struggling students, nor should RTI come at the cost of students already learning at or above grade level. RTI is about providing every student with the differentiated time and support needed to ensure he or she learns at the highest levels possible. If a school is going to build flexible time, support, and collaboration into its school week, it can apply these efforts to support students in advanced coursework as well. The fourth critical question of the PLC at Work process captures this outcome, “How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 36).
In addition to extensions, students should have access to subjects and activities that provide enrichment.
What Is Enrichment?
There is an important difference between enrichment and extension. We define enrichment as students having access to the subjects that specials or electives teachers traditionally teach, such as music, art, drama, applied technology, and physical education. We strongly believe that this curriculum is essential. These subjects often teach essential core curriculum through different modalities. Also, students usually view these subjects as the fun part of school.
When we pull students from enrichment to receive extra help in core curriculum, interventions turn into a punishment. Subsequently, a student’s motivation and attitude can suffer. Finally, there is an equity issue. Often, the students who need interventions come from economically disadvantaged homes. For many of these students, the only way they will learn a musical instrument or use advanced technology is at school. For these reasons, students should not be denied access to enrichment because they need additional time and support in core subjects.
We define enrichment as students having access to the subjects that specials or electives teachers traditionally teach.
Conclusion
As captured in the title, this book is about taking action. Using the RTI at Work pyramid as our road map, we can now dig deeper into each tier and the essential actions schools must take to ensure every student succeeds. By the end of this book, if you complete each task, you will have completed an RTI at Work pyramid for your school. In the next three chapters, we begin by focusing on Tier 1.
PART ONE
TIER 1 ESSENTIAL ACTIONS
CHAPTER 2
A Culture of Collective Responsibility
A small body of determined spirits, fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission, can alter the course of history.
—Mahatma Gandhi
RTI is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It is a tool. Consider that for a moment: a tool. You can use a hammer to help build a home for a family—what a positive, productive purpose. However, you can use the same hammer to tear a house down. A tool is only as effective as the hands that are guiding it and the purpose for which it is used.
We have seen many schools and districts approach RTI as an end in itself, viewing it as a mandate that must be implemented. When this happens, they see the critical elements of the process as steps on an implementation checklist—as actions to complete to achieve compliance. As the top-down legislation of No Child Left Behind proves, compliance-driven reform efforts rarely create the deep levels of commitment and ownership necessary to truly transform an organization.
Why should a school commit to the RTI process? What is the purpose of the RTI tool? The first big idea of the PLC at Work process captures the answer to these questions—a focus on learning. See the highlighted piece of the RTI at Work pyramid in figure 2.1 (page 34). Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos (2016) state it this way:
A focus on learning is a PLC’s commitment to making student learning the fundamental purpose of the school or district. It means that schools assess every policy, practice, and procedure with these questions: Will doing this lead to higher levels of learning for our students? Are we willing to revise or discontinue actions that fail to increase student learning? (p. 7)
FIGURE 2.1: Focus on creating a culture of collective responsibility.
A school or district claiming that its mission is to ensure student learning is much more than a hopeful wish or a catchy motto on the organization’s letterhead. An organization’s mission:
► States its fundamental purpose
► Guides decisions and actions
► Provides a path, framework, and context that the organization uses to formulate strategies
In other words, a school or district’s mission serves as both a sacred promise to those it serves and the organization’s highest priority when making decisions. It represents what is non-negotiable—what the school will not compromise.
Because the purpose of RTI is to ensure high levels of learning for every student, then one would expect educators to enthusiastically embrace the RTI process. Would any educator be against proven practices that help all students succeed? Have some schools and districts adopted a mission statement in conflict with this goal? We have had the honor of working with schools across the globe, and we have never found mission statements that sound like the following.
► Our mission is to ensure that most students succeed.
► Our mission is to maintain a bell-shaped curve of student achievement.
► Our mission is to use students’ perceived genetic ability and home demographics to rank, sort, and track them.
Instead, what we see in school mission statements are the words each, every, and all, such as:
► We will focus on each student’s needs.
► We will maximize every student’s potential.
► We are committed to the success of all students.
When the mission ensures student success, RTI is the perfect tool to achieve this goal.
When the mission ensures student success, RTI is the perfect tool to achieve this goal.
Sadly, our experience is that many schools and districts struggle with implementing RTI because what they claim in their public mission statement conflicts with what they advocate for in the privacy of the staff lounge, faculty meeting, or district cabinet meeting. Propose to a school staff that they actually commit to practices aligned to their mission of ensuring that all students learn at high levels, and we find that many educators begin to hedge on two words: ensure and all. Some claim it is unfair to hold educators responsible for student learning when so many factors outside of school impact each student’s academic success. Others state that it is a teacher’s job to teach and a student’s job to learn. Still others assume that some students are incapable of learning rigorous academic outcomes. The underlining point in these concerns is this: some educators neither believe in, nor support, a mission that claims all students will succeed.
If
