Don’t Just Do Something. Do Something Effective.

I recently visited York, England, where my wife and I worked part-time for about 8 years. York is world famous for its huge cathedral, intact medieval walls, medieval churches, and other medieval sights. But on this trip we had some time for local touring, and chose to visit a more modern place, but one far ghastlier than a ton of dungeons.

The place is the York Cold War Bunker. Built in 1961 and operated to 1991, it was intended to monitor the results of a nuclear attack on Britain. Volunteers, mostly women, were trained to detect the locations, sizes, and radiation levels of nuclear bombs dropped on Britain. This was a command bunker that collected its own data, with a staff of 60, but also monitored dozens of three-man bunkers all over the North of England, all collecting similar data. The idea was that a national network of these bunkers would determine where in the country it was safe to go after a nuclear war. The bunker had air, water, and food for 30 days, after which the volunteers had to leave. And most likely die of radiation poisoning.

blog_2-28-19_yorkbunker_500x332

The very interesting docent informed us of one astounding fact. When the bunker network was planned in 1957, the largest nuclear weapons were like those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, less than one megaton in yield. By 1961, when the bunkers started operation, the largest bombs were 50-megaton behemoths.

The day the Soviet Union successfully tested its 50-megaton bomb, the bunkers were instantly obsolete. Not only would a single bomb create fatal levels of radiation all over Britain, but it would also likely destroy the telephone and radio systems on which the bunkers depended.

Yet for 30 years, this utterly useless system was maintained, with extensive training, monitoring, and support.

There must have been thousands of military leaders, politicians, scientists, and ordinary readers of Popular Science, who knew full well that the bunkers were useless from the day they opened. The existence of the bunkers was not a secret, and in fact it was publicized. Why were they maintained? And what does this have to do with educational research?

The Cold War Bunkers illustrate an aspect of human nature that is important in understanding all sorts of behavior. When a catastrophe is impending, people find it comforting to do something, even if that something is known (by some at least) to be useless or even counterproductive. The British government could simply not say to its citizens that in case of a nuclear war, everyone was toast. Full stop. Instead, they had to offer hope, however slim. Around the same time the (doomed) bunkers were going into operation in Britain, my entire generation of students was learning to crawl under our desks for protection in case of nuclear attack. I suppose it made some people think that, well, at least something was being done. It scared the bejabbers out of us kids, but no one asked us.

In education, we face many very difficult, often terrifying problems. Every one of them has one or more widespread solutions. But do these solutions work?

Consider DARE, for Drug Awareness and Resistance Education, a well-researched example of what might be called “do-something-itis.” Research on DARE has never found positive effects on drug or alcohol abuse, and sometimes finds negative effects. In the case of DARE, there are many alternative drug and alcohol prevention programs that have been proven effective. Yet DARE continues, giving concerned educators and parents a comforting sense that something is being done to prevent drug and alcohol abuse among their teenagers.

Another good example of “do-something-itis” is benchmark assessments, where students take brief versions of their state tests 4-5 times a year, to give teachers and principals early warnings about areas in which students might be lagging or need additional, targeted assistance. This sounds like a simple, obvious strategy to improve test scores. However, in our reviews of research on studies of elementary and secondary reading and elementary mathematics, the effects of using benchmark assessments average an effect size close to 0.00. Yet I’m sure that schools will still be using benchmark assessments for many years, because with all the importance placed on state tests, educators will always feel better doing something focused on the problem. Of course, they should do something, actually quite a lot, but why not use “somethings” proven to work instead of benchmark assessments proven not to work?

In education, there are many very serious problems, and, in response, each one is given a solution that seems to address it. Often, the solutions are unresearched, or researched and found to be ineffective. A unifying attribute of these solutions is that they are simple and easy to understand, so most people are satisfied that at least something is being done. One example is the many states that threaten to retain third graders if they are not reading adequately (typically, at “proficient” levels on state tests) to address the serious gaps in literacy in the high school. Yet in most states, the programs used to improve student reading in grades K-3 are not proven to be effective. Often, the solution provided is a single reading teacher to provide one-to-one tutoring to students in K-3. One-to-one tutoring is very effective for the students who get it, but an average U.S. school has 280 students in grades K-3, about half of whom (on average) are unlikely to score proficient at third grade. Obviously, one tutor working one-to-one cannot do much for 140 students. Again, there are effective and cost-effective alternatives, such as proven one-to-small group tutoring by teaching assistants, but few states or schools use proven strategies of this kind.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea. School systems can be seen as a huge network of dedicated people working very hard to accomplish crucial goals. Sort of like Cold War Bunkers. Yet many of their resources, talents, and efforts are underutilized, because most school systems insist on using programs and practices that appear to be doing something to prevent or solve major problems, but that have not been proven to do so.

It is time for our field to begin to focus the efforts and abilities of its talented, hard-working teachers and principals on solutions that are not just doing something, but are doing something effective. Every year, research identifies more and more effective programs known to work from rigorous experiments. This research progressively undermines the argument that doing something is at least better than doing nothing in the face of serious problems. In most areas of education, doing nothing is not the relevant option. If we do know how to solve these problems, then the alternative to doing something (of unknown value) is not doing nothing. Instead, the cure for do-something-itis is doing something that works.

Photo credit: Nilfanion [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

Advertisements

Systems

What came first? The can or the can opener?

The answer to this age-old question is that the modern can and can opener were invented at exactly the same moment. This had to be true because a can without a can opener (yes, they existed) is of very little value, and a can opener without a can is the sound of one hand clapping (i.e., less than worthless).

The can and the can opener are together a system. Between them, they make it possible to preserve, transport, and distribute foods.

blog_2-7-19_canopening_333x500

In educational innovation, we frequently talk as though individual variables are sufficient to improve student achievement. You hear things like “more time-good,” “more technology-good,” and so on. Any of these factors can be effective as part of a system of innovations, or useless or harmful without other aligned components. As one example, consider time. A recent Florida study provided an extra hour each day for reading instruction, 180 hours over the course of a year, at a cost per student of $800 per student, or $300,000-$400,000 per school. The effect on reading performance, compared to schools that did not receive additional time, was very small (effect size =+0.09). In contrast, time used for one-to-one or one-to-small group tutoring by teaching assistants for example, can have a much larger impact on reading in elementary schools (effect size=+0.29), at about half the cost. As a system, cost-effective tutoring requires a coordinated combination of time, training for teaching assistants, use of proven materials, and monitoring of progress. Separately, each of these factors is nowhere near as effective as all of them taken together in a coordinated system. Each is a can with no can opener, or a can opener with no can: The sound of one hand clapping. Together, they can be very effective.

The importance of systems explains why programs are so important. Programs invariably combine individual elements to attempt to improve student outcomes. Not all programs are effective, of course, but those that have been proven to work have hit upon a balanced combination of instructional methods, classroom organization, professional development, technology, and supportive materials that, if implemented together with care and attention, have been proven to work. The opposite of a program is a “variable,” such as “time” or “technology,” that educators try to use with few consistent, proven links to other elements.

All successful human enterprises, such as schools, involve many individual variables. Moving these enterprises forward in effectiveness can rarely be done by changing one variable. Instead, we have to design coordinated plans to improve outcomes. A can opener can’t, a can can’t, but together, a can opener and a can can.

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

How Tutoring Could Benefit Students Who Do Not Need It

If you’ve been following my blogs, or if you know research on tutoring, you know that tutoring is hugely beneficial to the students who receive it. Recent research in both reading and math is finding important impacts of forms of tutoring that are much less expensive and scalable than the one-to-one tutoring by certified teachers that was once dominant. A review of research my colleagues and I did on effective programs for struggling readers found a mean effect size of +0.29 for one-to-small group tutoring provided by teaching assistants, across six studies of five programs involving grades K-5 (Inns, Lake, Pellegrini, & Slavin, 2018). Looking across the whole tutoring literature, in math as well as reading, positive outcomes of less expensive forms of tutoring are reliable and robust.

My focus today, however, is not on children who receive tutoring. It’s on all the other children. How does tutoring for the one third to one half of students in typical Title I schools who struggle in reading or math benefit the remaining students who were doing fine?

Imagine that Title I elementary schools had an average of three teaching assistants providing one-to-four tutoring in 7 daily sessions. This would enable them to serve 84 students each day, or perhaps 252 over the course of the year. Here is how this could benefit all children.

blog_1-31-19_tutorsnkids_500x333

Photo credit: Courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action

Eliminating within-class ability grouping.

Teachers justifiably complain about the difficulty of teaching highly diverse classes. Historically, they have dealt with diversity, especially in reading, by assigning students to top, middle, and low ability groups, so that they can provide appropriate levels of instruction for each group. Managing multiple ability groups is very difficult, because two-thirds of the class has to do seatwork (paper or digital) during follow-up time, while the teacher is working with another reading group. The seatwork cannot be challenging, because if it were, students would be asking questions, and the whole purpose of this seatwork is to keep students quiet so the teacher can teach a reading group. As a result, kids do what they do when they are bored and the teacher is occupied. It’s not pretty.

Sufficient high-quality one-to-four reading tutoring could add an effect size of at least +0.29 to the reading performance of every student in the low reading group. The goal would be to move the entire low group to virtual equality with the middle group. So some low achievers might need more and some less tutoring, and a few might need one-to-one tutoring rather than one-to-four. If the low and middle reading groups could be made similar in reading performance, teachers could dispense with within-class grouping entirely, and teach the whole class as one “reading group.” Eliminating seatwork, this would give every reading class three times as much valuable instructional time. This would be likely to benefit learning for students in the (former) middle and high groups directly (due to more high quality teaching), as well as taking a lot of stress off of the teacher, making the classroom more efficient and pleasant for all.

Improving behavior.

Ask any teacher who are the students who are most likely to act out in his or her class. It’s the low achievers. How could it be otherwise? Low achievers take daily blows to their self-esteem, and need to assert themselves in areas other than academics. One such “Plan B” for low achievers is misbehavior. If all students were succeeding in reading and math, improvements in behavior seem very likely. This would benefit all. I remember that my own very well-behaved daughter frequently came home from school very upset because other students misbehaved and got in trouble for it. Improved behavior due to greater success for low achievers would be beneficial to struggling readers themselves, but also to their classmates.

Improved outcomes in other subjects.

Most struggling students have problems in reading and math, and these are the only subjects in which tutoring is ever provided. Yet students who struggle in reading or math are likely to also have trouble in science, social studies, and other subjects, and these problems are likely to disrupt teaching and learning in those subjects as well. If all could succeed in reading and math, this would surely have an impact on other subjects, for non-struggling as well as struggling students.

Contributing to the teacher pipeline.

In the plan I’ve discussed previously, teaching assistants providing tutoring would mostly be ones with Bachelor’s degrees but not teaching certificates. These tutors would provide an ideal source of candidates for accelerated certification programs. Tutors who have apparent potential could be invited to enroll in such programs. The teachers developed in this way would be a benefit to all schools and all students in the district.  This aspect would be of particular value in inner city or rural areas that rely on teachers who grew up nearby and have roots in the area, as these districts usually have trouble attracting and maintaining outsiders.

Reducing special education and retention.

A likely outcome of successful tutoring would be to reduce retentions and special education placements. This would be of great benefit to the students not retained or not sent to special education, but also to the school as a whole, which would save a great deal of money.

Ultimately, I think every teacher, every student, and every parent would love to see every low reading group improve in performance enough to eliminate the need for reading groups. The process to get to this happy state of affairs is straightforward and likely to succeed wherever it is tried. Wouldn’t a whole school and a whole school system full of success be a great thing for all students, not just the low achievers?

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

Tutoring Works. But Let’s Learn How It Can Work Better and Cheaper

I was once at a meeting of the British Education Research Association, where I had been invited to participate in a debate about evidence-based reform. We were having what journalists often call “a frank exchange of views” in a room packed to the rafters.

At one point in the proceedings, a woman stood up and, in a furious tone of voice, informed all and sundry that (I’m paraphrasing here) “we don’t need to talk about all this (very bad word). Every child should just get Reading Recovery.” She then stomped out.

I don’t know how widely her view was supported in the room or anywhere else in Britain or elsewhere, but what struck me at the time, and what strikes even more today, is the degree to which Reading Recovery has long defined, and in many ways limited, discussions about tutoring. Personally, I have nothing against Reading Recovery, and I have always admired the commitment Reading Recovery advocates have had to professional development and to research. I’ve also long known that the evidence for Reading Recovery is very impressive, but you’d be amazed if one-to-one tutoring by well-trained teachers did not produce positive outcomes. On the other hand, Reading Recovery insists on one-to-one instruction by certified teachers with a lot of cost for all that admirable professional development, so it is very expensive. A British study estimated the cost per child at $5400 (in 2018 dollars). There are roughly one million Year 1 students in the U.K., so if the angry woman had her way, they’d have to come up with the equivalent of $5.4 billion a year. In the U.S., it would be more like $27 billion a year. I’m not one to shy away from very expensive proposals if they provide also extremely effective services and there are no equally effective alternatives. But shouldn’t we be exploring alternatives?

If you’ve been following my blogs on tutoring, you’ll be aware that, at least at the level of research, the Reading Recovery monopoly on tutoring has been broken in many ways. Reading Recovery has always insisted on certified teachers, but many studies have now shown that well-trained teaching assistants can do just as well, in mathematics as well as reading. Reading Recovery has insisted that tutoring should just be for first graders, but numerous studies have now shown positive outcomes of tutoring through seventh grade, in both reading and mathematics. Reading Recovery has argued that its cost was justified by the long-lasting impacts of first-grade tutoring, but their own research has not documented long-lasting outcomes. Reading Recovery is always one-to-one, of course, but now there are numerous one-to-small group programs, including a one-to-three adaptation of Reading Recovery itself, that produce very good effects. Reading Recovery has always just been for reading, but there are now more than a dozen studies showing positive effects of tutoring in math, too.

blog_12-20-18_tutornkid_500x333

All of this newer evidence opens up new possibilities for tutoring that were unthinkable when Reading Recovery ruled the tutoring roost alone. If tutoring can be effective using teaching assistants and small groups, then it is becoming a practicable solution to a much broader range of learning problems. It also opens up a need for further research and development specific to the affordances and problems of tutoring. For example, tutoring can be done a lot less expensively than $5,400 per child, but it is still expensive. We created and evaluated a one-to-six, computer-assisted tutoring model that produced effect sizes of around +0.40 for $500 per child. Yet I just got a study from the Education Endowment Fund (EEF) in England evaluating one-to-three math tutoring by college students and recent graduates. They only provided tutoring one hour per week for 12 weeks, to sixth graders. The effect size was much smaller (ES=+0.19), but the cost was only about $150 per child.

I am not advocating this particular solution, but isn’t it interesting? The EEF also evaluated another means of making tutoring inexpensive, using online tutors from India and Sri Lanka, and another, using cross-age peer tutors, both in math. Both failed miserably, but isn’t that interesting?

I can imagine a broad range of approaches to tutoring, designed to enhance outcomes, minimize costs, or both. Out of that research might come a diversity of approaches that might be used for different purposes. For example, students in deep trouble, headed for special education, surely need something different from what is needed by students with less serious problems. But what exactly is it that is needed in each situation?

In educational research, reliable positive effects of any intervention are rare enough that we’re usually happy to celebrate anything that works. We might say, “Great, tutoring works! But we knew that.”  However, if tutoring is to become a key part of every school’s strategies to prevent or remediate learning problems, then knowing that “tutoring works” is not enough. What kind of tutoring works for what purposes?  Can we use technology to make tutors more effective? How effective could tutoring be if it is given all year or for multiple years? Alternatively, how effective could we make small amounts of tutoring? What is the optimal group size for small group tutoring?

We’ll never satisfy the angry woman who stormed out of my long-ago symposium at BERA. But for those who can have an open mind about the possibilities, building on the most reliable intervention we have for struggling learners and creating and evaluating effective and cost-effective tutoring approaches seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

Photo Courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action.

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

How do Textbooks Fit Into Evidence-Based Reform?

In a blog I wrote recently, “Evidence, Standards, and Chicken Feathers,” I discussed my perception that states, districts, and schools, in choosing textbooks and other educational materials, put a lot of emphasis on alignment with standards, and very little on evidence of effectiveness.  My colleague Steve Ross objected, at least in the case of textbooks.  He noted that it was very difficult for a textbook to prove its effectiveness, because textbooks so closely resemble other textbooks that showing a difference between them is somewhere between difficult and impossible.  Since the great majority of classrooms use textbooks (paper or digital) or sets of reading materials that collectively resemble textbooks, the control group in any educational experiment is almost certainly also using a textbook (or equivalents).  So as evidence becomes more and more important, is it fair to hold textbooks to such a difficult standard of evidence? Steve and I had an interesting conversation about this point, so I thought I would share it with other readers of my blog.

blog_12-6-18_textbook_500x404

First, let me define a couple of key words.  Most of what schools purchase could be called commodities.  These include desks, lighting, carpets, non-electronic whiteboards, playground equipment, and so on. Schools need these resources to provide students with safe, pleasant, attractive places in which to learn. I’m happy to pay taxes to ensure that every child has all of the facilities and materials they need. However, no one should expect such expenditures to make a measurable difference in achievement beyond ordinary levels.

In contrast, other expenditures are interventions.  These include teacher preparation, professional development, innovative technology, tutoring, and other services clearly intended to improve achievement beyond ordinary levels.   Educators would generally agree that such investments should be asked to justify themselves by showing their effectiveness in raising achievement scores, since that is their goal.

By analogy, hospitals invest a great deal in their physical plants, furniture, lighting, carpets, and so on. These are all necessary commodities.   No one should have to go to a hospital that is not attractive, bright, airy, comfortable, and convenient, with plenty of parking.  These things may contribute to patients’ wellness in subtle ways, but no one would expect them to make major differences in patient health.  What does make a measurable difference is the preparation and training provided to the staff, medicines, equipment, and procedures, all of which can be (and are) constantly improved through ongoing research, development, and dissemination.

So is a textbook a commodity or an intervention?  If we accept that every classroom must have a textbook or its equivalent (such as a digital text), then a textbook is a commodity, just an ordinary, basic requirement for every classroom.  We would expect textbooks-as-commodities to be well written, up-to-date, attractive, and pedagogically sensible, and, if possible, aligned with state and national standards.  But it might be unfair and perhaps futile to expect textbooks-as-commodities to significantly increase student achievement in comparison to business as usual, because they are, in effect, business as usual.

If, somehow, a print or digital textbook, with associated professional development, digital add-ons, and so forth, turns out to be significantly more effective than alternative, state-of-the-art textbooks, then a textbook could also be considered an intervention, and marketed as such.  It would then be considered in comparison to other interventions that exist only, or primarily, to increase achievement beyond ordinary levels.

The distinction between commodities and interventions would be academic but for the appearance of the ESSA evidence standards.  The ESSA law requires that schools seeking school improvement funding select and implement programs that meet one of the top three standards (strong, moderate, or promising). It gives preference points on other federal grants, especially Title II (professional development), to applicants who promise to implement proven programs. Some states have applied more stringent criteria, and some have extended use of the standards to additional funding initiatives, including state initiatives.  These are all very positive developments. However, they are making textbook publishers anxious. How are they going to meet the new standards, given that their products are not so different from others now in use?

My answer is that I do not think it was the intent of the ESSA standards to forbid schools from using textbooks that lack evidence of effectiveness. To do so would be unrealistic, as it would wipe out at least 90% of textbooks.  Instead, the purpose of the ESSA evidence standards was to encourage and incentivize the use of interventions proven to be effective.  The concept, I think, was to assume that other funding (especially state and local funds) would support the purchase of commodities, including ordinary textbooks.  In contrast, the federal role was intended to focus on interventions to boost achievement in high-poverty and low-achieving schools.  Ordinary textbooks that are no more effective than any others are clearly not appropriate for those purposes, where there is an urgent need for approaches proven to have significantly greater impacts than methods in use today.

It would be a great step forward if federal, state, and local funding intended to support major improvements in student outcomes were held to tough standards of evidence.  Such programs should be eligible for generous and strategic funding from federal, state, and local sources dedicated to the enhancement of student outcomes.  But no one should limit schools in spending their funds on attractive desks, safe and fun playground equipment, and well-written textbooks, even though these necessary commodities are unlikely to accelerate student achievement beyond current expectations.

Photo credit: Laurentius de Voltolina [Public domain]

 This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

A Warm Welcome From Babe Ruth’s Home Town to the Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies (REES)

Every baseball season, many home runs are hit by various players across the major leagues. But in all of history, there is one home run that stands out for baseball fans. In the 1932 World Series, Babe Ruth (born in Baltimore!) pointed to the center field fence. He then hit the next pitch over that fence, exactly where he said he would.

Just 86 years later, the U.S. Department of Education, in collaboration with the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), launched a new (figurative) center field fence for educational evaluation. It’s called the Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies (REES). The purpose of REES is to ask evaluators of educational programs to register their research designs, measures, analyses, and other features in advance. This is roughly the equivalent of asking researchers to point to the center field fence, announcing their intention to hit the ball right there. The reason this matters is that all too often, evaluators carry out evaluations that do not produce desired, positive outcomes on some measures or some analyses. They then report outcomes only on the measures that did show positive outcomes, or they might use different analyses from those initially planned, or only report outcomes for a subset of their full sample. On this last point, I remember a colleague long ago who obtained and re-analyzed data from a large and important national study that studied several cities but only reported data for Detroit. In her analyses of data from the other cities, she found that the results the authors claimed were seen only in Detroit, not in any other city.

REES pre-registration will, over time, make it possible for researchers, reviewers, and funders to find out whether evaluators are reporting all of the findings and all of the analyses as they originally planned them.  I would assume that within a period of years, review facilities such as the What Works Clearinghouse will start requiring pre-registration before accepting studies for its top evidence categories. We will certainly do so for Evidence for ESSA. As pre-registration becomes common (as it surely will, if IES is suggesting or requiring it), review facilities such as WWC and Evidence for ESSA will have to learn how to use the pre-registration information. Obviously, minor changes in research designs or measures may be allowed, especially small changes made before posttests are known. For example, if some schools named in pre-registration are not in the posttest sample, the evaluators might explain that the schools closed (not a problem if this did not upset pretest equivalence), but if they withdrew for other reasons, reviewers would want to know why, and would insist that withdrawn schools be included in any intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Other fields, including much of medical research, have been using pre-registration for many years, and I’m sure REES and review facilities in education could learn from their experiences and policies.

What I find most heartening in REES and pre-registration is that it is an indication of how much and how rapidly educational research has matured in a short time. Ten years ago REES could not have been realistically proposed. There was too little high-quality research to justify it, and frankly, few educators or policy makers cared very much about the findings of rigorous research. There is still a long way to go in this regard, but embracing pre-registration is one way we say to our profession and ourselves that the quality of evidence in education can stand up to that in any other field, and that we are willing to hold ourselves accountable for the highest standards.

blog_11-29-18_BabeRuth_374x500

In baseball history, Babe Ruth’s “pre-registered” home run in the 1932 series is referred to as the “called shot.” No one had ever done it before, and no one ever did it again. But in educational evaluation, we will soon be calling our shots all the time. And when we say in advance exactly what we are going to do, and then do it, just as we promised, showing real benefits for children, then educational evaluation will take a major step forward in increasing users’ confidence in the outcomes.

 

 

 

Photo credit: Babe Ruth, 1920, unattributed photo [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

 

How Tutor/Health Mentors Could Help Ensure Success for All Students

I’d like to introduce you to Janelle Wilson, a tutor/health mentor (THM) at a Baltimore elementary school.  She provides computer-assisted tutoring to groups of four to six second and third graders at a time, in seven daily forty-minute sessions. Another tutor/health monitor does similar work with grades k-1, and another, grades 4-5. But that’s not all they do.

As Ms. Wilson walks through the intermediate wing of the school, you notice something immediately.  She knows every kid, every teacher, and every parent she encounters. And they know and respect her.  As she walks down the hall; she greets kids by name, celebrating their successes in tutoring and gently teasing them.  But listen in on her conversation.  “Hey, Terrell! Super job on your math!  But wait a minute, where are your glasses?”  Terrell looks for them.  “Sorry, Ms. W.!” he says, “I left them in class.” “Well, go get them” says Ms. Wilson, “You can’t become the superstar I know you can be without your glasses!”

What Ms. Wilson does, beyond her role as a tutor, is to make sure that all students who need glasses, hearing aids, asthma medication, or other specialized accommodations, are consistently using them. She also keeps parents up-to-date to help them help their children succeed.

blog_11-8-18_tutoring_500x333

Ms. Wilson is not a teacher, not a school nurse, not a health aide, not a parent liaison, but she has aspects of all these roles.  A year ago, she was finishing her B.A. in theater at a local university.  But today, after intensive training and mentoring for her role, she is responsible for the unique educational and health needs of 140 students in grades 2-3, in partnership with their teachers, their parents, medical professionals, and others who care about the same kids she works with.  On any given day, she is tutoring about 35 of those students, but over time she will tutor or otherwise interact with many more.

Ms. Wilson is hard to catch, but finally you get a word with her. “What’s the difference between what you do and what teachers do?” you ask. Ms. Wilson smiles. “My job is to try to make sure that each child’s unique needs is being met. Teachers do a great job, but there are only so many hours in the day. I try to be an extra right arm for all of the teachers in grade 2 and 3, focused on making sure all students succeed at reading.  That is the most crucial task in the early grades. It is hard for a teacher with 25 or 30 students to make sure that every struggling reader is getting tutoring or wearing their eyeglasses or taking their medicine. I can help make sure that each child gets what he or she needs to be a successful reader. That means educational needs, especially tutoring, but also glasses, hearing aids, even asthma medication. If there is anything a child needs to succeed beyond classroom teaching, that’s my job!”

Ms. Wilson does not exist, and as far as I know, few if any educators anywhere do what I am describing. If Ms. Wilson’s role did exist, combining the use of proven tutoring approaches with a structured role in maintaining children’s health and well-being, she could make an enormous difference in increasing the achievement of struggling learners, and putting them on the path to success in school and beyond.

Beyond Tutoring

Constant readers may have noticed that I’ve been writing a lot in recent blogs about tutoring: One-to-one and one-to-small group, by teachers and by paraprofessionals.  This got started because I have been working with colleagues on quantitative syntheses of research on effective programs for students struggling with elementary reading (Inns et al., 2018), secondary reading (Baye et al., in press, 2018), and elementary math (Pellegrini et al., 2018). In every case, outcomes for tutoring, including tutoring by paraprofessionals and tutoring to groups of two to six students, produced achievement outcomes far larger than anything else.  Since then, I’ve been writing about ways to enhance the cost-effectiveness and practicality of tutoring.  I even described a state-wide plan to use cost-effective tutoring to substantially reduce gaps and accelerate achievement.

I’ve also written a lot about the importance of ensuring that all students in high-poverty schools receive, wear, and maintain eyeglasses, if they need them.  We have been working in Baltimore and Chicago on plans to do this.  What we have found is that it is not enough to give children glasses.  The key is getting students to wear them every day, to take care of them, and to replace them if they are lost or broken.  All of this requires that someone keep track of who needs glasses and who is wearing them (or not). Today, only teachers can do this, because they are the only people who see every child every day. But it is not reasonable to add one more task on top of everything else teachers have to do.

What if schools recruited paraprofessionals and trained them to be responsible not only for tutoring small groups of students, but also for making sure that those who need glasses get them, wear them, and take care of them? A teacher/health mentor (THM) could work with parents to get necessary permissions to receive vision testing, for example, and support and then work with the children they tutor to make sure they have and wear glasses. They might also attend to children who have hearing aids, or have to take medications, such as asthma inhalers.  These are not medical tasks, but just require good organization skills and most importantly, good relationships with children, parents, and teachers. Medical professionals would, of course, be needed to assess students’ vision, hearing, and medical needs to prescribe treatment, but for problems with vision, hearing, or asthma, for example, the medical solutions are inexpensive and straightforward, but ensuring that the solutions actually solve the problems takes 180 days a year of monitoring and coordinating. Who better to do this than someone like Ms. Wilson, who tutors many students, knows them and their parents well, and has the dedicated time to make sure that students are using their glasses or taking their medication, if that is what they need?

Tutor/heath mentors like Ms. Wilson could take responsibility for ensuring that students’ routine medical needs are being met as part of their work in the school, especially during times (such as the beginning and end of the school day) when tutoring is impractical.

THMs could not and should not replace either teachers or school nurses. Instead, their job would be to make sure that students receive and then actually utilize educational and medical services tailored to their needs that are most critical for reading success, to make sure that teachers’ educational efforts are not undermined by an inability to meet the specific idiosyncratic needs of individual children.

A THM providing computer-assisted tutoring to groups of 4 to 6 for 40 minutes a day should be able to teach 7 groups of 28 to 42 children a day. A school of 500 students could, therefore, tutor 20% of its students (100 students) on any given day with three THMs. These staff members would still have time to check on students who need health mentoring. Knowing the educational impact of tutoring, that’s very important work on its own terms, but adding simple health mentoring tasks to ensure the effectiveness of medical services adds a crucial dimension to the tutoring role.

I’m sure a lot of details and legalities would have to be worked out, but it seems possible to make effective use of inexpensive resources to ensure the educational and visual, auditory, and other health well-being of disadvantaged students. It certainly seems worth trying!

References

Baye, A., Lake, C., Inns, A., & Slavin, R. (in press). Effective reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly.

Inns, A., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., & Slavin, R. (2018). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Socieity for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.

Pellegrini, M., Inns, A., & Slavin, R. (2018). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.

Photo credit: Courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action

This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.