Response to Intervention in Classrooms- The Ups and Downs

 Response to Intervention, known as RTI, is a three-tiered instructional intervention program that addresses the unique needs of all students in the classroom. This model provides a framework to teachers and administrators for assessing and identifying student ability. The information gathered by the framework follows the student from one grade to the next, so student need assessment is not lost, and teachers can review the information gathered from previous years. These features of the RTI system are beneficial to student achievement. 

Level 1 RTI refers to every student in the classroom. Level 1 methods are the methods used to teach all students in class, such as reteaching, assessing, and small-group lessons. Level 2 refers to tutoring that takes place in the student’s regular-education classroom with the regular-education teachers. This tutoring may occur one or more days per week for at least six weeks. Records are kept of the tutoring sessions with the tier two students, with results being analyzed at the conclusion of the tutoring period. If the student makes progress, the student may be dismissed from tier 2 tutoring, or the student may remain in tier 2 intervention as the teacher deems necessary. If progress is not made, the student is considered for tier 3 interventions, which include intensive instruction outside the classroom with an instructional specialist. If this intensive intervention does not result in improvement in student ability, the student may be referred for testing and evaluation for further services, such as special education. 

This framework is valuable in its ability to provide data and additional instruction in an organized, systematic way. The framework leaves room for the teacher to determine which tutoring materials to use, as well as how many students to place in a small group. The teacher also has the freedom to group students homogeneously or heterogeneously as needed. Students of all ability levels learn from each other in the classroom, and higher achieving students have the opportunity to assist struggling students, benefitting both groups of students. Students who are normally tier 1, but may have missed instruction due to illness or family circumstances, can temporarily join a tier 2 tutoring group to receive temporary support. Students can leave tier 2 instruction once instructional gaps are addressed, if they are on track but have experienced absences from school or periods of emotional upheaval. 

One benefit of regular education students being in class with special needs students is that empathy can be developed, and many students can benefit from the multiple teaching methods that are necessary in a diverse classroom. Students who are peer tutors also benefit from teaching the core content to other students in the classroom. Further, teaching assistants who are assigned to classrooms with special needs students can be a support to the teacher in regard to the class as a whole.

Conversely, students receiving RTI tier 3 tutoring may miss a core subject in order to receive tutoring. This can create gaps in a core subject area. The end result of tier 3 tutoring may be accommodations and modifications for the student, to be given by the core subject teacher in the regular education classroom. While this scenario has benefits, it can also create obstacles to be overcome. For example, a common modification to the curriculum is oral administration of text. Often, the student does not accept the opportunity to have text read aloud, because the student does not wish to appear different from peers in the classroom. Also, it can be nearly impossible, with technological aids, for a teacher to provide this accomodation to multiple students during the same class period. Often, students who are not entitled to accommodations will question why they do not receive the same accommodations that they may observe other students receiving. Also, teachers may have to procure the same text at several different levels to meet each student where they are, which may limit the variety of texts used in class. 

While heterogeneous grouping and least-restrictive-environment benefits all students in the classroom, the practice does come with challenges for teachers to meet. 

Design-Down, Deliver-Up Model

  The philosophy surrounding the Design-Down, Deliver-Up model is in harmony with goal-based design, because both of these schools of thought start with the big-picture ideas of curriculum development. These ideas include considering the culture and philosophy of the school, the learning that should be occurring, and the roles of technology and hands-on activities. In addition to sound curriculum design, the curriculum leaders in the school system should have vision, paired with planning.

Vision, for curriculum planners, means knowing the direction in which the school community should be headed. Vision requires an understanding of the school culture, goals for the future as set forth by the school board, and regard for the school’s history. Vision can’t be effective without considering the mission of the school as well. The mission of the school is closely related to the desired graduation outcomes.

The Design-Down portion of Design-Down, Deliver-Up begins with consideration of student learning outcomes at the conclusion of the course. Those outcomes are translated into program goals and objectives, such as state standards. These objectives are often referred to as “what the student will be able to do”, or student outcomes. Teachers measure student success using many different measurement tools, but the goal is always mastery of goals and objectives. It all begins, from the student’s perspective, with authentic, meaningful tasks that engage students. 

Deliver-Up also begins with those same authentic tasks that have a direct impact on student success. The student grows as a result of the authentic tasks, and this growth satisfies the program objectives and goals. The well-rounded, educated student who is ready for the next step in lifelong learning is the goal and vision of American schools. 

Assessment is a necessary component in measuring how well the curriculum is serving the needs of  teachers, students, and the district. I believe in a growth mindset, so I would plan to assess the students with a district benchmark in the early fall to obtain baseline data. The students would then be assessed with two more district benchmarks, in winter and late spring. The goal of the district benchmarks would be to show student growth, and address any common gaps or low standards that might need to be addressed again or in a different way. Teachers would be free to assess informally and formally as they felt necessary in order to determine which areas and standards were underperforming. I would encourage reading teachers to perform running records three times per school year as well, to measure student oral fluency. This information is valuable to bring forward to parent conferences or ARD meetings as another measure of student growth and ability. 

Farrell's Elements of Lesson Design

  Farrell’s Elements of Lesson Design emphasizes independent practice engaging with text. Next, guided practice is used, followed by: check for understanding, modeling, application, and more application followed by independent practice to begin the next lesson.  I have not adopted this style of lesson planning; several challenges for my students would have to be overcome. 

My current students have several learning styles, and this model does not describe how to cater to multiple learning styles. My current students also read independently on many different reading levels, and multi-level texts are not always readily available. One-third of my current students also require oral administration of at least some portion of the text, and during the periods during the school day when a teacher’s aide is not available, it can be challenging to provide that accommodation to multiple students at one time.

Another challenge to making this model work involves selecting engaging text that addresses the written curriculum, aligning it with the taught curriculum. I currently teach fifth-grade English Language Arts and Reading, and many of our standards are “big-idea” standards, such as identifying text structures, identifying point-of-view and its traits, and how to summarize text. I routinely use text as a real-world launch pad to locate and study each of these standards, but if I am understanding Farrell’s design correctly, text that explains each of these standards would also be required. Engaging, multi-level text that addresses these standards is difficult to obtain.

Science would be more suited to the use of text as described by Farrell. Students are often naturally drawn to science curriculum, and they should have background knowledge from prior grades. Many science texts are engaging due to photographs that accompany the text. Also, the subject matter lends itself to the “application” step because the last piece of a science lesson can easily become the first piece of the next lesson. 

Determining whether this model better aligns written curriculum, taught curriculum, and assessment depends upon the subject. Elementary ELAR in Texas is not a good fit, in my opinion, but Science in Texas might be. 

The indicators that matter most to me in evaluating classroom effectiveness are classroom management, engagement, and relevant, focused materials. For example, classroom management to me means that students may be talking to one another in groups, but the side discussions are kept to a minimum, and students are speaking at an indoor level. The teacher is able to regain the attention of the class easily, using an attention-getting strategy that has been taught and practiced. Engagement means that students are attempting the task at hand, and they understand what is expected. The use of relevant, focused materials means that students are spending most of the instructional time covering objectives that will be most useful and important to their school careers, and to life after formal education ends. For instance, finding the main idea, summarizing, and finding text evidence should receive more classroom time than hyperbole.

Technological vs. Naturalistic Curriculum Development

 Structure or Flexibility? Order or disorder? Creativity or prescribed actions? These traits of curriculum planning should not be an either-or proposition. Students at all levels would benefit from the use of technological and naturalistic curriculum development. 

Technological development is straightforward and utilitarian in its approach. It does not rely on creativity or flexibility to develop a unit of study. The technological approach is objective-driven, not student-driven or teacher-driven. For example, I would use the technological approach in teaching cursive handwriting. I would assess the need (cursive handwriting), determine the objective (which style of cursive handwriting and at which grade levels), select learning activities, such as handwriting modeling and practice, and select materials, such as handwriting practice sheets. This process would give teachers and students an efficient means to introduce and practice cursive. 

On the other hand, naturalistic development focuses on the learners, teachers, and cultures, and their diverse needs ahead of learning objectives. This approach is experience-driven, not objective driven. The quality of the learning experience is at the center of this model. Students are inspired to think, create, and grow holistically when this model is employed. The engagement factor has the potential to be higher, as well as the authenticity of the learning. Students are exposed to a wide variety of materials, and individual learning styles are embraced. This model can also be cross-curricular and integrative. I would encourage this approach to be applied in large doses for social studies, art, and music studies, as well as included in reading, science, and math curriculum development.

To apply an analogy, technological curriculum development and naturalistic curriculum development can be compared to cooking. When the objective is to satisfy hunger, technological development of curriculum looks for an efficient, straightforward plan to meet the objective. For example, when hunger is determined to be a need, technological development determines that food must be served, so a menu must be selected, and then materials purchased. Building a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich would be a suitable activity, and white bread, peanut butter, and grape jelly could be easily obtained at the market. The assembling of the sandwich is straightforward and efficient. Serving the meal requires the most basic supplies, available in any kitchen, such as paper plates, paper napkins, and a glass of milk. The outcome is satiated hunger, without a great deal of creativity, and with a minimal use of materials. Food allergies, preferences, and dietary restrictions are not considered. One type of bread is made available, and the meal may be served at a lunch counter. The quality of the dining experience is not valued.

Naturalistic curriculum development also seeks to meet the objective, but through the development of creative, quality dining experiences. Materials may be less common, more creative, and in greater quantity. The dining experience is considered, not only consuming the food. The meal may consist of more than one course, such as appetizers, main course, and dessert, and the allergies, dietary restrictions, and preferences of the students partaking of the meal are considered. The menu is detailed and balanced. Gluten-free or keto options may be available. The dining table may be set with serving pieces, candles, and a full complement of flatware, tableware, and drinkware. Table linens are included, such as napkins, and a suitable tablecloth that has textural and graphic interest. Flowers may be added as a centerpiece to increase engagement. 

I believe that there is room in a school year for “meals” of each type in an elementary classroom. Thoughtful planning is the key, and students will benefit from diverse learning experiences that cater to a variety of learning styles.

Minimizing the impact of socioeconomic background- It Takes a Village, and then some.

 At the forefront of many educator’s minds is the issue of helping students of all socioeconomic backgrounds achieve at the highest levels possible. Evidence suggests that low socioeconomic status, or poverty, is a lack of resources such as family support system, religious faith, financial security, and access to community support resources. Therefore, when a country, such as Finland, is able to overcome the socioeconomic barrier to achievement, the education world should take notice. 

Finland’s educational system truly functions as a system. It is an interrelated network of support for children that addresses all aspects of each individual. In Finland, access to education, daycare, nutrition, and medical care is a fundamental right of each child. The country places value on looking at each student in a holistic light, and making sure that emotional, social, medical, and cognitive needs are met at an early age. This is viewed as an investment in the future productivity of the country. 

Equity is a large piece of the educational puzzle in Finland. All students are given the same high-quality materials, curriculum, and access to technology. This begins in earliest childhood, because all children are offered optional child care at no cost to families. This care is considered to be a fundamental right, and is used by approximately 98 percent of families. This early-start preschool levels the playing field for students, and identifies learning disabilities early on, which increases the odds of overcoming them. Additionally, each student in Finland schools receives an Individual Educational Plan, or IEP. This means that each student’s needs are analyzed and accommodated. Equity in Finland requires the efforts of the welfare state as well as the efforts of the school system, and a network of support underlies the whole. 

Standardized testing is not the norm in Finland. Educational leaders there do not believe that testing is the answer to higher student achievement. Fewer instructional days are spent preparing students for high-stakes tests and teaching testing strategies. Instead, the focus is on creating the best possible learning environments using top-notch content designed to meet the end goals of instruction.   

These traits of education in Finland stand in sharp contrast to the public school system in place in the United States. The holistic view employed in Finland is not observed in America. Student’s emotional, nutritional, and social needs are not included in the objectives of the school system. In some cases, teachers go beyond the call of duty to attempt stop-gap measures to alleviate cases of student need, but these efforts are not systematic or consistent for all students. 

The equity in education that makes Finland schools shine is absent in the United States. Schools across the country are not equally equipped, equally staffed, or equally measured. Campuses in a district may be unequally equipped, especially where technology is concerned. Highly-qualified teachers may not be equally distributed in all schools, and parent support waxes and wanes across districts. Students who do not meet the criteria for special education, but struggle in class, may slip between the cracks of the system. Not all young children in the United States have equal access to quality childcare, meaning some children start kindergarten ahead of their peers. Medical care is not equally available to all United States children, so that some children who need vision care, hearing care, and occupational therapy do without those needed services.

Standardized testing contributes to a sense of competition in the United States, but this competition does not necessarily promote excellence in student growth. Instructional days may be devoted to test preparation and test-taking strategies, rather than individual student growth and guidance. Policy-makers rely heavily on student test scores, and teachers feel anxiety over the outcome of tests that do not entirely reflect grade-level standards.

Since student reading skills in Finland do not appear to be affected by socioeconomic status, the United States should consider mirroring some of Finland’s practices. 

Holistic Teacher- It's Who I Am

  What kind of teacher am I? This question has caused me to look more closely at my teaching practice, and consider my experiences over the course of the last 14 years in the classroom. I can identify with elements from all of the curriculum styles, but the holistic teaching style resonates most deeply. 

Holistic teaching aims to recognize the whole student, and address the learning needs of the whole student. Holistic teachers see the connection between student emotion and intellect, and in my teaching experience, I have found that connection to be strong. Many students who struggle to retain content have emotional issues acting as barriers to learning, and holistic teachers recognize that emotional needs must be addressed before learning can occur. Learning occurs at deeper levels when relationships are formed among students as well as between students and their teacher. Holistic teaching seeks to improve emotional literacy, or viewing the self in relation to others. To achieve this goal, I have utilized “social contracts” in my classroom for several years. The social contract outlines how students will treat one another, and how they would like to be treated by the teacher. Further, the contract details how the teacher would like to be treated by the students. These areas are negotiated as a group, with the teacher having final power of approval. 

This negotiation extends to classroom rules that are negotiable. Most holistic teachers favor clear, simple rules, but classroom procedures are more complex. For instance, many students are in favor of working in groups. We are able to negotiate together how often group work is done, and how many students are in each group. In addition, students negotiate within their groups which tasks will be assigned to each member of the group. This leads to problem solving and self-esteem, as well as social literacy. 

Another facet of holistic teaching seeks to view the students as individuals. I do not require each and every student to tackle learning tasks exactly the same way. Every teacher should practice differentiated teaching, but holistic teaching, in my view, takes it a step further. For example, in my classroom I have students who do not have Individual Educational Plans, because they do not meet any special education criteria. However, if I am aware that a home situation means that a student is transferred from one caretaker to another at 1:00AM in the morning, I allow that student to put her head down at the end of the day when others are completing “busy” work. Similarly, if a student is extremely shy, I do not require him or her to speak in front of the class in situations that are not essential to mastering the objective. I want each individual to feel safe, seen, and valued for who they are and the experiences they bring to the class. 

I believe that being holistic in the classroom also means appealing to students’ schema, background knowledge, and natural curiosity to the fullest extent possible during a lesson. When reading a historical novel in class, for instance, I bring in real examples of items mentioned in the novel whenever possible. If concrete examples are not available, we watch a video from an educational video streaming service that addresses the subject. In the novel “Johnny Tremain”, the main character is an apprentice silversmith. My students had no schema for silversmithing, so I located a video that interviewed a silversmith. He demonstrated the methods and means used in the time of Johnny Tremain, and this information made the content more accessible, while also appealing to tactile learners and giving them a glimpse of a hands-on career path. 

In summary, the holistic teacher views the student as a whole person, whose emotional, social, and cognitive domains affect academic achievement. Recognizing these domains, and nurturing the whole individual, adds a layer of authenticity to the classroom experience. 

Universal Design for Learning as it relates to technology

   How do humans learn best? This is the question that the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) attempts to address. This framework supports the ultimate goal of developing expert learners who are purposeful, motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic, and goal-directed (CAST 2018).

    In today's virtually connected world, teachers need to be aware of the suggested means of engagement, representation, action and expression that the UDL brings to the conversation. Teachers are crunched for time and resources as never before, as the worldwide pandemic has introduced synchronous and asynchronous learning situations to classrooms across the world. Educators are also seeing increasing numbers of students with learning challenges, who need specially designed instructional supports and modifications in order to be successful in the classroom. Virtual teaching has increased the challenge to educators of providing meaningful and effective supports to those students needing instructional assistance. 

     Some online platforms have existed for decades, while others have been developed in response to the boom in online learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic. How are educators, parents, and administrators to judge the effectiveness and suitability of online learning platforms? While many are available, only a few are worthy of students’ valuable time. One tool for judging the efficacy of a platform is the Universal Design for Learning. Since students come to the classroom with a vast array of possible learning disabilities, the tool used to evaluate a platform must be broad. The UDL is a framework that can be employed to determine accessibility for online learners with special needs.

  In a study conducted in 2014 by Sean J. Smith and Evelyn E. Harvey, the Khan Academy online learning platform was placed under analysis using the Universal Design for Learning. The study covered the subjects of Math, Science, and World History at the high school level, and it applied the criteria found in the Universal Design for Learning Scan Tool to the lessons. The findings were clear: the Khan Academy lessons did not align well with the framework offered by the Universal Design for Learning, particularly when students with learning challenges were taken into consideration. 

     Some of the recommendations given by the UDL include an opportunity for students to pace themselves through the lesson, and to engage on a higher level. The UDL Scan Tool found that the Khan Academy, despite its popularity, does not offer the best online learning experience to students with academic challenges in need of modification of content. The term that the study authors used in describing the Khan Academy in terms of embedded supports was “limited’. The take-away lesson for educators is simply this: use an independent evaluation tool, such as UDL Scan Tool, to investigate an online learning platform before investing time, resources, and money into the platform. 

    For the lesson I am developing,my goal is to incorporate two strategies from the Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. The two goals that I feel will best support my lesson are to “heighten the salience of goals and objectives”, and this will be accomplished by “fostering collaboration and communication”. The use of collaboration in Google docs with a partner will foster collaboration, and will increase communication as student pairs work toward a mutual goal. 

References: CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Smith, S. J., & Harvey, E. E. (2014). K-12 online lesson alignment to the principles of Universal Design for Learning: the Khan Academy. Open Learning, 29(3), 222-242.

530 words