Best Practices at Tier 1 [Secondary]. Gayle Gregory
![Best Practices at Tier 1 [Secondary] - Gayle Gregory](limg_read679455.jpg "Best Practices at Tier 1 [Secondary] - Gayle Gregory")
special education services. As a result, screening assessments, cut scores, and program decision protocols predetermine student identification, placement, and duration in each tier. Instead of providing students with multiple tiers of support, this misapplication of RTI moves students from tier to tier on their path toward special education.
But without question, the most common reason that schools struggle to successfully implement RTI goes back to the foundation of the process—effective core instruction. Tier 1 instruction should successfully meet the needs of a significant majority of students most of the time. When it does not, the consequences manifest in multiple ways. Some schools, for example, find that too many of their students are failing after core instruction and need interventions, and the size of that need overwhelms their system of supports and its available resources. Similarly, some schools find that significant subgroups—such as English learners (ELs) or students with special needs—struggle disproportionately in core instruction. Instead of revising their initial teaching practices to better meet these students’ learning needs, many schools remove the students from grade-level core instruction and replace that instruction with remedial coursework. This decision virtually ensures that these students will never catch up. Removing students from the Tier 1 grade-level essential curriculum is nothing more than student tracking, a system that separates students into learning groups based on perceived ability. As Jeannie Oakes (1985) finds in her landmark study Keeping Track, this sorting continues to disadvantage those in lower-track classes. Such students have less access to high-status knowledge, fewer opportunities to engage in stimulating learning activities, and less engaging classroom experiences with teachers, peers, and learning. If the goal is for all students to learn at high levels, then all students must be taught at high levels.
When individual students struggle in core instruction, few schools begin the intervention process by assessing the effectiveness of the student’s core instruction. Instead, as special education expert David Prasse (n.d.) finds, schools traditionally operate as though “failure to succeed in a general education program meant the student must, therefore, have a disability.” In other words, the common assumption is that the student’s innate abilities are the cause of his or her struggles. Even if these students begin receiving interventions, they most likely will continue to receive ineffective core instruction for a majority of their school day. Supplemental and intensive intervention cannot compensate for ineffective initial teaching that does not differentiate instruction to meet each student’s unique learning needs.
Even when dedicated school staff members acknowledge that too many students are struggling in core instruction, the consensus and commitment to improve core instruction can be elusive. As a general concept, RTI is appealing to virtually all educators. Who, after all, wouldn’t want to provide extra support for students in need? But, too often, the enthusiasm for intervention wanes quickly when the focus turns to Tier 1, because improving this level of instruction requires a deep level of change that affects every aspect of the school day. It requires school staff to take collective responsibility for student success, collaborate regularly, agree on essential learning outcomes and pacing, differentiate instruction, abandon traditional teaching and assessment practices that were designed to create a bell-shaped curve of student success, and make significant revisions to the school’s master schedule and resource allocations—all actions required to meet each student’s individual learning needs. This level of change is exceptionally difficult. In the end, many schools struggle to improve core instruction because too many adults in the building are unwilling to accept the level of temporary disequilibrium and discomfort required to significantly change what they do all day.
Because schools have resisted efforts to revise their core instructional practices, many districts have responded by purchasing a research-based textbook series and then dictating that their teachers exclusively implement it as their core program. In the name of “program fidelity,” these districts often require teachers to utilize these programs’ lockstep lesson plans, assessments, and supplemental materials. Such an approach assumes that the curricular design and pedagogies in the textbook represent scientifically researched-based best practice, so classroom teachers should relinquish their authority to plan and differentiate instruction and instead serve as program facilitators. Yet, Hattie’s (2009) study finds that textbook series have a marginal effect on student learning. This is not to suggest that textbooks cannot serve as effective tools to assist teachers in core instruction or that educators shouldn’t implement research-based programs. The concern is that when the program dictates all elements of core instruction, it limits the results teachers can achieve. In the end, no silver bullet program can ensure effective teaching for all students.
If rigid adherence to textbooks and instructional programs is not a long-term solution to improve Tier 1 core instruction, then what is? The key is to ensure more good teaching, in more classrooms, more of the time (DuFour & Mattos, 2013). When students have access to classrooms that consistently provide a learning environment and instructional practices proven to dramatically improve student learning, more students will succeed. To achieve this outcome, one must answer a critical question, What is good teaching?
Identifying the Elements of Good Teaching
Good teaching is a dichotomy. It is hard to capture in a single definition but easy to recognize when you see it. To understand the point, consider a similar example when trying to define something that is both deeply complex but apparent to the eye. When attempting to define obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…. But I know it when I see it” (Jacobellis v. Ohio, n.d.). Stewart acknowledged the difficulty in trying to write a universal, all-encompassing definition of what constitutes obscenity because any particular example or case must be weighed by the relevance and circumstances of the moment. Yet, when one sees an example of true obscenity, it’s usually obvious and straightforward. Similarly, while it’s difficult to create an all-encompassing definition or model of good teaching, such teaching makes itself evident to even the untrained eye. Within any school community, there is often general consensus on which instructors teach well. However, if we dig deeper and ask what makes each teacher effective, we’re likely to receive a wide variety of answers. This dichotomy of what constitutes good teaching exists, in part, because effective instruction is a convergence of three critical factors.
1. The science of teaching: The very definition of a profession is that it encompasses research-based best practices that members are expected to know and implement on behalf of their clients. In the teaching profession, we have never had greater clarity and consensus on what is considered best practice, which we define as the pedagogies and methodologies that have the best chance of helping students learn at higher levels. We also know more than ever about the brain and the physiology of learning. As Mike Schmoker (2004) states, “There are simple, proven, affordable structures that exist right now and could have a dramatic, widespread impact on schools and achievement—in virtually any school. An astonishing level of agreement has emerged on this point” (p. 424). Likewise, we also have great clarity on educational malpractice—the practices that are unlikely to significantly improve student learning. As professionals, we have ethical obligations to utilize classroom instructional strategies based on sound science and research.
2. The art of teaching: Teaching is a human endeavor. While we can study elements of learning through the neuroscience of the brain, what constitutes good teaching is more than a cognitive experience—it also is rooted in an instructor’s heart and soul. People aren’t always logical or reliably predictable in their behavior and responses. Good teaching, therefore, must take into account relationships, motivation, nurturing, constructive conflict, and mutual respect. It requires reading both people and assessment data. A hunch or an intuitive feeling for what their students need often guides master teachers. How do you quantify a teacher’s passion for the subject, intellectual curiosity, or genuine concern for students? These attributes are powerful levers to inspire and connect students to learning. As Robert Marzano (2007) states in his book The Art and Science of Teaching, classroom instructional strategies should be based on sound science and research, but knowing when to use them and with whom is more of an art.
3. Differentiation for individual