Principal Leadership Magazine,
Vol. 5, Number 4, December 2004
Counseling 101 Column
A Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement
Problem solving is an alternative to assessments and diagnostic
categories as a means to identify students who need special services.
By Andrea Canter
Andrea Canter (cqeditor@aol.com)
recently retired from Minneapolis Public Schools where she served as lead
psychologist and helped implement a district-wide problem solving model.
She currently is a consultant to the National Association of School Psychologists
(NASP) and editor of its newspaper, Communiquè. “Counseling 101” is
provided by NASP (www.nasponline.org).
The implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has prompted renewed
efforts to hold schools and students accountable for meeting high academic
standards. At the same time, Congress has been debating the reauthorization
of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has heightened
concerns that NCLB will indeed “leave behind” many
students who have disabilities or other barriers to learning. This convergence
of efforts to address the needs of at-risk students while simultaneously
implementing high academic standards has focused attention on a number
of proposals and pilot projects that are generally referred to as problem-solving
models. A more specific approach to addressing academic difficulties, response
to intervention (RTI), has often been proposed as a component of problem
solving.
What Is Problem Solving?
A problem-solving model is a
systematic approach that reviews student strengths and weaknesses, identifies
evidence-based instructional interventions, frequently collects data to
monitor student progress, and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions
implemented with the student. Problem solving is a model that first solves
student difficulties within general education classrooms. If problem-solving
interventions are not successful in general education classrooms, the cycle
of selecting intervention strategies and collecting data is repeated with
the help of a building-level or grade-level intervention assistance or
problem-solving team. Rather than relying primarily on test scores (e.g.,
from an IQ or math test), the student’s response to general education interventions
becomes the primary determinant of his or her need for special education
evaluation and services (Marston, 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999).
Why Is a New Approach Needed?
Although much of the early implementation
of problem-solving models has involved elementary schools, problem solving
also has significant potential to improve outcomes for secondary school
students. Therefore, it is important for secondary school administrators
to understand the basic concepts of problem solving and consider how components
of this model could mesh with the needs of their schools and students.
Because Congress will likely include RTI options in its reauthorization
of special education law and regulations regarding learning disabilities,
it is also important for school personnel to be familiar with the pros
and cons of the problem-solving model.
Student
outcomes. Regardless
of state or federal mandates, schools need to change the way they
address academic problems. More than 25 years of special education
legislation and funding have failed to demonstrate either the cost
effectiveness or the validity of aligning instruction to diagnostic
classifications (Fletcher et al., 2002; Reschly & Tilly, 1999;
Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). Placement in special education programs
has not guaranteed significant academic gains or better life outcomes
for students with disabilities. Time-consuming assessments that are
intended to differentiate students with disabilities from those with
low achievement have not resulted in better instruction for struggling
students.
Dilemma
of learning disabilities. The
learning disabilities (LD) classification has proven especially problematic.
Researchers and policymakers representing diverse philosophies regarding
disability are generally in agreement that the current process needs
revision (Fletcher et al., 2002). Traditionally, if a student with
LD is to be served in special education, an evaluation using individual
intelligence tests and norm-referenced achievement tests is required
to document an ability/achievement discrepancy. This model has been
criticized for the following reasons:
- A
reliance on intelligence tests in general and with students from ethnic
and linguistic minority populations in particular
- A
focus on within-child deficiencies that often ignore quality of instruction
and environmental factors
- The
limited applicability of norm-referenced information to actual classroom
teaching
- The
burgeoning identification of students as disabled
- The
resulting allocation of personnel to responsibilities (classification)
that are significantly removed from direct service to students (Ysseldyke & Marston,
1999).
Wait to fail. A
major flaw in the current system of identifying student needs is what has
been dubbed the wait to fail approach in which students are not considered
eligible for support until their skills are widely discrepant from expectations.
This runs counter to years of research demonstrating the importance of
early intervention (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002). Thus, a number of students fail to receive any remedial services
until they reach the intermediate grades or middle school, by which time
they often exhibit motivational problems and behavioral problems as well
as academic deficits.
For other students, although
problems are noted when they are in the early grades, referral is delayed
until they fail graduation or high school standards tests, increasing the
probability that they will drop out. Their school records often indicate
that teachers and parents expressed concern for these students in the early
grades, which sometimes resulted in referral for assessments, but did not
result in qualification for special education or other services.
Call for evidence-based
programs. One
of the major tenets of NCLB is the implementation of scientifically
based interventions to improve student performance. The traditional
models used by most schools today lack such scientifically based evidence.
There are, however, many programs and instructional strategies that
have demonstrated positive outcomes for diverse student populations
and needs (National Reading Panel, 2000). It is clear that schools
need systemic approaches to identify and resolve student achievement
problems and access proven instructional strategies.
How It Works
Although problem-solving steps
can be described in several stages, the steps essentially reflect the scientific
method of defining and describing a problem (e.g., Ted does not comprehend
grade-level reading material); generating potential solutions (e.g., Ted
might respond well to direct instruction in comprehension strategies);
and implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the effectiveness of the selected
intervention.
Problem-solving models have
been implemented in many versions at local and state levels to reflect
the unique features and needs of individual schools. However, all problem-solving
models share the following components:
- Screening
and assessment that is focused on student skills rather than classification
- Measuring
response to instruction rather than relying on norm-referenced comparisons
- Using
evidence-based strategies within general education classrooms
- Developing
a collaborative partnership among general and special educators for consultation
and team decision making.
Three-tiered
model. One
common problem-solving model is the three-tiered model. In this model,
tier one includes problem-solving strategies directed by the teacher
within the general education classrooms. Tier two includes problem-solving
efforts at a team level in which grade-level staff members or a team
of various school personnel collaborate to develop an intervention
plan that is still within the general education curriculum. Tier
three involves referral to a special education team for additional
problem solving and, potentially, a special education assessment
(Office of Special Education Programs, 2002).
Response
to intervention. A
growing body of research and public policy discussion has focused
on problem-solving models that include evaluating a student’s RTI
as an alternative to the IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying
learning disabilities (Gresham, 2002). RTI refers to specific procedures
that align with the steps of problem solving:
- Implementing
evidence-based interventions
- Frequently
measuring a student’s progress to determine whether the intervention is
effective
- Evaluating
the quality of the instructional strategy
- Evaluating
the fidelity of its implementation. (For example, did the intervention
work? Was it scientifically based? Was it implemented as planned?)
Although there is considerable
debate about replacing traditional eligibility procedures with RTI approaches
(Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically
improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide
school teams with evidence-based procedures that measures a student’s progress
and his or her need for special services.
New
roles for personnel. An
important component of problem-solving models is the allocation (or
realignment) of personnel who are knowledgeable about the applications
of research to classroom practice. Whereas traditional models often
limit the availability of certain personnel—for example, school psychologists—to
prevention and early intervention activities (e.g., classroom consultation),
problem-solving models generally enhance the roles of these service
providers through a systemic process that is built upon general education
consultation. Problem solving shifts the emphasis from identifying
disabilities to implementing earlier interventions that have the
potential to reduce referral and placement in special education.
Outcomes of Problem Solving
and RTI
Anticipated benefits of problem-solving
models, particularly those using RTI procedures, include emphasizing scientifically
proven instructional methods, the early identification and remediation
of achievement difficulties, more functional and frequent measurement of
student progress, a reduction in inappropriate and disproportionate special
education placements of students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
and a reallocation of instructional and behavior support personnel to better
meet the needs of all students (Gresham, 2002; Ysseldyke & Marston,
1999). By using problem solving, some districts have reduced overall special
education placements, increased individual and group performance on standards
tests, and increased collaboration among special and general educators.
The enhanced collaboration between
general education teachers and support personnel is particularly important
at the secondary level because staff members often have limited interaction
with school personnel who are outside of their specialty area. Problem
solving provides a vehicle to facilitate communication across disciplines
to resolve student difficulties in the classroom. Secondary schools, however,
face additional barriers to collaboration because each student may have
five or more teachers. Special education is often even more separated from
general education in secondary school settings. Secondary school teachers
also have a greater tendency to see themselves as content specialists and
may be less invested in addressing general learning problems, particularly
when they teach five or six class periods (and 150 or more students) each
day. The sheer size of the student body and the staff can create both funding
and logistical difficulties for scheduling training and team meetings.
Is Problem Solving Worth the
Effort?
Data from district-wide and
state-level projects in rural, suburban, and urban communities around the
country support the need to thoughtfully implement problem-solving models
at all grade levels. There are several federally funded demonstration centers
that systematically collect information about these approaches. Although
national demonstration models may be a few years away, it seems likely
that state and federal regulations under IDEA will include problem solving
and RTI as accepted experimental options. Problem solving continues to
offer much promise to secondary school administrators who are seeking to
improve student performance through ongoing assessment and evidence-based
instruction. PL
References
- Fletcher, J., Lyon, R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K., Francis,
D., Olson, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2002). Classification
of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley,
L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities
(pp. 185–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention:
An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities.
In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of
learning disabilities (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Marston, D. (2002). A
functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing
discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley,
L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities
(pp. 437–447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read:
An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction-Reports
of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author.
- Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Specific
learning disabilities: Finding common ground (Report of the Learning Disabilities
Round Table). Washington, DC: Author.
- President’s Commission on Excellence in
Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing
special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
- Reschly, D., & Tilly, W. D. III (1999). Reform
trends and system design alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly
III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional
assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 19–48). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
- Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (Eds.) (2003).
Special issue: Response to intervention. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18(3).
- Ysseldyke, J., & Marston, D. (1999). Origins
of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale
for changing them. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes
(Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical
programming (pp. 1–18). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Case Study: Optimizing Success Through Problem Solving
By Marcia Staum and Lourdes Ocampo
Milwaukee Public Schools, the
largest school district in Wisconsin, is educating students with Optimizing
Success Through Problem Solving (OSPS), a problem-solving
initiative that uses a four-step, data-based, decision-making process to
enhance school reform efforts. OSPS is patterned after best practices in
the prevention literature and focuses on prevention, early intervention,
and focused intervention levels. Problem-solving facilitators provide
staff members with the training, modeling, support, and tools they need
to effectively use data to drive their instructional decision-making. The
OSPS initiative began in the fall of 2000 with seven participating schools.
Initially, elementary and middle level schools began to use OSPS, with
an emphasis on problem solving for individual student issues. As the initiative
matured, increased focus was placed on prevention and early intervention
support in the schools. Today, 78 schools participate in the OSPS initiative
and are serviced by a team of 18 problem-solving facilitators.
OSPS in Action: Juneau High School
The administration of Juneau High
School, a Milwaukee public charter school with 900 students,
invited OSPS to become involved at Juneau for the 2003–2004 school year. Because at the time OSPS had limited involvement with
high schools, two problem-solving facilitators were assigned to Juneau for one half-day each week. The problem-solving
facilitators immediately joined the Juneau’s learning team, which is a small group
of staff members and administrators who make educational decisions aimed
at increasing student achievement.
When the problem-solving facilitators
became involved with Juneau, the learning team was working to improve
student participation on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE).
The previous year, Juneau’s 10th-grade participation on the exam
had been very low. The learning team used OSPS’s four-step problem-solving
process to develop and implement a plan that resulted in a 99% student
participation rate on the WKCE. After this initial success, the problem-solving
model was also used at Juneau to increase parent participation in parent-teacher
conferences. According to Myron Cain, Juneau’s principal, “Problem solving has helped
the learning team at Juneau go from dialogue into action. In addition,
problem solving has supported the school within the Collaborative Support
Team process and with teambuilding, which resulted in a better school climate.”
By starting at the prevention
level, Juneau found that there was increased commitment
from staff members. OSPS is now in the initial stages of working with Juneau to explore alternatives to suspension. The
goal is to create a working plan that will lead to creative ways of decreasing
the number of suspensions at Juneau.
Marcia Staum is a school psychologist, and Lourdes Ocampo
is a school social worker for Optimizing Success Through Problem
Solving.
What Is Response to Intervention?
Many researchers have recommended
that a student’s response to intervention or response to instruction (RTI)
should be considered as an alternative or replacement to the traditional
IQ-achievement discrepancy approach to identifying learning disabilities
(Gresham, 2002; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002). Although there is considerable debate about replacing traditional
eligibility procedures with RTI approaches (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003),
there is promising evidence that RTI can systematically improve the effectiveness
of instruction for struggling students and provide school teams with evidence-based
procedures to measure student progress and need for special services. In
fact, Congress has proposed the use of research-based RTI methods (as part
of a comprehensive evaluation process to reauthorize IDEA) as an allowable
alternative to the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy procedure in identifying
learning disabilities.
RTI refers to specific procedures
that align with the steps of problem solving. These steps include the implementation
of evidence-based instructional strategies in the general education classroom
and the frequent measurement of a student’s progress to determine if the
intervention is effective. In settings where RTI is also a criteria for
identification of disability, a student’s progress in response to intervention
is an important determinant of the need and eligibility for special education
services.
It is important for administrators
to recognize that RTI can be implemented in various ways depending on a
school’s overall service delivery model and state and federal mandates.
An RTI approach benefits from the involvement of specially trained personnel,
such as school psychologists and curriculum specialists, who have expertise
in instructional consultation and evaluation.
Resources
This article was adapted
from a handout published in Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families
and Educators (NASP,
2004). “Counseling 101” articles and related HCHS II handouts can be
downloaded from www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/index.aspx.