Dear
Colleagues,
When you work as a national
consultant, it is expected that your districts or schools are going to give you
the toughest problems to solve. . . . the most academically or behaviorally
challenging students, the most resistant teachers, the schools that have been
failing the longest and the hardest. And that's why I love doing what I do.
However, the toughest school or
district problems are sometimes compounded by (federal or local) Department of
Education policies or procedures that are not supported by sound research,
effective practice, or even common sense.
Recently, my work in one state
required me to review the state's new policy and procedures manual on
"Response to Instruction and Intervention" (RTI2). While this state's
RTI approach was similar to other states in many ways (and that is not
necessarily a good thing), it is crucial to recognize that statutory
popularity does not represent field-based validity.
In fact, when departments of
education pass and police bad RTI policy and practice, at least two dilemmas
result. The dilemma of:
* How, within the bounds of
ethical and effective practice, a consultant does not point out how the state's
statutes are likely, for example, to harm students by delaying or denying them
timely and appropriate services.
* How, a consultant can ask a
district to ignore or not comply with its state statutes ... when s/he knows
that accountability to these same statutes is required.
While the simple resolution
would be to make sure that all state statutes reflect sound research, effective
practice, and common sense- - that is more idealistic than realistic in our
hyper-politicized world (really!) of education. Remember, I have worked in a
state department of education for over 12 years.
And so, the only answer is that
there are times when courageous acts of "educational common sense"
are needed, on behalf of our students, as these acts reflect the right thing to
do.
Remember Peter
Drucker's quote:
"Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing
the right things.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Leadership Responses to Flawed RTI Statutes
In reviewing the RTI2 Guidebook
of the state where I was consulting, the following management flaws (see
Drucker's quote) stuck out as needing common sense leadership.
Flaw #1. Missing the Interdependency
between Academics and Behavior.
I often ask teachers with
struggling students two critical questions:
* Do you have students who are
behaviorally acting out because of academic frustration?
* Do you have students who are
academically not learning (or not learning quickly enough) because they do not
have certain behavioral skills (sitting in their seat, paying attention,
working in interpersonally effective ways with others)?
When they answer "Yes"
to both questions they are demonstrating that academic instruction,
learning, and mastery is interdependent with classroom discipline, behavior
management, and student self-management.
Thus, it does not make sense for
a state's RTI process to focus only on academic skills. . . to the exclusion of
students' social, emotional, and behavioral skills.
Indeed, if a student does not
(a) have the social skills to get along with others (e.g., in a cooperative
learning group); (b) feel emotionally secure in class (e.g., due to teasing or
school safety issues); or (c) have the behavioral skills to organize themselves
(e.g., to work independently), then the even best teachers, curricula,
technology, and instruction will not result in the desired academic outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #2. Missing the Continuum of
Instruction.
Many state RTI2 guidebooks and
systems do not provide a research-based continuum of services and supports that
helps to organize and differentiate the difference between
"instruction" and "intervention." These guidebooks talk
about the need for intervention, but rarely provide any specificity.
Over the past decade (or more),
we have presented this continuum to states, districts, and schools across the
country---presenting it as the PASS (Positive Academic Supports and Services)
model.
As is evident in the slide
below, RTI starts with an effective teacher providing sound, differentiated
instruction, supported by good classroom management, and the data-based monitoring
of students' academic and behavioral learning and mastery.
When students are not learning
(or learning quickly enough), an assessment process must be conducted to
determine why the progress is missing (see Flaw #3 below). This
assessment could be done (a) by the teacher, (b) with the support of
grade-level colleagues as part of a Grade-level RTI Team, or (c) with the
support of the multidisciplinary Building-level RTI Team. How the teacher
assesses the problem is determined largely by his/her skills, and the duration
or intensity of the problem (see Flaw #7 below).
Once the underlying reasons for
the problem have been validated, the teacher (once again- - by him/herself,
supported by grade-level colleagues, and/or with members of the Building-level
RTI team) strategically decides how to solve the problem (see Flaw #4). As in
the slide above, the problem may be solved through strategically selected:
* Assistive support technologies
* Remedial approaches
* Accommodation approaches
* Curricular modification
approaches
* Laser-targeted Interventions
* Compensatory strategies
When students are demonstrating
social, emotional, or behavioral problems, a comparable continuum is used
(after completing the needed functional assessments) that consists of
strategically selected:
* Skill Instruction strategies
* Speed of Learning and Mastery
Acquisition strategies
* Transfer of Training
strategies
* Emotional Coping and Control
strategies
* Motivational strategies
* History of Inconsistency
strategies
* Special Situation strategies
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #3. Avoiding Diagnostic or
Functional Assessment until it is Too Late.
Many state RTI2 guidebooks,
adopting the flawed approaches of the U.S. Department of Education's RTI
technical assistance centers, advocate for a "wait to fail, then
assess" strategy. That is, when students are not succeeding academically
(for example) at Tier 1, they recommend 30 minutes of largely unspecified group
interventions at Tier 2. Then, if the students are still having problems, they
recommend a diagnostic (or, for behavior, functional) assessment as the entry
point to Tier 3.
And yet, critically, I don't
know many doctors, electricians, car mechanics, or other professionals who
would not do a diagnostic assessment at the beginning of the problem solving
process. . . to ensure that their first recommendations are their last
recommendations (because the problem is solved).
And so. . . Why would we, in good
conscience, "allow" a student to struggle for six to ten or more
weeks in the classroom, and in a Tier 2 intervention, so that we can get
to the point where we finally do a diagnostic assessment to figure out what
really is wrong?
And why would we do this knowing
that, after these multiple and prolonged periods of failure, the problem may be
worse (or compounded), the student might be more confused or frustrated, and we
might need even more intensive interventions because we did not identify and
analyze the problem right from the beginning?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #4. Not Linking Assessment to
Intervention.
Many state RTI2 guidebooks and
systems do not delineate the different types of assessment (e.g., screening
versus progress monitoring versus diagnostic versus implementation integrity
versus high stakes/proficiency versus program evaluation assessments).
This often occurs because state departments of education write their guidebooks
to meet a statutory requirement . . . rather than to educate their
practitioners.
Relative to RTI processes that
will effectively help students with academic or behavioral difficulties, state
guidebooks and systems typically do not emphasize the importance of linking
diagnostic assessment results with the instructional or interventions
approaches that have the highest probability of success.
Critically, when school
practitioners do not strategically choose their student-focused instructional
or intervention approaches based on reliable and valid diagnostic assessment
results, they are playing a game of "intervention roulette."
And, as in Vegas, the
"house" usually wins. But, in the classroom, the loss here is the
student's loss.
Every time we do an
intervention that does not work, we potentially make the problem worse, and the
student more resistant to the next intervention.
Said a different way:
Intervention is not a benign act. . . it is a strategic act. We should
not be satisfied, professionally, because we are implementing interventions. We
should be satisfied when we are implementing the right interventions
that have the highest probability of success for an accurately
identified and analyzed problem.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #5. Focusing on Progress
Monitoring rather than on Strategic Instruction or Intervention Approaches
Many state RTI2 guidebooks and
systems overemphasize progress monitoring. . . and then, they compound the
problem by overemphasizing curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to the
exclusion of other curriculum-based assessment (CBA) approaches.
In addition, most of the
progress monitoring examples-- in the state guidebooks that I have reviewed--
are in the area of reading decoding and fluency (where the progress
monitoring research and writing has been most prevalent).
Rarely do you see state
guidebooks discuss progress monitoring for vocabulary and comprehension.
. . not to mention the lack of progress monitoring examples in the different
areas of math, written expression, spelling, and oral expression. This is
because progress monitoring for these outcomes does not work well with
CBM.
Finally, most state guidebooks
do not explain how to effectively create (or evaluate the acceptability of) a
progress monitoring probe. That is, they do not emphasize that progress
monitoring approaches must be connected to the instructional or intervention
goals, outcomes, and implementation strategies.
Said a different way:
* If the instructional or
intervention target for a student is increasing his/her understanding and
receptive/expressive use of a specific list of grade-level vocabulary words,
then the assessment protocol must be designed to sensitively measure these
explicit outcomes.
* If the instructional outcome
is a certain format of expressive writing, then reliable and valid scoring
rubrics need to be created to guide not just progress monitoring, but
instruction and student self-evaluation.
As noted earlier, progress
monitoring is an evaluation approach. Thus, for students with academic or
behavioral problems, it follows the (a) identification and (b) analysis of the
problem, and the (c) intervention preparation and implementation stages.
Unfortunately, some educators still believe that progress monitoring is
the intervention. Or, they believe that the intervention must fit the progress
monitoring tool adopted by the district- -rather than the tool being fit to
the intervention outcomes desired.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #6. Establishing Rigid Rules on
Student's Access to More Intensive Services
I have no problem with a state
RTI2 guidebook providing a blueprint on the typical sequences and decision
rules that a teacher needs to follow to "move" a student from Tier 1
to Tier 2 to Tier 3. However, I do have a problem when the sequence must
be followed in a rigid, fixed way.
Simplistically, there are two
types of students with academic or behavioral problems: students with
progressive, longstanding, or chronic problems; and students with
significant, severe, or acute problems.
For the latter students
especially, they often need immediate and intensive (Tier 3, if you will)
services, supports, strategies, and/or programs. They (and their teachers) should
not have to go through a series of intervention layers so that they eventually
"qualify" for the services that they need.
I "get" that many
worry about an influx of inappropriate referrals to the Building-level RTI
Team. But, if you break your leg, you need to go to the emergency room. If you
try to fix it yourself, you may get an infection and lose the whole leg.
The "trick is in the
training." In the schools where I work, we create a collaborative system
where everyone in the school is trained on the data-based problem-solving
process. We also create an early warning "problem solving,
consultation, intervention" culture, along with a "check and
balance" approach to minimize the number of capricious referrals to the
Building-level team.
It works. But more important is
the fact that more students are receiving earlier and more successful
instructional and intervention approaches. And, the teachers are leading the
entire process. . . with greater enthusiasm, involvement, self-direction, and
success.
Isn't this the true goal of
RTI?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Flaw #7. Setting a "Price"
on Access to Multidisciplinary Consultation
To concretize the ultimate
point in Flaw #6 above: If a student needs to be immediately
considered by the Building-level RTI Team, then this should occur without the
need for a certain number of interventions implemented for a certain number of
weeks, under a certain level of conditions.
In other words, get on with it.
. .
"Do not stop at Go, and do not collect
your $200."
But I want to extend this point.
If a teacher needs a consultation with a colleague in order to better
understand and work with a student, there should not be restrictions on what
colleagues are available.
To be explicit: Too
often, I hear that general education teachers cannot consult with special
education personnel (teachers, OTs, PTs, speech pathologists, etc.) until a
student needs "Tier 3" attention. This makes no sense if the earlier
consultation could have resulted in "Tier 1" success . . . thereby
eliminating the need for more intensive Tier 3 attention.
Sometimes, the reason for
restricting the consultation is that the "special education teacher is
paid through federal special education funds that don't allow the consultation
to occur earlier."
This is simply not true.
Even in the most extreme
interpretation, the federal special education law (IDEA) encourages early
intervening services, and it allows districts to use up to 15% of their special
education funding for services and supports that are not directed to students
with a disability.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
As always, we need to use common sense
and focus our decision making on student outcomes.
Our state RTI2 guidebooks need
to provide blueprints and guidance that are supported by sound (not self-selected)
research that are translated into effective (not limited trial) practices that
result in demonstrable (not hypothetical) student outcomes. Rigid,
one-size-fits-all approaches do not work. Schools need be given the
flexibility, within the state blueprints provided, to implement the best
problem solving, progress monitoring, and services and supports to academically
struggling and behaviorally challenging students. And educational
practitioners who are working directly with those students are in the best
positions to do this.
Brandon Sanderson was right when
he said:
"The mark of a
great (educator) is one who knows when to set aside
the important things
in order to accomplish the vital ones."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.
But to make all of this more
concrete:
I want to give you a free
RtI Implementation Guidebook
that I have used across the country.
Written for districts and schools, the Guidebook gives you a common sense,
user-friendly, step-by-step multi-tiered process (with forms) that can organize
your entire RtI process.
To download the guide, look at
the first entry on the following page of our website.
Meanwhile, thank you for
everything that you do to support your students, staff, and schools. Let
me know if I can be of help.
Best,
