Safety Nets

I wanted to share some information that I read during my NISL class this week.  I felt that it was great information about supports we need to have in place to meet the needs of ALL our students. Please take some time to read this and highlight some of the key points that you find powerful.  We will refer to this Monday Morning Message at our next staff meeting.  

In the United States in the past, students who fell behind their peers were often placed in a lower track, and expectations regarding what they achieved were reduced accordingly.  Students who fell behind were often regarded as lacking the ability to perform at a high standard and it was not thought feasible within the constraints of the regular school day to devise arrangements that would catch them up.

More recently, there has been scientific evidence that confirms that all students can achieve high standards, given sufficient time and support.  The issue becomes one of identifying those students needing extra time and support and ensuring that they are provided with it.  What is more, the concept of a multi-tier system of targeted supports is no longer a theoretically attractive but practically impossible idea.  A range of ways of providing extra time and support within the context of the regular school day have been devised and shown to work.

What held us back in the past was often a motivation to invest in these systems of supports (or “safety nets”).  The consequences for students of falling behind were not necessarily severe since they could always find a well-paid job even if they did not get high grades.  There were virtually no negative consequences for teachers or for the school.  Since the early part of this century, this has all changed.  Current accountability systems hold very real consequences and sanctions for schools and school systems that do not support all students meeting proficiency.  Most importantly, the consequences for students of not getting a good education in the modern knowledge economy are severe.

As a result, providing a system of supports for students who need additional, targeted support is no longer optional for schools; such systems are an integral component of any modern, standards-aligned instructional system.  Such a system needs to be embedded into the operation of classes and of the school as a whole.  This means a change of thinking on the behalf of many staff in schools.  These “safety nets” make assumptions about people’s beliefs and understandings and may call for a change in thinking on the part of staff who have not really embraced “all means all” or who may not believe that such a system of supports is either necessary or feasible.

The purpose of a system of targeted supports is to catch students up with their peers as quickly as possible.

We have been so accustomed to responding to students who have fallen behind their peers by withdrawing them from the regular classroom and from the regular curriculum, that it is necessary to emphasize that the aim of such “safety nets” is to catch students up so that they can remain and experience success in the regular classroom.  The success of any system of supports is best judged by the extent to which the lowest achieving students are nevertheless reaching high standards in regular classrooms.

The very first “safety net” is the system for ensuring that students attend school and that they are ready to learn

Absence from school is a major cause of student failure to learn.  For this reason, every effort needs to be made to ensure high levels of attendance.   When students are absent the school needs to give them opportunities to catch up on missed work.  Another cause of student failure to learn is an inability to focus on schoolwork because of health issues (e.g., the student needs eyeglasses or breakfast) or because students are preoccupied worrying about things happening at home or within the school (e.g., domestic violence, bullying).  With the right training, teachers can learn how to recognize and respond to many such situations and with the right programs; schools can mobilize community support to assist in addressing them in a positive fashion.

Decisions regarding student entry to and exit from targeted supports should always be made on the basis of data

A key feature of any effective system of supports is the use of data to guide decisions about:

• who needs access to extra time and support and for what aspect of their learning;

•the kind of time and support needed; and

•when the additional time and support is no longer needed.

This implies ongoing monitoring of student progress by classroom teachers using commonly agreed and parallel processes in all safety net programs.  Targeted supports by definition involve time and effort and so it is important that limited resources are used to the greatest effect.

Early intervention is essential

The time to take action is the moment the student begins to fall behind because intervention always works better the earlier one intervenes.  If one delays, errors and misconceptions remain uncorrected and they become entrenched.  In addition, repeated failure generates a lack of confidence and low academic self-concept in the learner, which also impede further learning. It is also the case that intervening with young children is likely to be more successful than with older children.  Teachers should be wary of adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach in the hope that failure to make progress is simply a question of developmental readiness that will be solved through the passage of time.

The best-qualified and most experienced teachers are required to implement “safety net” programs.

This goes against a lot of past practice, which has invariably rewarded the most experienced teachers by assigning them the most able students, whereas those students who are the hardest to teach often are assigned teachers straight from college. This is not the norm in every country.  In Singapore, for example, it is a great honor to be assigned the students who are most behind, since it is an indication that you have been recognized as one of the best teachers.  Teachers vie to teach these students.  This is as it should be.  Imagine a hospital in which the eminent brain surgeon opted to treat patients with headaches, while those with brain tumors were assigned to nurses.  Schools need to establish a culture and reward structure in which the best teachers want to be assigned to the most challenging students.  It is an anomaly that we are all too prepared to tolerate support programs and interventions that make use of volunteers and unqualified staff when we would not dream of tolerating medical interventions using under-qualified staff.

The standards in any system of targeted supports are identical to those in the regular classroom.

This is a consequence of the first consideration, which was that the purpose of any system of supports should be to catch students up with their peers as quickly as possible.  For this reason, the standards remain constant.  What changes is the amount of time and support provided to cover the curriculum and reach the same high standards.  Furthermore, the aim of all out-of-class programs should be to support learning within the regular classroom. This is not to deny the importance of modifying the teaching approaches and the pace of learning to suit the learners but it is to deny those who advocate lowering expectations.

The most important targeted supports are those built into the structure of the regular classroom

It is useful to think of several layers of targeted supports, including: ‘in-class’, ‘in-school’, ‘beyond the bells’ and ‘special referral’.  By far the most important layer is the ‘in class’ layer.  In-class supports comprise the set of practices and strategies that the regular classroom teacher adopts to ensure that all students continue to make progress.  Above all it requires a mind-set in which the teacher sees his or her mission as ensuring that all students experience success as learners and that all meet high standards.  It requires on-going monitoring of progress and prompt action to follow-up those students who have fallen behind.  It also requires the use of classroom strategies that enable students to be taught at their instructional level and receive additional time and assistance.  These include individual conferencing, one-on-one coaching, peer coaching, cooperative learning and small group instructional methods (e.g., guided reading).

A comprehensive system of supports involves a graduated set of interventions.

Beyond the regular classroom, there needs to be a graduated set of further interventions that become increasingly more intensive and involve fewer but more needy students.  The most important are ‘in-school’ programs built into the regular school day and that complement and support regular classroom teaching.  One important kind of adaptation of existing programs is simply to provide more time for low performing students, for example allowing a double period for literacy rather than one each day.  In-school programs can include school-designed programs to catch up students or externally developed intervention programs (e.g., Reading Recovery for grade 1 students who are not yet underway as readers).  The latter are labor intensive and possibly expensive but effective interventions that serve the most needy and hard-to-move students. These programs typically demand highly trained staff and other support and require long-term commitment to their implementation within the school.  For such programs to be cost effective, it is necessary to ensure that the first layer of supports—in regular classrooms—are working effectively.

Next, there are ‘beyond-the-bells’ programs that involve establishing programs beyond the normal school hours to enable students to receive additional time and support before or after school or during the summer vacation.  There are a number of difficult issues to confront in mounting such programs, in addition to their high cost, including issues of:

•Who gets access to these programs? (as these programs are typically voluntary)

•Who teaches in these programs? (are they fully qualified and knowledgeable about the regular classroom program?)

•Do these programs fully support regular classroom teaching?

•Is participation in such programs regarded by students as a bonus or a punishment?

Finally, there is ‘special referral’ for students who have disabilities or learning difficulties that place them beyond the capacity of regular classroom instruction to address adequately.  This includes special education classes and referrals to specialists for expert diagnosis.  Special referral must never be used as a means of passing off problem learners to someone else or making excuses for failure to learn.  Far too many students are classified as special education students who are quite capable of learning to high standards within regular classrooms given good teaching.  Again, far too many students are placed on medication by physicians for symptoms such as an inability to concentrate on schoolwork who would be highly attentive in classrooms in which they experienced success.  Having said that, there will always be a small percentage of students who do need special referral for expert help.

The bottom line in operating a system of supports for students who need additional, targeted assistance is evidence that the system is working.  If it is not, it should be modified so that it does.  Success breeds success.  Schools with good regular classroom teaching enhanced by a powerful system of supports for students who need the additional help can and do ensure that all students meet high standards.  We need many more such schools.