For Some Students,
There Will Be No COVID-19 Slide
Dear
Colleagues,
Introduction
The pandemic clearly is not over.
In fact, over the past two weeks, the number
of COVID-19 cases and deaths have increased on a day-to-day basis in the United
States, and many cities and new geographic areas are experiencing record high
incidents.
And yet, “school”. . . in one form or
another. . . will “open” come Fall. And given this, virtually every
administrator in our country has begun a re-opening and re-entry planning
process.
As we have
discussed in recent Blog articles, at the core of this process is the implicit
or explicit post-pandemic re-entry model or models that will be used by a
district and its schools. This is significant because each re-entry model has
strengths and weaknesses, and every selection will impact the resulting
functional, logistical, instructional, and staffing decision and plan. This, in
turn, may significantly affect all or some students, and their academic and
social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health status and needs.
Relative to my
Blogs, when the pandemic closed all of our schools in March, my bimonthly Blog
articles began to directly address COVID-19’s impact on the short- and
long-term academic and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health status
of our students, staff, schools, and systems. While I integrated the research
and wisdom of others, the contexts, implications, and interpretations in these
Blogs most reflected my forty years of field-based experience, and my school
psychological perspective.
This perspective is
not more important than others’ perspectives. But it differs in important ways
from the majority of the educators nationwide. . . who are focusing more
predominantly on administration and/or instruction.
Indeed, the
difference is that psychology is the foundation to understanding how learning
occurs, and how to maintain and motivate the social, emotional, and behavioral
interactions that facilitate student learning and learning outcomes.
Said a different
way: It’s great to have a great re-entry plan. But a plan is only as good
as its implementation. And to implement a great plan, students, staff,
administrators, and parents/guardians—individually and collectively—need to
have the emotional readiness, the belief and the confidence, and the skills and
motivation to consistently execute the plan.
And so, it is
essential to integrate a psychological science-to-practice perspective in order
to execute a district or school’s administrative and instructional plans
effectively. . . and to—hopefully—maximize everyone’s success.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Re-Visiting the Fall Post-Pandemic Academic and
Instruction Process
This two-part Blog
Series is addressing what schools need to consider now as they plan for
their students’ academic re-entry this Fall.
In Part I, we
addressed why (and how) schools should validly assess—as soon as
possible when students return to school—the functional, mastery-level status of
all students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts. Here, we
recommended an assessment process with the following steps (see Part I for the
complete discussion):
- Identify the Power or Anchor Standards in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts at each grade level that are most essential for students to learn and that, typically, represent the foundational or prerequisite knowledge and skills that generalize to help students to learn and master the content in other, related standards.
_ _ _ _ _
- From the Power or Anchor Standards, identify the knowledge, content, information, and skill-specific test items needed in each grade level’s literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts assessments that most accurately evaluate students’ current functional learning and mastery status.
_ _ _ _ _
- Create, administer, and score an Academic Assessment Tool with these items in each academic area to determine students’ grade-level functioning—regardless of their current grade-level standing.
_ _ _ _ _
- Complement (and re-validate) these assessments’ results with formal and informal classroom- and curriculum-based teacher assessments that are completed during instruction, through independent assignments and work samples, and based on in-class portfolios, projects, or tests.
_ _ _ _ _
[CLICK
HERE for Part I of this Blog Series]
We then recommended
that the assessment results be used to identify groups of students who are
functioning above, at, below, or well-below their current grade-level
placements.
Here, we suggested
that students scoring (a) 1.5 standard deviations above the average functioning
of their grade-level peers—in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts,
respectively—be identified as functioning above their current grade placement;
(b) between -1.0 and 1.5 standard deviations to be functioning at grade-level;
(c) between -2.0 and -1.0 standard deviations to be below grade-level; and (d)
below -2.0 standard deviations to be well-below grade-level.
Next, we
recommended that schools pool all of the assessment data for the students at
each grade level, completing a “StoryBoard” process to determine the best
instructional groups to assign each student to in each academic area. These
assignments would then determine the best way to organize students—across the
three academic areas—into classroom cohorts.
Significantly, this
StoryBoard process should also identify the students who need specific
multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions. . . which should eventually
result in decisions as to (a) what support staff will work with which students
and grade levels of teachers, and (b) what additional instructional or technological
resources will be used with which students.
Finally, in Part I,
we discussed how (and why) to organize students who are functioning within
one grade level of their respective grade placements into Homogeneous Skill
Groups and/or Heterogeneous Comprehension or Applied Groups. We provided a
Third Grade example with literacy results, integrating the data into one of the
six national models that most districts will use when students return to school
in the Fall.
_ _ _ _ _
In this Part II of
the Series, we will discuss how to use the assessment results to address the academic
progress and enrichment of students who are “above” their grade-level standing,
and the academic gaps of students who are below and well below their
grade-level placements.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Teaching Students Who are Academically Above Average
Without
overgeneralizing, students functioning above their grade level placements in
literacy, mathematics, and/or writing/language arts have probably been ahead of
the game for a number of years. And while they may have received phenomenal
virtual instruction during the months of this pandemic, they also probably (a)
took advantage of and were able to learn from this instruction and approach;
(b) are self-motivated, and competently engaged in self-instruction; and/or (c)
have parents and/or peers that motivated or facilitated their learning and
mastery.
An important point
here is that some students will not experience a pandemic learning
loss or slide. This is why we have emphasized, especially during this Blog
Series, the importance of collecting current (in the Fall) assessment data. . .
and not assuming or guessing students’ academic status.
But when these
above average students return to school this Fall, the ultimate question is:
What instructional staff and materials, and what learning environments and approaches, will maintain and extend these above average students’ learning, enrichment, and progress?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Teaching Students Who are Academically Below or Well
Below their Grade-Level Placements
Despite the
pandemic, students who are identified this Fall as being below or well below
grade-level functioning in literacy, mathematics, and/or writing/language arts
need to be evaluated within the context of an effective and science-to-practice
multi-tiered systems of supports. Essentially, this means that a data-based
functional assessment of their educational history, learning conditions, speed
of mastery, and current status needs to be completed for each student.
This assessment is
important because, for example, five students who are all two years below grade
level in reading could have five different learning patterns and
progressions, and five different root causes explaining their academic
gaps. Only by differentiating among these different root causes can these
students be individually scheduled into the best instructional groups with the
most effective teachers so that they can receive the services, supports,
strategies, and interventions that they need.
Critically, except
for new students to the district, is it unlikely that district or school
personnel will be surprised by the identities of the below and well below
average students this coming Fall. Moreover, while their learning gaps may be
somewhat larger, it also is unlikely that the pandemic and the need for
“home-schooling” caused these students’ problems.
Thus, if they have
been successful in the past, schools may only need to transfer and adapt these
students’ programs from last year to this year.
However, if they
have not been successful—or if critical conditions have changed, schools
may use the pandemic-driven need to modify instruction for all students as a
leverage point to provide these students the programs that they need and that—from
an equity perspective—they deserve.
And so, when these
below and well below average students return to school this Fall, the ultimate
question is:
What instructional staff and materials, and what learning environments and approaches, will strengthen and accelerate these below and well below average students’ learning, enrichment, and progress?
NOTE that this
question is remarkably similar to the question asked above for above average
students. And NOTE, that these students also need enrichment—especially
as a way to motivate and engage them in an educational enterprise that often
frustrates and knocks them down.
_ _ _ _ _
In the next two
sections of this Blog, we provide two research-to-practice blueprints to help
answer the question above. The first blueprint focuses on a continuum of
services, supports, and interventions for students who are academically
struggling. The second blueprint addresses some potential grouping and
instructional patterns for these students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The
Positive Academic Supports and Services Continuum
Based on the
data-based functional assessment of the root causes of a student’s academic
struggles, an effective multi-tiered system of supports links the root cause
results to high probability of success services, supports, strategies, and
interventions. One way to conceptualize these services and supports is through
a research-to-practice Positive Academic Supports and Services (PASS)
blueprint or continuum.
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. This continuum consists of approaches
related to Assistive Supports, Remediation, Accommodations, Modifications,
Strategic Interventions, and Compensation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Students
with Significant Academic Skills Gaps: Connecting Their Needs to Closing-the-Gap Options
From a multi-tiered perspective, the results
of the data-based problem-solving process is essential to quantify, analyze,
and hopefully close the academic gaps that exist for below and well below
grade-level functioning students. 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
student data, but it typically is descriptive and not diagnostic data.
At times, these schools 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 five
instructional or student grouping Options.
Option
5 is for students who have no chance of passing their next middle or
high school course, even with Options 1, 3, or 4 above, because their
prerequisite academic skills are so low. Critically, for students who do
not have a disability and, therefore, 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.
Indeed, the most common root causes for
these students’ academic struggles include the following:
- There were significant instructional gaps during the student’s educational history such that the student did not have the opportunity to learn and master essential academic skills.
This includes, for example, students who were (a)
home-schooled, (b) had new teachers who were unprepared to teach, (c) had
long-term substitute or out-of-field teachers for lengthy periods of time, or
(d) were in classrooms with too many different student skill groups for the
teachers to effectively teach.
_ _ _ _ _
- There were significant curricular gaps during the student’s educational history such that the student did not have the opportunity to learn and master essential academic skills.
This includes, for example, (a) schools without the
appropriate evidence-based curricula or curricular materials to support
teachers’ goals of effectively differentiating instruction; (b) schools where
teachers—at the same grade level—were teaching the same content but with
different algorithms, rubrics, or skill scripts that were then not reinforced
by the next year’s teachers—especially as they “inherited” a mix of students
who were taught specific skills in vastly different ways; or (c) schools that
adopted grade-level curricula that were not aligned with state academic
standards, and that did not articulate with the curricular expectations at the
next grade level.
_ _ _ _ _
- The schools, attended by the student during his/her educational history, had an absent, inadequate, or ineffective multi-tiered system of supports that did not address his or her academic needs.
_ _ _ _ _
- The student was taught, over a long or significant period of time, in a school or classroom where the relationships or climates were so negative (or negatively perceived by him/her) that they impacted his/her long-term academic engagement, motivation, attendance, and access or ability to learn.
_ _ _ _ _
- The student had known or has newly-diagnosed (due to the root cause analysis) biological, physiological, biochemical, neurological, or other physically- or medically-related conditions or factors that significantly impacted his or her learning and mastery, or the speed that s/he learns and masters new skills.
_ _ _ _ _
- The student had (and may still have) frequent or significant personal, familial, or other traumatic life events or crises that impacted his or her academic engagement, motivation, attendance, and access or ability to learn.
_ _ _ _ _
- The student’s skill gaps created such a level of frustration that the resulting social, emotional, or behavioral reactions by the student (along an “acting out” to “checking out” continuum) overshadowed the original and present academic concerns— resulting in the absence of (or the student’s avoidance of) needed services or supports.
_ _ _ _ _
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This two-part Blog
Series addressed what schools need to consider now as they plan for
their students’ academic re-entry this Fall.
In Part I, we
addressed why (and how) schools should validly assess—as soon as possible
when students return to school—the functional, mastery-level status of all
students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts. Here, we
recommended a step-by-step assessment process to identify groups of students
who are functioning above, at, below, or well-below their current grade-level
placements.
Next, we
recommended that schools pool all of the assessment data for the students at
each grade level, completing a “StoryBoard” process to determine the best
instructional groups to assign each student to in each academic area. These
assignments would then determine the best way to organize students—across the
three academic areas—into classroom cohorts.
Finally, we
discussed how (and why) to organize students who are functioning within one
grade level of their respective grade placements into Homogeneous Skill
Groups and/or Heterogeneous Comprehension or Applied Groups. We provided a
Third Grade example with literacy results, integrating the data into one of the
six national models that most districts will use when students return to school
in the Fall.
_ _ _ _ _
In this Part II, we
discussed how to use the assessment results to address the academic progress
and enrichment of students who are “above” their grade-level standing, and the
academic gaps of students who are below and well below their grade-level
placements.
Here, we suggested
that (a) most of these students were already well-known to their teachers, and
(b) it was unlikely that the last three months of pandemic-driven
“home-schooling” was a root cause of these students’ acceleration or decline,
respectively.
At the same time,
we encouraged districts and schools, once they identify these students this
coming Fall, to use the following question so that these students receive an
appropriate educational program:
What instructional staff and materials, and what learning
environments and approaches, will strengthen and accelerate these students’ learning,
enrichment, and progress?
To help answer this
question, we discussed a number of possible instructional grouping patterns for
the above average students.
For the below and
well below grade-level functioning students, we emphasized the importance of an
effective, science-to-practice multi-tiered systems of supports. At the core of
this process are data-based functional assessments of struggling students’ educational
histories, learning conditions, speeds of academic mastery, and current status
to determine the root causes of their difficulties.
We then provided
two research-to-practice blueprints to address these students’ needs (and root
causes). The first blueprint, the Positive Academic Supports and Services (PASS) model, outlines
a continuum of services, supports, and interventions for students who are academically
struggling.
The second
blueprint provided five instructional group or class assignment options for
students with academic skill gaps, with a discussion of Option #5 for
students with gaps that are so large that there is no way that they can benefit
from or pass a course at their current grade level.
_ _ _ _ _
While there is
nothing positive about the current pandemic, districts and schools know that
they need to adjust in order to “survive.” These adjustments give us an
opportunity to think more creatively, and to act more effectively on behalf of
all students.
From an academic
perspective, we need to use timely and sensitive data to determine the current
functional skills of our students—especially in literacy, mathematics, and
writing/language arts.
We then need to
determine if students’ current academic standings were impacted by the last
three months of virtual and long-distance instruction, and what instructional
environments, conditions, groupings, strategies, and interventions are needed
to help them to learn, progress, and succeed.
And all of this
needs to occur in the context of re-establishing educational equity— especially
for students of color, from homes of poverty, and for students with
disabilities.
This can be done. .
. and, hopefully, these last two Blogs have provided the blueprints and steps
that are needed.
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 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
