an at-risk student’s odds of future success in school. The most comprehensive meta-analysis on retention finds that being retained one year almost doubles a student’s likelihood of dropping out, while being retained twice almost guarantees it (Hattie, 2009). In spite of this conclusive evidence, schools continue to use retention as an intervention for their most at-risk students.
When it comes to interventions, giving at-risk students more of what is not working is rarely the answer. Common sense tells us this, yet many schools continue to build their systems of interventions with practices that don’t work, have never worked, and have no promise of getting better results the following year (Buffum et al., 2012).
Focusing Too Much on What the Staff Cannot Directly Influence
When planning interventions for struggling students, many schools spend an inordinate amount of time identifying and discussing factors that they cannot directly change. These topics include a student’s home environment, a lack of parental support, the pressure of preparing students for high-stakes state or provincial assessments, and ill-conceived district, state or provincial, and federal education policies. While these concerns are real and might be impacting both the student and the site educators, they are rarely the primary reason why a student has not learned specific essential learning outcomes. Similar schools are facing the same obstacles but nevertheless are reaching record levels of student achievement. This demonstrates that these external obstacles are undeniable hurdles but should not become insurmountable obstacles to improving student learning.
When it comes to interventions, giving at-risk students more of what is not working is rarely the answer.
Assuming Some Students Are Incapable of Learning at High Levels Due to Innate Cognitive Ability or Environmental Conditions
Virtually all educators believe their students can learn, but many think that how much a student can learn varies depending on his or her innate abilities and demographic background. They might assume students from economically disadvantaged homes—who are more likely to be minority students and English learners—are less capable than peers that come from more advantaged households. They rarely express their beliefs formally in the school’s mission statement or policies, but they carry out these beliefs in school practice every day. We know that a student’s ethnicity, native language, and economic status do not reduce the student’s innate capacity to learn, yet minority students, English learners, and economically disadvantaged students are disproportionately represented in special education (Brantlinger, 2006; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006; Skiba et al., 2008) and under-represented in gifted and honors programs (Donovan & Cross, 2002). It is unlikely an intervention will be effective when educators begin with the assumption that some students can’t achieve in the first place.
Undoubtedly, educators are not making these mistakes purposely. The hard work, dedication, and personal sacrifice individual educators display daily in support of their students continually inspire us. Because RTI practices represent a seismic shift in how schools have traditionally functioned, it would be naïve to think that the level of change required to do it well would be a smooth, seamless process. It is not enough to commit to doing the right work; we must do the right work right to secure the benefits that RTI is proven to provide.
The Right Work Right
If you want to cook a delicious meal, it requires more than a proven recipe and the right ingredients. These conditions are necessary but are not sufficient. The recipe must be prepared with a high level of cooking skill. Similarly, unlocking the potential power of RTI requires more than state guidelines, site resources, and a dedicated school staff—schools must implement RTI at a very high level. That is the purpose of this book—to walk you through exactly how to create a highly effective, multitiered system of supports within the framework of the PLC at Work process.
We must do the right work right to secure the benefits that RTI is proven to provide.
The first sentence in Mike and Austin’s first book, Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI, Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009), states, “This book is written for practitioners by practitioners” (p. 1). We did not create PLCs, RTI, or MTSS. We are educators who collaborate with our colleagues to successfully turn this powerful research into daily practice. Our schools are not immune to the misinterpretations and missteps previously described. In fact, we have hit just about every possible pothole and speedbump on our journey. But because we stay committed to the PLC process, these mistakes help us develop the simplified approaches, practical processes, and proven tools needed to dramatically increase student learning.
Our work is further enriched and refined through our collaboration with schools around the world. The recommendations in this book are grounded in research, and equally important, have been tested, revised, and validated in the real-world conditions that educators face daily. Most important, this book is designed to help schools avoid and overcome the most common implementation missteps.
RTI is as much a way of thinking as it is a process of doing.
RTI is as much a way of thinking as it is a process of doing. Our fear in writing an implementation book is that readers will interpret it as a checklist of tasks. There are both important guiding principles that drive the work and essential actions to do for RTI to work. But within these parameters, each school must be flexible regarding how to implement these practices to best meet the unique needs of the students they serve with the resources available. Additionally, schools must work within the laws and regulations of their district, state or province, and country. Understanding the right thinking empowers educators to be true to the process but flexible in implementation. To this end, this book is designed to develop two types of outcomes.
1. Guiding principles that serve as a framework for the right thinking
2. Essential actions that transform this thinking into specific steps
Both are critical and will help educators do the right work right. Research and theory alone won’t help a single student unless we transform them into action. Educators rarely embrace and effectively implement new practices when they don’t understand why they are doing them.
Because being a professional learning community is the foundation of our approach to RTI, understanding the PLC at Work process is necessary to apply our recommendations and practices. At its core, three big ideas and four critical questions guide the PLC at Work process.
The Three Big Ideas That Drive the Work of PLCs
We call our approach RTI at Work because we firmly believe that the best way to ensure high levels of learning for both students and educators is for schools or districts to function as a professional learning community. The essential characteristics of our approach to RTI perfectly align with the fundamental elements of the overarching PLC at Work process. RTI at Work is built on a proven research base of best practices and is a tool to assist PLC schools in achieving their mission to ensure high levels of student learning.
Research and theory alone won’t help a single student unless we transform them into action.
The PLC at Work process requires educators to work collaboratively to:
► Learn together about the practices, policies, procedures, and beliefs that best ensure student learning
► Apply what they are learning
► Use evidence of student learning to evaluate, revise, and celebrate their collective efforts to improve student achievement
These
