By Nancy Hennessy

If all students learn differently, teaching approaches must differ too

By Susan L. Hall, Ed.D.
When was the last time you heard either the term “Response to Intervention (RtI)” or “data-differentiated instruction”?  Most K-12 educators hear one or both of these terms weekly, if not daily. Everyone knows that data are essential to accomplishing differentiation and RTI, but there are widespread misconceptions about which assessment instrument to use for what purpose. Using the wrong assessment is like trying to flip a pancake with a spoon; you might get some chunks of edible pancake, but it’s messy and inefficient. In my work with schools, I find that the two greatest areas of confusion are about the appropriate uses of universal screener data, and the distinction between a universal screener and a diagnostic instrument.

The most commonly used universal screeners for academic skills are called curriculum-based measures (CBM). CBM is the name of a category of assessments that have particular characteristics that make them well-suited to be universal screeners. CBM is the generic category name, while DIBELS and AIMSweb are brand names. Have you ever noticed how more people ask for a “Kleenex” than a “tissue”?  It’s the same thing with CBMs.

Teachers tell me their school uses DIBELS, AIMSweb, or another CBM, yet they haven’t been provided training about what a CBM is and what it can and cannot do. CBMs are terrific universal screeners, especially in reading, because they are quick and efficient ways to assess a skill.  When administering repeatedly with alternate forms, it’s possible to see growth. Since universal screeners are supposed to be given to every student (or nearly every student) three times a year, it’s important that it not take longer than 10 or 15 minutes to administer. Yet many schools are using assessments that take 30 minutes per student; that’s a travesty because that’s shifting valuable time from instructing to assessing.  Why would anyone spend more than 10-15 minutes three times a year giving a universal screener to the school’s top readers? They’re better off reading during the time you’re spending assessing them.

CBMs are great for sorting students into two piles:  those who appear to be performing at benchmark, and those who aren’t. Yet there are limitations to what you can learn from CBM data. Except in all but a few areas, a CBM cannot tell you enough to appropriately place a student in an intervention group. Yet too many schools are trying to use the data to do just that, which doesn’t work very well. Once you find the students whose skills are below benchmark on the CBM, the next step is the most important: giving a diagnostic screener. You want your universal screener to be the most efficient and effective sorter possible and to point to which type of diagnostic screener to give to each student who is below benchmark. Stopping with just a CBM is like admiring the problem without knowing what to do about it.

Teachers need access to diagnostic instruments to figure out how to address below-benchmark issues. If your school has intervention groups and you aren’t using diagnostic assessments, here’s an opportunity to improve the process. Excellent diagnostic instruments in reading exist in the areas of phonological awareness and phonics; it’s difficult to find the kinds of tools needed for comprehension, and there’s nothing available at the current time that is a vocabulary diagnostic measure. Teachers should use diagnostic assessments to pinpoint the areas a student has mastered, as well as those that are lacking. The data from a diagnostic assessment gives information that allows grouping in a very specific skill area, such as phoneme segmentation, or long vowel silent-e.

The other thing that diagnostic assessments are well-suited for is progress monitoring. After a student participates in an intervention group for one to three weeks, it’s far more effective to give an alternate form of the diagnostic screener than to give a CBM indicator. If the student has been in a group to work on the long vowel silent-e pattern, how can you tell if he has mastered it by having him read an oral reading fluency passage? Perhaps only two out of one hundred words contain the focus pattern. Phonics diagnostic screeners allow teachers to deliver a short segment only on the pattern skill, and it takes less than one minute to progress monitor a single skill. If the student has mastered one skill, then you go on up in skills until she fails the next skill, and that’s her next group placement. A common issue with RtI assessment practices is to progress monitor with the wrong instrument. The CBM should be given from time to time, but rarely is it the best instrument for ongoing progress monitoring of students in intervention skills groups.

At this time, many schools are well into implementation of RtI. According to the 2011 Spectrum K12 adoption survey, 68 percent of respondents indicated they are currently either in full RtI implementation or in the process of district-wide implementation. If student achievement  is not as strong as hoped, then the first place to check is whether the assessments fit the purposes. Check usage of the CBM first; while it’s a universal screener to give to all students, it should not be used universally for all assessment purposes. Invest some time in learning about the benefits of phonological and phonics diagnostic screeners.

Susan L. Hall, Ed.D., is founder and president of 95 Percent Group, a company that provides professional development and materials to assist schools in implementing RtI. She is author of two books about RtI: Implementing Response to Intervention:  A Principal’s Guide, and Jumpstart RTI. She is also author of I’ve DIBEL’d, Now What? Susan is a National LETRS trainer and is coauthor of several books with Louisa Moats, including the Second Edition of Module 7, which is about phonics and word study. She can be reached at shall@95percentgroup.com.

About Susan L. Hall

Books by Susan L. Hall: LETRS, I’ve DIBEL’d, Now What? Next Edition, I’ve DIBEL’d, Now What?

By  Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D.

Are you working as a coach? Are you a classroom teacher who receives coaching? If so, you are part of a growing trend! Many schools today have coaches who work with their teacher colleagues to help improve the academic and behavioral outcomes of students. Academic or instructional coaches work in the areas of reading and math, as well as science, social studies, history, etc.

Coaching is becoming widespread, even in these challenging economic times. This may be due to the fact that teachers are being asked to significantly raise the bar on student achievement with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), or to help schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), or simply because educators are deeply committed to helping every student be as successful and ready as possible for college or a rewarding career. Regardless of the reason for the growing popularity of coaching, teachers need support to achieve these ambitious goals, and coaching is acknowledged as a process that can bring effective professional development into the classroom with individualized and sustained support (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005; 2010).

However, coaching is not always successful. Some teachers resent having someone in their classroom “telling them what to do.” They might be concerned that a coach could be serving as “a spy for the principal.” Coaches have expressed concerns and even discomfort about their role: should they be acting as supervisors and evaluators of their colleagues? Is it their job to “fix” teachers who are struggling?  In my work with coaches over the past several decades, I have found a key to making coaching work is to carefully define the role and the tasks that a coach should undertake (and—those they should not!).

Role definition for coaches begins with getting clarity about what kind of coaching is going to be implemented. There are many models for coaches to follow, such as Cognitive Coaching™ (Costa & Garmston, 1997), peer coaching (Showers & Joyce, 1996), and instructional coaching (Knight, 2007). Some coaches may approach their work using models that originated in school psychology (consultation) (Kampworth, 2003) and special education (collaboration) (Cook & Friend, 2003).  Although they may use different strategies, the purpose of all these models is to provide effective professional development and support to teachers with the ultimate goal of improved outcomes for students.

To create the coaching model that I developed with Dr. Carolyn Denton—called Student-Focused Coaching or SFC—we drew on the research on coaching, collaboration, and consultation, as well as on our own practical experiences in the field.  SFC is an eclectic, responsive model in which coaches work to provide services by taking on three key roles: (a) Facilitator, (b) Collaborative Planner, and (c) Teacher/Learner.

The coach as facilitator literally helps “facilitate” or support the work of skillful and successful teachers. And as we all know, there are a lot of them out there! When coaching is viewed simply as a process to “fix teachers” what would a teacher likely start to think when the coach walks into her classroom? “Uh, oh…what have I been doing wrong?” and perhaps resentful that “the coach thinks she knows more than I do.” Coaches who help and support teachers are both valued and valuable!

SFC coaches also learn a process called “collaborative planning” where they work shoulder-to-shoulder with a peer colleague to help them devise a successful strategy to help a student (or group of students) with academic and/or behavior concerns. Coaches in this role are truly partners with teachers, sharing a focus on student success.

All teachers need to have the most up-to-date and effective strategies available to them. They need both the knowledge of these tools and the support to learn how to implement them effectively in their classrooms. A coach, serving in the role of Teacher/Learner can design and provide trainings to their fellow teachers (as the “teacher”) and provide follow-up support in the classroom, but should remain open to acquiring new information and widening their own set of effective teaching tactics by continuously looking for ways to be a “learner.”

What are some of the things that a SFC coach should not do in their role? The primary restriction is that no SFC coach should ever be involved in the evaluation of their peers—in any way, shape or form. Coaching must be kept completely separate from supervision and formal evaluation in order for it to be fully effective. Making this separation clear to all parties (the coaches, the teachers receiving coaching, and the principals) is an essential but too often neglected step in defining the role of coaches in the classroom.

Coaching is very challenging, and, when someone is asked to take on this role, it is essential that they have clarity about what the role entails. Teachers who receive coaching also deserve to know what the role of the coach is and what their own role is when they work with a coach.

When we keep our focus on the success of every student, we can achieve great things.

REFERENCES

Cook, L. H., & Friend, M. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1997). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools, 3rd Ed. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C. (2005). The Reading Coach: A How-to Manual for Success.  Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Hasbrouck, J, & Denton, C. (2010). The Reading Coach 2: More Tools and Strategies for Student-Focused Coaches.  Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Kampworth, T.J. (2003). Collaborative consultation in the schools: effective practices for students with learning and behavior problems. Upper Saddle River. N.J. Merrill.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (March, 1996). The Evolution of Peer Coaching.  Educational Leadership, 53 (6), p. 12-16.

About Jan Hasbrouck

Books by Jan Hasbrouck: The Reading Coach

By Linda Farrell
I’ve worked with hundreds of struggling readers ages 5 to 81. Almost all students I meet who have decoding weaknesses share a common behavior. Can you guess what it is? They look up from the page before they finish reading a word or sentence.

Many just glance at the word and guess what it is as they look at me for approval. Others may look at the word more carefully, yet they still look at me for approval after they say what they think the word is. A few look at the word before staring at the ceiling or somewhere in space while they try to figure out what the word is. Every elementary school teacher and every reading interventionist I meet recognizes these behaviors and can associate them with specific students.

Teachers often ask how to help their struggling readers. My first response is, “Make sure all students keep their eyes on the words the entire time they read.” I also suggest that teachers avoid saying things like “good job” or “nice work” when the student looks up for approval. The only time a student should look up from the page when reading is to say, “I need help with that word.” In that case, the teacher either helps the student sound out the word or gives the word if it is too difficult for the student to decode.

Many teachers tell us they need to give students, especially struggling readers, positive feedback for the student’s self-esteem and confidence. At first blush that seems reasonable because beginning and struggling readers want to know if they read correctly, and teachers want students to feel good about reading. In reality, teachers are training students to rely on them for affirmation rather than helping students develop confidence in their emerging skills. Instead of saying “good job” or “nice work” when a student looks up, the teacher can reinforce the importance of looking at the words by saying, “Remember to keep your eyes on the words when you read. I’ll let you know when I need to help you.”

Recently I was in a school to work with students, and the reading coach was with me all day. I started with four students in a low second-grade reading group who were working on phonics at the silent “e” level. These students had scored between 28 and 42 words-correct-per-minute on mid-year DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (benchmark is 68). Their accuracy ranged from 76 to 91 percent. They were reading decodable text focusing on words with silent “e.” All four students had the habit of looking up for approval at the end of each sentence. And, not surprisingly, all four often misread the final words in the sentence. I had them practice keeping their eyes on the words for all four or five sentences that were on the page. Their habit of looking up was not easy to change. By the end of 25 minutes, albeit with conscious effort on the students’ part, all four were keeping their heads down and their eyes on the words while they read. Just this small change in behavior noticeably increased their accuracy.

The reading coach and I spent the afternoon working one-on-one with four third-grade and fourth-grade students who had the lowest reading scores in their grade. They were all receiving decoding intervention. We assessed the students’ decoding skills by having them read words in isolation. None of the students did more than glance at words and look up before saying the word, and none read more than 18 of 30 decodable and high-frequency words accurately. It was apparent that these students weren’t looking at the words long enough to apply any decoding strategies. We worked with each student for about 20 minutes, reviewing the short vowel sounds and encouraging them to keep their eyes on the words. After this short time, they were all able to read with greater accuracy and more confidence. None had fully overcome their habit of taking their eyes off the words before finishing reading, but all were catching themselves every time they did look up.

Early in the day, the reading coach remarked that she was surprised at my “fixation” on teaching students to look at the words until they finished reading. At the end of the day, she told me she fully understood why I was such a zealot about insisting students keep their eyes on the page. Yes, I am fixated on having students look at the words when they read because we can only read when we look at the words.

I implore all kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade teachers—as well as reading interventionists—to teach students to keep their eyes on the words so that they do not have to later struggle with breaking a habit that hampers effective, efficient reading. After all, the first step good readers take is to look at the words they are reading. In my experience, many struggling readers have difficulties partly because they never mastered this first step.

Linda Farrell is a founding partner of Readsters, an Alexandria, VA-based firm that helps schools implement research-based reading instruction. She is committed to helping struggling readers become strong readers and to helping strong readers achieve their full potential. Linda is a former English teacher and has coauthored several publications and videos on effective reading assessment and instruction, including Teaching Reading Essentials (2006), DIBELS: A Practical Manual (2006), and Colleague in the Classroom (2003). She can be reached at linda@readsters.com.

About Linda Farrell

Books by Lindar Farrell: Teaching Reading Essentials, DIBELS: The Practical Manual, Colleague in the Classroom

By Steven A. Richfield, Psy.D.
Bright children with ADHD may succeed in the academic world but have trouble socially. Knowing the right answers, even when attention drifts in and out of focus, is not as challenging as figuring out how to appropriately direct their behavior in the presence of others.

As ADHD compels children to seek social stimulation—be it from peers, siblings, or adults—they may appear needy and annoying, and embarrass themselves and family members in the process. Doors of social opportunity close, and friendships erode; emotional pain and social exclusion result. Parents and teachers watch helplessly as the book-smart ADHD child unwittingly sabotages his or her social standing.

If this circumstance resonates with the dramas and dilemmas facing a child you know, read on for coaching tips.

Build a dialogue that blends sensitivity to their circumstances and confidence that they can improve their people skills. Observe how aware these children are of the disapproving signals sent from others when their social approach oversteps boundaries. List the ways they may overstep: talking too much, voice volume too loud, interrupting conversations, imposing self-serving topics, ignoring obvious cues to show interest in and listen to others, physical restlessness and verbal impatience with delays, etc. Reassure them that these social errors can be corrected, just as they can correct problems on assignments and tests in school.

Most ADHD children know their diagnosis but do not comprehend the social struggles related to their condition. Educating a child about this issue does not offer an excuse to escape from responsibility. In contrast, it reinforces the vital importance of learning social intelligence to ensure that ADHD does not inhibit their climb to happiness and success in life. Explain how the task of managing feeling states (frustration, eagerness, happiness, impatience, boredom, excitement, etc.) affects all kids and teens, but that ADHD makes it harder due to the trouble with impulse control. Liken impulsivity to fuel that pushes feelings into verbal and physical behaviors.

Emphasize that the first step to being more “socially smart” is building a pause button in their thinking when they feel the early signs of impulsivity starting to push them into behaviors. Help them identify these physical precursors to impulse discharge, such as finger tapping, hand drumming, fidgetiness, bodily warmth, chest heaviness, queasiness, or some other warning sign. Gently tell them what you have noticed about their impulsivity issues and offer observations from other teachers, coaches, instructors, or caretakers.

Develop a simple and practical plan for them to have at their disposal when social events threaten to trigger the costs of impulsivity. Delineate the various social groupings they come across, such as peer group, peer one-on-one, adult one-on-one, adult with peer group, family, extended family, etc.  List the behaviors that others expect from them based on the implicit rules of these groupings (i.e., greater or lesser talking, elaborate answers, listening with interest, relevant questioning, etc.). Review their success after encounters and brainstorm ways to further improve.

Steven Richfield, Psy.D., is a clinical 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.

About Steven Richfield

Products by Steven Richfield: The Parent Coach

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).

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.

About Anne M. Beninghof

Books by Anne M. Beninghof: SenseAble Strategies, Meeting Standards, Ideas For Inclusion

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.

About Pat Sekel

Books by Pat Sekel: The New Herman Method

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?

1. 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.

About Joanne Allain

Books by Joanne Allain: The Logistics of Literacy Intervention