in a series of articles
from EC Director George Graham
Albert Einstein stated, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Using a different kind of thinking means we have to change and do things differently. Change may be difficult and challenging for many people.
We are all creatures of habit. Most people are resistant to change because they “like things just the way they are.” When they are confronted with the possibility of change, they realize there is a risk they will no longer be able to remain within their comfort zone.
When it comes to change, sometimes people have anxiety about the unknown. Other people may have a fear of the possibility of failure. Some people interpret change as a potential risk of losing some of their personal freedom, such as time. And, sometimes it is realizing there is the possibility of having to accept more responsibility or be more accountable. In many ways, change is an emotional process that each individual has to figure out how they are going to work through.
We are quick to forget that life is all about change. From the point of conception, we are in the process of constantly changing and ever evolving. Everything in life is in a continuous state of changing. Even if we don’t want to admit it, every aspect of our daily living is impacted by change. Change can mean growth and opportunity for good things to happen.
Unfortunately, in education, we tend to get into a comfortable daily routine. At times, we may find ourselves resistant to wanting to change to a new or different way of doing things. As educators who employ best practice, we cannot allow ourselves to stick with the safe, comfortable, and familiar way of continuing business as usual. We must not allow anxiety or the possible fear of failure to paralyze us. John Wooden, the great basketball coach said, “Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.”
In the last article, we began looking at the problem solving process and how important it is in working through situations that occur with students. We also looked at some other terms like “researched based interventions”, “progress monitoring”, and “response to intervention (RTI).” In this article, we will delve into these terms in more depth and detail, to gain a better understanding of what they mean within the context of the educational process.
In the school setting, the best way to implement the problem solving process is by having a team of professionals to meet on a regular basis to address issues and concerns regarding students’ learning and/or behavior. This team of professionals, the Problem Solving Team, will endeavor to identify the specific problem that will help address these issues and concerns.
Traditionally, this team approach has become viewed, by many, as a step in the process to getting a student referred to special education. However, a Problem Solving Team is much more than a “procedural hurdle” to getting a child referred. It is a process whereby substantial interventions are implemented to address specific problems, in an effort to help students be more successful and produce positive outcomes. It may, or may not end up in a referral to the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) team for a possible evaluation.
The problem solving process is very much like the Scientific Method. It is a process of a taking a sequence of steps which include defining a specific problem (making a prediction or hypothesis), collecting data to help substantiate the problem, analyze the data to help develop/implement an intervention, and then collect data (progress monitoring) to determine if the intervention was successful or not. At this point, the team would review the data and make a decision as to what to do next.
This problem solving process is part of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. In their book, Understanding Response to Intervention, Howell, Patton, and Deiotte, define RTI as “a system for educational design based on a hierarchy of interventions that are implemented to meet the needs of students who demonstrate underachievement in core academic areas of literacy and math.” Typically, this model is represented by a pyramid having three specific levels or “tiers” of intervention. The tiers are not limited to just intervention within the academic arena. These tiers of intervention can also include interventions for behavior.
In most of the literature describing the tiers of intervention, the first tier (Tier 1) is at the base of the pyramid. It is where approximately 85% of the student population, will be successful with the usual curriculum programming and by using differentiated instruction. The other approximately 15% of the student population will need additional interventions.
At the second tier (Tier 2), which is approximately 10% of the student population, students will need more specific and/or targeted interventions to be successful. This will require programs or interventions that are “researched based” to help address the problem that was identified by the Problem Solving Team. These interventions will probably require more time and need to be implemented in smaller groups.
Some students may require even more time and/or more specific interventions. These students would then move to the third tier (Tier 3) to get the more intensive help. At this level, if what has been implemented is not proving to be successful, then a student may need to be referred to the IEP team for consideration for a possible evaluation to see if he/she may be eligible for special education services.
At each tier, an intervention is being employed based on what is perceived to be the problem. To be effective, the intervention must be implemented with “fidelity,” or, in other words, implemented consistently with the integrity in accordance with how the research findings have shown it needs to be implemented to be successful.
If the need exists to move a student to the next tier, the interventions will become more intensive. This means there may be an increase in the amount of time, frequency (how often), or the duration of implementation (how long it will last).
The National Institute for Literacy produced a document entitled, “What is Scientifically Based Research? A Guide for Teachers.” In this document they described “the federal perspective on scientifically based research.” They refer to The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 as specifying certain requirements to meet the definition of “scientifically based.”
These requirements can be summed up simply as “Curriculum and educational interventions that have been scientifically proven to be effective for most students,” as stated in Pyramid Response to Intervention, RTI, Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn, by Buffum, Mattos and Weber. This means teachers act as scientists. They have to make decisions, that impact student outcomes, based on the implementation of, assessment of, and results of the interventions they implemented.
Each intervention that is implemented must be evaluated for effectiveness. This is what is called “progress monitoring.” This is simply a process for monitoring the implementation of the intervention to help determine if it is being successful or not. It is a way to demonstrate change over time. Many educators find that a simple graph is a very effective visual in determining effectiveness of the intervention over time.
Progress monitoring is important because it provides documentation of the data to evaluate the level of performance and rate of learning. It has been demonstrated through research that progress monitoring helps to improve the quality of instruction and interventions matched to students’ needs, and helps to show when changes are needed in the instruction and interventions to improve outcomes.
In bringing this article to a conclusion, it is evident that this entire process involves many aspects that may be new and/or different for most teachers. Therefore it will take time and patience as it is being developed and implemented within the school setting. The end result will mean that teachers will be more effective in meeting the needs of all students within their classrooms. It will, in effect, help to bridge the gap between the research and high-quality best practices.