4. How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient? (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 36)
Question 1 requires teachers of the same course or grade level to collectively determine what they expect all their students to know and be able to do. After all, a school cannot possibly create a systematic, collective response when students do not learn if individual teachers focus on different essential learning standards. By identifying essential standards, teacher teams can analyze, prioritize, and otherwise unpack standards of what is most essential for students to know. We refer to this process as concentrated instruction—a systematic process of identifying essential knowledge, skills, and behaviors that all students must master to learn at high levels and determining the specific learning needs for each student to get there.
Because the school is committed to all students learning these essential standards, teams must be prepared to identify students who require additional time and support. This process is captured in the third big idea.
A Results Orientation
The third big idea focuses on evidence of student learning. In order to assess their effectiveness in ensuring all students learn, educators must use “evidence of learning to inform and improve their professional practice and respond to individual students who need intervention and enrichment” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 12).
After identifying the knowledge and skills that all students must learn, collaborative teams focus on critical question 2: How will we know when each student has acquired the essential knowledge and skills? Educators functioning as a PLC must assess their efforts to achieve high levels of learning for all students based on concrete results rather than good intentions.
Student assessment information constitutes the life-blood of an effective system of interventions; teachers use it to identify students in need of additional time and support and to confirm which core instructional strategies are most effective in meeting students’ needs.
By answering the first two critical questions, the school is now prepared to successfully intervene for students who need extra help mastering essential curriculum, and it is prepared to extend the learning for students who have. These two outcomes are captured in critical questions 3 (How will we respond when some students do not learn?) and 4 (How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?).
RTI at Work Essential Actions for Tiers 1, 2, and 3
A successful journey does not begin with taking a first step but by facing the right direction (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012). Likewise, transforming a school or district does not start with implementing a sequence of tasks but with clarifying the organization’s direction—its fundamental purpose. Use this guide to essential actions and the tools on the following pages to focus on how an organization builds agreement on a mission of collective responsibility and put the foundational conditions in place to successfully build a multitiered system of supports to achieve this outcome.
The Essential Responsibilities of Teacher Teams
Collaborative teacher teams are the engines that drive a school’s RTI efforts. Collaborative teacher teams comprise educators who share essential curriculum and, thus, take collective responsibility for students learning their common essential learning outcomes. Because the uniting characteristic of teacher teams is shared learning outcomes, the most common and preferred structures would be grade-level teams at the elementary level and course-based teams at the secondary level. However, it is likely that every school has singleton educators, who are the only people teaching a specific grade, course, or subject. When this is the case, the following structures can be effective ways to form teams.
▶ Vertical teams: Vertical teams share common learning outcomes developed across consecutive years of school.
▶ Interdisciplinary teams: Interdisciplinary teams comprise teachers who teach different subjects. While interdisciplinary teams do not share content standards, they can focus their team efforts on shared essential skills.
▶ Regional and electronic teams: It is possible that the previous teaming options might not work for a specific faculty member. When this is the case, it is unlikely that this educator is the only person in the district, county, region, state or province, or country who teaches that curriculum content. Forming collaborative teams beyond the site is an option. This collaboration most likely requires virtual team meetings.
While there are numerous ways to structure teacher collaborative teams, all these structures have one characteristic in common—if the purpose of school collaboration is to improve student learning, then team members must share data on student-learning outcomes.
The responsibilities of each teacher team in the RTI process are to:
• Clearly define essential student learning outcomes
• Provide effective Tier 1 core instruction
• Assess student learning and the effectiveness of instruction
• Identify students in need of additional time and support
• Take primary responsibility for Tier 2 supplemental interventions for students who have failed to master the team’s identified essential standards (Buffum et al., 2012, p. 33)
We visually capture teacher team responsibilities at Tier 1 and 2 in the upper, right-hand portion of the RTI at Work pyramid.
Assessing Your Current Team
As previously mentioned, collaborative teacher teams are the engines that drive the PLC at Work process. When these teams are highly engaged in the right work, student learning accelerates forward—and when they are not, learning sputters and stalls. Because teachers have traditionally been required to attend grade-level or departmental team meetings, schools often mistakenly assume that merely renaming these gatherings PLC Time represents teacher collaboration. The act of meeting together does not make a team, but instead merely a group. What is the difference? Stated simply—groups coordinate, while teams truly collaborate!