Taking Action. Austin Buffum
Tragically, many schools assume their most at-risk students are incapable of learning at grade level.
Using Mismatched and Misused Assessments
Interventions are most effective when they target a student’s specific learning needs. This requires assessment data that can identify the specific standard, learning target, skill, or behavior that a student lacks. Unfortunately, many schools use broad indicators to drive their interventions, including report card grades, state or provincial assessments, district benchmark results, or universal screening scores. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance’s study validates this common implementation mistake. It finds that most schools’ RTI implementation is fairly rigid, using a single test to identify students for Tier 2 and a standard set of interventions once they get there (as cited in Sparks, 2015). These assessments usually measure multiple standards and then report a student’s results in a single composite score. While this information can be helpful in identifying the students who need additional help, it is insufficient for assigning students with specific interventions.
Educators must provide interventions in addition to Tier 1 essential grade-level curriculum, not in place of it.
Relying Too Heavily on Purchased Intervention Programs
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and IDEIA advocate using interventions based on “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to educational activities and programs” (IDEIA, 2004). As a result, some districts have created lists of approved interventions that constitute the only programs their schools can use which, in turn, restricts a school’s ability to creatively meet each student’s individual needs. Furthermore, outside of primary reading, a limited number of scientifically research-based interventions is available for each subject and grade level.
Some schools and districts have fallen into the trap of searching for the perfect product to buy that will help all their struggling readers, writers, or mathematics students. For example, a school might purchase a Tier 3 reading intervention program and then place all its struggling readers into it. The problem is that at-risk readers don’t all struggle for the same reason, so there is no one program that addresses every student’s unique needs. Some very good, scientific research-based products are available that can become powerful, targeted tools in a school’s intervention toolbox—but there is no silver bullet solution for all struggling students. Improving student achievement requires job-embedded, ongoing processes, not disjointed programs.
Perpetuating Ineffective Interventions
A system of interventions can only be as effective as the individual interventions it comprises. When we work with schools, we often have them list their current site interventions. At practically every school, the list includes remedial support classes of varying types, study hall opportunities, summer school, retention, and special education—interventions that research concludes are generally ineffective (Buffum et al., 2012; Hattie, 2009). For example, the research on retention shows that it does not promote higher levels of learning, close achievement gaps, or increase an at-risk student’s odds of future success in school. The most comprehensive meta-analysis on retention finds that being retained one year almost doubles a student’s likelihood of dropping out, while being retained twice almost guarantees it (Hattie, 2009). In spite of this conclusive evidence, schools continue to use retention as an intervention for their most at-risk students.
When it comes to interventions, giving at-risk students more of what is not working is rarely the answer. Common sense tells us this, yet many schools continue to build their systems of interventions with practices that don’t work, have never worked, and have no promise of getting better results the following year (Buffum et al., 2012).
Focusing Too Much on What the Staff Cannot Directly Influence
When planning interventions for struggling students, many schools spend an inordinate amount of time identifying and discussing factors that they cannot directly change. These topics include a student’s home environment, a lack of parental support, the pressure of preparing students for high-stakes state or provincial assessments, and ill-conceived district, state or provincial, and federal education policies. While these concerns are real and might be impacting both the student and the site educators, they are rarely the primary reason why a student has not learned specific essential learning outcomes. Similar schools are facing the same obstacles but nevertheless are reaching record levels of student achievement. This demonstrates that these external obstacles are undeniable hurdles but should not become insurmountable obstacles to improving student learning.
When it comes to interventions, giving at-risk students more of what is not working is rarely the answer.
Assuming Some Students Are Incapable of Learning at High Levels Due to Innate Cognitive Ability or Environmental Conditions
Virtually all educators believe their students can learn, but many think that how much a student can learn varies depending on his or her innate abilities and demographic background. They might assume students from economically disadvantaged homes—who are more likely to be minority students and English learners—are less capable than peers that come from more advantaged households. They rarely express their beliefs formally in the school’s mission statement or policies, but they carry out these beliefs in school practice every day. We know that a student’s ethnicity, native language, and economic status do not reduce the student’s innate capacity to learn, yet minority students, English learners, and economically disadvantaged students are disproportionately represented in special education (Brantlinger, 2006; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006; Skiba et al., 2008) and under-represented in gifted and honors programs (Donovan & Cross, 2002). It is unlikely an intervention will be effective when educators begin with the assumption that some students can’t achieve in the first place.
Undoubtedly, educators are not making these mistakes purposely. The hard work, dedication, and personal sacrifice individual educators display daily in support of their students continually inspire us. Because RTI practices represent a seismic shift in how schools have traditionally functioned, it would be naïve to think that the level of change required to do it well would be a smooth, seamless process. It is not enough to commit to doing the right work; we must do the right work right to secure the benefits that RTI is proven to provide.
The Right Work Right
If you want to cook a delicious meal, it requires more than a proven recipe and the right ingredients. These conditions are necessary but are not sufficient. The recipe must be prepared with a high level of cooking skill. Similarly, unlocking the potential power of RTI requires more than state guidelines, site resources, and a dedicated school staff—schools must implement RTI at a very high level. That is the purpose of this book—to walk you through exactly how to create a highly effective, multitiered system of supports within the framework of the PLC at Work process.
We must do the right work right to secure the benefits that RTI is proven to provide.
The first sentence in Mike and Austin’s first book, Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI, Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009), states, “This book is written for practitioners by practitioners” (p. 1). We did not create PLCs, RTI, or MTSS. We are educators who collaborate with our colleagues to successfully turn this powerful research into daily practice. Our schools are not immune to the misinterpretations and missteps previously described. In fact, we have hit just about every possible pothole and speedbump on our journey. But because we stay committed to the PLC process, these mistakes help us develop the simplified approaches, practical processes, and proven tools needed to dramatically increase student learning.
Our work is further enriched and refined through our collaboration with schools around the world. The recommendations in this book are grounded in research, and equally important, have been tested, revised, and validated in the real-world conditions that educators face daily. Most important, this book is designed to help schools avoid and overcome the most common implementation missteps.