most tragically, some educators tell us that a trained teacher can spot students who just don’t have it—the capacity to learn at high levels. Overwhelming evidence would prove otherwise. We know that a student’s ethnicity, native language, and economic status do not reduce his or her capacity for learning. Yet, across the United States, minority students, non-native language learners, and economically disadvantaged students are disproportionately represented in special education (Brantlinger, 2006; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Skiba et al., 2006, 2008) and underrepresented in gifted and honors programs (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
RTI is the purposeful activity that can flatten the bell-shaped curve and ensure all students succeed.
Why are these students being over-identified as learning disabled? Some educators assume these students are less capable, and these inaccurate judgments often become a self-fulfilling prophecy for their students (Buffum et al., 2012). Educators typically view students who enter school with a head start from their home environment as being capable of learning at high levels, and they are subsequently placed in more rigorous coursework, taught at advanced levels, expected to achieve, and thus are much more likely to learn at this level. Conversely, students perceived as being incapable of learning at high levels are placed in below-grade-level curriculum, taught at remedial levels, expected to achieve at lower levels, and to no one’s surprise, most likely learn at low levels. These outcomes falsely confirm the school’s initial assumptions and reinforce the misgiving some educators have to committing to a mission of learning for all.
We could make a convincing argument that, regardless of how effective a school’s system of interventions, it is possible that some students might face cognitive challenges or environmental factors that prove beyond a school’s ability to overcome. But here is the critical point: to start the journey, we must accept primary responsibility for what we can control—student mastery of academic skills, knowledge, and dispositions—and assume that each student is capable of achieving these outcomes, regardless of his or her demographic background. Consider the alternative. If a school is unwilling to commit to the word all, then educators are, by default, accepting a mission that most students will succeed, but undoubtedly, some students are always going to fail. In other words, the school believes there will always be educational “collateral damage,” regardless of the school’s policies and practices. If staff are unwilling to commit to a mission that embraces the words ensure and all, they are unlikely to fully commit to the RTI at Work process.
Here’s Why
In his book Transforming School Culture, Anthony Muhammad (2018) describes two types of school-reform efforts: technical changes and cultural changes. Technical changes are made of tools such as a school’s master schedule, instructional materials, and policies. Obviously, creating a multitiered system of supports requires a significant amount of technical change. Cultural changes are shifts in the norms, values, assumptions, and collective beliefs of an organization. Substantial cultural change must precede technical change. Muhammad (2018) argues that technical changes “are definitely necessary to effect improvement in student performance, but they produce very few positive results when people who do not believe in the intended outcome of the change use them” (pp. 22–23). For the technical steps of RTI to work, we must execute them within a culture of high expectations for both educators and students.
To measure its organization’s current culture, the leadership team should consider what would happen at its school if an educator asks, “Our school mission says we are committed to all students learning at high levels. Currently, we know that some students are failing. What are we going to do to fix this problem?”
Will the faculty meet the question with resistance? Will it create a faculty debate? Will this person be ostracized, or will it be a rallying cry for self-reflection and improvement? If this question creates significant staff division, this indicates that the school’s culture misaligns to RTI’s goals. Change the setting for this question. What if someone raises this concern in a district cabinet meeting? How would central office leadership respond?
What they have to give, not what they expect to receive, is what attracts educators to this field.
Here’s How
Unfortunately, a learning-focused school culture is not a reality in most schools. Through our work at sites struggling to implement RTI, schools often acknowledge that they lack a shared commitment. But then they ask the wrong question: How do we get buy-in from our staff? We don’t care for the term buy-in because it conveys the wrong connotation. RTI helps students, and the concern that staff won’t buy into it suggests that educators are resisting because they want to know what is in it for them. But there is hardly an educator who does not work with the best interest of students in mind. What they have to give, not what they expect to receive, is what attracts educators to this field.
We suggest the correct term is ownership: how does a school create a sense of staff ownership of the RTI process, especially in light of the cultural hurdles this chapter describes? We cannot achieve cultural change through force or coercion (Muhammad, 2018). Rational adults resist change for many reasons, and experienced educators often raise legitimate concerns regarding the professional conditions and personal commitments needed to make RTI work. Complex problems require multiple solutions.
Establishing this kind of culture requires much thought and planning by the leadership team, beginning with discussing the critical questions outlined in the reproducible “Creating Consensus for a Culture of Collective Responsibility” (page 53). The leadership team’s initial work is also summarized in the following four steps. In considering the challenges of leading change, it is important to recognize that long-lasting and substantial change does not happen overnight. Rather, it is more of a one-thousand-step journey, with each step carefully and intentionally planned. As Michael Fullan (1994) points out, “Leading change is a planned journey into uncharted waters with a leaky boat and a mutinous crew.”
1. Assess the current reality: It is difficult to map a successful journey if team members are unsure of the school’s current location. In this case, it is critical to determine the staff’s current culture to ensure all students learn. Muhammad (2018) recommends using data to create a catalyst for change in an inspirational way. We have found that many successful schools don’t look solely at data such as the percentage of students below proficient on state assessments or the number of students reading below grade level. Instead, these schools connect data to individual students—instead of telling teachers that 12 percent of the school’s students are below proficient in reading, they connect those numbers with a list of specific students who make up the 12 percent. These connections resonate with why we joined the profession—to help children.
2. Provide a compelling case for change: Too often, we describe what needs to be done without first providing a compelling reason why the alteration is necessary to introduce change initiatives. In his study of educational fundamentalists—members who actively fight change, Muhammad (2018) finds that many resist because no one provides them with a clear rationale for change. If school leadership cannot provide a compelling why, the staff won’t care about the what. Agreeing on the need for change results from assessing and confronting current reality, celebrating what is right, identifying areas for growth, and learning together about new possibilities through research and dialogue.
Mike Mattos created a video titled Timebomb (2017), which offers a vision of what happens to students who don’t succeed in school. It can be helpful at building a sense of urgency regarding committing to systematic interventions. (Visit www.solutiontree.com/products/timebomb.html to find out more information about the video.)
3. Create a doable plan: The most compelling reason for change is irrelevant if the staff view the
