Vital to the long-term sustainability of any systems change implemented in schools are the acquisition of teacher buy-in and positive teacher perceptions. School change starts and potentially ends with whether or not the teachers see the process as being valid. This case study explored how middle school teachers make-sense of Response to Intervention (RTI) during the first year of implementation. Adamant believers in the middle school philosophy, these teachers and the principal negotiated the core practices of RTI as they carefully implemented it in their school. This is at an especially critical time, as support for the middle school concept is currently on the decline as its essential attributes and characteristics appear to be at odds with the standards and accountability movement that’s sweeping across the nation. Globalization and the impact of technology have also forced us to rethink the 21st century learner. Furthermore, this middle school community has combated recent cuts in programs, services, and staff, which have seriously compromised their integrity as a middle school.
Social Validity of RTI Impacts Sense Making and Implementation
The education policy implementation research is scant with regard to exploring what teachers understand about a policy as they attempt to link their understanding to implementation (Coburn, 2001; Coburn & Stein, 2006). Many studies of curriculum reform have focused on how teachers implement policy or how leadership practices contribute to success, but little has focused on how teachers interact with a reform to understand it and to change their practice. Spillane et al. (2002) contended that understanding teacher sense-making is important for understanding policy implementation. Coburn (2001) posited that “many researchers now suggest that rather than policy influencing teacher practice, it is more likely that teachers influence and shape policy. That is teachers interpret, adapt, and even transform policies as they put them into place” (p. 145). Social validity refers to the social significance of the program interventions and goals, the social acceptance of the procedures employed to obtain said goals, and the social importance of intervention outcomes (Wolf, 1998). Therefore, an important consideration is how the teachers view and to what extent do they accept the comprehensive process and model of RTI in relation to middle school practices.
For the remainder of this paper, I will discuss the teachers’ and principal’s perceptions as they relate to Wolf’s three levels of social validity. The main question posed is: How do the teachers and principal perceive RTI in relation to the middle school philosophy?
Social Significance of RTI
During the planning stages of LAC, the teachers created their school’s vision and mission statements. A force behind this educational creed was their strong commitment and dedication to students and the middle school philosophy. These strong values and beliefs held true when asked to provide their definition of a good middle school, all three teachers touched upon a fundamental characteristic of having committed teachers and learners. “A good school has teachers who love being where they are, not dead weight. Teachers who can get them [the students] excited about learning” and “When you see teachers volunteering to do things not for pay but because they want to, you know that you have a good school and things are happening because people want it to. They’re invested in it, so that’s good.” The backing by the leadership in the school helps preserve the teachers’ passion and commitment toward their students.
A principal who is supportive of the teachers in the school is a fundamental belief that all teachers expressed as a defining characteristic of a successful middle school. In the context of the current initiative, all asserted that the principal has been extremely supportive of their efforts. He has demonstrated this in multiple ways: from offering professional development, “He will send us to conferences. He’s already said if we want to go somewhere and learn more he’s fine with that, there’s money for that;” to providing professional learning community (PLC) time, “He also gave us the 45-minutes twice a week to work together;” to making sure necessary materials are available, “if we need materials, which happened, you know, we go to him and he does what he needs to do to, you know, get materials and to make sure we all have what we need;” and to just fostering their autonomy, “He trusts us the freedom to not adhere to rigid rules. He trusts me. He trusts all of us to do what’s right.” Teachers are more devoted when they know that their hard work is recognized and supported. Throughout the entire process, these teachers have felt incredibility supported by their principal.
Social Acceptance of RTI
The principal’ sense-giving activities have played an integral role in the teachers’ sense-making of LAC. By providing the conditions of a support (i.e., offering professional development, providing PLC time, making sure materials are available, fostering autonomy), the teachers have collectively navigated the process. However, getting the initial buy-in from the entire staff and the students was a challenge for the principal at first. One teacher explained her observations of the teachers’ behavior.
"I think the teachers have bought into it so I think that’s done. I, you know, that was one of the biggest obstacles I thought that we were going to run into. I think that by saying, Okay, get over it. We’re doing it. We need to just move on and do the best we can. They finally realized we were going to do it."
While another teacher reported that once the teachers accepted the change, the students followed suit.
"I heard at the beginning a lot of teachers saying oh how much work it was going to be and we decided on our committee, let’s just keep it to that hour. Don’t give them homework. Let them work in class. Have conversations in class. And I have not heard any complaints at all. It’s been great. I love it. I love seeing more of literacy. It’s just amazing."
The principal had much to say with regard to his perceptions of the teacher and student buy-in, which matched the views of the teachers. He was especially concerned with how the teachers might come to terms with the many changes they were facing. For example, the teachers lost a prep period, as the principal explained: "Honestly, backlash that the teachers may portray based on the extra time that it was going to take to actually teach the LAC. To take that prep period away from teachers who have had that prep period for years."
In addition to the teachers losing a prep period, they also were required to teach a class that they had never taught before. The principal shared his observations of how the teachers responded to this change.
"[To] ask them to take on another graded class, basically, in reality, a remedial class, so it was not a typical language arts class. This was going back to basics. Teaching kids, students, how to read. How to comprehend, um, so I was fearful a lot of the backlash would be a lot of balking, a lot of we don’t have to do this, this is just ridiculous, it’s just another reform coming down from the feds to the state that’s going to be here for two or three years and gone again for two or three years."
The principal noticed the resistance by the teachers at first. However, he observed a change in the teachers’ behavior and how that in turn started to affect the students’ behavior.
"A little bit of that happened in the first week or so; lots of grumbling about how difficult it was, how much extra work it was, then it kind of just got quiet and I actually started hearing positives about the program and seeing kids that came in real, real low all of the sudden taking interest in the class. Overall, I think it’s turned out to be a fairly positive experience for the kids and for, for the teachers and for the school."
The principal shared additional thoughts about how the teachers contemplated the change, “I think they’re finding it’s actually kind of a neat break from their typical routine.” He further explained, “What I’m hearing from the teachers that are in those classes, those classes are running very well and probably better than some of their core classes that we’ve had in place for years. So, I think the kids have adapted really well to it.” Teacher and student buy-in has been an instrumental step in the implementation process. A contributing factor to teacher buy-in has been their ability to collaborate with each other on a regular basis.
The teachers all felt that the culture of collegiality in their school has allowed the implementation process of LAC to run much more smoothly. The negotiating of multiple policy messages associated with LAC, through both informal conversations and formal problem solving, has allowed the teachers to construct new meanings and change their practice. The existing collegial relationships have provided a foundation for improved collaboration throughout the implementation process. One teacher explained how the support of her fellow colleagues, either individually or collectively during their PLC time, has helped her.
"I always go to [Teacher B]. I do that because she’s a seventh grade, she’s got the same, you know, kids that I do, that level. She is about a week ahead of me and so she always is the one that works out all the glitches. She’s the one who will-she’s the best at it. Definitely. Better than any of us. She takes it very, very seriously. She’s a perfectionist so I know that she’s going to have all the answers. And if she doesn’t, we look together back at some of the material. And we have our time to do that that’s set aside. We have every Tuesday and Friday for 45 minutes to sit together."
The principal also recognized how the culture of collegiality and the PLC are an essential component for the success of LAC.
"The teachers here have always been pretty good about talking to one another and about issues and about concerns and about their subject matters or whatever, they’ve always communicated very well. But I’ve noticed a lot of new partnerships coming about because of the LAC. You know, teachers that had specifically not talked, spoken with each other much are now talking with each other. I mean we do have a time set aside for them to meet one another throughout the week, so they are talking because of that as well. But you know you do see them in the hallways communicating more than they used to communicate with certain individuals."
Overall, the existing culture of collegiality and the principal’s support of the Language Arts PLC have helped in the process of implementation.
Social Importance
Within three months of implementation, all three teachers shared their excitement with how LAC is building students’ overall confidence in reading and consequently are more motivated to do well. One teacher commented, “I’ve asked them. Do you find that this has made a difference? And yes. Yes. And I see their chart, their graphs going upwards. I see their confidence in reading in front of a group; it has gone way up, way up. They are taking more care with their reading. You know, they’re not substituting words; they’re not leaving words out; definitely, definitely a big difference. Big difference.” While another teacher shared her experiences with her group’s improved confidence, “They want to do well. They like it when they do well. We’re in it together as a group.” In this particular case, the teacher referred specifically to the positive reinforcement system that is built into the reading program. In addition to constant praise by the teacher for responding correctly, the students earn points for completing their daily lessons. Within the first three months, the teachers noticed that the progress monitoring graphs and the positive reinforcement system motivated the students to do well.
Overall, at seven months into the reform initiative, all three teachers commented on the positive student outcomes they have seen with LAC. Students increased test scores and self-confidence was a predominant theme. The principle shared his observation of the increased confidence and motivation of the students, “I think they’re seeing that the value of doing it is going to help them in science, in math, in social studies.” The students, for the most part, have bought into the program and have settled into a grove. One teacher remarked that her students have expressed and interest and desire to continue with the program next year. This reassured the teacher that LAC has worked as intended and has great promise for the future.
An unforeseen outcome of LAC was the development of rich relationships with students that the teachers have encountered. The smaller class sizes for tier two instruction has given the struggling students the support and attention that they need. One teacher shared, “I like that I’ve really gotten to know-I have eight in my class and I’ve really, really gotten to know them and it’s like they’re my babies. So, I don’t know. I kind of, like, bonded with them differently.”
The principal commented to this effect as well.
"I think a lot of good is coming out of it. I think because the groups are smaller, they’re smaller groups we can, we can spread it out a little bit. I think we’re seeing a lot of relationships that are blossoming between the teachers and students that may not typically have blossomed in the past because they’re having real close contact with 12 or 13 students every day that they typically would not be having. So those kids, I think, are feeling that they’re getting the extra attention that they, you know, they truly need. And I think the teachers are enjoying the fact that they’re seeing those students that are, especially again, tier two, tier three, who are struggling finding positive achievements and are getting excited about it, and the teachers are getting excited about it as well."
The close relationships that have developed have made implementing LAC worth the teachers’ efforts and all the participants have eluded to this multiple times throughout the study. However, the hard data that the teachers can use to inform their decisions about student progress has initiated significant changes in their practice.
The teachers slowly changed their practices as they received subtle confirmation that LAC was making a positive difference. During the second interview, all three teachers and the principle seemed more confident with how they spoke about LAC. They have now worked out many of the kinks and established a routine, as the essential components of LAC have become part of the everyday infrastructure of the school. For instance, I noticed that they all used the key RTI terminology as though it was part of their daily vocabulary.
One substantial change that I did notice was how the teachers talked about student assessments. In the first interview, Teacher C was skeptical of the utility of using test scores. However, in the second interview she focused on her students’ test scores throughout most of the interview. When asked about evaluating student progress as compared to before, she stated, “Well I didn’t have anything to really gauge it, except for my own opinion. This I have numbers to back me up, so I like that a lot. With Title 1, it was what do I feel just based on my observations, and I didn’t really have numbers at my fingertips.” The test scores showed her which students were responding well to LAC. It also provided her with concrete data to support her recommendation to refer one student to special education.
When asked about what has been the most challenging aspect of LAC, one teacher described how changing her teaching behavior has been exhausting.
"In my tier groups there’s a lot of having to be on all the time. I mean you’re in front of the class, with the book, with the script and delivering it. There’s not a lot of downtime at all. Like I lose my voice by the end of the day like I’m losing it right now. And my class that I meet with them is from one to two so it’s the last class of the day. Everybody’s a little bit tired. Um, I guess that’s the big difference, is it’s really, really tiring. But it’s very beneficial. So, knowing that, you know, it’s kind of worth it."
The principal recognized the toll a major reform can have on the teachers even when they are committed to the change. He stated in his second interview, “Overall I think they’re tired. Having the literacy program everyday has been difficult… I think at times for the students, as well as the staff, especially for those Tiers 2 and 3.” This comment showed the sensitivity the principal had toward the teachers, which also speaks to the kind of support he has provided throughout the process.
Multiple themes have emerged that supported the social validity of RTI at this middle school. In this particular case, RTI has complimented or even enhanced the essential attributes and defining characteristics such as: shared vision, value young adolescents, committed leaders, and active learning (TWB, 2010). Social validity will continue to be analyzed for the final round of interviews after one year of RTI implementation.
In many ways, RTI has revitalized this middle school that has been static for the last couple of years. Exhausted and frustrated, many of the teachers have closed their classroom doors and regressed to the more traditional practices. RTI requires breaking down silos within the schools and structures that support working in isolation. It is about integrating all staff and their expertise and combining service delivery models, including special education, into one unified system of learning.
References
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in
their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C.E. (2005), Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading
policy. Education Policy, 19(3) 476-509.
Coburn, C.E., & Russell, J.L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.
Coburn, C.E., & Stein, M.K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher
professional community in policy implementation. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Spillane, J., Reiser, & Reimer T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing
and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3).
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior
analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
No comments:
Post a Comment