Three Sides of a Three-Sided Coin: Specialized Supports (Part 3)

This is the third guest post in a series on Response to Intervention (RTI) by Dr. Chris Weber. Check out all the posts in the series HERE.

Differentiation, special education, and response to intervention (RTI) are interrelated and interdependent; or, they should be. In our experiences in schools, we can more successfully implement these critical, research-based initiatives. They represent principles and practices essential to meeting all students’ needs and to ensure that students graduate future-ready. Comprehensive approaches to differentiation, special education, and RTI are more necessary than ever if schools will reach the goal of high levels of learning for all students. We recommend that schools strategically and purposefully blend differentiation, special education, and RTI within Systems of Supports for Rigorous Learning that optimize the complex and critical processes under a singularly designed set of structures. This third in a series of three posts describes early intervention (pre-referral services) within a System of Supports.

There will be students who require the most specialized supports that we can provide; students who have not yet responded to intervention and for whom special education supports may be necessary.

Strategically assess within the finite formal-evaluation time frame

There will be students who, despite our best efforts, are not yet adequately responding to tiered interventions. In these instances, we request permission to conduct a formal evaluation to determine eligibility for special education. But we intend that students will respond to special education supports such that they will no longer require them at some point in the future. We are committed to taking full advantage of the opportunity to gather vital information during the limited amount of time we have to evaluate student needs, make an eligibility determination, and if appropriate, collaboratively craft an Individualized Education Program plan. We must use all the knowledge that we have gained while scaffolding and intervening prior to the formal evaluation period to ensure that this occurs.

Collaboratively craft the IEP

Again, we intend for special education to be a temporary designation for the vast majority of students who are determined to be eligible. Therefore, IEPs must be strategically written. Students must receive supports within the least restrictive environments possible – inclusive settings with all students, regardless of label. They must continue to access and gain mastery of core academic and behavioral priorities. Significant deficits in foundational skills must be ameliorated. Students must be equipped with coping mechanisms and workaround strategies so that they will be successful in school, college, career, and life in the absence of special supports. 

Scaffolded access to the core within the least restrictive environments

As noted repeatedly above, all students must successfully participate in the core. Otherwise, the risk of failing to catch up will be great and sustaining progress will be compromised. To ensure that fully inclusive environments work for all students, some form of co-planning and co-teaching must be in place. 

Access to Tier 2 must continue

We can predict that some students will learn core priorities at different rates and in different ways. This may be particularly true for students with special needs. This is Tier 2: more time, alternative approaches. Ensuring that students with special needs have access to all tiers of supports will greatly increase the likelihood of their success.

Intervene in a targeted and intensive manner, in accordance with the IEP

This is critical. IEPs have specific goals and objectives based on areas of need. We must explicitly address and ameliorate these areas of need. Time periods that serve as study halls and work completion assistance are not the answer. We must immediately and intensively focus on diagnosed deficits with targeted interventions, with the goal of eliminating these deficits. Within special education, the intensity of focus and resources that we are prepared to assign is greater than ever, as is the sense of urgency.

Behaviors

As noted above but with even more care, we teach, reteach, and reinforce key pro-social and pro-functional behaviors for students with special needs. Behavioral skills are doubly important for a student determined eligible for special education services.

Monitor

Measuring the extent to which students are responding to instruction, intervention, and in this, case special education supports should be done more, not less, when a student has been determined eligible for special education services. There is not a moment to lose and we must make adjustments, in collaboration with the IEP team, when adequate progress is not made.

Exit when possible

Approximately 12% of students receive special education services and have an Individualized Education Program plan. Approximately 1% of students have been diagnosed with a severe or profound disability, meaning that their intellectual functioning will significantly limit their ability to live an independent adult life. They will have modified jobs and accommodated living conditions. We feel blessed to live in societies in which we provide care and support for these precious individuals. The vast majority of students receiving special education services, students who have an Individualized Education Program plan, do not have a severe or profound disability and will be expected to live an independent adult life, without modified jobs and accommodated living conditions.

When we do not expect high levels of learning for all, we significantly limit students’ future prospects with equally significant impacts on our societies. Students receiving special education services graduate from Grade 12 at rates that are demonstrably lower than their peers; they attend 4-year universities and colleges at equally lower rates. We must remove supports when students are ready, allowing students to learn and thrive within the least restrictive environments, and ensure they have access to any and every opportunity.

We fear that tragically lower expectations for students receiving special education services have led (and continues to lead) to their significantly lower achievement. Accommodations and modifications in support of successful educational experiences must not correspond with modifications to expectations. Students within Individualized Education Program plans who do not have a severe or profound disability will be expected to compete and collaborate with the rest of the 99% for a purposeful and productive adult life, and we must urgently prepare for this reality.

Differentiation, special education, and RTI are not new processes and they continue to be identified as areas of need by schools and schools leaders. They should be. They are incredibly impactful and important sets of principles and practices and we have not yet done them well. We must for once and for all, do it right. A comprehensive approach to differentiation, special education, and RTI, integrated into a System of Supports for Rigorous Learning, is possible and more necessary than ever. 

Three Sides of a Three-Sided Coin: Early Intervention (Part 2)

This is the second guest post in a series on Response to Intervention (RTI) by Dr. Chris Weber.  Check out the first post in the series HERE on differentiation.

A Comprehensive Approach to Early Intervention within an RTI-Inspired System of Supports for Rigorous Learning, prior to a Referral for Special Education Assessment

Differentiation, special education, and response to intervention (RTI) are interrelated and interdependent; or, they should be. In our experiences in schools, we can more successfully implement these critical, research-based initiatives. They represent principles and practices essential to meeting all students’ needs and to ensure that students graduate future-ready. Comprehensive approaches to differentiation, special education, and RTI are more necessary than ever if schools will reach the goal of high levels of learning for all students. 

Image credit: http://images.pearsonclinical.com/

We recommend that schools strategically and purposefully blend differentiation, special education, and RTI within Systems of Supports for Rigorous Learning that optimize the complex and critical processes under a singularly designed set of structures. This second in a series of three posts describes early intervention (pre-referral services) within a System of Supports.

Supports for students with special needs begin immediately. We cannot allow failure and frustration to occur. Well before a request to conduct a formal evaluation or a determination of eligibility, we must: 

Screen 

The purpose of a screening process is to efficiently, and in a timely manner, identify students who are at grave risk of experiencing failure and frustration so that:

1. Scaffolded supports can be immediately provided within Tier 1
2. Intensive and targeted supports can be provided within Tier 3. This applies to all students, including students with special needs. 

We must not assume we know that needs within a domain or the antecedents to difficulties are known, and we must not assume that supports are already in place. We screen to ensure that we can proactively serve students who likely have a significant deficit in a foundational skill.

Scaffold

Students should not fail a class because of a deficit in a foundational skill. Students in an Algebra class who lack fluency with computation must receive intensive, highly specialized support to ameliorate this significant deficit; they should not, however, fail Algebra. Teachers can and must scaffold instruction so that these students can still access and master algebraic concepts. We maintain that all students can think critically and problem solve. They’re “smart.” 

Similarly, students who cannot decode text at a grade nine level must receive intensive, highly specialized support to ameliorate this significant deficit; however, they should not fail the grade nine English class. Teachers can and must scaffold instruction so that these students can still access and master the comprehension-based concepts that are likely the priories of the course. A significant deficit in a specific skill area must not limit a student’s ability to access core learning. We must differentiate to ensure success in the core and provide intensive, highly specialized supports that address the significant need. 

Behaviors

We find that students who have experienced frustration and failure in schools, who have not been supported in a timely and focused manner within a system of supports, often lack a growth mindset and have internalized a sense of learned helplessness. Therefore, nurturing the development of behavioral skills – such as self-regulation and executive functioning – while important for all students, is absolutely critical for vulnerable students. This process requires that we:

• Identify the priorities that all students will master.
• Clearly define what mastery “looks” and “sounds” like.
• Explicitly teach, model the habits and skills that we want to see and hear displayed and employed, with differentiated supports prepared.
• Assess student mastery of prioritized behavioral habits and skills so that we can determine the efficacy of our instruction and identify the areas of need for intervention.
• Provide feedback regarding students’ success and setbacks as they relate to achieving mastery.
• Intervene in a targeted manner if necessary.

Intervene

We commit to supporting vulnerable students’ most immediate area of need proactively, immediately, and with intensity. We strive to target the antecedent or causal factors that are most contributing to difficulties and vulnerabilities and that lead to significant deficits in foundational skills. All students will learn at high levels, but when a significant deficit in a foundational skill is present, frustrations and challenges highly compromise learning. While the significant deficit exists, or until we have identified and empowered the student to employ sustainable coping mechanisms, the student’s chances of success in school, career, and life are significantly at risk. The most critical, customized, highly specific support for a vulnerable student will undoubtedly involve addressing foundational skills. Without these foundational skills, meaningful experiences with, and mastery of, the 4 Cs and other 21st century skills will be compromised. We define foundational skills as:

• Literacy – If students cannot access content and participate in learning opportunities (the majority of which are presented in textual form), they will perpetually experience significant difficulties in any course. If students struggle to demonstrate their understanding of content and mastery of skills (the majority of these demonstrations will require written expression), they will perpetually experience significant difficulties in any course.
• Numeracy – Skills associated with pre-computational numeracy impact a student’s ability to succeed in all subject areas, not only mathematics. A “sense of number” impacts a student’s ability to identify and interpret part-whole relationships, to sequence, to understand and interpret timelines and graphs, in addition to more obvious connections to mathematics and the sciences.
• Behaviors – Respect, responsibility, and safety are completely appropriate behavioral goals to establish for students; and, there are many other critical pro-social and pro-functional skills that are foundational to success. When a student has a significant deficit in behavior due to social, emotional, or cognitive factors that result in a severely angry, withdrawn, inattentive child or young adult with few coping mechanisms, self-regulatory strategies, or executive functioning skills, little learning will take place. More immediately, students with significant deficits in behavioral skills are truly at-risk in their right to be healthy humans.

Monitor 

We must monitor student response to instruction and intervention and learn from the evidence that is gathered: As we scaffold to ensure student access to learning at Tier 1 and provide specific interventions that target immediate areas of need within Tier 3, we learn about what works and what does not work. Moreover, we view progress monitoring as a logical task with which to meaningfully involve students. Progress-monitoring assessments measure the extent to which students are responding to supplemental interventions. Progress monitoring is feedback:

• Feedback for educators: How well have we matched the support to the diagnosed need?
• Feedback for students: How much growth am I making? Where are my strengths and where do I still have needs? What are my next goals? What can I do? What support do I need?

Repeat

If we find that students are not responding to the interventions that we are providing, we suggest that we do not simply seek a new intervention; we may need to better identify the causes of student difficulties and better match a support to the diagnosed antecedent skill. This process may be iterative and we may not be right the first time. But we never give up. In fact, we expect that we will learn quite a bit about the underlying causes of student difficulties through the very act of prescribing and providing an intervention. 

In the third post in the series, I will describe the effective and necessary elements of Special Education within a System of Supports.

Three Sides of a Three-Sided Coin: Differentiation (Part 1)

This is the first guest post in a series on Response to Intervention (RTI) by Dr. Chris Weber.

Differentiation, special education, and response to intervention (RTI) are interrelated and interdependent; or, they should be. In my opinion and experience, schools can more successfully implement these critical, research-based initiatives. They represent principles and practices essential to meeting all students’ needs and to ensure that students graduate future-ready. Comprehensive approaches to differentiation, special education, and RTI are more necessary than ever if schools will reach the goal of high levels of learning for all students. 

Image credit: http://mommyspeechtherapy.com/

Schools should strategically and purposefully blend differentiation, special education, and RTI within Systems of Supports for rigorous learning that optimizes the complex and critical processes under a singularly designed set of structures. This first in a series of three posts describes how schools and educators must leverage differentiation within a System of Supports:

A Comprehensive Approach to Differentiation within an RTI-Inspired System of Supports for Rigorous Learning

Effective core supports are built on providing students what they need; educators call this differentiation. Our increased successes in differentiating teaching and learning directly improve student engagement and motivation. What follows are the elements of differentiated supports for each and every student:

• Survey students to learn about their interests, passions, and drives; incorporate this information in small and large ways throughout the school year.
• Screen to ensure we have identified students at high risk of experiencing failure in the absence of a scaffolded set of Core Supports and immediate, intensive, and targeted Specialized Supports. These students will need the very best in terms of scaffolded and differentiated supports to achieve success within the core.
• Build relationships with students early and often, so that the learning environment is positive and productive and so that a growth mindset prevails.

In order to ensure that these differentiated supports are in place it is important to plan for:

• What – specifically and fundamentally – students will learn.
• A prioritized scope of a sequence of concepts and skills, based on state and local priorities and student needs.
• How students will access information and content?
• How to differentiate during whole group instruction?
• How to differentiate during small group instruction?
• How students will interact with the content? 
• With whom students will learn?
• Tasks that provide students with choice and opportunities to exercise agency.
• When students will learn with an emphasis on:
1. Where students will learn?
2. How students will show us what they know and what they can do?
3. The materials we will need to provide differentiated supports.
4. Pedagogies that that will scaffold students to success, such as those based on a gradual release of responsibility model. This does not mean a teacher-only lecture, but a sound lesson design that includes rich student discourse and interaction supported by a teacher’s metacognitive modeling. There is a reason that direct instruction has twice the effect size of inquiry-based approaches (although we are huge fans of inquiry too…the genius of AND)
5. Questioning techniques that meet students at the leading edge of their zones of proximal development and engage them in productive struggle. 
6. Practices and strategies based on interests, modalities, styles – not because any are superior or because students necessarily possess a predisposition to learn best from one more than another, but because multiple approaches contribute to a greater likelihood that learning will occur; because interacting with concepts from multiple perspectives and directions strengthens understanding. 
7. Assessments that ensure that we can accurately measure what students know in relation to the very first element for what is planned: “What – specifically and fundamentally – students will learn.”

Whether differentiation serves as the umbrella under which RTI and Collaborative Systems of Support work or Collaborative Systems of Support and RTI assist schools in organizing and systematizing differentiated practices is unimportant. Both sets of principles must be present.

In the second post in the series, I will describe the elements of early intervention (pre-referral services) within a System of Supports.