Newsletter
Volume 31 | 2008 | Number 3
Nailing the Educational Pendulum to the Wall
By Dr. W. David Tilly III, Heartland Area Education Agency
A major challenge for education into the early 21st century is to move modal teaching toward evidence-based practice. Great strides have been made throughout the past 30 years at documenting teaching practices that predictably promote learning. Indeed, in some cases, the question no longer is whether we know what works. The question is do we have (a) the technologies for deploying effective practices broadly in schools and (b) the will to implement them?
One framework for importing evidence-based practice into schools recently has been titled Response to Intervention (RTI), though many of the practices associated with it have between 20 and 30 years of research behind them. According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, RTI is defined as:
RTI is the practice of (1) providing high quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., et al., 2005).
RTI practices have emerged as a reaction to four sets of converging influences: (1) Successive attempts to bring science into educational practice, (2) the emergence of an increasing number of evidence-based practices, (3) the evolution of social policy contexts, and (4) advances in systems engineering in schools.
The first influence on the emergence of RTI is the increased sophistication of methodology for bringing science into applied educational practice. Many approaches to importing science into education practices exist, whether explicitly or implicitly referenced as such. These include Behavioral Consultation (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990; Kratochwill & Bergan, 1990; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996); the IDEAL problem solving model (Bransford & Stein, 1984); Functional Analysis of Behavior/Functional Behavioral Assessment - (Repp & Horner, 1999; Tilly III et al., 1998); The Scientist Practitioner Model (Barlow, Hayes & Nelson, 1984); Curriculum-Based Measurement (Deno, 2002; Shinn, 1989); Applied Behavior Analysis (Baer, Wolf & Risley, 1968), Action Research (Calhoun, 1994); Heartland AEA's Problem Solving Model (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 1995). Each model contains unique features, protocols, and language. In some cases, specific philosophies of science or theoretical orientations predominate and differential emphasis is placed on alternate parts of the process. With each successive attempt to bring science into applied educational practice, important lessons have been learned that guide improvement. Many of these improvements have been incorporated into generalized RTI models.
A second influence supporting the emergence of RTI is the increased availability of education practices with solid research foundations. Particularly in the areas of promoting pro-social behavior in schools (e.g., Simonsen, Sugai, & Negron, 2008; Sugai & Horner, 2008) and in preventing reading failure (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000), increasing numbers of applied approaches and strategies have become available for deployment in schools. A third factor supporting RTI practices is the national movement toward educational accountability (e.g., Floch, K. C., Taylor, J. E. & Thomsen, K., 2006). Since the 2002 passage of the No Child Left Behind revisions to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, schools have become accountable for every student’s learning basic skills to at least a minimum level of proficiency. As such, many schools are looking for comprehensive, school-encompassing strategies to develop skills proficiency for all students. RTI by its very design addresses this issue. The final impetus for RTI in schools results from improved models for engineering service delivery in schools (e.g., Tilly, 2008). Historical structures in schools evolved over time with a multiplicity of purposes, frameworks and administrative structures. With the adoption of tiered models of service delivery, a new framework for engineering educational systems with a unified focus has emerged.
Predictable Phases of Implementation
At Heartland AEA in central Iowa, we have been implementing RTI practices for 18 years. Implementation of RTI in practice typically proceeds through three stages. The first stage is consensus building – where RTI concepts are communicated broadly to implementers and the foundational “whys” are taught, discussed and embraced. The second phase is infrastructure building – where sites examine their implementations against the critical components of RTI, find aspects that are being implemented well and gaps that need to be addressed. Infrastructure building centers around closing these practice gaps. The third phase is implementation – where the structures and supports are put in place to support, stabilize and institutionalize RTI practices into a new “business as usual.” These phases of implementation track rather closely to the stages of the implementation process identified by Fixsen, et al. (2005).
Nailing the Pendulum to the Wall
The process of creating sustainability in evidence-based practices such as RTI results from careful and planful attendance to systems components that serve to occasion and reinforce professional behaviors. The next section identifies a series of components that we have found through experience in Iowa, to be directly related to the creation of sustainability.
Component 1: Identify principles of effectiveness and values. It is best to predicate practices in schools on principles of effectiveness rather than specific technologies or specific practices. In RTI systems, these principles take into account both the foundational values we hold about serving children and families as well as incorporating findings from the research literature. So, for example, a principle of effectiveness might be “monitor progress frequently and make instructional changes as data warrant” instead of stating “adopt Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM).” At the current time, CBM is one of the most effective progress monitoring technologies available, and Heartland schools use it extensively. However, our practices are based on the principle of progress monitoring, rather than the technology. This type of focus allows practices to improve over time as our knowledge base evolves. That is, while we use CBM extensively in our system, if better technologies become available to monitor student performance over time, we will adopt them, consistent with our basic principles. The foundational principles that were used in Iowa during our major shift to RTI practices can be found at http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/spr/RSDSNeedsPrinciples.pdf.
Component 2: Align professional practices with principles of effectiveness. Once principles of effectiveness are written, the next piece to align is specific practices. As systems transition from historical systems to RTI systems, implementing practices based on the principles of effectiveness require new behaviors on the part of nearly everyone in schools. Conversations must be held about which behaviors and professional practices are aligned with the system’s principles of effectiveness. These are difficult discussions because while past practices were based on the best available information and technologies, the principles of effectiveness cause a critical review, and in many cases rejection of past practice. The critical point to emphasize in this conversation is that implementing RTI is more about evolution than it is revolution. Past practices were not wrong. We simply know more now, we have better research, and there are improved technologies available to help us meet our principles of effectiveness. What would be a problem would be to not take advantage of what we have learned about instructional interventions since we began moving toward RTI. An example of defining professional practice behaviors consistent with principles of effectiveness was created by the Iowa AEA Directors of Special Education in 1994. This document, titled Professional Practices in Problem Solving, can be accessed at http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/spr/ProfPracticesInProbSolving.pdf.
Component 3: Align procedures manuals with expected behaviors and principles. Once professional practices have been defined, it is important that these practices find their way into policy and procedures at the agency level. This level of codification serves a number of purposes. It clarifies expectations and defines specifically what behaviors are expected of professionals within the agency. Procedures manuals also serve as one standard against which professional practice will be held if ever challenged. Heartland has written an extensive procedures manual that supports comprehensive problem-solving practices. The modules can be accessed under “Special Education Manual” at http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/spedresources/.
Component 4: Align professional development and skills coaching with procedures manual. When first implementing RTI practice, literally every professional in the system will need to develop new skills and competencies. The professional development to assist in this skill development must align closely with the procedures, practices, and principles that have been developed. It must be skill-focused, performance-based and criterion-referenced. That is, it must incorporate a clear scope and sequence, it must allow for much practice in the new skills, there must be opportunities for coaching and feedback, and there must be a criterion of performance that all staff is trained to. One effective way to set this standard of performance is to create Practice Profiles (Hall & Hord, 2001) that identify different ways that specific skills might be implemented. Each of these different implementations represents a different level of proficiency along the road to competency. The Professional Practices in Problem Solving document identified earlier is written substantially as a set of practice profiles. The advantages of aligning your professional development with practice profiles are many. Primarily, however, practice profiles communicate to professionals that the skill development associated with problem solving exists on a continuum and there is an expectation that skill development will occur over time. They communicate specific behaviors that are needed and they give professionals a way to benchmark their progress across time as their skills grow.
Component 5: Align job descriptions with expected behaviors. Once your system has committed to implementing a problem-solving model of service delivery, it is important to realign job descriptions and the hiring process with expected competencies for the new role. As more systems move toward implementation of RTI practices, it will become increasingly possible to hire professional with proficiency in RTI practice. The questions on your job interviews should reflect the competencies from the job description and the rating criteria for candidate’s answers should reflect variation in knowledge and skills related to these competencies. Heartland’s school psychologist job description, as an example, can be reviewed at http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/employment/schoolpsychologist.html.
Component 6: Align reinforcement systems with expected behaviors. It is no secret that systems contingencies govern much professional behavior. As educators are learning new knowledge and skills, leaders must align contingencies in the system to reinforce the right behaviors. Many behaviors are governed by contingencies associated with procedural compliance with Federal and state laws (e.g., evaluation timelines, providing parents appropriate notices, holding meetings with the right participants). Some of these cannot be avoided. However, these are not the behaviors most related to improving student functioning. When transitioning to RTI, contingencies must be arranged to reinforce improved professional behaviors as well. For example, paying attention to the number of student graphs a staff member is involved with that demonstrate significant progress would be preferable to examining how many “assessments” a school psychologist completed in a given time period. Or, asking staff to present to their colleagues on some of the new practices they are implementing is preferable to having someone from one of the big testing companies come in and talk about the “new version” of a widely-used, nationally-noted test. The general rule is to align reinforcement opportunities with the behaviors that are expected in the new system and to ensure that the reinforcers get delivered contingent upon the desired professional behavior.
Component 7: Align professional staff evaluation process with expected behaviors. A final component to put in place that supports and fosters RTI practice in schools is an evaluation process that is predicated on and consistent with successful implementation of problem-solving processes in practice. While this is an important component of overall systems alignment, it is probably the last component that should be put in place. Professionals need to have time to learn, implement, and experience RTI practice prior to being held accountable to those practices. As such, RTI training and coaching need to be in place for several years before aligning the evaluation system to allow professionals adequate time to grow and develop.
References
- Baer, D. M., Wolf, M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
- Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1984). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. NY: Pergamon Press.
- Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
- Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.
- Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver. New York: W. H. Freeman.
- Calhoun, E. F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as “best practice.” In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37–55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/index.cfm.
- Floch, K. C., Taylor, J. E. & Thomsen, K. (2006). Implications of NCLB accountability for comprehensive school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(3/4), 353-366.
- Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
- National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
- Repp, A. C., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.). (1999). Functional analysis of problem behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (pp. 17-31). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
- Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A procedural manual. New York: Plenum.
- Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
Simonsen, B., Sugai, G. & Negron, M. (2008). Schoolwide positive behavior supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 32-40. - Sugai, G., Horner, R. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16(2), 67-77.
- Tilly III, W. D., Knoster, T. P., Kovaleski, J., Bambara, L., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (1998). Functional behavioral assessment: Policy development in light of emerging research and practice. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
- Tilly III, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 18-32). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.