The MTSS Dilemma—Differentiate
at the Grade Level or Remediate at the Student Skill Level?
Dear Colleagues,
[CLICK HERE to Link to the
Full Blog Message]
Introduction
I do a great deal of consulting in middle
schools and high schools across the country helping them to add value to their
multi-tiered system of supports by aligning (a) curriculum and instruction with
(b) assessment and intervention with (c) staff expertise and school resources
directly to (d) students’ skill gaps and proficiency needs.
Sometimes the biggest initial change is to
help schools realize that they have adopted approaches based on principles,
practices, and decision rules that are not psychoeducationally, psychometrically,
or scientifically sound—if though they came from “experts” who appear to be
“expert.”
Many times, sustained success with
academically struggling and social, emotional, and behaviorally challenging
students requires a comprehensive school psychological perspective versus one
depending on leadership, teaching, counseling, or special education.
This is not a competition among
specializations. All teams need
dedicated professionals working together.
This is about the “game plan.” Without a good game plan, many talented teams
do not accomplish—on the field—what they should accomplish given their talent.
Or, metaphorically: While an effective hospital operating room
requires a host of effective, coordinated, and talented professionals, the
operation is successful based on the strengths of everyone understanding their
roles in accomplishing the mechanics of the surgery.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
When
Secondary Students Have Academic Skill Gaps
A continuing theme, in my secondary-level
consultations, is the instructional dilemma that occurs when students
transition from elementary to middle school—or middle school to high school—and
they haven’t mastered the prerequisite academic skills to succeed at the next
grade level.
While this occurs most often in the areas of
English, reading, and literacy, or mathematics, calculation, and numeracy, we sometimes
forget the impact on students’ learning when they are also unprepared to
effectively write or to communicate verbally at their grade levels.
And then there are the “lateral effects” when
students’ low literacy or mathematics skills negatively impact their learning
and performance in science, the social sciences, or in other transdisciplinary
areas.
In Part I of this two-part Blog
series, we will discuss (a) the options available to schools to address these
students’ needs; (b) how to determine which options are needed; and (c) how to
courageously recognize (and enact) the one option that schools most avoid.
In Part II, we will review and apply
the results of two national research studies, published this week, that address
the impact of teaching secondary students—who are significantly behind in their
foundational math skills—in grade-level courses or in skill-level courses.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Students
with Significant Academic Skills Gaps: Connecting Their Needs to Closing-the-Gap Options
From a multi-tiered perspective, a
data-based problem-solving process is needed to quantify, analyze, and
hopefully close any academic gaps that occur at the secondary level. Just like the diagnostic process that a
doctor completes when you are sick—before prescribing the medicine and other
facets of your medical intervention, data-based problem-solving is a necessity
if we are going to implement effective, high-probability-of-success academic
interventions.
Unfortunately, many schools have some data,
but it is descriptive and not diagnostic data. And then they use these data to inadvertently
play “intervention roulette”—throwing “interventions” at problems without
really knowing the root causes as to why they exist.
I am critiquing, not criticizing, these
schools. More often than not, they are
doing what they were told to do by their “experts.”
_ _ _ _ _
But, critically, at the point of
intervention, there still are times when schools hit the proverbial “fork
in the road.”
This occurs, specifically, when students’
prerequisite academic skills are so low that everyone knows that they have
virtually no chance of passing the next middle or high school course.
Here, most schools use one of the following
Options:
- Option 1. Schools schedule the “not-ready-for-prime-time” students into their existing course sequences, and teach them at their grade levels— hoping that effective differentiated instruction will close the existing achievement gaps at the same time that the students learn and master the new, course-related content and skills?
_ _ _ _ _
- Option 2. Schools use Option 1—scheduling the “not-ready-for-prime-time” students into their existing course sequences, and then they offer/provide tutors or tutoring (usually before or after school) to supplement the instruction and “close” the gaps.
This, unfortunately, rarely works because (a) the
students are too far behind to benefit from tutoring—that is, there simply is
not enough time available to close the long-standing gaps; (b) the tutoring is
provided by paraprofessionals who do not have the expertise to implement the
strategic interventions needed; (c) the tutoring is not coordinated with the general
education teachers or aligned to the curricula being taught in the core
classes; and/or (d) the student does not attend the tutoring (enough) due to
transportation, studying for other classes, extracurricular activities, or
simply fatigue, frustration, or resignation.
_ _ _ _ _
- Option 3. Schools “double-block” the students—scheduling them into the existing course sequences while also giving them an additional academic period a day (or less) to remediate their skills gaps.
Here, they are hoping that the remediation period will
“catch the students up,” while they simultaneously complete the grade-level
courses so they can accrue their credits.
But many times, the teachers teaching these two separate courses do not
communicate, the curricula and interventions are not coordinated, and the
students still do not have the skills to pass the grade-level course.
_ _ _ _ _
- Option 4. Here, schools “double-block” the students, but the students have the same teacher for both blocks. This allows the teacher to follow the grade-level course’s syllabus, but s/he can spend time remediating students’ prerequisite skills gaps so they are prepared for and can learn and master the grade-level course material.
In addition, this also gives the teacher the time needed
to adapt his or her instruction for students who require, for example, (a) more
concrete and sequential instruction, (b) more positive practice repetition, or
(c) assistive supports or accommodations to learn the material.
In reality, based on their data-based
student analyses, schools may be well-advised to have Options 1, 3, and 4
available in order to maximize the learning and mastery of different students
with different learning histories and instructional needs.
[This is not to say that Option
2—Tutoring is not needed for students with more narrow skill gaps. And, obviously, the teachers in Option 3 need
to coordinate the curriculum, instruction, and interventions in order to attain
the strongest student outcomes.]
_ _ _ _ _
But to determine the need for these
different Options, and to fully prepare for their implementation, effective schools
typically complete and pool the data-based student analyses by March or
April before the next academic year.
This gives them the time to judiciously coordinate the services,
supports, courses, instructors, and scheduling needed by same-grade groups of
students.
While making the recommendation
immediately above (even as March is still six months away), I understand
that all schools have too many immediate and long-term needs already on their
plates. . . and that some colleagues may dismiss this recommendation as either
unrealistic or not (currently) a high priority.
But I would respectfully suggest that many
of my colleagues’ immediate and long-term needs already center around the
academic, behavioral, attendance, or graduation status of the students that we
are discussing.
Moreover, I know (because we have facilitated
this in schools nationwide) that this recommendation can be accomplished
when schools recognize the importance of personalizing their instruction and
intervention, and evaluating and upgrading their multi-tiered systems of
support.
But this all requires strategic planning,
staff readiness and flexibility, and effective resource management. And, this can be accomplished in the
next six months.
For small, budget-stressed, and/or
staff-limited schools, I also understand the challenges embedded in the
recommendation above. But when the
data-based problem-solving process is used, at least we know the cumulative student
skill gaps that are present, and which groups of students need what
approaches.
At this point, we realistically connect as
many “dots” as we can—maximizing existing resources, and impacting as many
students as possible. We then plan for
the additional dots that we will connect the next year.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Middle
Schools, High Schools, and Stark Realities
Critically, in our experience, middle schools
(if they choose to take it) have more flexibility to “schedule around” their
students, staff, and courses than high schools—especially when the latter are
not allowed (usually, by their state education codes) to give course credit for
“remedial” courses.
Indeed, if middle schools know the academic
and behavioral status of their rising 6th graders in April or May, they can
align their students, staff, and courses to flexibly meet the needs of
different clusters of students—from those entering with significant academic
skill gaps, to those whose academic skills already exceed the 6th grade courses
they might “repeat.”
With all due to respect, on behalf of the
students with significant skills gaps, here is a stark reality: Middle School credits don’t count.
That is, if middle school students with
significant academic skill gaps “pass” their courses, but do not master the
“elementary” and “middle school” skills that they need, we have simply
passed the “problem” on to the high school “to solve.”
The
recommendation, then, is to focus on foundational academic skills (in literacy,
math, oral expression, and written expression), and students’ mastery of those
skills. And if—for students with
significant skill gaps—we need to go “backwards to go forward,” or to go “slow
in order to go fast,” then do it.
The Mission: Prepare these students
in middle school for high school. Gaps
in information and content can always be addressed as long as there are no gaps
in foundational skills and mastery.
_ _ _ _ _
But there are comparable “stark realities” in
high school when students with significant skills gaps are present there. . .
leading up to an Option 5:
- Just as many students do not complete their college programs in four years, perhaps some students need more than four years of high school in order to learn and master the skills and content needed to be college and/or career ready.
Indeed, for states and high schools that are moving to
competency-based academic systems (e.g., New Hampshire), this is a natural
outcome.
[Parenthetically: These systems also produce “three-year
graduates” who are ready for dual-enrollment courses or college because they have
demonstrated their comprehensive high school proficiency by their junior years.]
[Also, parenthetically: The reason why some college students need more
than four years to graduate is because they are taking remedial courses
during their freshmen years to make up for their high school deficiencies.]
[Finally, parenthetically: Why is it that some states have no problem
retaining students in Grade 3—when they have not mastered their reading skills,
and yet they “penalize” high schools when they do not graduate their students
in four years?]
In the final analysis, as in Middle School,
“passing” courses and “graduating” from high school is irrelevant if students do
not have the summative academic and related skills to truly succeed at the
“college and/or career level.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
So . . .
Secondary Schools Need to Consider Option 5
Given the discussion above, middle and high
schools need to consider (and the U.S. Department of Education, and the
respective State Departments of Education, need to allow) an Option 5.
Option 5 is for students who have no
chance of passing their next middle or high school course even using Options 1,
3, or 4 above—because their prerequisite academic skills are so low. This appraisal is based (see below) on
objective, multi-instrument, diagnostic skill gap analyses of each struggling
student—conducted at the relevant secondary school level.
Thus, the school’s multi-tiered
system must include (a) a data-based problem-solving process to determine the
root cause(s) of the students’ learning and/or skill gaps; and (b) an Option
5 configuration where the instructional and intervention approaches needed
to close the respective students’ skill gaps can be delivered with integrity
and intensity.
Critically, for
students who do not have a disability and, therefore, who do not qualify for
services through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP; IDEA) or a 504 Plan (Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act), Option 5 may be the best option.
What is Option 5?
- Option 5 involves scheduling students into a course (or a double-blocked course) in their academic area(s) of deficiency that targets its focus and instruction on the students’ functional, instructional skill level. That is, the course takes students from their lowest points of skill mastery (regardless of level), and moves them flexibly through the each grade level’s scope and sequence as quickly as they can master and apply the material.
This should be an
instructional—not a credit recovery or computer/software-dependent—course
with a teacher qualified both in instruction and intervention.
Moreover, this is
the students’ only course in the targeted academic area, and the course
instructors are responsible for making the content and materials relevant to
the grade level of the student, even as they are teaching specific academic
skills at the students’ current functional skill levels.
Thus, students are not
concurrently taking a grade-level course in the same academic area (as in
Options 1 through 4 above). In addition,
the teachers in these students’ science, social science, or other courses also
know the students’ current functional skill levels—differentiating their
instruction as needed, while providing additional supports, so that the
students’ areas of academic weakness do not negatively impact their learning in
these “lateral” courses.
_ _ _ _ _
For example, if a
group of rising 9th grade students have mastered their math skills only at the
beginning fourth grade level, their Option 5 math class for that quarter,
semester, or year would begin its instruction at the fourth grade level of the
state or district’s preschool through high school math scope and sequence, and
progress accordingly as a function of their learning and mastery.
The students would
not concurrently take a 9th grade math course, and the Option 5 teachers
would be responsible for making the math content and materials relevant to a
9th grade learner, even as the mathematical skills are being taught at a 4th
grade level.
In reading, the Option
5 teachers would use, for example, high-interest (9th grade content and focus)/low
vocabulary (4th grade) books, stories, or materials so that the students can
build their vocabulary and comprehension skills in a sequential and progressive
way.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Deeper Dive on Which Students Would Benefit from
Option 5
There are a number
of possible (combinations of) reasons why rising-secondary students transition from elementary to middle
school—or middle school to high school—without the prerequisite academic skills
to succeed at the next grade level. These reasons are identified through the
data-based root cause analysis process that begins by collecting information
that chronicles each individual student’s current status and past educational services,
supports, programs, interventions, accomplishments and experiences.
Indeed, at the beginning of a root cause
analysis for an individual student, the initial information-gathering
activities are called the “First Things First.”
[CLICK HERE to Link to the
Full Blog Message that Fully Describes these Important Initial
Information-Gathering Activities]
_ _ _ _ _
The information from the First Things First
help to identify a student’s (a) strengths, skills, assets, and existing
supports; (b) weaknesses, skill gaps, limitations, and negative life events and
circumstances; and (c) educational history and experiences, including the
quality of past teachers and instruction, the presence of sound curricula and
interventions (when needed), and the engagement and motivation of the student
when present in school.
_ _ _ _ _
Focused then on determining why a
student’s specific skill gaps exist, the root cause analysis typically
continues by completing diagnostic assessments on how the student best learns,
and functional assessments targeted to confirming (or rejecting) hypotheses
that similarly relate to past, and that now relate to predicting present,
student learning.
For students with significant academic
skill and mastery gaps at the secondary level, the most common root causes
include the following.
[CLICK HERE to Link to the
Full Blog Message Describing these Common Causes in Detail]
_ _ _ _ _
The vast majority
of these root causes point to the fact that students who will most benefit from
an Option 5 approach are students who did not have the opportunity to
originally learn and master the academic skills that are now embedded in their
significant skill gap.
At the same time,
many of these student will need additional social, emotional, or behavioral
services and supports so that the academic interventions can be successful.
Even more
critically, the student’s motivation and positive, active engagement in the
Option 5 course(s) and classroom will be a key factor in determining success. This will be especially true at the high
school level, when students are confronted with the reality of a four-plus year
high school career (which may look worse than dropping out, or going for a
GED).
All of this is to
say that not all students who could potentially benefit from an Option 5
approach should or will choose it. For
Middle School students, the Option involves less student choice, and more
“pressure” on the school to keep the students well-integrated with their peers
and in other grade-level classes. For
High School students, they need to see realistic ways that they can pass their
high school courses after or as their skill deficits are remediated.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Continuum of Academic Supports and Interventions
From both a
prevention and a strategic intervention perspective, schools need to recognize
the services, supports, strategies, and interventions available along a
multi-tiered continuum.
In a past Blog, we
differentiated among services, supports, strategies, and interventions. Relative to the latter, we identified the
following key elements of interventions:
- Interventions are intentional and focused on changing an academic or social-emotional skill or behavior.
- Interventions involve a specific program or set of formalized steps required for implementation and proven to effect change.
- Interventions are specific and formalized. An intervention lasts a certain number of weeks or months, is reviewed at set intervals, and has demonstrable short- and long-term outcomes.
- Interventions are implemented with formal evaluation approaches that track and measure students’ progress.
We also provided
some examples:
- Tutoring is a service; the specific academic interventions used by a trained and skilled tutor is the intervention.
- Counseling or psychotherapy is a service; the therapy that a psychologist uses (e.g., cognitive-behavior therapy) is the intervention.
- A sensory “time-out” for a student experiencing trauma is a support; the strategies or therapies that a student received to eliminate the need for future time-outs is the intervention.
[CLICK
HERE to Link to Blog:
February 16, 2019 Redesigning Multi-Tiered
Services in Schools: Redefining the Tiers and the Difference between
Services and Interventions
_ _ _ _ _
The point here is
that Option 5 will only succeed if the best services, supports,
strategies, and interventions are matched to the root causes that explain
why secondary students have such significant academic skill gaps.
To expand this
discussion, below are the key components of our Positive Academic Supports
and Services (PASS) continuum. . . a science-to-practice blueprint that, in
the context of the current discussion, is tailored to each individual student’s
needs (see the Figure below).
Overview. The foundation to the PASS blueprint is
effective and differentiated classroom instruction where teachers use and
continuously evaluate (or progress monitor) evidence-based curricular materials
and approaches that are matched to students’ learning styles and needs. When students are not consistently learning
and mastering academic skills after a reasonable period of effective
instruction, practice, and support, the data-based, functional assessment,
problem-solving process is used to determine the root causes of the
problem.
Results then are
linked to different instructional or intervention approaches that are organized
along the following PASS continuum.
[CLICK HERE to Link to the
Full Blog Message for a Detailed Description of the PASS Components]
_ _ _ _ _
While there is a
sequential nature to the components within the PASS continuum, it is a
strategic and fluid—not a lock-step—blueprint.
That is, the supports and services are utilized based on students’ needs
and the intensity of these needs. For
example, if reliable and valid assessments indicate that a student needs
immediate accommodations to be successful in the classroom, then there is no
need to implement remediations or modifications just to “prove” that they were
not successful. In addition, there are
times when students will receive different supports or services on the
continuum simultaneously. For example,
some students will need both modifications and assistive supports in order to
be successful. Thus, the supports and
services within the PASS are strategically applied to individual students.
Beyond this, while
it is most advantageous to deliver needed supports and services within the
general education classroom (i.e., the least restrictive environment), other
instructional options could include co-teaching (e.g., by general and special
education teachers in a general education classroom), pull-in services (e.g., by
instructional support or special education teachers in a general education
classroom), short-term pull-out services (e.g., by instructional support
teachers focusing on specific academic skills and outcomes), or more intensive
pull-out services (e.g., by instructional support or special education
teachers).
These staff and
setting decisions are based on the intensity of students’ skill-specific needs,
their response to previous instructional or intervention supports and services,
and the level of instructional or intervention expertise needed. Ultimately, the goal of this effective school
and schooling component, and the PASS model, is to provide students with early,
intensive, and successful supports and services that are identified through the
problem-solving process, and implemented with integrity and needed intensity.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This Blog focused on the instructional
dilemma that occurs when students transition from elementary to middle
school—or middle school to high school—and their academic skill levels are so
low that (a) they have no hope of learning or succeeding in the courses at the
next grade level, and (b) their skill gaps are so significant that the
different remedial options that most schools use will not close the gaps.
During the discussion, the four Options that
most middle or high schools use to address this dilemma were described—noting
their differential strengths and weaknesses, and how schools miss (or ignore)
the fact that these options will not address these students’ significant needs.
We then detailed a number “stark realities”
that we summarized in the following ways:
- If middle school students with significant academic skill gaps “pass” their courses, but do not master the “elementary” and “middle school” skills that they need, we have simply passed the “problem” on to the high school “to solve.”
- Moreover, if these students “pass” courses and “graduate” from their high schools without mastering the academic and related skills needed to truly succeed at the “college and/or career level,” the schools have not accomplished their educational mission and a disservice has been done to the students.
From a multi-tiered perspective,
then, the goal is to complete (a) a data-based problem-solving process that
links the results of a root cause analysis to strategic or intensive services,
supports, strategies, and interventions; and (b) to consider a fifth option
where students are taught at their functional skill and mastery levels, and
where they receive the interventions and supports needed to learn, master, and
progress through the academic skills needed to ultimately be successful at
their true grade levels.
More specifically,
this Option involves scheduling students into a course (or a double-blocked
course) in their academic area(s) of deficiency that targets its focus and
instruction on the students’ functional, instructional skill level. That is, the course takes students from their
lowest points of skill mastery (regardless of level), and moves them flexibly
through the each grade level’s scope and sequence as quickly as they can master
and apply the material.
This course is the
students’ only course in the targeted academic area, and the course
instructors are responsible for making the content and materials relevant to
the grade level of the student, even as they are teaching specific academic
skills at the students’ current functional skill levels.
Thus, students are not
concurrently taking a grade-level course in the same academic area. In addition, the teachers in these students’
science, social science, or other courses also know the students’ current
functional skill levels— differentiating their instruction as needed, while
providing additional supports, so that the students’ areas of academic weakness
do not negatively impact their learning in these “lateral” courses.
_ _ _ _ _
Complementing the
discussion above, the Blog next described the initial information-gathering
steps of the data-based problem-solving process, and then the primary reasons
why students would enter their secondary school careers with significant
academic skill deficits. The Blog
finished by outlining the components of the multi-tiered Positive Academic
Supports and Services (PASS) system—a science-to-practice continuum of
services, supports, strategies, and interventions for academically struggling
students.
The ultimate goal for students with significant
skill deficiencies is to close their skill gaps with mastery-based learning as
quickly as possible, so that they can then learn and master the skills in their
grade-level courses and, ultimately, graduate success-ready for college and/or
their careers.
While the recommended approaches for these
students may be controversial or challenging, with good strategic
planning—completed in March or April of the school year before implementation—they
can be accomplished.
Indeed, once the data-based problem-solving
process is used to analyze these students, at least we then know the depth and
breadth of the skill gaps that are present, and which groups of students
need what approaches.
At this point, schools can realistically
connect as many “dots” as possible— maximizing their existing resources, and
impacting the greatest number of students.
They, then, can connect the next series of dots the next year . . . and
so on.
_ _ _ _ _
In Part II of this Blog series, we
will review and apply the results of two national research studies, published
this past week, that address the impact of teaching secondary students—who are
significantly behind in their foundational math skills—in grade-level courses
or in skill-level courses. This research will reinforce the recommeseider.
Meanwhile, I appreciate your ongoing
support in reading this Blog. As always,
if you have comments or questions, please contact me at your convenience.
And please feel
free to take advantage of my standing offer for a free, one-hour conference
call consultation with you and your team at any time.
Best,
Howie
