Guest Teacher Blogger – Winner of the 2012 Sopris Learning Blog Contest!
By Michelle George
I was driving across state awhile ago, tuned in to International Public Radio (IPR). I tend to get sleepy on long drives, and talk radio keeps my brain working and my eyes open. I was listening to a fascinating program from radiolab.org. The hosts were talking about some quirky research findings documented in the book Drunk Tank Pink by Adam Alter.
Alter chronicles a wide range of research that illustrates ways our environment exerts powerful influence on our minds and our daily lives. All the while, I kept thinking, “Wow, I could so use this in my teaching practice.” Ultimately, what our students don’t know might really help us reach them in some surprising ways.
As soon as I got home, I went online and ordered the book. I’m not usually a big fan of nonfiction, but this book is fun stuff! Just to get you interested, I’m going to highlight a bit of what Alter reveals about the influence of color on behavior.
One series of teaching-related studies was done on the use of red ink. The researchers had two groups of undergrads correct a fabricated essay with deliberate errors. Even though they all had the same essay, those using red pens found an average of 24% more errors that the banal blue correctors.
In a follow-up study, two groups of undergrads corrected another essay. They all read the exact same essay, but one group of undergrads had blue ink pens, the other red. The red adjudicators gave the essays, on average, a 76/100, whereas the more mellow blue scorers gave the essays an average score of 80/100. As teachers and students, we can all recognize the daunting difference between a “C” and a “B.”
The influence doesn’t stop there. Maybe those cardinal scorers were more accurate, after all, and that’s good, right?
Another series of studies suggests that red ink can actually cause students to perform more poorly. In one series of studies, subjects answered on test sheets where only the subjects’ ID numbers were in color. The researchers randomly colored them red, black, green, gray, and white. The subjects were asked to unscramble anagrams. Subjects with red ID numbers averaged 22 fewer correct answers. The researchers also tried changing the color of the cover of test booklets. Subjects were asked to solve a variety of number-string questions and analogies. The red-cover subjects solved 18 percent fewer number puzzles and 37 percent fewer analogy questions.
I told you this stuff is intriguing. Now I can almost hear some of you saying, “Yeah, but …” and, of course, you’re right. Correlations like this are not necessarily causal. But what if they are? What if by simply avoiding the use of red in testing and evaluations, we can help students be more successful? Those researchers hypothesized that the results are due to the fact that, “The color red activates the right hemisphere of the frontal cortex.” That area of the brain is connected with failure avoidance. Theoretically, students subliminally choose to risk less and not try as hard when red is present. What would it hurt if we simply chose not to wield a bloody pen? More importantly, what could we gain?
Another interesting color study tidbit comes from a 1979 study, in which Professor Alexander Schauss had 153 healthy young men stare at colored cardboard and then tested their strength. They had two groups who looked at either a deep blue color or a bright pink color. Surprisingly, all but two of the men were markedly weaker after looking at the pink cardboard. How weird is that? Professor Schauss tested the theory again with a group of 38 men, having them squeeze a measurement device this time. All of the subjects were weaker after being exposed to pink.
In Drunk Tank Pink, Alter also reports that United Way charity workers receive two to three times more donations when sporting bright pink uniforms. And violent drunks seem to mellow when exposed to pink holding cells—hence the book’s title.
I teach English to seventh graders, and around 2 p.m., a little dose of calm is a greatly desired effect. So I took a leap of faith in the science of the mind and changed all of my students’ computer screen backgrounds to—you guessed it—drunk tank pink. I shared the research with them, and I’m currently charting the level of chaos since the change.
I can’t say with any confidence that my students are drastically sedated since the pink, but it does soothe my heart to look out and see those sweet faces bathed in a rosy glow. Maybe I’m the one who needed a good dose of drunk tank pink.
Alter, Adam. (2012). Drunk tank pink: And other unexpected forces that shape how we think, feel, and behave. New York: The Penguin Press.
Michelle S. George is a language arts middle school teacher in Orofino, Idaho. She has a B.A. in English and secondary certification in English, reading, and journalism. Michelle has been teaching seventh and eighth grade for 20 years, and still loves going to school—as a teacher and a student. She has published a variety of lesson plans and written several award-winning grants.
By Dr. Steven Richfield
Although there are a variety of school-based services available for children with learning, emotional, and social disabilities, one critical need often goes unfulfilled: providing guidance and strategies that instill self-advocacy.
Most students have only a superficial notion of the reasons they receive these special accommodations, and many children are completely uninformed. Resource teachers and specialists do not generally have the authority to label and enlighten students about their disabilities, the foundation for building self-advocacy. If children are to learn how to become better consumers of educational resources, especially as they grow older, someone must take the lead.
Parents of children with disabilities can fill this role by doing the following:
-
Introduce children’s diagnoses to them in elementary school so that they can make sense out of their struggles
-
Use a matter-of-fact tone of voice when explaining to children that they learn/behave/relate differently from other students and, therefore, need extra help to ensure that they can succeed just like their classmates
-
Don’t leave out the disability label—such as writing disability, ADHD, or Aspergers Syndrome—since labels are a reality of their educational life
-
Emphasize that the teachers and special staff at school who help them will be aware of this label and prepared to help in certain ways to make school a fairer place for them to learn and grow
It’s important to review with children the ways in which their school must provide special help and services. Emphasize that these accommodations are rules the school must follow. “You have the responsibility to do your best job, and teachers must follow the learning/behavior/friendship helping rules that make things fair for you,” is one way to put it. Explain how extra time on assessments, decreased homework, or social skills groups are examples of the helping rules that schools must follow. Discuss how there is a written promise called the individualized education plan (IEP), which includes all the helping rules and makes all of this clear.
Find child-friendly resources—such as books, websites, and videos—that explain in detail their specific disability and the ways other children have learned to cope and achieve despite these limitations. Use these materials as a springboard for deeper discussion about past times when their disability created significant stress or barriers to success. Reassure them that this was before their problem was known and that there is so much that can be done to build a plan for success now that it has been identified.
Point out that one of their most important responsibilities is to be able to discuss their disability with teachers and ask for extra help and accommodation when struggles are too great. Make sure that these discussions take place before middle school, when developmental factors make it harder to get such discussions started. Ensure that they know what practical steps are in their IEP at each grade so that they can respectfully remind teaching staff if necessary.
Having a disability is like having to wear glasses; students with glasses have accepted this fact as necessary to seeing clearly.
Dr. Steven Richfield is a child psychologist and author in Plymouth Meeting, PA. Contact him at 610-238-4450 or director@parentcoachcards.com
By Martin Horejsi
The simplest distinction that separates traditional teaching from digital teaching is found in the presence or absence of molecules.
Digital components—documents, pictures, audio, or video—exist entirely as ones and zeros. Physical components, on the other hand, include such things as dyes soaked into compressed wood pulp, ridges carved on spinning vinyl disks, or celluloid film chemically altered to affect transparency. Although digital data can be stored on many types of media, its major advantage is that it can be copied an infinite number of times with absolutely no degradation of quality.
When compared to molecular versions, the digital data presents some challenges. For instance, consider primary sources. Is there such a thing as a primary-source digital artifact? I once met the “Father of the Internet,” Vint Cert, who was speaking at a NASA luncheon. I asked him for his autograph and, instead of pen on paper, he signed my iPad with his finger. The result is pictured below.
Frankly, I cannot remember which of my iPads he signed, and the image produced was actually a screenshot from the iPad. The process for the screenshot included three different applications: 1) a screenshot from 2) an iBook/PDF enlarged page from the conference catalog, and 3) a PDF reader app with finger/pen annotation tool. All of these applications were used before the autograph was recaptured as a screenshot to be emailed, posted on Facebook, and turned into desktop wallpaper.
It’s one of my favorite autographs, but it also reminds me of that old story of the farmer’s favorite axe: Over the decades, the axe handle had been replaced three times, and the blade renewed twice, but according to the farmer it was the best axe ever made.
Creating and using digital objects in education does require a pedagogical shift in both products and interpretation. For instance, most traditional teaching practices dictate making paper copies of a worksheet in a one-to-one ratio of students to worksheets. The papers are then distributed to the students only to be collected for grading later.
However, when completely digital, the number of worksheets could range anywhere from one to infinity. One worksheet would represent something like an interactive web-based worksheet that the student can access, but never actually “owns” or can print (you could argue that is actually zero worksheets). An infinite number of worksheets could be represented by a digital worksheet document that can be printed, emailed, completed on-screen, or even stored in multiple ways. This would create a synchronized version accessible anywhere with almost any Internet-connected device that could even be worked on collaboratively.
So what is a teacher to do? The path of least resistance is to embrace the digital and enjoy educating in the 21st century. To begin, consider the three main aspects that make digital tools and products so effective. These are:
- The absence of molecules
- Massive archiving
- Unlimited retrievals
First, truly digital products must be 100 percent digital. If the ultimate intent of an assignment is to print it, then some of the digital potential is lost due to a molecular end product. Making a digital book that will later be printed loses all of the potential of being digital. You cannot print sound, video, 3-D motion, or interactivity, so the desired outcome may limit the ultimate power of the resource.
Second, massive archiving is the ability to have the digital products stored, allowing near-unlimited access and sharing. Examples of this include webpages, cloud storage, online digital photo albums, streaming video, and downloadable digital documents.
Third, massive retrieval is the recapture of archived digital products for inclusion in a greater overall purpose. Examples of this include embedding photos and video in blogs, collaborating within digital documents and presentations, adding photos to Google Earth data layer, and creating digital books.
By incorporating the above three considerations of digital design into the tools of education, it quickly becomes obvious that most of the limits we place on our digital teaching tools can be found in the imagination of those using them.
Dr. Martin Horejsi is associate professor of Instructional Technology and Science Education in the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Montana, Missoula. He was previously a middle and high school science teacher, and his areas of specialty include mobile technologies, collaborative applications, digital creative expression, standard and nonstandard digital assessments, wireless data collection, hybrid and blended learning environments, and innovative classroom uses of consumer technologies. Dr. Horejsi is a board member of the Northwest Council for Computer Education (NCCE), writes a column and blogs for the National Science Teachers Association called Science 2.0, and has been blogging about meteorites and space science since 2002 in his Meteorite-Times.com column titled “The Accretion Desk.”
By Melody Ilk
Ah, the family road trip. I have fond memories of my parents loading me up in the Ford with my two older brothers for the 12-hour drive to visit my grandparents in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Our route took us from southern Idaho through parts of Utah, then along I-80 across the vast expanse of Wyoming.
They would stuff an old crib mattress in the back seat (no seat belts in those days) so we could play, eat, sleep, argue, and whine. No DVD players, iPads, or access to the plethora of electronic devices that exist today; just family togetherness!
I remember my favorite spot in the car was tucked up in the back window with my pillow, watching Wyoming go by, counting antelope, and playing the alphabet game with road signs. Sounds rosy, doesn’t it?
I have memories of my father threatening to leave us all on the Wyoming roadside for coyote bait if we didn’t behave ourselves. I also remember, with horror, the first time I couldn’t hold it till the next town (they were 100 miles apart) and had to relieve myself roadside! Those were the days.
As another school year ends, it’s that time of year for principals, teachers, and district leaders to celebrate successes, reflect on struggles, and set goals for the next school year. Just as diligent parents meticulously plan the family road trip, so must district and school leaders carefully analyze both student and teacher data and plot the course to lead to the next steps for building successful readers. So let’s think through how to plan your next school year (aka road trip).
Planning the Road Trip
The first step in planning a successful road trip is to know exactly where you are going and how long it will take to get there. Miles are calculated into estimated hours of travel with strategically planned stops for food, fuel, and rest. Maps are studied, and routes are plotted to reach the desired destination. Schools need to employ this same level of meticulous thinking before launching a reading initiative or planning for the next year of implementation.
We know the components needed for a successful reading initiative are the following:
- Strong differentiated tiers of instruction
- Ongoing assessment and progress monitoring at each tier
- Data analysis through structured, ongoing data teams
- Strategic, well-planned professional development aligned to the needs of the teachers along the way
Here are some questions to ponder: What components can our school realistically handle in the first year … second year … third year and beyond? What kind of growth do we hope to achieve each year? How will we know when we can add or refine another component?
Leadership needs to have clear targets for time, destinations, refueling, and possible bumps in the road. The route has been planned.
Coordinating the Bladder, the Stomach, and the Gas Tank
Another component of a successful road trip is coordinating the “fullness” or “emptiness” of the passengers in the car and, of course, the car itself. In other words, know your data! Are your reading assessments designed to increase in frequency based on the needs of your students? The more intense the need, the more frequent the monitoring needs to be, much like the parent who keeps an eagle eye on the toddler or the driver who monitors the gas tank.
More planned stops should be plotted on the route with possibilities for a necessary detour. Instructional time, intensity, or group size may need to change. A change in instruction may need to be planned and executed based on the needs of the kids, not the adults. Additional supports, coaching, or instructional review may need to be built in to improve instruction.
Honey, I Know a Shortcut
Ever ridden with a driver who always has a shortcut? What usually happens? Either it takes much longer, or you end up hopelessly lost with said driver refusing to stop and ask for directions!
There are no shortcuts in teaching kids to read. In order for systemic change to occur, schools and districts must stay the course with research-proven practices and continually revisit each component in the reading initiative. Often, a change in leadership and belief system brings a detour or change in direction for the school or district. Thus, improved reading achievement is not realized. In addition, successes sustained over time are now lost.
Are We There Yet?
Now we come to the point where the road trip analogy does not quite align with a school or district plan for raising reading achievement. Yes, schools can get there with exemplary practices and hard work. However, keeping the model intact and moving forward is the real trick. Durability and sustainability become the challenge.
As personnel retire or move to other positions, new recruits enter the system with varying degrees of preparation for teaching reading. So, we must plan the trip, plot the course, and travel the road again and again, improving each tier of instruction, utilizing assessment and progress monitoring, refining data teams and instructional alignment, and providing purposeful, well-planned professional development. All are part of the road well-traveled.
Melody Ilk earned an M.A. in special education and her principal licensure from the University of Northern Colorado. She has taught for numerous years in special education and general elementary classrooms, and has served as a reading interventionist and resource/staff developer in Title I schools for Colorado’s Jefferson County Public Schools. Ilk is a regional trainer for Colorado
LETRS, the Colorado Reading First project, and
DIBELS. She is coauthor of A Principal’s Primer for Raising Reading Achievement, with Pati Montgomery and Louisa Moats
Guest Teacher Blogger – Winner of the 2012 Sopris Learning Blog Contest!
By Michelle George
My last blog extolled the virtues of Mary Poppins, and how her nannying lessons can be applied to our world of teaching. When we left off, Miss Poppins was in the nursery with Jane and Michael. The three were looking at the mess of unmade beds and piles of toys strewn around the room. Jane and Michael have already fallen head-over-heels in love with this antithesis of a nanny, but it now appears the party is over. The kids know the nursery is a mess and are keenly aware they should be getting some work done; they just don’t want to do it.
It’s just like school. Our students arrive each morning with the understanding that the goal is to learn something. Intrinsically, they know learning will take effort, and that really doesn’t sound like much fun. Bring on Mary Poppins! She looks at those suspicious little faces and tells them, “In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. Find the fun and—snap—the job’s a game!” What a radical notion. Cleaning up shouldn’t be fun; school shouldn’t be fun. It’s work!
I still remember the recurring skit on “Saturday Night Live” in which a grumpy old man assaults his listeners with horror stories of his youth, always ending with the refrain, “And we liked it!” True, school should be rigorous and challenging, but that doesn’t mean it must be a boring, joyless grind. The notion is true that if one chooses a career one enjoys, going to work can be a delight. While I don’t always spring out of bed at 5 a.m. with a smile on my face, I do enjoy what I do. In particular, I like the students I teach and the idea of learning something new each and every day. Why can’t we provide that type of experience for our students? We can!
I don’t have the magical gifts of Mary Poppins, but I do have access to some pretty cool real-life tools. The advent of technology has helped make learning accessible, creative, and exciting. I can find videos and digital demonstrations on practically any topic imaginable. I can help students master tools that can help them overcome their own limitations—from reading and writing to understanding and creativity.
For example, kids without strong fine motor skills can use a keyboard or dictation software to clearly communicate their ideas. Impaired readers can use software that reads the text to them. And, even budding artists can find a myriad of tools that can allow them to express themselves to a real audience. Now, that is fun!
What’s more, my students are no longer limited by my finite knowledge. With guidance, they can learn to explore vast knowledge on any topic imaginable. But, like Mary Poppins, I need to be close at hand to keep them safe. Newfound knowledge can make a person overly confidant and sometimes irresponsible. Jane and Michael needed Miss Poppins’ experience to evaluate their fresh power and rein it in before it overwhelmed them. Similarly, educators need to be prepared to guide learners in determining what they really want to learn, evaluating sources for validity and reliability, and developing procedures that help them drink from the well of knowledge without falling in and drowning.
And, that is just what Mary Poppins does, too. She takes the children on various adventures, introducing them to new people, places, and ideas. They experience fantastical realms in chalk pavement pictures, witness firsthand the laws of physics while having a tea party on the ceiling, and learn about compassion and perspective by looking through a new lens at the old bird woman and their father. Wow, Mary Poppins rocks!
We can attempt to do the same. Try inviting students into some of your favorite works of fantasy, and empowering them to discover their own. Reveal the wonders of science by jumping in and experiencing it firsthand, and help students (and ourselves) look at familiar issues with a different set of eyes. I think even Burt would enjoy coming to school if the teaching style were more like that of Mary Poppins.
Yet, by the end of the movie, we realize that Mary Poppins, too, is a short-timer. As educators, we only borrow our students for a little while and then send them on their way to summer break and the next grade level. Mary Poppins gathers her courage by reminding her umbrella and herself that, “Practically perfect people never let sentiment muddle their thinking.” Just like her, we tell ourselves that we shouldn’t get too attached to these amazing young people who will move on without us. And, just like her, we fall in love with them anyway. Now, all I need to do is find one of those flying umbrellas.
Michelle S. George is a language arts middle school teacher in Orofino, Idaho. She has a B.A. in English and secondary certification in English, reading, and journalism. Michelle has been teaching seventh and eighth grade for 20 years, and still loves going to school—as a teacher and a student. She has published a variety of lesson plans and written several award-winning grants.
By Jill Jackson
I second-guessed the decision to title this series “Get a Backbone!” It is a little harsh, after all. But, when I review everything I see in actual schools, it comes down to this: Excellent principals who get positive results have skills, but more importantly, they have backbone! And, they use it.
Now, don’t mistake the concept of “backbone” for leadership that is rude, mean, and “out-to-fire-everyone.” In fact, principals that lead with backbone are some of the most beloved and highly revered leaders I’ve seen in action. They’re the kind of leaders that teachers will move schools to work with. They’re the kind of leaders that the staff wants to excel for. This isn’t to say that their staff members don’t roll their eyes after staff meetings and say, “Ugh! Why do the other schools get to work in their rooms in the afternoon and we have to go to a staff meeting? Our principal is so…mean!”
Principals with backbone have high standards and hold everyone accountable to them, which breed confidence and purpose. The cool thing is, in the end, the same teachers who roll their eyes at the expectations are the same ones who stand proudly as they receive an award from the superintendent for radically improving student scores or win a national academic excellence award.
So, that’s the thing: Principals with backbone get results, every time.
A lot of people are afraid to tell the truth, to say no. That’s where toughness comes into play. Toughness is not being a bully. It’s having backbone.”
–Robert Kiyosaki
The Scene: You are holding your monthly staff meeting after school, going through the usual kinds of agenda items, including: What time teachers need to show up to sign their insurance forms, when the submissions for the upcoming art fair are due to the school secretary, and how there have been problems in the boys bathroom with the toilets getting clogged, so the new school rule is only one student at a time can enter the bathroom. Meanwhile, you scan the room and notice that the usual suspects are late coming back from lunch again (apparently, there was a big back-up in the drive-thru line), two teachers are missing from the meeting because they scheduled dentist appointments for this afternoon, and you see three teachers grading papers while you’re talking. Just another regular staff meeting!
After the meeting, several teachers approach to talk with you:
- Mr. Jones (one of the late-comers stuck in the drive-thru line) says he doesn’t have the right paper for the art fair submissions and where would he find it anyway?
- Ms. Johnson lets you know that she is going to be absent during the testing window and will need coverage
- Mr. Pinkny informs that he referred six students yesterday because his class is “really bad” this year and something needs to be done
- Mrs. Shower says her instructional aide hasn’t been showing up until 10 minutes after the small groups have begun, which has led to chaos during small-group time because they don’t have a teacher. “You need to deal with my aide right away!”
- Mr. Heatherton shows you his mid-year test scores and it appears that nine kids slipped from benchmark to well below, and he thinks that seven of these nine should be tested for special education needs
- Ms. Pembroke wants to talk about whether she really needs to attend the grade-level team meetings because she’s “not getting much from them,” and since they only last 20 minutes anyway, could she use that time to work with a small group of struggling kids instead?
- Mr. Langston would like to know if he can keep his students during reading intervention because he doesn’t feel they are benefiting from the group. He hasn’t looked at the data, he says, but he has “a feeling” it’s not going well
- And finally, Mrs. Wagner asks if she can talk to you privately because she’s going through some personal problems and is having trouble getting to school on time because her daycare has fallen through
While heading back to your office with a headache, you’re met by a few teachers (the ones grading papers during the meeting) who want to know, “What did you say again about the art fair deadline?”
The Analysis: You need to regain control. It’s time to set a higher standard for professionalism and then require your staff follow through. There appears to be general apathy toward the real instructional work that is necessary at the school, which is what will actually produce the academic results you desire. You want to make your school instruction-centered, but there seems to be a lot of “junk” that gets in the way.
In analyzing the concerns that were brought up after the meeting, you realize that most of them should be discussed during the meeting. The lagging data, the Special Ed referrals, the lack of focus from instructional aides, classroom management—these are the tasks that, if well-managed, make a school highly successful. Spending precious staff meeting time on what kind of paper the art fair entries should be mounted on is prioritizing the art fair above the instructional business of the school. When you model that what you value above instruction is the students’ bathroom behavior, it is unfair to be frustrated with your staff because they’re failing to organize around improving the quality of instruction.
The difference is what the leader values. When you value instruction and prioritize the conversations around that idea, the plant-management issues tend to be diluted. They don’t go away fully, but they are managed quickly and oftentimes avoided before they even arise. When a leader values plant management or logistics above all else, then the majority of the conversations and meetings are around logistics. So when it comes time to discuss instruction, the logistics-centered school lacks practice in talking about teaching and tends to do it less.
Side note: If you are reading this and think, “Geez, this Jill Jackson is way off base and must not know what real school leadership is all about. The bathroom problems, the bus duty, the coverage for late teachers are major parts of my job every day. Jill needs to get realistic!” then let’s have a quick side conversation. I understand that running a big operation from a logistics perspective is tricky and very time-consuming. But, I also know that the successful school across town that spends more than 80 percent of its time focusing on instruction-related discussions also has a big operation to run.
It’s time to mobilize your leadership team and get them involved in helping plan staff meetings, team meetings, and school-based professional development around the real needs of teachers and students. It’s also time to model professional conduct, structuring school meetings and interactions to expect 100 percent teacher engagement and 100 percent commitment to moving the focus from what the teachers need to what the students need. These are not student issues; these are teacher issues. If you fail to intervene and refocus now, you’re ensuring full burnout in the very near future.
Jill Jackson is a tell-it-like-it-is school improvement supporter. She believes that while skill is important to leadership, coaching, and teaching, the will to do the work can trump skill! Her book, “Get a Backbone, Principal! 5 Conversations Every School Leader Must Have Right Now!” was released April 1, 2013. You can read her weekly blogs and grab free resources right now at www.jackson-consulting.com.
By Joanne Allain
Assessment plays an important role in the Response to Intervention (RtI)/Multiple System of Supports (MTSS) process. While the different types of assessment seem clearly outlined and easily understood for those in the assessment field, comprehensive assessment systems used beyond special education are relatively new to many educators. Consequently, there are varied interpretations and implementations of assessment across districts and schools.
Uncertainty still exists about the purpose of specific assessments, how often to use them, how to use the information effectively, and even the terminology used to describe different assessments. This confusion is largely due to multiple meanings of assessment terms, and a misunderstanding of the value and purpose of various assessments. It is such a widespread conundrum that my colleague, Nancy Eberhardt, and I devoted an entire chapter to it in our book, RtI: The Forgotten Tier.
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) provides this definition in its Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementations report: “Response to Intervention (RtI) is the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and apply child response data to important educational decisions.”
The report helps clarify the RtI assessment process by identifying the components that are essential for a comprehensive assessment system:
- Standards-based assessments determine if students are making progress toward grade-level standards
- Screens (reading and/or math) determine if a student is eligible for intervention; for literacy, fluency is usually the measure of choice in grades K-2, while comprehension comes into play more significantly in third grade and above
- Diagnostic/Skill Inventories determine skill deficits that can be targeted through intervention and instruction
- Progress Monitors determine whether students are learning the skills and concepts being taught in each tier of instruction/intervention
Nearly everyone agrees that a thorough assessment system is essential to the success of RtI/MTSS and that we always use multiple data points to determine if a student requires services offered in Tier II or Tier III.
However, there is not much direction on how much data is enough. As a result, some have adopted the notion that more must be better.
Assessment is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is the catalyst by which we are able to develop specific prescriptive instruction and intervention designed to meet student needs.
Instruction and intervention are the vehicles that improve student skills. Assessment measures the need and the progress. Consequently, we must look closely at our RtI/MTSS practice and determine if our system is out of balance
If you suspect that you might be assessing too much, a cost/benefit analysis can help scrutinize your RtI/MTSS assessment system. The cost in this case is not money, but rather instructional time. The benefit is the impact that the data have on educational decisions. An analysis will determine whether the lost instructional time is worth the information gathered by various assessments.
Some simple questions can help you evaluate your current system to determine if any changes are necessary. They can also help new implementers of RtI design a streamlined but effective assessment system.
1. How much time is spent on assessment to determine need for and type of intervention?
a. Calculate the time spent on standards-based periodic assessments, screening, skill
inventories, and progress monitoring measures
2. How much time does this take away from instruction and intervention?
a. Include lost instructional time if only one or some students are being assessed and the
rest of a class or group lose instruction
3. What information is gathered from each assessment? What is the educational benefit?
a. How is the information used?
b. Is all the information used, and to what degree?
c. Are the data gained from the assessments worth the time spent?
4. Do all students need screening, or do we have historical data at some grade levels that can
serve as an initial indicator?
a.Do we already have historical evidence that students are consistently performing at grade
level? If so, do we need to screen them?
5. Are we using multiple assessments that keep telling us the same thing?
a. Is our system redundant?
6. Are the assessments we use subjective or objective?
a. Do the data still keep you “guessing” because they are not definitive?
7. Do we keep using “favorite” assessments at the school and classroom level?
a. Could those assessments be used more sparingly or put aside?
With questions and analysis, determine which assessments are essential for an RtI/MTSS system and which are supplementary. Then, examine the time spent vs. the benefit of each assessment. Do you assess more than needed? Is every piece of information gathered being used? To what end?
Assessment is a valuable and critical tool in RtI/MTSS. We strive to balance the RtI/MTSS system with appropriate but quick assessments that will provide sufficient information to guide us toward the actual purpose of RtI/MTSS—instruction and intervention matched to student need.
Time is a precious commodity during the school day. Streamlining your RtI/MTSS assessment system will help you use it wisely.
References
Allain, J., & Eberhardt, N C. (2011). RtI: The forgotten tier: A practical guide for building a data driven Tier I instructional process. Stockton, KS: Rowe Publishing and Design.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementations. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Joanne Allain, M.A. is a national consultant with 3t Literacy Group. She works with states, districts, and schools across the country to develop, implement, and coach practical, customized RtI/MTSS systems, instruction, and intervention. Her career experience at both the classroom and district level provides the perspective of a practitioner in real schools with real students. She is the author of Logistics of Literacy Intervention: A Planning Guide for Middle and High School and An RtI Planning Guide for Elementary Schools. Joanne can be contacted at joanne.allain@3tliteracygroup.org .
By Dr. Martin Horejsi
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
—Arthur C. Clarke
As I watched the latest crop of tablet computers graduate from drawing board to Christmas list last year, I was again thrilled to have plenty of choices for use in education. But my standards are high. I expect nothing short of magic from my tablets. I expect them to become invisible, to disappear before my eyes, to melt in my hands.
You see, the tablet is not important; it is what the tablet does that justifies its existence. Tablets are conduits to something else … to somewhere else … to anywhere else. The tablet is capable of doing so many things to such a small extent that if ever we successfully label a technology a tool, and really mean it, the tablet is a worthy recipient.
When a student uses a tablet to read, the experience must be immersive. No, really immersive. Like beyond the cliché. On the stage of education, the electronic device must never expect its role to be more than a supporting actor. To do its job well, the tablet must blend into the background, silently serving up words while hoping desperately to be forgotten. And it must be really happy in that role. Just like when the physical book dissolves away the moment it gets good. Really good. Goosebumps good. You know what I mean.
Yet if the interface of a tablet requires hard touches and multiple swiping attempts—and emits enough alerts, popups, hangs, hiccups and chirps to scare a horse—then the tablet is overshadowing the star of the show, biting the hand that feeds it content. You know the feeling. Like when a great thought is lost with the snap of pencil lead. Or when the crux of the plot is wedged between two stuck pages, now holding hostage three hundred pages of priceless tension.
Watching students, and even my own kids, devour a foot-high stack of Harry Potter, I know they are different people afterward. They have been to a place in their minds where the magic truly is real, and they want nothing more than to plow into another book—damn the big words—full speed ahead!
Literacy is an experience, a feeling of confidence, an acquired dimension that can never be taken away. The books, however, fare far worse; cover torn, pages bent, spine broken—the souvenir scars of a wonderful adventure that still brings a grin even when alone. But none of that matters if the book is more important than its words. And the same is true for a tablet. Neither is to be placed on a shelf and venerated as the next big thing. It is to be consumed. Used. Pushed. Threatened. Challenged. Loved.
The tablet as an e-reader is a portal to another land, another time. A beautiful place that has not gone unnoticed by nonprofits who are delivering tablets by the thousands to sub-Saharan Africa, where books made out of actual paper are all but unknown. Each pencil-thin rectangle of screen real estate is a world-class library filled with an ever-growing collective record of humanity, a record that is as much a birthright on this planet as food and water.
The perfect storm of technology and literacy empowers my students to go far beyond grade-appropriate childhood dreams. Students actually trust us to fulfill our promise of educating them better than any child before has been taught. And through technology, today they know more, see more, and demand more. At no time in human history have teachers had the tools to actually deliver on that promise.
Dr. Martin Horejsi is associate professor of Instructional Technology and Science Education in the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Montana, Missoula. He was previously a middle and high school science teacher, and his areas of specialty include mobile technologies, collaborative applications, digital creative expression, standard and nonstandard digital assessments, wireless data collection, hybrid and blended learning environments, and innovative classroom uses of consumer technologies. Dr. Horejsi is a board member of the Northwest Council for Computer Education (NCCE), writes a column and blogs for the National Science Teachers Association called Science 2.0, and has been blogging about meteorites and space science since 2002 in his Meteorite-Times.com column titled “The Accretion Desk.”
By Dr. Sandra D. Jones
As developing a teacher evaluation system becomes a mandate at the state level, administrators who are also conscientious educators strive to comply. It is, however, proving to be quite a challenge for them.
I’m a literacy consultant and, for the past three years, I have been working in a district that just became a recipient of its state’s Race to the Top funds. District administrators are getting ready for the next school year by reviewing the teacher evaluation system designed by their state, which provides both formative and summative information on teacher performance.
There was a momentous shift in the administrators’ focus from the end of last school year to the beginning of this school year. For the first two years of the district initiative, I worked with the leadership team on how to conduct “learning walks” geared toward helping teachers develop the skills necessary to provide high-quality literacy instruction to all of their students.
We watched videos demonstrating effective literacy instruction, conducted countless walks and debriefings, worked as a team to achieve inter-rater reliability across the district, reviewed trend analyses, identified professional development needs—all the while assuring teachers that these “learning walks” were not evaluative.
While not completely won over, teachers were beginning to believe that the “learning walks” were instructional rather than evaluative in nature and increasingly welcomed observers into their classrooms.
At the beginning of this year, I was earnestly and politely informed by one of the principals that he was no longer going to conduct “learning walks” because he had to conduct teacher evaluation walks. Mind you, this comment was said in the presence of the superintendent and assistant superintendent.
He explained that the state-mandated evaluation walks had to be at least 15 minutes in length and had to be conducted a large number of times over the course of the school year. He said that there was “no way” he could conduct the teacher evaluation observations and provide instructional leadership “learning walks” at the same time. Furthermore, he added that at the previous state-sponsored principal training, his colleagues expressed the same thoughts. He and his colleagues all agreed that the new teacher evaluation mandates took precedence over other time-consuming observations. His declaration stopped me “dead in my tracks.” A multitude of questions were running through my mind as I listened to this educator, whom I respected.
Teaching is hard work! Changing how we teach is even more difficult and stressful. I recently re-entered the classroom to learn how to teach a strategy that was new to me. The resource teacher graciously allowed me to learn and practice in her classroom. Her pay-off was learning along with me; the students gained expertise and made significant progress. Despite my nervousness at being observed by the resource teacher and some of her colleagues, I felt “safe” trying out this new way to teach. After every lesson, we debriefed and discussed what went well and what didn’t. This was instructional collaboration at its finest, and it made me wonder, “When do teachers get to practice?”
If teacher observations are always evaluative in nature, teachers either do not get to practice new strategies in a safe and instructionally focused environment or their environment could inhibit the very fundamentals of effective embedded professional development.
Federal policy regarding teacher accountability has filtered down to the states, and from there to districts and schools. Educators are scrambling to figure out how to implement these policies. My plea is that, as we figure out how to conduct evaluative observations, we take care not to undo the gains we have made in helping teachers learn new data-based instructional practices.
If principals do not have time for instructional leadership because they have to collect a specified number of 15-minute evaluation segments over the course of a year, then we have a problem. Nowhere in the numerous Multitier System of Supports (MTSS) explanatory documents, the multitude of rubrics, or the many forms for collecting evidence is there a discussion of how to help teachers progress from one level to the next.
I’m not opposed to evaluation and teacher accountability, but I am insisting—begging, really—that we balance the new teacher evaluation mandates and accompanying time drains with the time required for effective instructional leadership. How do we help teachers make changes in their teaching or learn how to teach a new strategy if they don’t have opportunities to practice their craft? Time to practice new strategies with students in a “safe” environment must be part of the equation as we move forward with teacher evaluation.
Sandra D. Jones, Ph.D., is president of HILL for Literacy, Inc., and has been a school educator for 40 years, serving as a teacher, professional development coordinator, principal, and academic dean. She is a coauthor of Leading Literacy Change: Strategies and Tools for Administrators, Teachers and Coaches and a national presenter and consultant in literacy. Dr. Jones served as the professional development coordinator for the State of Massachusetts’ Reading First Initiative for six years. She was also the academic dean at The Carroll School, a nationally recognized school for children with language-based learning disabilities, and was an associate professor in the MGH Institute of Health Professions’ Communication Sciences and Disorders graduate program.
The RtI/MTSS Triangle: Step Away from the Silo to Meet All Students’ Needs
By Joanne Allain, M.A.
In Part 1 of this blog entry, we explored RtI/MTSS as an instructional system or philosophy of education and the importance of its sustainability. Once the decision is made to move forward, we begin to build a structure for implementation.
Mysteries of the Pyramid
In this installment, we will discuss the interpretation and sometimes misinterpretation of the RtI triangle or pyramid. Researchers and writers commonly use a three-tier triangle to illustrate the degrees of intensity and services available to students in a multitier instructional system.
The base of the triangle represents Tier I services, in which all students receive grade-level instruction through a system of teaching, differentiation, and reteaching. According to the literature, 80 percent of students will succeed with research-based first instruction, short-term differentiation, and reteaching.
The middle tier, or Tier II, represents short-term strategic services that some students (approximately 15 percent) will require to successfully negotiate grade-level work.
Tier III, the top tier of the triangle, depicts the intensive services that students who are significantly below grade level (approximately 3 to 5 percent of students) will need in order to increase their skill level to the point that they will be able to interact with grade-level material.
It is helpful to have a visual representation of services, and a triangle serves to reinforce the notion of increased focus and intensity from base to apex. However, it also poses some problems through misinterpretation of the intent of the tiers when the model is taken too literally: (1) using the tiers to label children or assign a student population to a specific tier and (2) strict adherence to the percentages can result in denial of services to children in need.
The RtI/MTSS triangle represents the services across tiers that any and all students may need based on multiple data points. Data always determine the type of service designed to help students achieve at their full potential.
This is a critical point because the intent of RtI/MTSS is to provide instruction and intervention services to all students, not to exchange one label for another, resulting in “Tier I kids, Tier II kids, and Tier III kids.” The tiers represent the types of services that students need, not the students themselves. The tier services, from intervention to enrichment, are available to all students equally, based on data, not label.
In Logistics of Literacy Intervention: An RtI Planning Guide for Elementary Schools, I emphasize that the service tiers are “fluid not finite” and that each tier comprises a range of services designed to meet the assessed needs of a diverse group of students whose needs will change over time.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) published a triangle that exemplifies this position. We do not have separate triangles or tiers for special education, English learners, students who receive Title I services, gifted and talented, or any other student population. All students are served within the triangle based on data, not label.
Notice the triangle within the triangle. OSEP understandably focused on students with special needs who can receive services at any tier of the triangle, but we could easily add gifted and talented, English learners, and students who receive Title I services. All means all.
If we begin to make other triangles or tier-specific student populations, then aren’t we saying that all students with special needs or all English learners are the same and have the same needs? If Tier III, for example, represents intensive academic intervention, and we call Tier III special education, then it must follow that every student with an IEP requires intensive academic intervention. How do we reconcile this practice with the belief that we should label the need and not the child? If, instead of students with special needs, we have “Tier III kids,” we have simply traded one label for another.
It is much more likely that a student with special needs, a student without special needs, and an English learner demonstrate the same assessed need. If this is the case, why, in this time of constrained budgets, would we provide redundant services simply because the labels, funding streams, and silos are different?
If we recognize that the triangle represents a variety of needs and the services needed to ameliorate them, then we understand that using data and problem solving to determine appropriate instruction and intervention is the best way to serve all students.
Whom the Pyramid Serves
The second contention of this entry is that the traditional RtI/MTSS pyramid range demonstrating 80 percent of students successful with Tier I services only, 15 percent requiring Tier II services, and 5 percent in need of Tier III services, is not meant as a literal application in every school and district.
Think of the 80-15-5 illustration as the goal or the optimal configuration if first instruction is efficient. In this model, approximately 20 percent of students would need additional instruction and intervention to reach grade-level targets. The 80-15-5 triangle is the target, but perhaps not the starting point for many districts and schools.
The percentages depicted in the triangle do not intend to convey that only 20 percent of students are eligible for intervention services. Yet, sometimes the triangle percentages are applied literally, resulting in denial of intervention for many students in need.
We cannot implement a one-size-fits-all RtI/MTSS plan. Each district and school must start where they are, as defined by data, to develop a successful system. Districts within a state and schools within a district are unique. Even within the same school districts, it is common to find a range of performance from school to school.
Hopefully, we have progressed from the one-size-fits-all instructional models of the past. The following trio of triangles, from Logistics of Literacy Intervention, is more reflective of the variation in the degree of needs and services in schools across the country.
The good news is that the optimum configuration can be realized if we embrace the philosophy of RtI and provide intervention to all who need it. All children mean all children—all of the time. We don’t have a fully operational system if only some needs are being met.
Ultimately, we must recognize that any visual representation is inadequate to represent the rich diversity among our students. The triangle is a guide, a way to help educators and parents understand the variation of services that may be needed to meet the needs of all our students.
We move forward with the knowledge that we are meeting those needs with standards and data-based instruction and intervention. Our end goal is that all students reach their full potential and are able to compete in a complex world.
In Part 3, we will discuss assessment in an RtI/MTSS system and how more is not always better.
Joanne Allain, M.A., works with states, districts, and schools across the country to develop, implement, and coach customized RtI systems. Her career experience at both the classroom and district level provides the perspective of a practitioner in real schools with real students. She is the author of
Logistics of Literacy Intervention: A Planning Guide for Middle and High School and
Logistics of Literacy Intervention: An RtI Planning Guide for Elementary Schools as well as coauthor of
RtI: The Forgotten Tier: A Practical Guide for Building a Data-Driven Tier I Instructional Process. You can contact Joanne at Joanne.Allain@3tliteracygroup.org