have been mistakenly recommended for
use by policy and/or practice “experts.”
While it is strongly recommended that
these practices be infused into any state’s reconceptualization of its
multi-tiered approaches, they are recommended here so that districts and
schools can increase their students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral
success.
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 1. Multiple gating procedures need to be used
during all academic or behavioral universal screening activities so that the
screening results are based on (a) reliable and valid data that (b) factor in
false-positive and false-negative student outcomes.
Too many screening
procedures go from screening to intervention— without considering whether any
derived results are accurate. Part of
this process is determining if the screening procedures have “identified”
students who do not have any problems (i.e., “false-positive” results),
or have not identified students who actually do have problems
(i.e., “false-negative” results).
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 2. After including false-negative and
eliminating false-positive students, identified students (who have been
“red-flagged” by a screening procedure) receive additional diagnostic or
functional assessments to determine their strengths, weaknesses, content and
skill gaps, and the underlying reasons for those gaps.
When screening
procedures do not exist or are not accurate, Practices 5 and 6 below should
occur with all students who are academically struggling in the classroom
or demonstrating social, emotional, or behavioral concerns (in any school
setting).
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 3. When focusing—especially at the elementary
school level—on helping students to learn and master foundational academic
skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonetic decoding, numeracy, calculation
skills), students should be taught at their functional, instructional
levels—regardless of their age or grade level.
When focusing—at
the secondary level—on academic content, comprehension, and application skills,
teachers need to be sure that students have mastered the foundational and
prerequisite literacy, math, written expression, and oral expression skills
needed to be successful.
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 4. All students should be taught—every
year and continuously across each year—social, emotional, and behavioral skills
as an explicit part of the district’s formal Health, Mental Health, and
Wellness standards.
These standards
should be operationalized across an articulated and scaffolded preschool
through high school scope and sequence curriculum map with specific
required courses, units, content, and activities. The social, emotional, and behavioral skills taught
should especially be applied to facilitate students’ academic engagement and
independence, and their ability to interact collaboratively in cooperative and
project-based learning groups.
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 5. Before conducting diagnostic or functional
assessments (see Practice 2 above), comprehensive reviews of identified
students’ cumulative and other records/history are conducted, along with (a)
student observations; (b) interviews with parents/guardians and previous
teachers/intervention specialists; (c) assessments investigating the presence
of medical, drug, or other physiologically-based issues; and (d) evaluations of
previous interventions.
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 6. Diagnostic or functional assessments should evaluate
students and their past and present instructional settings. These assessments evaluate the quality of
past and present instruction, the integrity of past and present curricula, and
interventions that have already been attempted.
This helps determine whether a student’s difficulties are due to
teacher/instruction, curricular, or student-specific factors (or a combination
thereof).
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 7. Diagnostic or functional assessments to
determine why a student is not making progress or is exhibiting concerns
should occur prior to any student-directed academic or social,
emotional, or behavioral interventions.
These assessments
should occur as soon as academically struggling or behaviorally challenging
students are recognized (that is, during Tier 1).
These assessments should
not be delayed until Tier 3 (unless the student’s case is immediately
escalated to that level). In the absence
of early assessment—and the initiation of (what typically are) global or random
Tier 2 interventions—it is likely (as discussed above) that the Tier 1 and 2
interventions implemented (under the existing OSEP/state department of
education frameworks) will not be successful, will make the student
more resistant to later interventions, and may actually change the
problem or make the original problem worse.
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 8. Early intervention and early intervening
services should be provided as soon as needed by students. Tier 3 intensive services should be provided
as soon as needed by students. Students should
not have to receive or “fail” in Tier 1 instruction, and then in Tier 2
services in order to “qualify” for Tier 3 services.
Multi-tiered service delivery should occur
on a needs-based and intensity-driven basis.
Early intervention
services may include—based on diagnostic or functional assessment results—the
use of assistive supports, the remediation of specific skill gaps, accommodations
within the instructional setting and process, and curricular modifications as
needed and as identified through a data-based assessment process.
General education
teachers and support staff need to be skilled in the different strategies that
may be needed within these service and support areas (i.e., remediation,
accommodation, and modification), and skilled in how to strategically choose
these different strategies based on diagnostic or functional assessment
results.
Tier 2 and 3
services include strategic or intensive curricular or skill-targeted strategies
or interventions, other services or support programs (e.g., computer-assisted
interventions, or more specialized assistive supports), student-tailored
compensations (for academic problems), and crisis-management services (for
social, emotional, or behavioral problems).
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 9. When (Tier 1, 2, or 3) interventions do not
work, the diagnostic or functional assessment process should be reinitiated,
and it should be determined whether (a) the student’s problem was identified
accurately, or has changed; (b) the assessment results correctly determined the
underlying reasons for the problem; (c) the correct instructional or
intervention approaches were selected; (d) the correct instructional or
intervention approaches were implemented with the integrity and intensity
needed; and/or (e) the student needs additional or different services,
supports, strategies, or programs.
That is, it
should NOT be assumed—without validation—that the interventions SHOULD have
worked, and DID NOT work because the student has a MORE significant problem
that will require MORE intensive and specialized services (although, based
on data, that may be the case).
_ _ _ _ _
Practice 10. The “tiers” in a multi-tiered system of
supports reflect the intensity of services, supports, strategies, or
programs needed by one or more students.
The tiers do not
reflect the percentage of students receiving specific intensities or services,
nor do they reflect the organization (i.e., small group or individual), the
delivery setting or place, or the expertise of the primary providers of those
services.
Moreover, the
services and supports that are organized within a specific tier are generally
idiosyncratic to each specific school or district. That is, these services and supports are
related to and dependent on the available resources in each school or
district—for example, the number, skill, and expertise of the existing core and
related services/support staff.
_ _ _ _ _
For example, in a
rural, poor school district, the absence of a Tier 1 social skills curriculum
taught by the classroom teachers for all students might result in several
students with social, emotional, and behavioral gaps that require the
involvement of “Tier 2” counseling services, or (worse case scenario) “Tier 3”
community mental health referrals and attention.
Because the
district is in a rural area, the “Tier 3” designation of the community mental
health services occurs largely because the district does employ the more
specialized mental health support staff to provide these services on-site, and,
for example, at the Tier 2 level.
In a larger school
district—that has purchased and trained (through formal professional
development) teachers to implement a Tier 1 primary prevention social skills curriculum,
there likely are fewer students who have social, emotional, and behavioral
gaps. Moreover, because these districts can
afford to employ counselors, school psychologists, and/or social workers, the
“gap” students will receive the additional supports that they need at the “Tier
2” level.
_ _ _ _ _
In summary, we
should not assume that the terms “Tier 1, 2, or 3” reflect the same thing
across schools, districts, or states.
In many ways, we
should discontinue the use of the term “Tier,” and replace it with the terms:
“Preventative and Universal Instructional Services,” “Strategic and Specialized
Services,” and “Intensive and Compensatory Services.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
In order to be effective, a district or school’s multi-tier
system of supports must be an inherent part of its continuous school
improvement process. While the ultimate
goal of this process is to graduate students who are academically proficient,
and who demonstrate effective social, emotional, and behavioral skills and
interactions, we have already noted that there are many students who are not demonstrating academic learning,
mastery, and proficiency; and/or the social, emotional, and behavioral
progress, mastery, and proficiency needed in the classroom—much less than when
they graduate from high school.
Thus, a critical part of a school or
district’s continuous improvement process involves its ability to provide
students with the multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, and programs
that they need to be successful in all academic and social, emotional, and
behavioral areas.
The Take-away: A district and school’s multi-tiered system
of supports is an inherent part of its continuous school improvement process,
and hence, it should be strategically planned for and resourced as part of
the district’s ongoing needs assessment, resource analysis, personnel
management, and budgeting processes.
_ _ _ _
_
Summary and Next Steps
The remainder of the grant proposal (being
paraphrased above) discussed the (a) evidence-based components, (b) training
and implementation activities, (c) timelines and implementation steps, and (d)
formative and summative outcome evaluations that we recommended to attain the
desired improvements in the students’ academic and social-emotional and
behavioral progress and proficiency within the RFP’s target schools.
These components, activities, and processes
were based on our Project ACHIEVE, an evidence-based school improvement program
that has been implemented in thousands of schools across the country over the
past 30+ years (see www.projectachieve.net).
_ _ _ _
_
I hope that this
discussion has been useful to you. In
fact, to make it most useful, I recommend the following:
* (Re)Read Part I
of this two-part series [CLICK
HERE]
* (Re)Read your
state’s multi-tiered system of academic and behavioral support laws, statutes,
and implementation guides. Look for the flexibility
(if present) in these documents where your state says, “This is recommended,”
as opposed to “This is mandated.”
Many departments of
education overstate what is actually required by law, by making their
recommendations sound like they are mandated.
More often than not, state department of education recommendations are
actually advisory (the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs does this all
the time). And even if they are
mandated, districts can always apply for a waiver.
Said a different
way: Find the multi-tiered areas of
flexibility—where you can create your own procedures and approaches—as long as
they are defensible, and result in definitive student outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _
* Analyze your
state’s multi-tiered academic and behavioral process, as well as your
district’s process, against (a) the Flaws in Part I (to determine if you are
inadvertently following procedures or practices that are represented in one or
more of the Flaws; and (b) the Recommended Practices above (to ensure that you
are using the best policies, procedures, and practices on behalf of your
students, staff, and schools).
Remember, one of
the only ways to change is to first acknowledge the presence of a problem.
_ _ _ _ _
* Finally, initiate
(or continue) a strategic review and planning process—at the district, school,
and grade/instructional levels to objectively look at what you are doing
that is successful for all students, what needs to be discontinued or changed,
and what gaps exist. . . that need to be analyzed, resourced, and addressed.
In the end, we all
want to implement programs in our schools that have the highest probability
(and actuality) of success for all students.
But. . . we must
use processes that have actually demonstrated successful science-to-practice
outcomes—based on sound psychometric, implementation science, and systems
scale-up principles and practices.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I always
look forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you
in any of the multi-tiered areas discussed in this message, I am always happy
to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you
clarify your needs and directions on behalf of your students.
Best,
Howie
