Education Funding Isn’t Fun Anymore

By Stevan J. Kukic

When funding is large and flexible, we can try things that are exciting, self-fulfilling and, often, are not part of a broader system. Many times, these things are colorful, easy to use, and not very effective with our students.

Imagine any other profession allowing what we allow educators to do. Basals, textbooks, interventions, technology, and instructional practices are viewed as sets of options to be used creatively by each teacher. Further, these resources are often purchased based on how much free stuff we will get rather than on the data that prove the resources actually work to improve outcomes when used with fidelity.

Atul Gawande wrote an important book, The Checklist Manifesto. In it, he proves that in all professions there are routines that must be repeated with proficiency and fidelity. Yet, in education we too often allow teachers to do whatever they want to do with whatever they want to use.

This model does not work. And it cannot be supported anymore given the tremendous constraints on education funding. The mandates remain; funding is being constricted because of political bickering, this Great Recession, lack of public will, etc.

Take a look at this excerpt from a blog post titled “There Is a Hole in the Bucket” by John Kuhn, a superintendent from Texas.

“North of Dallas there is a well-to-do suburb called Highland Park. According to the last census ‘per capita money income in the past 12 months’ for Highland Park was $116,772, and ‘median household income 2005-2009’ was $176,375. The median value of a home is $982,600 in Highland Park.

“South of Fort Worth, there is a blue collar neighborhood called Everman. According to the same census ‘per capita money income in the past 12 months’ for Everman was $16,685, and ‘median household income 2005-2009’ was $39,508. The median value of a home is $80,700 in Everman.

“I’ll ask two rhetorical questions here: (1) should these two school districts be funded at the same level? and (2) if not, which district should get funded at a higher clip, and why?

“If you answered that Highland Park should be funded higher because rich white kids are used to nice things, you are a winner! (And on a side note, I’d like to thank you for reading the blog, Congressman.)

“Now, here are some relevant educational funding facts taken from the Texas Education Agency’s ‘Academic Excellence Indicator System.’ (You’ll notice that it doesn’t say a word about ‘funding excellence’ anywhere.) The hyperlink will take you to the TEA’s AEIS search engine so you can verify that I’m not just making junk up. (Please be aware that there are two Highland Park school districts in Texas. This Highland Park is usually denoted as Highland Park-Dallas. Also note that the state of Texas accidentally forgets to acknowledge the existence of the Target Revenue System on the AEIS report it releases as public information regarding each school district; that being the case, I have taken the target revenue information for these two schools from the link previously shared above, which contains information appropriated from the Equity Center.)

Comparing Two Districts: Everman vs. Highland Park

Funding

Target Revenue: Everman: $4973… Highland Park: $6013
WADA: Everman: 6184… Highland Park: 6697
Allotment for first 6184 kids: Everman: $30,753,032 … Highland Park: $37,184,392

Teaching Quality

Avg. actual teacher pay: Everman: $50,491… Highland Park: $55,894
Teachers w/adv. degrees: Everman: 14.6%… Highland Park: 67.1%
Students per teacher: Everman: 15.5 … Highland Park: 15.6
Turnover Rate: Everman: 18.0%… Highland Park: 9.2%

Outcomes

4-year completion rate: Everman: 85.2%… Highland Park: 98.1%
Met standard, sum of all tests: Everman: 67%… Highland Park: 98%
College-ready (TSI)-English: Everman: 50% … Highland Park: 93%
College-ready (TSI)-Math: Everman: 58% … Highland Park: 96%

Demographics

% of student body is white: Everman: 6.3%… Highland Park: 90.4%

“The one conclusion we can all agree on here is that students in Highland Park are turning out better than the students in Everman, academically speaking. But now I have to knock the wheels off our happy consensus and ask the question: ‘Why?’

“The way I see it, there are a few possible answers.

1. White people are intellectually superior. (The KKK prefers this answer.)

2. Higher-income parents have smarter kids. (Higher-income parents prefer this answer.)

3. Inequitable school funding stunts academic achievement. (I prefer this answer.)

4. Everman has crappy teachers, and Highland Park has awesome teachers. (School reformers prefer this answer.)

5. Everman has crappy parents, and Highland Park has awesome parents. (Republicans and burnt-out teachers prefer this answer.)

6. Social factors outside-of-school in Everman are more toxic to education than factors outside-of-school in Highland Park. (Democrats prefer this answer.)

In my next posting, I’ll delve deeper into causality and explain why I titled this posting as I did. I know you can’t wait.

John Kuhn is Superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt Independent School District in Texas. Last year he spoke out on the steps of the Capitol in Austin, and was featured in this interview here.

Is Kuhn’s blog radical? Perhaps. Thought-provoking? Obviously.

How can we respond to this contradiction of constrained funding and continued, outcome-based accountability?

Here are some ideas:

• Purchase only evidence-based practice that promises to improve outcomes.
• Implement it with fidelity to get maximum return on investment.
• Commit to never again buy materials primarily based on which company gives you the most free stuff.
• Demand to see independent validation for any company’s claim of effectiveness.
• Stop making decisions based on ideology or tradition; make decisions based on data.
• Let the data speak. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn’t, stop doing it.

A superintendent in Arizona recently told me that he was not sure we needed more money in public education. When I challenged him with great righteous indignation on that account, he told me this: Until we stop buying and using practices that have proven track records of not working, we have no idea how much well-targeted funding we need.

Isn’t it funny that implementing evidence-based practice with fidelity is a sure way to improve outcomes and a sure way to get the most out of our constrained resources?

Actually, it is not funny; it is obvious.

 

Stevan J. Kukic, Ph.D., is vice president of Strategic Education Initiatives for Cambium Learning Group. Previously, he was a consultant for Franklin Covey^® and state director of At-Risk and Special Education Services for Utah. Kukic is a past president of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE).

Coteaching Isn’t Taking Turns; It’s Teaching Together

By Anne M. Beninghof

Coteaching (or collaborative teaching) is defined as a coordinated instructional practice in which two or more educators simultaneously work with a heterogeneous group of students in a general education classroom. A key word in this definition is coordinated. Coteaching partners spend time planning together, smoothly share instructional responsibilities, and collaboratively reflect on their practices. Effective coteaching can be compared to synchronized swimming: teammates must carefully coordinate, not only to win, but to avoid drowning!

Coteaching can look many different ways to the casual observer. Within one period, we may see both teachers take a lead in lecturing, giving directions, monitoring student behavior, or taking responsibility for a small group. We may see one teacher quietly collecting observational data while the other facilitates whole-group instruction, or one teacher problem solving with an individual student while the other continues the lesson. No matter what it looks like, effective coteaching always requires the active engagement of both educators for the entire period.

I have the opportunity to visit many schools around the country that wish to implement effective coteaching. As I observe in classrooms that are labeled “cotaught,” I see a wide range of implementation. In many cases I observe two educators fully engaged during the lesson, contributing their unique expertise to meet the needs of the students. But just as often I see one educator, usually the specialist, greatly underutilized. Evidence of this may include:

• Hearing the specialist’s voice rarely or not at all
• Seeing the specialist leaning against a wall for a significant portion of time, waiting for the general education teacher to finish lecturing
• Watching the specialist wander the aisles, offering minimal cues or supports to individual students who may be struggling
• Failing to note anything that could be called “specially designed instruction”
• Observing little or no interaction between teachers

While debriefing my observations with teachers and administrators, I frequently learn that the coteaching partners have no common planning time. For coteaching to be most effective, partners must have time to coordinate their instructional efforts. Administrators must make common planning a priority when designing the schedules. Teachers must also create time-efficient ways to enhance their coteaching.

For example, a short brainstorming session with coteachers yielded 30 different tasks that Teacher A could be doing while Teacher B is lecturing, including:

• Writing color-coded notes on the board or laptop
• Echoing key words from Teacher B
• Pulling up an online site (thesaurus, encyclopedia, media) to support instruction
• Providing kinesthetic tools, manipulatives, aids, and props
• Counting down, giving time clues, or managing a visual timer
• Prompting engagement with directions such as: “Stand up if you …, Turn and talk about …,  Stomp your feet if …”
• Going on-the-spot to websites to show visual images

Another reason teachers cite for underutilizing the specialist is that they are in their first year of coteaching together and will “step it up” after they become more comfortable with each other. Students cannot afford for teachers to spend a year or more getting used to each other. For the sake of our students, we must “step it up” right away. This often means that the specialist must advocate more strongly for a significant role in the classroom. This may also mean that the general education teacher must welcome and, even more, expect the specialist to share ideas and expertise.

When both parties are willing and committed to effective coteaching, these conversations can be dynamic springboards for excellent instruction. When one party is less willing, these conversations can be difficult and uncomfortable. For the sake of our students, teachers need to have these conversations, no matter how uncomfortable. Luckily, resources are abundant! Checklists, discussion guides, and problem-solving processes can help partners clarify their roles and responsibilities so that both sets of skills and expertise are fully utilized. These tools and additional ideas can be found at www.ideasforeducators.com.

 

Anne M. Beninghof, M.S., an internationally recognized consultant and trainer, has more than 30 years of experience working with students and teachers in a variety of public and private settings. She has been a special education teacher and an adjunct faculty member at the University of Hartford and the University of Colorado. She has published several books and videos, and has provided staff development in 49 states. Beninghof recently returned to the classroom, where she works part time with teachers and students who are struggling with the learning process. Follow her blog at www.ideasforeducators.com, or visit her on Facebook or Twitter.

“SEMple” Teaching Practices That Create Meaningful Literacy Instruction

By Pat Sekel, Ph.D.

Much research has been published recently focusing on best teaching practices, in particular those supporting literacy. What is the underlying theme in all this rigorous investigation on thousands of different kinds of learners? Research has found three key elements that, when combined, will engage 100 percent of learners, with zero downtime, achieving better than a 98 percent success rate. How can this be accomplished? It’s “SEMple.” Let me explain …

Studies have found that teachers who teach in a Structured, Explicit, Multisensory manner—or teach “SEMply”—will produce these types of results with students (Archer & Hughes, 2011; McIntyre & Pickering, 1995). But, what does this actually look like in the classroom? For this high level of success to take place, the teacher must take responsibility for student learning, not make excuses if students fail to master new material.

The S in SEMply represents Structured. Structured teaching involves presenting material methodically and teaching information in a sequential manner. Students practice applying procedures  and routines until they can be used unconsciously when reading or spelling an unknown word.  For example, if students are taught to identify syllable types or to quickly ‘scoop’ words into syllables when they encounter an unfamiliar word, working memory can be spent on decoding the word rather than   panicking over how to first attack it.

English is a highly structured language, with spelling at least 86 percent regular when one knows the rules and patterns (Cox & Waites, 1986). Teaching students the most regularly used sounds and spelling patterns in a systematic manner, rather than relying on  “teachable moments,” will enable students to read more words more quickly. Teachers who study the English language understand the importance of teaching the six syllable types as well as how etymology plays a role in reading. Instruction should be delivered “in order” from easier to more complex skills: single sounds to digraphs, short vowels to vowel teams, single-syllable to multisyllabic words.

In the primary grades, students begin reading single-syllable words whose etymology are primarily Anglo-Saxon (e.g., cow, green, milk, arm, me, sit, why). By the time students transition to the intermediate grades, the words are longer and more abstract, reflecting their Latin and French heritage (e.g., ingredient, fascinate, magazine, critique, direct). Additional Greek combining forms (e.g., television, chemistry, theme, gymnastics) can further tax intermediate readers’ decoding and comprehension ability, if they didn’t secure their decoding skills in the primary grades. These words are not only longer, but also more abstract in nature.

E is for Explicit instruction, which is absolutely necessary in teaching content that students could not otherwise discover (Archer & Hughes, 2011). Students are guided through the new learning that is broken down into incremental steps; they are provided with clear explanations and scaffolds  to support their learning. As a new concept is presented, the teacher builds on previous learning and knowledge, taking students from the known to the unknown. “Teach, don’t test,” must be teachers’ call to action for more active learning to occur.

One technique is to incorporate “pregnant pauses” in presentations, allowing time for students to fill in answers in teachers’ statements, rather than expecting students to know the answer after a single presentation of information. An example could be, “Yesterday, we discovered the alphabet had how many letters? It has (pregnant pause) 26!” As the teacher reminds students of their previous learning and students are encouraged to fill in the answer with her, she is simultaneously writing “26” on the board.

During the direct teaching phase, the teacher provides demonstrations and explanations, with enough independent practice for students to achieve mastery. When students demonstrate success, less teacher guidance is required, and task difficulty can increase. Teachers must use precise terms in explaining a concept to students. Demonstrations for students that include examples as well as nonexamples help to sharpen the parameters of concepts (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986).

Distributed practice over time cements learning rather than cramming in a concept within a short window of time and not resurfacing the learning again for another semester or so. Tie points together and remind students of what they know to “warm up their brains” before presenting new learning. This resurfacing of information helps remind students of what they have learned, and helps them feel secure that the teacher will organize and connect the new information coming in for them.

M is the final letter in the acronym. Multisensory instruction by definition involves engaging at least two senses simultaneously. The key word is simultaneously. Teachers may think that rotating senses during a presentation of new information is multisensory, when in fact this is directing instruction toward one sense. To more fully engage students for longer periods and to create more successful learners, students must see and do, hear and see—or multiple combinations thereof—to deepen understanding of new learning. Some examples in the classroom could be teachers who value writing on the board simultaneously while providing directions, naming letters of words as they write them on the board, displaying a completed project while discussing the parts necessary for completion, or explaining how to work a math problem on the board while the students complete the same problem at their desks. When students have a weaker learning modality, teaching in a multisensory fashion ensures that at least one of the student’s learning senses will be targeted.

Teaching in a Systematic, Explicit, and Multisensory manner will ensure 100 percent student engagement with zero downtime and, most importantly, 98 percent student success in learning. It’s really that SEMple.

 

Pat Sekel, Ph.D., CALT, QI, has more than 30 years of experience in public and private schools. She has worked as a qualified instructor, certified academic language therapist, special educator, and speech pathologist. Sekel is twice past president of the Austin branch of The International Dyslexia Association and has served in other capacities at the national level of IDA. She is a national LETRS trainer and coauthor of The New Herman Method, an Orton-Gillingham-based, multisensory intervention for reading, handwriting, and spelling.

Using Tier II to Inform Tier I

By Joanne Allain

As a result of widespread implementation of Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI), we now assess students to determine their specific needs. These assessments often show that large numbers of students perform below grade level and require additional work with Tier II or Tier III intervention. In fact, many schools fall far from the optimum RtI configuration of 80 percent at Tier I, 15 percent at Tier II, and 5 percent at Tier III.

In response to this data, schools develop sizeable intervention systems designed to accelerate student growth. Interventions are necessary and welcome, but they are only part of the solution.

A primary component of a comprehensive RtI system is the use of a research-based core curriculum in Tier I (Batsche et al., 2007). However, when a significant number of students fall through the cracks, we must question the effectiveness of our Tier I curriculum, even if it is research based.

Is the current Tier I instruction strong enough to keep students from falling back into intervention after they have been successful in Tier II and supports have been removed? Have we created an instruction/intervention yo-yo effect by focusing solely on intervention and ignoring first instruction?

Two critical questions come to mind:

1. Have we analyzed patterns in Tier I data to determine why so many students are in need of intervention?
2. Have we identified which skills are most frequently taught in Tier II that should have been addressed in Tier I?

Ultimately, we have to question the rationale that the need for intervention is the fault of the student. Adjustments in Tier I content and instruction must be responsive to students, and we can use the patterns of skill instruction needed in Tier II to inform that response.

Consider this scenario for School Y:

Screening and diagnostic data indicate that 50 percent of students in grade 4 are in need of Tier II intervention for decoding. We know it is unlikely that 50 percent of fourth grade students in School Y have inherent decoding difficulties. It is much more likely that, for this fourth grade, the current Tier I curriculum is deficient in explicit decoding instruction or that insufficient time is devoted to that instruction. Additionally, if the pattern is particular to students from one class, we can use that information to monitor Tier I fidelity and continuity across a grade level.

Since many schools have implemented RtI for multiple years, we now have the opportunity to use patterns found in Tier II to improve Tier I. Identifying, planning, and implementing Tier II skill development not only inform what skills need to be taught in intervention but also dictate the changes that must be made in Tier I to keep students proficient and prevent the intervention/instruction yo-yo effect that currently exists.

Educators who implement RtI are discovering that it is not sufficient to have a research-based Tier I, even with good instruction, reteaching, and differentiation. Effective Tier I instruction consistently responds to the changing needs of students (Allain & Eberhardt, 2011).

We know the essential content outlined in reading research, but not all students have the same needs. Tier I must be responsive to students by adjusting how much, how often, and how explicitly we teach each reading/writing skill. We have to use all the information at our disposal to truly meet the needs of our students in Tier I at every grade level, and thus prevent the need for intervention with most students. Data from Tier II provides much of that information.

Let’s walk through an example of using Tier II information to inform Tier I instruction:

Based on assessment, a majority of seventh grade students in School Z requires vocabulary intervention. After determining the appropriate intervention for the students, we turn our attention to Tier I and ask the following questions:

• Is the vocabulary content and instruction in Tier I sufficient? If not, identify supplemental programs and/or adjust instruction to increase the focus on vocabulary. If yes, is Tier I being taught as designed?
• Is the current Tier I vocabulary instruction explicit enough? When choosing a supplement, attend to this distinction. If many students require intervention, perhaps first instruction should be more direct and explicit. More of the same instructional method does not support differentiation in Tier I and will not be sufficient to make a difference.
• Should we increase the daily time allotment for explicit vocabulary instruction in Tier I? How much time will be required to prevent the need for intervention?
• Should we change Tier I lesson pacing to allow more time for explicit vocabulary instruction? What pace will allow us to adequately teach high value standards while responding to the vocabulary needs of students in Tier I?

RtI relies on continuous problem solving to identify appropriate interventions, but the process should not stop with students. We must also use this process to problem solve and intervene with each school system. The effective implementation of RtI has much to teach us—about our students’ intervention needs and about our Tier I instruction. We just have to be willing to listen.

 

Joanne Allain, M.A., serves as a national consultant with 3T Literacy Group, where she specializes in the planning and implementation of RtI systems. She is the author of Logistics of Literacy Intervention: A Planning Guide for Middle and High School (2007), Logistics of Literacy Intervention: An RtI Planning Guide for Elementary Schools (2008), and coauthor with Nancy Eberhardt of RtI: The Forgotten Tier (2012). Joanne can be reached at joanne.allain@3Tliteracygroup.org or www.3tliteracygroup.org.

“Now What Do I Do?” Coaching Tips for Educators of Children With LD and ADHD

“Now What Do I Do?”

Coaching Tips for Educators of Children With LD and ADHD

 By Steven A. Richfield, Psy.D.

Children with learning disabilities (LD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) challenge and enrich the daily experiences of teachers and school counselors. The vulnerability of a fragile ego, the unthinking behaviors rooted in impulsivity, or the steep decline of yet another emotional meltdown can prompt a call for help from even the most experienced educator.

The above-mentioned scenarios fall under what I have come to call the “Now what do I do?” syndrome. It is a question that echoes through the minds of adults trying to help kids in the throes of emotion but realizing that we’re not sure what will help. No doubt it’s a familiar position to parents of all children.

Today’s children are often bombarded with social, academic, familial, cultural, and personal pressures that sometimes make growing up feel like living in a boiler room. Add to these situations the diminished resources of ADHD and LD, and such pressures intensify. Since the children I treat as a child psychologist are among this group, I have developed coaching tools to help them prepare for and effectively manage these pressures.

“Coaching” is the term I use to designate how caring adults use informed knowledge to help all children—especially those with special needs—manage the bumps and bruises along their childhood paths. This knowledge is used to help children improve upon their self-control and social skills in a world with high expectations and sharp penalties.

The selection of the “coach” role grows out of my belief that those who guide children benefit from a reference point to guide their own efforts. While much of my professional time has thus far been devoted to developing and expanding upon the parent coaching approach, the tools and techniques lend themselves directly to educators. If you are one of the millions of teachers or school counselors who seek to steer ADHD and LD kids straight along the path of growth, I offer these tips to you. Hopefully, these notions will provide some answers during the “Now what do I do?” moments.

1. The coaching role stresses that adults demonstrate through words and actions that they are on the same “team” as the child.

When emotions are peaking, children with ADHD and LD tend to perceive adults as taking sides and rushing to judgment. Sometimes these perceptions are accurate. Therefore, the coaching approach requires a nurturing tone of voice and an open mind to listen to the child’s point of view. Foremost in the coach’s mind is the thought, “I want to make this child feel safe enough to let me use this situation to help them improve their handling of it next time around.”

2. When it’s time to huddle, have your “verbal playbook” ready.

Once you have built a trusting dialogue, it’s time to offer them your explanations about what went wrong. Explain how their thinking side (the part of their mind that makes good decisions and watches over their behavior) sometimes loses control over their reacting side (the part of them that reacts emotionally to triggers in their life). This commonsense dichotomy resonates with most children’s experience and allows you to explain how certain traps in their life trigger the reacting side. Typical traps include being teased, insulted, or feeling embarrassed by some difficulty. Give examples of how this has happened in your life and perhaps in the lives of famous people.

3. Offer “thinking side messages” as preventive strategies.

Many children don’t appreciate the significance of how their thoughts fuel their actions. This internal language is often running in the background of their interactions with others, sometimes spurring them on to an impulsive response to one of their traps. Explain how the way we talk to ourselves when we are facing one of our traps sets the stage for whether the thinking side or reacting side wins the battle for control over our behavior. Emphasize “we” to reduce the chances of sounding accusatory or blaming. Give examples of how if they say to themselves, “I’m going to get even with that kid,” the results are going to be much different than if they say to themselves, “I’m not going to take the bait from that kid.”

4. Offer “talking tools” to manage the power of peer dynamics.

One reason that kids succumb to their traps is the wish to “save face” during potent peer encounters. But well-chosen words—to which ADHD and LD kids may not have quick access—convey power. Here are several responses to propose to the child who becomes inarticulate when the pressure builds: “This is just the kind of situation that leads you on the wrong road; Be my guest, but don’t wait for me to follow because you’re on your own; I don’t have to prove anything to you that I already know to be true; If you can’t see where this is heading, then I suggest you take some time to think it over.”

5. The prevention of future trouble is aided by practicing and processing.

You can prepare the child for improved coping by speaking beforehand about what is likely to happen in a given situation. Self-control is also fostered by rehearsing situations with the child so that they can practice their silent self-control strategies. Afterward, process the child’s experience by reviewing how well they coped with their trap. Reassure them that it requires a lot of practice for all of us to use our thinking side when our traps are tempting us. Praise them for their willingness to discuss and desire to change for the better.

Please accept these suggestions as my expression of appreciation and offer of help to those who devote their professional time to enriching the lives of children with ADHD and LD. It is my sincere hope that some of these ideas will make for more meaningful experiences for you and those you teach and/or counsel.

Steven Richfield, Psy.D., is a child psychologist in Plymouth Meeting, PA. He has developed a child-friendly self-control/social skills-building program called The Parent Coach. He can be reached at director@parentcoachcards.com or 610-238-4450.

Implementing Behavioral Interventions With Fidelity and Measuring Effectiveness Using a Social Validity Scale

By Ray  Beck

Among the challenges in bringing the Response to Intervention (RtI) effort to the shop floor is the fact many of our general classroom teachers leave preservice programs without the course work, training, and skill sets necessary to implement specific behavioral interventions. With curriculum and instructional methods being the focus, behavior management has often been left on the back burner.

However, with the advancement of RtI, most general education teachers will encounter and be asked to teach atypical learners who often exhibit behaviors described as hyperactive, off-task, aggressive, inappropriate, troublesome, rude, mean-spirited, disruptive, unruly, distractive, disorderly, and so on.

One of the problems—whether it be a new teacher recently out of a university program or a seasoned veteran—is providing quality staff development, training, and consultation embedding evidence-based interventions that are practical, user-friendly, and cost-effective.  Frankly, given the resources available, teachers find many intervention trainings beyond the scope of reality.

If staff development is complicated, time-consuming, or unfriendly, teachers simply won’t use the interventions. If, on the other hand, staff development is practical and user-friendly, teachers will be eager to implement the interventions.

Professional development modules should provide quality training in: (1) choosing an appropriate/practical intervention to match the problem behavior; (2) developing the skill set associated with the intervention; (3) implementing the intervention with fidelity; and (4) collecting data and evaluating the extent to which the intervention was effective.

Using a research-based intervention, Check-In/Check-Out (Hawken et al.), “fidelity of implementation” and “evaluating effectiveness” will be briefly explored.

Challenges of Implementing  Interventions With Fidelity  

When interventions fail, we might hear: “I tried that, and it didn’t work; … too many other students; … not a good match between the intervention and problem behavior; … no follow-up; … not research-based; …too many other things going on; … I need more help;  …he/she should be removed from my class; … my focus is academics; … and, as for RtI, this too shall likely pass.

Bottom line: Many interventions are determined ineffective for lack of implementation fidelity.

Fidelity, as used here, refers to ensuring the intervention was implemented as the designers intended. Three critical steps are necessary to ensure positive outcomes when implementing interventions:

1. First, there needs to be a good match between a problem behavior and a research-based intervention (primal screaming is not research-based).
2. Second, teachers must be appropriately trained in using the intervention the way it was designed.
3. Third, a follow-up plan must be in place to measure implementation fidelity.

In one fidelity study (Noell et al.), teachers were trained in specific behavioral interventions and divided into three groups. Each group was followed using behavioral coaches as consultants. The first group received brief weekly visits where the coach asked, through a scripted interview, how things were going. The second group received brief weekly visits where the coach reminded the teachers of their commitment to the intervention. The third group had weekly meetings where the coach reviewed “performance data,” including charts, graphs, incident reports, etc. Researchers found the most promising fidelity model was weekly consultations where frequent performance data were discussed.

Challenges to Determining the Level of Effectiveness

There exist a number of designs to measure effectiveness/impact of interventions, but if data collection becomes too complicated or time-consuming, teachers may neglect this critical element. Data collection plans must be developed keeping in mind the “collector.”

Recently an argument has been made to consider social validity as a scale in determining the level of an intervention’s effectiveness.

The idea behind social validity (consumer satisfaction) is that it is simple, straightforward, and well-accepted within the research community (Kazdin). Basically, the concept of social validity as used here requires a teacher, on returning from in-service on a specific behavioral intervention, to answer three central questions: (1) To what extent did he/she use the intervention; (2) To what extent did he/she like the intervention; and (3) To what extent did he/she find the intervention effective?

From these data, we can make intervention decisions and ultimately determine a level of statistical and/or educational significance.

The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), through a contract with Sopris Educational Services, employed the use it, like it, effective scales in measuring a major RtI staff development initiative involving hundreds of teachers. The Georgia State Department of Education used the same scales to measure the effectiveness of a Sopris product, resulting in a statewide adoption. Results from the Georgia study showed a strong correlation between teachers who “liked” the intervention and found it “effective.”

Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) is a targeted support intervention designed so that students can receive feedback about their behavior throughout the school day. After each subject or period, teachers provide a simple evaluation of progress toward specific goals using a behavior report card. Progress is graphed, and students are reinforced when criterion for performance is met. Lastly, parents may be asked to sign students’ daily progress report to facilitate communication between home and school.

 

To ensure fidelity of implementation, a “coaching card” with a Likert-type scale might be used by the behavior coach and/or teacher to rate the extent to which the following CICO steps were completed:

 

1. Identify the student and describe one to four “appropriate behavior” goals.
2. Teach the student appropriate behaviors.
3. Determine through functional behavioral assessment (FBA) if the student uses problem behavior to gain/get something or escape/avoid something.
4. Develop a numeric rating (0-2) to award points with a procedure to summarize daily scores and evaluate progress.
5. Teach the student how points are awarded on the daily progress report. Explicitly explain all aspects of the CICO program.
6. Write a behavior contract that defines expectations for students, the CICO coordinator (designated school person if available), and parents/guardian.
7. Summarize weekly data and monitor progress on meeting daily points. Use data to determine if a student should be continued, modified, or faded from the program.
8. Behavior report cards are signed by a parent/guardian and brought to school the next day.

 

From the eight steps listed in the CICO intervention, participants are asked to judge on a five-point scale the extent to which they used, liked, and found effective each step and requirement. Keep in mind you can use something, but not like it; or like it, but not use it; or like and use something, but not find it effective.

When it comes to implementing behavioral interventions with fidelity and measuring their effectiveness, a coaching card listing the essential elements of the specific intervention, along with a social-validity scale, can simplify the process and significantly increase positive results.

Ray Beck, Ed.D., is a consultant, author, and former vice president for Sopris Learning. As a school psychologist and former director of special education in Great Falls, Montana, he directed the development of two U.S. Department of Education-validated programs: Project RIDE (Responding to Individual Differences in Education) and Basic Skill Builders.

Metalinguistic Awareness, Comprehension, and The Common Core State Standards

Coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), the Common Core State Standards have swept the nation; nearly every state has sanctioned the call for students to read more complex texts. In response, publishers are rapidly preparing more challenging texts, referring to the exemplars listed in Appendix B of the Standards, including works by Sophocles, Alexis de Tocqueville and Fyodor Dostoevsky. These types of texts will be Waterloo for some students, and the battle begins in kindergarten with a call to understand—and hopefully enjoy—As I was Going to St. Ives. How can teachers help readers meet this challenge? In part, the solution lies in developing metacognitive insights and abilities—including metalinguistic awareness.

Metalinguistic awareness requires a keener than normal conscious, declarative awareness of language. We demonstrate this type of metacognition when we remove language from context in order to reflect on it and manipulate it. Metalinguistic awareness is an important ingredient in learning to read, spell and understand words (Donaldson, 1978). Moreover, as Nagy suggests, it explains a portion of the otherwise unexplained variance in comprehension scores, when other important variables have been controlled (2007). Boosting metalinguistic awareness has significant effect on reading comprehension (Cain, 2007; Zipke, 2007, 2011; Zipke, Ehri, & Cairns, 2009). English Language Learners benefit from metalinguistic awareness lessons, too, including metamorphological instruction (Carlo et al., 2004; Ginsberg, Honda, O’Neil, 2011; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010).

Metalinguistic awareness is a cognitive dynamo. At maximum potential, it includes increased awareness of phonemes and syllables and rhymes/rimes, of meaning-bearing morphemes, words, and phrases, of syntax, word referents, and appositives, of denotations, connotations, and lexical ambiguities, of homonyms, synonyms, and antonyms, of slang, dialect, and jargon, of academic language and figurative devices like metaphor, imagery, personification, and more. Writ large, metalinguistic awareness envelopes every atom of language.

Researchers have long proclaimed the critical role of phonological awareness (PA) in helping children blend and segment sounds in words. In the past decade, two more types of metalinguistic insight have surfaced repeatedly in reading research journals: morphological awareness (MA) and orthographic awareness (OA). If a student grows in MA, s/he becomes increasingly aware that words sharing the same base or root are similar in form and meaning. For example, the child notices similarities across painted, painter, paintings, painterly, and repaint, at the same time realizing that pain –while somewhat similar in form—is not related to this morphological family.  MA also includes knowledge of common suffixes and prefixes.

If a student grows in OA, s/he becomes more aware of the English system of writing, realizing that something “just looks wrong” when presented with “illegal” spellings, such as words beginning with ck or words containing three identical vowels in a row, as in *seeer. As this insight matures, students gradually realize that foreign loan words allow the inclusion of spellings not aligned with English orthography, as in beau, hoi polloi, and faux pas.

Recently, Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, and Carlisle (2010) conducted a longitudinal study spanning first grade to sixth grade in two cohorts (N = 241 students), investigating growth curves for three types of metalinguistic awareness: MA, OA, and PA. They found that PA and receptive OA grew from first to third grade and then tapered off or reached a plateau, for most students. Expressive OA continued to grow a bit after third grade. Meanwhile, MA grew rapidly from first to third grade and then continued to grow, but less rapidly, through sixth grade. Furthermore, MA influenced word knowledge: Vocabulary knowledge was significantly related to how well the student understood that derivational suffixes influence the grammatical category of the word—for example, that instrument is not grammatically the same as instrumentalist or instrumentally, even though there is semantic overlap. Reading comprehension is partially explained by growth in MA (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006).

As educators, we promote metalinguistic awareness by making explicit salient aspects of the targeted linguistic concept—the logic behind understanding multiple-meaning words, drawing an inference, or grasping how compound words convey meaning morphologically, for example. We promote keener consciousness when we point out how any detail of language works, making our thoughts transparent in a think-aloud with visual modeling, or when we ask students to explain their reasoning—and we give them feedback. If we exploit metalinguistic insight, we influence word reading, spelling, and vocabulary while moving the ball towards the end goal: comprehension. Thus, we might heed the clarion call of linguist Bill Nagy (2007): “Vocabulary instruction needs to be more explicitly metalinguistic, that is word consciousness is an obligatory, not an optional, component” (p. 54).

What about the brave new Common Core? Do they mention the term metalinguistic in the English Language Arts Standards? Alas, no. However, Appendix A circles loosely around the topic (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010):

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of comprehension strategies); and experiences.

 

In another section of the document, metacognitive strategies are mentioned. The Standards, and the forthcoming standards-aligned assessments, are fairly agnostic to instructional methods—they do not care HOW we teach—only that students learn. Professional discretion is encouraged; teachers and administrators decide how to address the Standards, including how to develop metacognitive insight, as indicated in Key Design Considerations:

By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies [formatting added] that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.

 

By integrating the two excerpts above, one might (might) infer that the National Governors Association did indeed include metalinguistic development in the Common Core. I only wish they had been more deliberate about it. Perhaps educators can assign a portion of their discretionary non-standards-aligned time to this goal. Without conscious awareness of language, second graders may be frustrated by The Jumblies (Edward Lear). Indeed, if lessons do not include an explicit focus on metalinguistic awareness, we could be sending our schools to sea—in a sieve.

 

Susan M. Ebbers, a former teacher and principal, authored several supplemental materials published by Cambium Learning, including Vocabulary through Morphemes, Daily Oral Vocabulary Exercises (with coauthor Jill Carroll), Power Readers, and Supercharged Readers. She is a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley, investigating various aspects of metalinguistic awareness, and the publisher of Vocabulogic (visit http://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com).

Reframing School Discipline

From “Who Is to Blame” to “How Can We Support Each Other and Our Students to Be More Successful?”

Many teachers experience enormous stress while attempting to “discipline” disruptive students, and often do not feel adequately supported by their colleagues, parents, or society. Teachers often tell me, “I just want something that works,” and yet, when I ask them how they define “what works,” they are unclear about the goals of behavior change, how to measure change, and how long it will take to get there. This lack of perceived job control (“I don’t feel like I am in control of what I need to be effective”) and professional efficacy (“I feel like what I am doing is not making a difference”) results in high levels of stress and can directly lead to burnout or other unhealthy responses to the problem. Fully one half of all new teachers leave the field within their first four years of practice, citing students with behavioral challenges and their parents as one of the main reasons.

Over the past 15 years, the use of “consequences”—such as office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions—has skyrocketed, particularly among poor and nonwhite students. Paradoxically, these practices actually increase aggressive behavior, truancy, vandalism and school dropout/disengagement.

A common response is to increase the length of time to remove a student from the classroom or from school if a behavior problem is not resolved quickly. For teachers, the temporary “relief” from removing a student quickly vanishes when the student returns with the same challenges. This only makes the problem worse in the long term for both student and teacher. Some teachers respond to this spiraling cycle by demanding ever more intense “punishment,” others may simply work harder to try to solve each student’s problems, and still others will engage in harmful behaviors such as complaining about or criticizing students, parents, colleagues, and “the system.” In the worst situations, teachers resort to alcohol or drug use (prescribed and otherwise) in order to “cope.” Each response may bring some short-term relief but will exacerbate the problem in the end. There has to be a “new move.”

Alongside a general interest in restorative justice in society at large, attention has turned to the development of restorative justice practices in educational settings and how this might respond to some of the continuing concerns about discipline and violence in schools. As it has developed in the criminal justice system, restorative justice seeks to provide (perhaps for the first time) a much clearer framework for restitution and repair. In this framework, misbehaviors can result in sanctions, but within a context where the relationship damaged by the misbehavior is the priority and based on the premise that this damaged relationship can and should be repaired—and that the offending individual can and should be reintegrated, not only for the good of that individual but also for that of the community as a whole.

Balanced and Restorative Discipline brings us this “new move,” and I have already seen the positive benefits of using restorative principles and practices in my work with teachers all over the world. Restorative discipline training works to help teachers clarify their core values about their work with colleagues and students and reminds them that their core mission is to help students become “safe, respectful, and responsible.” First they become collectively clear about what those behaviors look like, and second we model those values ourselves.

We embed restorative practices in our staff development and consultation in positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) to help teachers accept that change is very difficult for some students. We also help teachers “reframe” their views of students by emphasizing that their problems are likely a result of delayed skill development in key social areas (e.g., impulse control, problem solving, empathy) and not just a matter of “misbehaving.” Finally, taking valued action on a daily and long-term basis requires teachers to remain mindful of their core values and plans. The most powerful methods we have learned are to share data regularly about improvements or new problems (mindfulness) and to teach problem-solving methods (often called Functional Behavior Assessment) so we can systematically pursue our values.

I hold great respect and hope for our teachers, and believe that restorative practices provide a foundational framework for improving our sense of effectiveness and personal well-being.

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D., is an associate professor of special education and codirector of the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. In 2001, he helped establish the Oregon Center for School Safety. Sprague has been a teacher, a behavioral consultant, and director of the Center for School and Community Integration.

Nothing Less for Our Children

After a recent training on developing early literacy skills, an early childhood educator shared this comment:

“The information I received in my educational training was not specific in literacy instruction. I feel early childhood educators lack the knowledge base to teach these skills. Even for teachers who have been trained, their opinions vary drastically as to the most appropriate way to teach these concepts.”

You can sense the level of frustration and concern this teacher felt with the depth of knowledge needed to help young children learn the early literacy skills vital to their development. The content was not provided at a preservice level in college, and there is a general lack of understanding of how to use evidence-based practice in early childhood settings. Within the field, early childhood educators hold a wide range of instructional beliefs and practices.

The Evidence:

• A significant body of research has established the foundational skills of early literacy in oral language, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. Developmental sequences for what children learn within each of these areas have been identified in the preschool years that lead to success in early reading in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade.
• As identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP) in 2000, the two best predictive indicators of successful reading in second grade for children transitioning from preschool and entering kindergarten include phoneme awareness of sounds in words and letter knowledge.
• Teaching preschool children how to segment and blend phonemes in words has been determined to be twice as effective as the same instruction with children in kindergarten with much larger effect sizes for reading outcomes (NRP subgroups, 2000, chp. 2, pg. 24).
• From a developmental perspective, letter-name knowledge generally occurs before letter-sound knowledge (Neuman, 2000). The skills that are needed for letter-sound understanding reside in letter-name knowledge and phoneme or sound sensitivity. Letter-name knowledge often serves as a bridge to letter-sound knowledge.
• Preschool children can successfully learn these skills when they are intentionally and explicitly taught (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; NRP, 2000).
• Knowing what the target skills are in each of the early literacy foundations and having an assessment plan to assess them early to then provide needed instruction are components of high-quality early childhood settings.
• Young children are capable of learning a lot; and we have, at times, underestimated their abilities.
• Children who learn to be competent readers and writers are more likely to experience success in school and beyond with positive societal and economic impacts.
• The activities used to teach these skills can be fun, engaging, effective, and developmentally appropriate.

Historic Practices in Early Childhood Education:

• The scope and sequence of curricula broadly used in early childhood educational settings, such as those implemented in many Head Start programs, have not been designed to systematically, intentionally, and explicitly teach the early literacy skills that provide the foundation for early reading and writing.
• There is a strong focus within early childhood settings on creating language- and literacy-rich environments designed to follow children’s leads and respond to their interests.
• Skill development is more likely to be embedded into everyday classroom routines and activities through exploration and play.
• Intentional and explicit instruction is considered by some not to follow developmentally appropriate practice (DAP).

Characteristics of High-Quality Early Childhood Settings:

 

• Teachers are well-trained in understanding the developmental sequences and age expectations of the skills young children learn in building their early literacy foundations.
• An ongoing assessment process is in place to identify what children know and to monitor their progress.
• An evidence-based curriculum is in use with a scope and sequence that result in developmentally appropriate learning outcomes of the skills that children need to acquire.
• There is a balance between teacher-directed and child-directed activities.
• Developmentally appropriate practices are used.

 

Supporting Early Childhood Educators:

Developmentally  appropriate practice includes teaching approaches that consider (NAEYC, 2009):

• Knowledge of the sequences of child development, learning to set achievable and challenging goals for literacy learning, and planning and using teaching strategies that vary with age and experience of learners
• An ongoing assessment procedure that identifies individual children’s progress in literacy in order to plan successive lessons or to adapt instruction when children do not make expected progress or are at advanced levels
• An understanding of social and cultural contexts that affect how children make sense of their learning experiences in relation to what they already know and are able to do

Early childhood educators are dedicated professionals who make a significant difference in the lives of the children in their care. Providing these professionals with the knowledge of early literacy foundations and the support to use evidence-based assessment and instruction strategies should be standard practice in all educational settings, beginning with preservice opportunities, continuing and ongoing in-service experiences, and follow-along coaching in the settings where young children are learning. Our children deserve nothing less.

 

Lucy Hart Paulson, Ed.D., CCC-SLP, is a literacy specialist with years of experience working with young children and their families in public school, Head Start, private, and university settings. She is on the faculty of the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders at the University of Montana, sharing responsibilities for teaching, supervising, research, and service. Lucy is the lead author of Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) for Early Childhood Educators; Building Early Literacy and Language Skills (BELLS), a resource and activity guide for young children; and Good Talking Words, a social communication skills program for preschool and kindergarten classes.

 

Are Principals Being Left Out of Critical Professional Development?

Schools and districts have responded to AYP and increased accountability with professional development for teachers that aligns to data, is specific to student needs, and focuses on increasing academic achievement through teacher effectiveness. All attempts to increase student achievement by focusing on educator effectiveness should be seen as a step in the right direction. But in our attempts to focus on the frontline, have we forgotten to enhance the effectiveness of those leading the charge—our
principals?

With a conglomerate set of consumers and demanders—including the federal government, the state and its initiatives to meet federal mandates, and not least of all the local community, whose knowledge base of “what good educators do” has grown exponentially in the past decade—principals are besieged with paperwork, demands, and little spare time to increase their own efficacy. Yet their impact is significant; it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning.

School leadership training has changed little over the past 20 years. The focus has been on school management practice and not leadership reform. Preparation programs for school leaders are usually led by former school principals who haven’t recently stepped into school buildings, with the exception of seeing their student-interns. Usually they have not had recent experience in high-need school cultures—an area desperate for well-trained, exceptional school leaders. Their training or leadership experience can only be characterized as theoretical or hypothetical.

Beyond leadership preparation, the story appears to worsen. After a principal is placed in a building, little or nothing takes place to enhance his/her skills. Quality professional development for principals seems to be an oxymoron. Districts are recognizing this and doing their best, but recognition is coming at the same time as extraordinary budget constraints. Public schools have budgets so tight that little is left for anything except mandatory expenditures. District leadership is further overburdened because of fiscal constraints; there are no extra personnel resources to tend to earnest, quality professional development for school leaders.

Is it a hopeless situation given the economic current in public education?

Frankly, school reform will not occur unless leadership reform occurs. The best professional development for teachers cannot be sustained and supported unless there are knowledgeable principals supporting teachers’ efforts. Further, the population within our schools is changing dramatically from year to year. Principals who were in a school with a 30 percent poverty rate just three years ago may now be facing a poverty rate of 60 percent in the same school. Focused, quality professional development is critical to create the right skill sets to meet changing student needs.

Perhaps by rethinking what good principals need in order to be effective—and then creating a resourceful way of delivering the information—we can find the answers we seek. In an age of accountability and reform, school leaders need to have the following skills:

• The ability to foster high expectations in school communities: Successful school leaders have developed skills that engender high expectations for both teachers and students in a caring environment. They establish school structures that are safe and welcoming with effective communication systems. Principals rarely receive these “how-to’s” in principal preparation programs.

• Instructional knowledge: School leaders need to be able to use data, especially data specific to their school. They must be able to understand the instructional implications that align with that data, support the development of adult and student learning, and model effective teaching practices. They need to know how to continually evaluate curriculum and resources that will ensure sound practices. They should have an understanding of a standards-based instructional system that recognizes good instructional practices and motivates students to increase their achievement.

• Implementation of evaluation systems that support teachers and encourage the exit of poor teachers: Principals need to become evaluation specialists by understanding and utilizing good teaching practices. They need to be able to provide teachers with specific growth-producing feedback and be able to handle honest, difficult conversations with teachers who are failing our students.

So how can we provide principal development in a fiscally responsible manner?

• Problem-solving opportunities: Schools are not stagnant entities, and principals need authentic problem-solving opportunities that mirror situations they face daily. School leaders should have the opportunity to come together with their peers from like schools to solve problems, receive feedback, and reflect on their learning.

• Mentorships and coaching: Principals, particularly in the first several years of their practice, need to have quality mentorships. These mentorships, comprised of accomplished retired principals in similar types of schools, meet on-site with principals weekly or biweekly to offer coaching and just-in-time feedback on real-life situations.

• Cooperative learning situations: In large school districts, school composition varies greatly. In light of such diversity of student populations, districts should form cooperative learning groups of principals from like schools to discuss similar situations. These cooperative learning sessions should give school leaders the opportunity to learn new procedures and consider how to apply that learning before being faced with a situation requiring implementation. These situations also give school leaders a chance to network with their peers and foster a sense of community within their own district. Districts that are using peer observations and feedback within leadership roles are showing positive results. Further, districts could develop instructional leader teams for principals. These teams would be comprised of district leaders who come to schools, or meet with leaders in like schools, with an eye toward developing skills applicable to current situations.

Principals are like the students they lead; they want to be successful. However, the fabric of our schools and the age of accountability require learning new and different skills from those that were obtained in “principal school.” Districts and states must recognize this, and principal development must become a higher priority if our schools are truly to reform.

 

Written by Pati Montgomery. Ms. Montgomery received a B. A in Elementary Education from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in Special Education from the University of Northern Colorado and Ed. S. certificate in school administration from the University of Denver. She has been both a regular education teacher and a special education teacher and has taught students in grade levels from Kindergarten to seniors in high school. Ms. Montgomery has been with Jefferson County Public Schools for 20 years and taught in Denver Public Schools for 5 years. She has been a special education administrator; an elementary school principal; and a middle school principal. Currently she is the Project Director for a Strategic Compensation Teacher Incentive Fund Grant in Jefferson County, Colorado. Ms. Montgomery spent one year as an editorial director and staff developer for an educational publishing firm.