By Tom Many, EdD
“All students, including the most gifted and talented, will need additional time and support in their learning at one time or another.” – Mattos et al., 2016, p. 130
Collaborative teams focus on four Critical Questions of Learning and most are clear about how to approach the first three. It’s responding to the fourth and final question, the one Doug Fischer and Nancy Frey (2017) have labeled “a bit pesky,” that is so important if teams truly are to meet the needs of all students.
Of the four Critical Questions of Learning, the last two are most similar to each other. In fact, Question 3 (How will we respond when some students do not learn?) and Question 4 (How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?) share so many of the same characteristics that Mattos et al. suggests schools should view “intervention and extension as two sides of the same coin.” (2016, p. 127)
Certainly, there are differences having to do with terminology and whether students are working above or below grade level. For example, Question 3 is designed to provide more time and support for students who are not yet proficient on the essential outcomes. On the other hand, Question 4 provides additional time and support for students who have demonstrated mastery on the essential outcomes for a class, course, or grade level. Teachers working with Question 3 will use terms like intervention and remediation while words like extension, enrichment, and acceleration are more commonly heard during conversations around Question 4.
Despite these differences, when teachers take collective action to ensure all students learn to high levels, the number of similarities between how teams respond to Questions 3 and 4 are striking. Responding to both questions relies on a tiered approach driven by how students are progressing through a standards-based curriculum. When done well, responding to both questions require some form of universal screening, progress monitoring, differentiated instruction, and the use of research and/or evidence-based strategies. A team’s response to either question is based on student needs, provides support that is flexible and fluid, and relies on a team approach to the use of data. The truth is that how teams respond to Questions 3 and 4 are much more alike than different.
With so many similarities in the way teams respond to Questions 3 and 4, one might think the term ‘pyramid of intervention’ would refer to both, and perhaps it should, but the majority of educators view the process of responding to these two questions as distinctly separate and apart.
“If a school is going to build flexible time, support, and collaboration into its school week, it can apply these efforts to support students in advanced coursework as well.” – Buffum, et al, 2018, p. 29
Buffum, Mattos, and Malone define an intervention as “anything a school does above and beyond what all students receive to help certain students succeed academically.” (2018, p. 27) Their definition does not distinguish between students performing above or below grade level and while students who are not yet proficient must receive extra time and support, it is equally true that students who are “above level or advanced in their academics, also need support to thrive in school.” (Coleman, 2010)
Just as Mattos et al. (2016) argued that intervention and extension are best thought of as two sides of the same coin, remediation and acceleration could be complimentary if viewed in the same way. Some teams find that turning the triangles on their sides to create a diamond shape helps them visualize Questions 3 and 4 differently. Often referred to as the Differentiation Diamond, the figure above shows how the tiers associated with Question 3 (core instruction, intervention and remediation) on one side are mirrored by the tiers of Question 4 (core instruction, extension, and acceleration) on the other. If this kind of parallel structure were in place for Question 4, Tier 1 would continue to focus on the important (nice to know) and essential (need to know) standards, Tier 2 would provide for extension only the most essential standards, and Tier 3 would accelerate learning by introducing new content and concepts.
When the traditionally separated triangles are viewed together as a diamond, the image promotes the development of a more flexible and fluid perspective. This kind of thinking better accommodates students who might need intervention, perhaps even remediation in one subject while simultaneously engaging in extension or acceleration in another. Together, the diamond serves the full spectrum of students and makes it clear that responding to Questions 3 and 4 are part of the same process.
“All students deserve to attend a school where their learning needs are met.”- Mary Ruth Coleman, 2010
The relationship between Questions 3 and 4 is neither separate nor linear. Though schools might initially devote more resources or place greater emphasis on Question 3, Question 4 is just as important as any other. Well-designed intervention systems have a reciprocal quality; they are equally adept at serving students who take longer to learn as well as those who learn quickly.
Teachers on the most effective teams recognize that success requires a balance of Questions 3 and 4. They report that looking at the two questions side by side allows them to simultaneously provide services that intervene, extend, remediate and accelerate their students’ learning in more holistic ways. In short, teachers report that when Questions 3 and 4 are considered together, the team does a better job of responding to the needs of all students.
Dr. Tom Many is an author and consultant. His career in education spans more than 30 years.
Resources
Buffum, A., Mattos, M. & Malone, J. (2018). Taking Action: A Handbook for RTI at Work. Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN.
Coleman, M. R., RTI for Gifted Students. (2010) The RTI Action Network, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Fisher, D. & Fey, N. That Pesky Fourth PLC Question, February 15, 2017. Retrieved April 14, 2020 www.solutiontree.com/blog/that-pesky-fourth-plc-question.
Mattos, M., DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & Many, T. (2016). Concise Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN.
TEPSA News, August 2020, Vol 77, No 4
Copyright © 2020 by the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association. No part of articles in TEPSA publications or on the website may be reproduced in any medium without the permission of the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association.
