Читать книгу Taking Action - Austin Buffum - Страница 9

CHAPTER 1

The RTI at Work Pyramid

Where there is no vision, there is no hope.

—George Washington Carver

The use of graphic organizers is nothing new in education. Using a symbolic image, such as a Venn diagram, to compare and contrast two items or ideas, can be a powerful tool to visually capture and guide thinking. The use of a pyramid shape to represent a multitiered system of supports is designed to be just that—a graphic organizer. But just as a Venn diagram would be useless to students who don’t understand the thinking represented by two interlocking circles, providing schools with a blank pyramid to build a site intervention program would be useless without ensuring that those using the tool understand the thinking behind it.

We find the traditional RTI pyramid both a blessing and a curse. When interpreted properly, it is a powerful visual that can organize and guide a school intervention program and processes. But as we mentioned in the introduction, we find that many schools, districts, and states have misinterpreted the pyramid diagram to represent a pathway to special education, which in turn can lead to practices counterproductive to a school’s goal of ensuring every student’s success.

We have carefully rethought and revised the traditional RTI pyramid. We refer to our visual framework as the RTI at Work pyramid. See figure 1.1 (page 18).

We call it the RTI at Work pyramid because, as mentioned in the introduction, our recommendations leverage research-based processed to ensure student learning—PLCs and RTI.

FIGURE 1.1: The RTI at Work pyramid.

Because the RTI at Work pyramid serves as this book’s culminating activity, let’s dig deeper into the guiding principles behind the design.

Why Is the RTI at Work Pyramid Upside Down?

While we are not the first educators to invert the traditional RTI pyramid (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Deno, 1970), our reason for this design is in response to a common misinterpretation of the traditional RTI pyramid, which we addressed in the introduction—that RTI is primarily a new way to qualify students for special education. States, provinces, and school districts visually reinforce this conclusion when they place special education at the top of the pyramid, as illustrated in figure 1.2.

This incorrect application is understandable, as the traditional pyramid seems to focus a school’s intervention system toward one point: special education. Subsequently, schools then view each tier as a required step that they must try to document prior to placing students into traditional special education services. Tragically, this approach tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because the organization starts interventions with protocols designed to screen and document students for this potential outcome.

FIGURE 1.2: RTI pyramid with special education at the top.

To challenge this detrimental view of the traditional pyramid, we intentionally inverted the RTI at Work pyramid, visually focusing a school’s interventions on a single point—the individual student. See figure 1.3.

FIGURE 1.3: Inverted RTI at Work pyramid.

With this approach, the school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language. Because every student does not learn the same way or at the same speed, or enter school with the same prior access to learning, the school builds tiers of additional support to ensure every student’s success. The school does not view these tiers as a pathway to traditional special education but instead as an ongoing process to dig deeper into students’ individual needs.

The school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language.

What Are the Three Tiers of the RTI at Work Pyramid?

RTI has two defining characteristics. It is multitiered and systematic. Additionally, a multitiered system of interventions addresses four outcomes.

1. If the ultimate goal of a learning-focused school is to ensure every student ends each year having acquired the essential skills, knowledge, and behaviors required for success at the next grade level, then all students must have access to essential grade-level curriculum as part of their core instruction.

2. At the end of every unit of study, some students will need additional time and support to master this essential grade-level curriculum.

3. Some students enter each school year lacking skills they should have mastered in prior years—skills such as foundational reading, writing, number sense, and English language. These students require intensive interventions in these areas to succeed.

4. Some students require all three tiers to learn at high levels.

All students must have access to essential gradelevel curriculum as part of their core instruction.

The RTI at Work pyramid has three tiers to visually represent these characteristics and outcomes. The widest part of the pyramid represents the school’s core instruction program. The purpose of this tier—Tier 1—is to provide all students access to essential grade-level curriculum and effective initial teaching. See figure 1.4.

FIGURE 1.4: Core instruction program.

Many traditional RTI approaches advocate that the key to Tier 1 is effective first instruction. We don’t disagree with this, but this teaching must include instruction on the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that a student must acquire during the current year to be prepared for the following year. Unfortunately, many schools deem their most at-risk students incapable of learning grade-level curriculum, so they pull out these students and place them in Tier 3 interventions that replace core instruction with remedial coursework. So, even if the initial teaching is done well, if a student’s core instruction is focused on below-grade-level standards, then he or she will learn well below grade level.

If the fundamental purpose of RTI is to ensure all students learn at high levels—grade level or better each year—then we must teach students at grade level. Every student might not leave each school year having mastered every grade-level standard, but he or she must master the learning outcomes deemed indispensable for future success.

There is a point in every unit of study when most students demonstrate mastery of the unit’s essential learning outcomes, and the teacher needs to proceed to the next topic. But because some students may not master the essential curriculum by the end of the unit, the school must dedicate time to provide these students additional support to master this essential grade-level curriculum without missing critical new core instruction. This supplemental help to master grade-level curriculum is the purpose of the second tier—Tier 2—in the RTI at Work pyramid. See figure 1.5.

FIGURE 1.5: Supplemental help to master grade-level curriculum.

This is a critical point—the defining characteristics of Tier 2 are not the size of the intervention group or the duration of the intervention. Instead, it is defined by the targeted learning outcomes. Supplemental help should focus on providing targeted students with the additional time and support needed to master the specific skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified at Tier 1 to be absolutely essential for a student’s future success. Classroom teacher teams should be actively involved at Tier 2, as these outcomes directly relate to their areas of expertise. Because supplemental interventions are focused on very specific learning targets, placement into Tier 2 interventions must be timely, targeted, flexible, and most often guided by team-created common assessments aligned to grade-level essential standards.

The defining characteristics of Tier 2 are not the size of the intervention group or the duration of the intervention.

If a school provides students access to essential grade-level curriculum and effective initial teaching during Tier 1 core instruction, and targeted supplemental academic and behavioral help in meeting these standards at Tier 2, then most students should be succeeding.

However, there inevitably will be a number of students who enter each school year lacking the foundational skills needed to learn at high levels. These universal skills of learning include the ability to:

1. Decode and comprehend grade-level text

2. Write effectively

3. Apply number sense

4. Comprehend the English language (or the school’s primary language)

5. Consistently demonstrate social and academic behaviors

6. Overcome complications due to health or home

As you may have noticed, these skills are listed inside Tier 3 on our RTI at Work pyramid. They represent much more than a student needing help in a specific learning standard; instead, they represent a series of skills that enable a student to comprehend instruction, access information, demonstrate understanding, and behave appropriately in a school setting. If a student is significantly behind in just one of these universal skills, he or she will struggle in virtually every grade level, course, and subject. And usually a school’s most at-risk students are behind in more than one area. Therefore, for students who need intensive remediation in foundational skills, the school must have a plan to provide this level of assistance without denying these students access to essential grade-level curriculum. This is the purpose of Tier 3. See figure 1.6.

If a student is significantly behind in just one of these universal skills, he or she will struggle in virtually every grade level, course, and subject.

FIGURE 1.6: Intensive remediation in foundational skills.

Because students develop universal skills over time, targeted students should receive this intensive remediation as part of their instructional day. Also, only a school’s most highly trained staff in the students’ targeted areas of need should provide these interventions.

Last and most important, some students need all three tiers to learn at high levels—this is why it is called a multitiered system of supports. Schools don’t just move students from tier to tier. Instead, the tiers are cumulative … value added! All students need effective initial teaching on essential grade-level standards at Tier 1. In addition to Tier 1, some students need supplemental time and support in meeting essential grade-level standards at Tier 2. In addition to Tier 1 and Tier 2, some students need intensive help in learning essential outcomes from previous years. Students in need of Tier 3 intensive help in remedial skills most likely struggle with new essential grade-level curriculum the first time it is taught. This means these students need Tier 2 and Tier 3, all without missing new essential instruction at Tier 1.

Individual teachers cannot effectively provide this level of support in their classrooms. We tried this model for many years—it was called a one-room schoolhouse. Instead, it requires a schoolwide, collective, collaborative, coordinated, all-hands-on-deck mentality. This is why structuring a school to function as a PLC is the key to effectively implementing RTI.

Structuring a school to function as a PLC is the key to effectively implementing RTI.

Why Is the RTI at Work Pyramid Split?

Another misinterpretation of RTI occurs when schools view Tier 1 as the classroom teachers’ responsibility, and interventions as solely the interventionist staff’s responsibility, such as instructional aides, categorical-funded teachers, and the special education department. This approach means some classroom teachers assume that when students require help after initial teaching, their job is to send them to someone else. According to Buffum and colleagues (2012), this practice can overwhelm site intervention teams and resources, especially at schools with a large number of at-risk students:

In response to this problem, many districts dictate that classroom teachers cannot refer a student for schoolwide interventions until they can document a set of predetermined interventions that must first be tried in the classroom. This mandate places the initial responsibility of Tier 2 interventions with classroom teachers exclusively. The problem with this approach is that every student does not struggle for the same reason. As previously discussed, the reasons why students struggle can vary from just needing a little extra practice on a new concept, to lacking necessary prerequisite skills, to requiring assistance with English language, to having attendance and behavior issues. It is unlikely that each teacher has all the skills and time needed to effectively meet all of these needs. This approach fails students and educators.

The answer lies not in determining who is responsible for intervening when students don’t learn after core instruction—classroom teachers or the school’s intervention resources—but in determining the lead responsibilities of each specific staff member. To visually capture this thinking, we have divided the RTI at Work pyramid into two distinct areas of responsibility: interventions led by collaborative teacher teams and interventions led by the schoolwide teams. (p. 12)

The upper-right portion of the pyramid in Tier 1 and Tier 2 represents responsibilities that collaborative teacher teams should lead. See figure 1.7.

FIGURE 1.7: Tier 1 and Tier 2 responsibilities for collaborative teacher teams.

By collaborative teacher teams, we mean teams of educators who share essential learning outcomes for their students—the structure advocated for in the PLC at Work process. At the elementary level, they are most likely grade-level teams, while at the secondary level, they are content and course specific. This book clearly identifies the essential actions for which teacher teams should take lead responsibility at Tiers 1 and 2. These outcomes directly relate to the expertise, training, and job-embedded responsibilities of classroom teachers.

The left side of the RTI at Work pyramid at Tiers 1, 2, and 3 represents processes that must be coordinated across the entire school. See figure 1.8.

FIGURE 1.8: Tiers 1, 2, and 3 processes that must be coordinated across the entire school.

The essential actions in this portion of the pyramid represent decisions that must be coordinated across the entire school, and thus should not be left up to each grade level, department, or administration to make in isolation. An example is creating a master schedule that makes it possible for targeted students to receive all three tiers of supports. For this portion of the pyramid, schoolwide teams—including a site leadership team and intervention team—take lead responsibility for carrying out essential actions. This book clearly defines these teams and their exact responsibilities.

We use the phrases lead responsibility or take the lead often in this book. Do not equate lead responsibility to mean sole responsibility. For example, we might recommend that a third-grade teacher team take lead responsibility for planning Tier 2 interventions that reteach third-grade essential standards. We are not suggesting that third-grade teachers—and these teachers alone—are responsible for this outcome. Could they utilize instructional aides, special education staff, peer tutors, and parent volunteers to help provide interventions for these students who need additional time and support in mastering third-grade essential curriculum? Of course. But to ensure something happens, the buck must stop with specific people. It makes sense that the third-grade team is the best group on campus to know the specific learning needs of each third-grade student and would thus be the logical choice for taking lead responsibility to plan these interventions.

What Do the Boxes Represent?

Every school has interventions, but very few have systematic interventions. A school has a systematic intervention process when it can promise every parent that it does not matter which teacher his or her child is assigned to, as every student receives the additional time and support needed to learn at high levels (Buffum et al., 2012).

Failure to create a timely, systematic process to identify students in need of additional help makes the school’s interventions an education lottery that leaves the question of intervention up to each teacher to resolve. The first step of any intervention is identifying students who need help. How can a school help students if it is ignorant of students’ struggles?

The boxes down the left side of the pyramid represent the processes a school uses to identify students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 assistance. See figure 1.9.

The first step of any intervention is identifying students who need help.

FIGURE 1.9: Processes a school uses to identify students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 assistance.

A systematic identification process not only identifies which students need interventions but also utilizes the right kinds of information to best target each student’s needs at each tier. Throughout this book, we clearly define the roles and uses of universal screeners, formative assessments, and diagnostic tools in the RTI process.

What Is the Role of Special Education?

If there were no labels in education—regular education, special education, Title I, English learner (EL), gifted, accelerated—how would a school target students for interventions? Wouldn’t it be based on students who have the same needs? For example:

► Students struggling with consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) blends

► Students having difficulty multiplying exponents

► Students lacking organizational skills to keep track of assignments

So, wouldn’t it make sense to group students by need and not by a label for school funding purposes?

And how would a school determine which staff members should lead each of these interventions? Wouldn’t it be based on who has training and expertise in teaching CVC blends, algebra, or organizational skills? Although this approach is clearly logical, it is often not the norm, as many schools instead group students by labels tied to funding sources. Such decisions are justified with the claim, “But the law does not allow us the flexibility to group students by need.”

As referenced earlier, the federal reauthorization of IDEIA in 2004 promotes early intervention services, which allows districts to use a percentage of special education resources to support students not currently in special education. We are not suggesting that there are no limitations on how to use the skills of special education staff, but whenever possible, school resources should be allocated based on a student’s need, not his or her label.

As discussed earlier, RTI is based on a multitiered system of interventions delivered by both general and special education teachers and staff. However, what exactly is an intervention?

What Is an Intervention?

An intervention is anything a school does above and beyond what all students receive to help certain students succeed academically. If all students receive a particular instructional practice or service, it is part of the school’s core instructional program. But if the school provides a specific practice, program, or service to some students, it is an intervention. Intervention and remediation are not merely provided for academic skills. Behavior, attendance, and health services can be interventions as well as enrichment for students who have already mastered essential grade-level standards.

An intervention is anything a school does above and beyond what all students receive to help certain students succeed academically.

Beyond this broad definition of the term intervention, we make some further distinctions. When interventions occur during Tier 1 core instruction, we call them preventions. This captures the thinking in the phrase, “The best intervention is prevention.” We don’t want to wait until the summative test to find out which students need more help. Instead, we are constantly assessing which students could benefit from a quick clarification or reteaching.

As noted, when, despite the preventions received during Tier 1 core instruction, some students do not demonstrate proficiency on essential standards our summative assessments measure, we continue to provide them with additional help. This is Tier 2 intervention—a little more help with what we just finished studying. The teacher must now move on to the next unit, but because these are essential standards, students continue to receive Tier 2 interventions until they achieve mastery.

When the causes of students’ struggles are rooted in a lack of skills and knowledge from previous years of study, we call efforts to fill in this gap Tier 3 remediation. These are not skills and knowledge from the last lesson the teacher taught; they are from previous years—many times, from several years before. We capture this thinking in figure 1.10.

FIGURE 1.10: Skills and knowledge from previous years of study.

Just as there are interventions for students who are struggling, there is a need for extensions for students who need more challenge.

Extension is when students are stretched beyond essential gradelevel curriculum or levels of proficiency.

What Is Extension?

Extension is when students are stretched beyond essential grade-level curriculum or levels of proficiency. We can achieve this outcome in many different ways, including the following.

► Ask students to demonstrate mastery of essential standards at a level beyond what is deemed grade-level proficient. For example, many schools applying a four-point rubric to a grade-level writing prompt deem a score of 3 as grade-level proficient. Stretching students beyond to a score of 4 would be an example of extended learning.

► Give students access to more of the required grade-level curriculum deemed important but not essential.

► Teach students above-grade-level curriculum, such as advanced placement (AP) classes.

Interventions should not be focused exclusively on supporting struggling students, nor should RTI come at the cost of students already learning at or above grade level. RTI is about providing every student with the differentiated time and support needed to ensure he or she learns at the highest levels possible. If a school is going to build flexible time, support, and collaboration into its school week, it can apply these efforts to support students in advanced coursework as well. The fourth critical question of the PLC at Work process captures this outcome, “How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 36).

In addition to extensions, students should have access to subjects and activities that provide enrichment.

What Is Enrichment?

There is an important difference between enrichment and extension. We define enrichment as students having access to the subjects that specials or electives teachers traditionally teach, such as music, art, drama, applied technology, and physical education. We strongly believe that this curriculum is essential. These subjects often teach essential core curriculum through different modalities. Also, students usually view these subjects as the fun part of school.

When we pull students from enrichment to receive extra help in core curriculum, interventions turn into a punishment. Subsequently, a student’s motivation and attitude can suffer. Finally, there is an equity issue. Often, the students who need interventions come from economically disadvantaged homes. For many of these students, the only way they will learn a musical instrument or use advanced technology is at school. For these reasons, students should not be denied access to enrichment because they need additional time and support in core subjects.

We define enrichment as students having access to the subjects that specials or electives teachers traditionally teach.

Conclusion

As captured in the title, this book is about taking action. Using the RTI at Work pyramid as our road map, we can now dig deeper into each tier and the essential actions schools must take to ensure every student succeeds. By the end of this book, if you complete each task, you will have completed an RTI at Work pyramid for your school. In the next three chapters, we begin by focusing on Tier 1.