Scan barcode
iymain's review
3.0
So the basic concept of Response to Intervention is that students be given school wide support to meet their needs, the school must make adjustment to guarantee that these needs be met and the requirements are quantifiable and fluid. All great stuff!
Initially I took a dim view of this book. I suspected that it was another person getting published by repackaging old knowledge and giving it new names. There is certainly some of that in here. Also tons of alphabet soup: CICO, CBM (not continental ballistic missiles, but Curriculum Based Measurement), RTI, SST... blah, blah, blah). It would have been helpful to have a chart in the appendix with a quick reference to figure out what these anagrams stood for.
However, there were bits of, if not brilliance, at least clarity and intelligence that really bowled me over. One example is a "whole school discipline plan." Either Buffman is recycling old stuff, or it really is new. But it certainly seemed revolutionary to me. Instead of leaving a teacher on her own with a disruptive or non-cooperative student, a whole team of professionals is called in to figure out exactly where the problem lies, and more importantly, how to correct it. Of course it would make sense that a continuously disruptive student might benefit from a guidance counselor's help, or even an administrator's attention--perhaps a behavior modification plan courtesy of a special education teacher. Even if a teacher could meet those needs, the amount of time it would take from whole class instruction is prohibitive and the odds of success are low if the problem has already proven to be something the teacher can't manage in the classroom. Instead of labeling the kid "bad" or the teacher "poor" at classroom management, a group of objective professionals can bring their expertise to the situation and change it! (I love this idea.)
Similarly, the entire school should share the load for remediation. If a student comes to a teacher with a deficit of skills, why should it be up to one person to correct single-handedly. Often it has taken years for a student to fall behind. It is more than one teacher can handle in one year to correct AND still teach a full class of other students. However, with a team devoted to diagnosing and remediating the problem, each person can offer a little extra assistance instead of swamping one teacher with a needy student.
Buffington emphasizes that data should determine how the professionals proceed with the student. To that end he offers lots of (sometimes really lame and obvious--see the five column chart representing five days of the week with empty blocks beneath for a "planning calendar") charts for recording assessments, plans, tracking, etc. However, the point that a child should be able to enter and exit a program based on mastery of clearly delineated target skills is a good one. It breaks the cycle of pointlessly placing kids in a remediation that isn't working, while denying them access to the standard curriculum. It also gives direction and focus to how we teach our students.
Now ideally, we'd always have clear objectives with measurable, observable outcomes, anyway, but this is a good reminder. When I went through school, instead saying we were unpacking SOLs to make "targets" for learning, we called them "critical attributes." Same idea, different name. But whatever you call it, it is essential to having this RTI (response to intervention) system work.
We've been striving to make classrooms "individualized" for years now. RTI gives us a group approach to that very individualizaion. We round up students with similar stumbling blocks, connect them with a trained professional capable of teaching the students what they need to know and then we return them to the regular "Tier One" education cycle on even footing with their peers. (I like this idea.) I thought, at first, that this replaced differentiated learning for Tier One teaching, but now I see that it augments that. Classroom teachers must still present material in a variety of ways to a variety of modalities, but if they are still losing learners, students must go outside the classroom to learn more effectively.
The beauty of this system is that it also guarantees that no students are at the mercy of one teacher for the entire school year. This is a problem that needs outside help. Many parents know the sinking feeling of getting a reputed "not so great" teacher for their kids. Or the elation of knowing you got a "great" one. With RTI, all kids have access to great teachers, thus the negative impact of a weak teacher is ameliorated. Hooray for RTI, again!
I thought the description of academic misbehaviors was excellent. The interplay between attendance, poor student habits, not completing work and success in school is huge. Again, this is something that the standard school day does not accommodate (and for the majority of students, it doesn't need to). However, if students haven't fixed these misbehaviors, they will continue to do poorly in school. What a novel and powerful idea that education professionals can teach kids how to succeed in school, not just with curriculum, but by teaching good academic behavior!
Not only does Buffum delineate these skills in a bulleted list (66), he also explains how and who can best teach students how to develop them. (Time management, organization, note taking, goal setting, self-motivation.) I have noticed that some of these concepts appear in the beginning of the school year. However, sometimes the kids learn "time management" in a trial by fire of failing to complete important assignments on time. This isn't always an effective way to teach how to manage time in the future, and it can burn a student out and disconnect them from school. Teaching time management, though, empowers the students and gives them a life-long skill.
I liked the description of five types of engagement, four of which are commonly accepted as acceptable in a classroom: 1.Authentic engagement. 2. Ritual engagement. 3. Passive compliance. 4. Retreatism. Rebellion. Anything short of rebellion makes a classroom appear to be well-run, but is it good education? Sadly, too many students pass under the radar and fail to learn deeply or enjoy learning because they are in categories 2-4. Buffum offers a few strategies to address these academic misbehaviors, which is the first time I've seen them openly addressed as a critical part of teaching and learning. Good one, Buffum!
I liked how Buffum described real issues in real classrooms. He does not sugar coat how difficult the job can be. He discusses scenarios that can continue despite the best efforts of good teachers. For example, Buffum says research indicates that there are often "classrooms of misbehavior." In some cases, when enough non-compliant students are in the same classroom, it's as though a critical mass has developed that overwhelms the entire class. With a team of other educators to help address the problem(s), though, this doesn't have to be a permanent dynamic in the classroom.
This book convincingly explains the need for benchmarks and schoolwide ownership of both underperforming (and proficient) students in a school. (This could fly in the face of teacher evaluations being based on the "progress" of their students, though. That system implies that one teacher should take "credit" for all the learning a student does. In reality, we would hope that support staff also contributes to student learning and that a team of teachers enhances the learning of all students in a variety of environments, not just in situations related to her content or specialty.
I loved the scenario of seven students who failed the same "target" learning for seven distinct reasons (138). This is an honest description of how real learning takes place and what true differentiation requires.
I also liked the approaches for reaching "unmotivated learners."
I liked the flexibility of RTI to group students by need, not age. For example three students might be grouped to work on the same skill: a second grader for remediation, a first grader for reteaching/extended practice and a kindergartner for acceleration. (143) Buffman explains how accommodating those learners is possible through certain kinds of scheduling. While some schools might claim to offer this system already ("flexible" math grouping allows 4th graders to take "5th grade" math, and sometimes students go to a different classroom to learn with students a year ahead of them, it falls short of Buffum's vision. He recommends that constant evaluation allows kids to move in and out of set groups. Too often, kids are accelerated and feel like failures for having trouble. If they could get Level Two assistance in addition to Level One work, they would have a much stronger foundation and be truly accelerated instead of just rushed.
This book makes some really good points. I gather it is the way of the future in schools that failed to meet the No Child Left Behind mandates. I can only hope that they implement this system carefully and make sure to keep it fluid, fact based (data supported), and collaborative. Unfortunately, I see potential for just more shuffling of students and a slowing down of education instead of bolstering it.
I remain convinced that this plan works best for proficient and underperforming students and leaves "advanced" students without much direct instruction. That's acceptable as long as the teacher provides enriching, independent work for those students. But as long as it is busy work to keep them occupied while other kids receive direct instruction, I sympathize with those who feel that this system doesn't work for all learners.
I'm glad I read this. It is rich with ideas and concepts and it helps to organize different trends in education into a system of teaching and learning. It could benefit from giving credit to reiterations of old ideas and avoiding needless gobbledy-gook of abbreviations and current educational buzz words. I would hope that the concepts in this book will outlast the trendy terms of today's education scholars. We'll see.
Initially I took a dim view of this book. I suspected that it was another person getting published by repackaging old knowledge and giving it new names. There is certainly some of that in here. Also tons of alphabet soup: CICO, CBM (not continental ballistic missiles, but Curriculum Based Measurement), RTI, SST... blah, blah, blah). It would have been helpful to have a chart in the appendix with a quick reference to figure out what these anagrams stood for.
However, there were bits of, if not brilliance, at least clarity and intelligence that really bowled me over. One example is a "whole school discipline plan." Either Buffman is recycling old stuff, or it really is new. But it certainly seemed revolutionary to me. Instead of leaving a teacher on her own with a disruptive or non-cooperative student, a whole team of professionals is called in to figure out exactly where the problem lies, and more importantly, how to correct it. Of course it would make sense that a continuously disruptive student might benefit from a guidance counselor's help, or even an administrator's attention--perhaps a behavior modification plan courtesy of a special education teacher. Even if a teacher could meet those needs, the amount of time it would take from whole class instruction is prohibitive and the odds of success are low if the problem has already proven to be something the teacher can't manage in the classroom. Instead of labeling the kid "bad" or the teacher "poor" at classroom management, a group of objective professionals can bring their expertise to the situation and change it! (I love this idea.)
Similarly, the entire school should share the load for remediation. If a student comes to a teacher with a deficit of skills, why should it be up to one person to correct single-handedly. Often it has taken years for a student to fall behind. It is more than one teacher can handle in one year to correct AND still teach a full class of other students. However, with a team devoted to diagnosing and remediating the problem, each person can offer a little extra assistance instead of swamping one teacher with a needy student.
Buffington emphasizes that data should determine how the professionals proceed with the student. To that end he offers lots of (sometimes really lame and obvious--see the five column chart representing five days of the week with empty blocks beneath for a "planning calendar") charts for recording assessments, plans, tracking, etc. However, the point that a child should be able to enter and exit a program based on mastery of clearly delineated target skills is a good one. It breaks the cycle of pointlessly placing kids in a remediation that isn't working, while denying them access to the standard curriculum. It also gives direction and focus to how we teach our students.
Now ideally, we'd always have clear objectives with measurable, observable outcomes, anyway, but this is a good reminder. When I went through school, instead saying we were unpacking SOLs to make "targets" for learning, we called them "critical attributes." Same idea, different name. But whatever you call it, it is essential to having this RTI (response to intervention) system work.
We've been striving to make classrooms "individualized" for years now. RTI gives us a group approach to that very individualizaion. We round up students with similar stumbling blocks, connect them with a trained professional capable of teaching the students what they need to know and then we return them to the regular "Tier One" education cycle on even footing with their peers. (I like this idea.) I thought, at first, that this replaced differentiated learning for Tier One teaching, but now I see that it augments that. Classroom teachers must still present material in a variety of ways to a variety of modalities, but if they are still losing learners, students must go outside the classroom to learn more effectively.
The beauty of this system is that it also guarantees that no students are at the mercy of one teacher for the entire school year. This is a problem that needs outside help. Many parents know the sinking feeling of getting a reputed "not so great" teacher for their kids. Or the elation of knowing you got a "great" one. With RTI, all kids have access to great teachers, thus the negative impact of a weak teacher is ameliorated. Hooray for RTI, again!
I thought the description of academic misbehaviors was excellent. The interplay between attendance, poor student habits, not completing work and success in school is huge. Again, this is something that the standard school day does not accommodate (and for the majority of students, it doesn't need to). However, if students haven't fixed these misbehaviors, they will continue to do poorly in school. What a novel and powerful idea that education professionals can teach kids how to succeed in school, not just with curriculum, but by teaching good academic behavior!
Not only does Buffum delineate these skills in a bulleted list (66), he also explains how and who can best teach students how to develop them. (Time management, organization, note taking, goal setting, self-motivation.) I have noticed that some of these concepts appear in the beginning of the school year. However, sometimes the kids learn "time management" in a trial by fire of failing to complete important assignments on time. This isn't always an effective way to teach how to manage time in the future, and it can burn a student out and disconnect them from school. Teaching time management, though, empowers the students and gives them a life-long skill.
I liked the description of five types of engagement, four of which are commonly accepted as acceptable in a classroom: 1.Authentic engagement. 2. Ritual engagement. 3. Passive compliance. 4. Retreatism. Rebellion. Anything short of rebellion makes a classroom appear to be well-run, but is it good education? Sadly, too many students pass under the radar and fail to learn deeply or enjoy learning because they are in categories 2-4. Buffum offers a few strategies to address these academic misbehaviors, which is the first time I've seen them openly addressed as a critical part of teaching and learning. Good one, Buffum!
I liked how Buffum described real issues in real classrooms. He does not sugar coat how difficult the job can be. He discusses scenarios that can continue despite the best efforts of good teachers. For example, Buffum says research indicates that there are often "classrooms of misbehavior." In some cases, when enough non-compliant students are in the same classroom, it's as though a critical mass has developed that overwhelms the entire class. With a team of other educators to help address the problem(s), though, this doesn't have to be a permanent dynamic in the classroom.
This book convincingly explains the need for benchmarks and schoolwide ownership of both underperforming (and proficient) students in a school. (This could fly in the face of teacher evaluations being based on the "progress" of their students, though. That system implies that one teacher should take "credit" for all the learning a student does. In reality, we would hope that support staff also contributes to student learning and that a team of teachers enhances the learning of all students in a variety of environments, not just in situations related to her content or specialty.
I loved the scenario of seven students who failed the same "target" learning for seven distinct reasons (138). This is an honest description of how real learning takes place and what true differentiation requires.
I also liked the approaches for reaching "unmotivated learners."
I liked the flexibility of RTI to group students by need, not age. For example three students might be grouped to work on the same skill: a second grader for remediation, a first grader for reteaching/extended practice and a kindergartner for acceleration. (143) Buffman explains how accommodating those learners is possible through certain kinds of scheduling. While some schools might claim to offer this system already ("flexible" math grouping allows 4th graders to take "5th grade" math, and sometimes students go to a different classroom to learn with students a year ahead of them, it falls short of Buffum's vision. He recommends that constant evaluation allows kids to move in and out of set groups. Too often, kids are accelerated and feel like failures for having trouble. If they could get Level Two assistance in addition to Level One work, they would have a much stronger foundation and be truly accelerated instead of just rushed.
This book makes some really good points. I gather it is the way of the future in schools that failed to meet the No Child Left Behind mandates. I can only hope that they implement this system carefully and make sure to keep it fluid, fact based (data supported), and collaborative. Unfortunately, I see potential for just more shuffling of students and a slowing down of education instead of bolstering it.
I remain convinced that this plan works best for proficient and underperforming students and leaves "advanced" students without much direct instruction. That's acceptable as long as the teacher provides enriching, independent work for those students. But as long as it is busy work to keep them occupied while other kids receive direct instruction, I sympathize with those who feel that this system doesn't work for all learners.
I'm glad I read this. It is rich with ideas and concepts and it helps to organize different trends in education into a system of teaching and learning. It could benefit from giving credit to reiterations of old ideas and avoiding needless gobbledy-gook of abbreviations and current educational buzz words. I would hope that the concepts in this book will outlast the trendy terms of today's education scholars. We'll see.
More...