Educators Embracing Tenets of RTI Promote Equity in Quality

       On September 26, while standing behind a lectern previously used by Lincoln during delivery of the Gettysburg’s Address, Pope Francis delivered remarks with the potential to revitalize the American conscience.  To this writer, limiting the pontiff’s address as a homily regarding freedom of religion would be short-sighted.  During his Ground Zero Memorial address, Francis suggested, “Together we are called to say “no” to every attempt to impose uniformity and “yes” to a diversity accepted and reconciled.”  Collectively, the two addresses remind any audience of the benefits resulting from an embrace of multi-pluralism.  Francis’s remarks at Independence Hall cited a previous pontiff: “The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless ones” (John Paul II Farewell Address, 1987).

            Passing this test is crucial for every educator.  This writer believes education is the endeavor that strengthens a mind, frees a spirit, and enriches a society.  Teaching utilization of tools that promote success, empowering diverse learners’ imagination and innovation, and providing equity in quality, promotes the mission of learning for all.  To optimize this endeavor, educators will benefit from increased understanding of the correlates of Effective Schools Research (ESR) and tenets of an effective Response to Intervention (RTI) program.

            In collaboration with a multidimensional team of stakeholders, including parents or guardians, the ability to crosswalk the correlates of ESR and tenets of an RTI program results in a more efficient and effective system.  This promotes the equity in quality that is essential for schools committed to the pursuit of learning for all.  While there is a danger to prescribing interventions in a limiting fashion, anthologies have the potential for providing a RTI clearinghouse of research-based and success-proven strategies and interventions.

            Subsequent alignment of the district's non-negotiable goals with individual school needs and experiences (Marzano & Waters, 2009) should expand rather than limit the district's access to a clearinghouse of research-based and success-proven strategies and interventions.  Promoting such a clearinghouse of identified successes ensures professional development is available.  This optimizes access, review, and implementation of a range of interventions, thereby enriching teachers through defined autonomy.  However, this approach requires a cultural change in how adults currently work together to educate children.

            Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have emerged as perhaps the best, most agreed upon means of continual improvement in instruction and student performance.  PLCs are evidenced in a single school or online.  Models include study groups, action research teams, communities of practice, or conversation circles.  The essential focus of any PLC is for educators to work together, with a shared focus on learning and accountability to help all students learn at high levels.

            The core competency required for effective implementation of RTI interventions is the ability to correctly collect, analyze, and utilize data.  For many teacher candidates and in-service teachers, data evaluation equates to math.  Unfortunately, too many teachers are uncomfortable with mathematics.  This lack of comfort with math also translates to this country's math scores that results from too many teachers being over reliant on the text book rather than proficiency in "thinking mathematically” (Edelmuth, 2006).

            Therefore, Schools of Education and Alternate Route Teacher Preparation Programs need to ensure graduates are able to collect data, evaluate results, and be an honest consumer of the resulting data.  This becomes possible through better statistics and data analysis objectives for teacher candidate coursework.  Effective districts will need to complement this evolution through in-service professional development on collecting data, evaluating results, and being an honest consumer of the resulting data.

            Frequent monitoring of student progress, and adjusting instruction or interventions based on results, is a correlate of continuous school improvement within Effective Schools.  This correlate requires teacher competency in collecting data, evaluating results, and effectively consuming the data.  When teachers identify and prescribe an intervention, they often have difficulty accepting the need to adjust when the prescribed intervention proves ineffective.  Too often, a teacher erroneously perceives the intervention’s failure as a personal failure of the teacher’s initial prescription.  Thus, defensiveness rather than professional awareness delays the necessary adjustment.  For this reason, teacher preparation programs as well as districts or schools need to consider the following six ideas for successful development of an effective RTI system:

1.   Encourage participation by key stakeholders during planning and implementation.
2.  Elicit strong administrative support in staff development, instructional integrity, and data collection.
3.  Provide in-depth staff development with mentoring, modeling, and coaching.
4.  Begin follow-up trainings at the beginning of each school year.
5.  Distribute a manual outlining procedures and materials.
6.  Build Problem Solving Models including RTI into school schedules and the student improvement process (Lau, Sieler, Muyskens, et al, 2006).

            Given increased awareness, effective implementation of the RTI system can begin.  However, potential problems will be omnipresent without administrative support and ongoing professional development.  The following identify the essential eight core principles for implementing RTI.   

1.  Effectively teach each and every student.
2.  Provide early intervention.
3.  Use a multi-tier model of service delivery.
4.  Use a problem-solving method to make decisions within the multi-tier model.,
5.  Use research-based validated interventions/instruction.
6.  Monitor student progress to inform instruction.
7.  Use data to make decisions.
8.  Use assessment for three purposes: screening, diagnostics, and progress monitoring.

            The vast majority of teacher candidates and in-service teachers admit to the difficulty of monitoring student progress to inform instructional decisions.  The inter-relationship between the identified core principles makes the pursuit of a hierarchy subjective at best and futile at worst.  The correlate of frequent monitoring and subsequent adjustment drives the core principles for implementing RTI.  The ability to collect data, evaluate results, and be an honest consumer of the resulting data promotes the correlate of frequent monitoring and subsequent adjustment.  Teacher proficiency with data must therefore become a professional competency. 

            Just as public schools needed to establish metrics for accountability of their teaching and learning mission, so too do institutes of higher education (IHE) and teacher preparation programs need to establish better metrics for measuring the competencies of their teacher candidates, including knowledge of systems and the ability to think systemically.  To address this, IHE and other teacher preparation programs must recognize the aim for graduating “instruments of systems change” rather than merely preparing individuals to administer curriculum.  Basile and Nathenson-Mejía (2003) suggests the process for problem-based learning creates a healthy environment for reflection, discussion, and problem solving, which provides a valid system for enculturating teacher candidates into schools and the profession of teaching.  The result will be educational systems that provide equity in educational quality, which promotes the mission of learning for all. 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2015) Educators embracing tenets of RTI promote equity in quality

               [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Basile, C., Olson, F., & Nathenson-Mejía, S. (2003). Problem-based learning: reflective coaching

for teacher educators. Reflective Practice, 4(3), 291.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37,15-24.

Lezotte, L. W. (1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation.

               http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

               correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Lau, Sieler, Muyskens, Canter, VanKeuren, & Marston (2006).  Perspectives on the use of the

               Problem-Solving Model from the viewpoint of school psychologist, administrator, and

               teacher. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (1), 117-127.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, In: Solution

               Tree Press

Schmoker, J, (1999) The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd edition) ASCD

Leadership and School Climate Based on Invitational Education Theory

An educational leader, regardless if an administrator or teacher, needs to comprehend and understand the school’s climate.  This allows him or her to know how things get done and how these things are perceived by students and other stakeholders (Marzano, 2004).  While the school’s culture determines the tone of staff and students engagement, leaders establish the school’s climate (Goleman, 2006b).  One way a leader contributes to a positive school climate is to nourish trusting and caring relationships and practicing empathetic social interactions. 

Although transformational and servant leadership models have served educational leaders for several decades, invitational leadership (IL) provides a comprehensive model providing a positive and encouraging structure for today’s leaders during these complex times.  “The research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p. 57).  As explicated by Purkey and Siegel (2013), IL is based on invitational theory.  “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey, 1992, p. 5).  Therefore, the IL model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations (Purkey & Novak, 1996).  Burns and Martin (2010) found a statistically significant difference between the utilization of invitational leadership qualities in effective schools versus less effective schools.

 “Invitational leadership contributes to school effectiveness by the way in which it cares for and supports the efforts of others” (Halpin, 2003, p. 84).  Invitational leadership (IL) has a highly personal and ethical component included within the constructs of the model (Burns & Martin, 2010, p. 31).  Being based upon four basic tenets that exemplify invitational leaders, IL thereby expects exhibition of the four: optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality.  Researchers further defined these four tenets:

1.     Optimism–the belief that people have untapped potential for growth and development (Day et al., 2001, p. 34).

2.     Respect–the recognition that each person is an individual of worth (Day et al., 2001, p. 34).

3.     Trust–possessing “confidence in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 12).

4.     Intention–“knowing what we intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen gives clarity and direction to our work”  (Stillion & Siegel, 2005, p. 15).  

Invitational Education (IE) Theory invites interested stakeholders to succeed (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001; Kelly et al., 1998; Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 1996; Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  Invitations are “messages communicated to people which inform them of their ability, responsiveness, and worth (Day, et al., 2001).  Invitational Education (IE) Theory exhibits a highly personal and ethical structure for evaluating school climate (Schmidt, 2007).

Invitational Education Theory provides a framework for assessing and monitoring school climate.  Rather than suggesting a quick-fix, the framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (Purkey & Strahan, 1995).  Vigilance is required because changing how a school operates requires transforming its people (Asbill, 1994).  School reform requires systemic change, a metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps).  This structural analysis of school climate discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Purkey & Strahan, 1995; Schmidt, 2007). This framework will be further discussed within the forthcoming September 2014 post.

Invitational Education Theory (IET) can radiate into every relationship within the school environment (Asbill, 1994).  There are several ways to become more familiar with IET and its impact upon school leadership and school climate.  As a self-concept approach, IET helps stakeholders within an organization realize their full potential.  Since everyone and everything in one’s environment influences self-concept, the implementation of IET can influences beliefs and choices of behavior.  

Through Invitational Education, optimistic mindsets can be developed, thereby treating ourselves and others as capable, valuable, and responsible.  This is an alternative to today's control-oriented approaches.  Such controlling environments offer little choice, resulting in negative impact upon motivation, creativity, perseverance, and effort.  IET provides a much-needed balance, thereby optimizing the provision of a high challenge/low risk environment whereby we all can thrive.

The International Alliance for Invitational Education (IAIE) will hold its 32nd Annual World Conference in Nashville, TN from October 29-November 1, 2014.  This unique international gathering will focus upon how to use Invitational Theory as a framework for creating positive climates.  CLICK HERE to download the complete IAIE Conference Brochure and Registration Form.  CLICK HERE for Online Registration and additional information on the IAIE. 

References:

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal practices.

               Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management, New Mexico

               State University.

Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting

               Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 16-27. Retrieved

               from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the

               authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University

Press.

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

               educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.

               Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56.

Cleveland, H. (2002, September/October). Leadership the get-it-all-together profession; the core

               issue of leadership is the paradox of participation: How do you get everybody in on the

               act and still get things done? The Futurist, 36, 42 -50.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, New York: Simon &

               Schuster.

Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Grounding knowledge of schools in stakeholder

               realities: A multi-perspective study of effective school leaders. School Leadership &

 Management, 21(1), 19- 42.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-

               24.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational

               Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.

Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

               Pearson Education.

Goleman, D. (2006b). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 76–81.

               Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept06/vol64/num01/toc.aspx

Halpin, D. (2003). Hope and education: The role of the utopian imagination. London: England:Routledge

               Falmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108053476

Hansen, J. (1998). Creating a school where people like to be. Educational Leadership, 56, 14-17.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance

organization. New York: NY, Harper Business Essentials.

Kelly, P., Brown, S., Butler, A., Gittens, P., Taylor, C., & Zeller, P. (1998). A place to hang our

               hats. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 62-64.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner centered classroom and school: Strategies

               for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Purkey, W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

               Practice, 1(1), 5-14.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching

               and learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to

               professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

               http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

          Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf

Seokhwa, Y., Cox, J., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of

               leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 374-

               388. doi:10.1108/02683940610663141

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 4, 2014) Leadership and school climate based on invitational education theory

                [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/