High School Teachers’ Sense-Making of Response to Intervention: A Critical Practice Analysis

School Sites

Data were gathered from two diverse urban high schools during their second year of state-mandated RtI implementation. The high schools in this study (High School A and High School B) self-elected to receive district support for RtI implementation. In comparison to the student demographics in the district, these two schools had higher percentages of Hispanic students (84% and 94%, respectively, versus 62%). Both schools received Title 1 funds.

The administrators in both high schools elected to use RtI within only one department instead of engaging in school-wide RtI implementation. Administration explained that because it was a relatively new protocol, they believed it was best to test it in specific departments before moving to a school-wide model. The departments chosen were based on student overall low achievement on end of course (EOC) and high stakes graduation tests. School A selected the English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) department, and School B selected the math department.

The high school context strongly influenced the manner in which RtI was implemented and how teachers engaged in DbDM. Both schools identified students that were at-risk for graduation failure for RtI interventions. Although the departments differed, both schools implemented a similar RtI model that focused on selecting students at risk for failure on high stakes tests for tiered intervention. Both schools used district- and state-level standardized tests and interim assessments as their data for student selection. Their evaluations of progress monitoring data took place during department meetings or specific RtI meetings with the school’s assistant principal.

Participants

High School A implemented RtI within the ESOL department, and High School B within the math department, specifically Geometry and Algebra 1. Thus, ESOL and math teachers who identified as being part of the RtI process and attended RtI meetings were purposefully selected as participants in this study. There were a total of six teacher participants. Four were from the ESOL department at High School A, and two were from the math department in High School B. Each department had over 10 teachers, and all teachers within each of the chosen departments were implementing RtI (Tier 1) within their classes; however, the teachers who did not participate in the study did not attend RtI meetings related to DbDM. The six participants in this study were career educators. The majority of participants were females, and all were CLD. The range of teaching experience spanned 10-42 years of teaching. All names used are pseudonyms to ensure anonymity (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Description.

School	Teachers	Sex	Ethnicity	Subject area	Other areas of leadership	Years teaching
High School A	Ms. Flores	Female	White	ESOL 2 and 3	Grant writer	38
	Ms. Ramirez	Female	Hispanic	ESOL 3 and 4	Union representative	24
	Mr. Rodrigo	Male	Hispanic	ESOL 1 and 2	Technology specialist	42
	Ms. Solano	Female	Hispanic	SPED Math	RtI leader	18
High School B	Ms. Lopez	Female	Hispanic	SPED Math	RtI leader	10
	Ms. Rodriquez	Female	Hispanic	Math Coach	National Honor Society chair	32

Note. ESOL = English for speakers of other languages; RtI = response to intervention; SPED Math = Special Education Math.

Procedures and Measures

This study utilized qualitative methods to provide a means of getting at “intricate details about phenomena such as feelings, thought processes and emotions” that numbers generalize in a manner that is inappropriate for the research questions of interest (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data consisted of semistructured individual interviews, test documents (school-wide standardized reading and math test scores), and observation notes of RtI meetings, department meetings, and classroom instruction. These data were collected within naturalistic settings to stay true to the lived experiences of these teachers within the RtI framework (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Data Sources.

	High School A	High School B	Total materials
Interviews	8	4	12
Class observations	3	1	4
Test documents a	2	2	4
RtI meetings	1	2	3
Department meetings	1	2	3
RtI meeting notes a	1	0	1

Note. Each participant was interviewed twice. RtI = response to intervention.

a

Documents/notes used to corroborate interviews.

Data Analysis

Interview and data meeting transcriptions and class observation field notes were analyzed using a grounded theory approach as outlined by Corbin and Strauss (2008); however, the goal was not to develop a new theory. All field notes and transcriptions were stored and coded within the qualitative software program, NVivo (QSR International, 2013). These data were analyzed by interpreting passages of data into codes, moving from most concrete to more abstract interpretation. Two members of the research team coded the data separately and conferred to reach coding agreement. The constant comparison method was used consistently throughout the coding process to support the analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The constant comparison method is “an analytic process of comparing different pieces of data for similarities and differences” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.65). Other data, such as test documents and RtI meeting minutes, were used to corroborate interviews and observations.

The analysis consisted of four phases of coding: initial coding, focus coding, conceptual categories, and emerging themes (Charmaz, 2006). Initial coding was done by providing active property names or codes for each incident within the documents, thus coding incident by incident. After coding each interview and the nine observations, there were 240 initial codes. Next, those initial codes were analyzed and refined into 34 focus codes. After focus coding, the data were re-examined and regrouped in an iterative process to develop and find conceptual categories. Conceptual categories contain meaningful and fully integrated data that helped to find the emerging themes within the study. Peer debriefing (Patton, 2002) was used during this stage of coding to support the fidelity of the findings. At the end of the conceptual category coding process, there were eight categories. These categories were examined to develop three themes.

Our final step, after coding was complete, was to use three forces outlined in Welner’s (2001) ZOM framework for critical analysis of the three themes that emerged from the data of high school teachers engaging in DbDM within an RtI model (see Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Coding and Theme Development.

Selected initial codes	Selected focus codes	Conceptual categories	Emerging themes	Relevant ZOM forces
I don’t have time to use a spreadsheet; district support can’t help; district supports RtI efforts by math teacher; I don’t really like, I know that I do RtI, but like . . . that word, “RtI,” I do not use it; asking ESE teacher to spearhead RTI; I find I can make graphs and I can see their progress	Limited Time; variability of knowledge and involvement regarding the intervention; confusion regarding implementation of RtI; expression of needed support	Extent of school/district involvement; ambiguity surrounding RtI; need for training and support	Lacking understanding, training, and support	Technical forces
FCAT failure is a triple whammy on school; data chats not called RtI; miniassessments used closer to EOC; it affects your grade as a teacher and your bonuses; grades are used for PM; DbDM-reviewing close to breaks; I can tell how they are doing	Low tests scores has multiple effects; Teachers are progress monitoring; Policy affects teacher money/livelihood; teachers are “responsible”; perceptions of data/limitations of available data	Teacher accountability for student performance standardized testing; graduation risks identifies students engaging in progress monitoring and DBDM	Top-down accountability pressures	Political forces
Viewing students as the same; problematic that ESOL speak Spanish at grocery store; kids who don’t adapt, fail, and are sent to an alternative school; the younger they get here (USA) the better	(Academic) challenge in the regular curriculum you are not going to find; negative judgment of student background culture	Generational, behavioral, and cultural differences; desire for students to assimilate	Deficit views on student motivation	Normative forces

Note. ZOM = zone of mediation; RtI = response to intervention; ESE = Exceptional Student Education; EOC= end of course; PM = Progress Monitoring; DbDM = data-based decision making; ESOL = English for speakers of other languages; FCAT = Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

Lacking Understanding, Training, and Support

Interview and observation data revealed technical forces that both supported and prevented teachers in engaging with RtI in a manner that would help bridge the academic opportunity gap for their CLD students. The major support was the use and accessibility of technology. Both schools were encouraged to use technology (i.e., computers, smart boards, iPads, and educational apps) to support their students in class. For examples, teachers were provided class iPads and computer software programs through Title III that facilitated progress monitoring. The data suggest that teachers found these tools useful in their instructional planning. In addition, teachers stated that they were able to engage in one-on-one conversations with students about their progress because of these tools. Ms. Flores stated,

I find I can make graphs and I can see their progress. Each child has a progress

graph in the program . . . so when I call the child for a personal meeting, that happens every month or every two months, I say hey, look you were here, now you are here. Don’t go down; you are doing very well . . . or your reading [test scores], you don’t read enough, so you are still in the red. You want to be green. So, the kids like to know where they are also. It helps them focus better after I guess.

Availability of technology was a support; however, teachers explicated many barriers. These barriers limited their ability to engage in RtI in an equitable manner for the CLD students. Many of these barriers stemmed from technical forces such as inadequate training and professional development, insufficient support from leadership, and a poorly funded budget to support RtI implementation. Participants indicated that they needed comprehensive training and continuous support to implement and understand RtI. These teachers were in departments that were specifically selected for RtI implementation and were in their second year of implementation; however, all teachers were still unsure of the concept of RtI. For example, when asked about RtI, Ms. Ramirez stated,

I don’t really like, I know that I do RtI, but like . . . that word, “RtI,” I don’t use it, but I know that I use the strategies of RtI. It’s just that I don’t really know what RtI is all about, but I’m sure that I do use some of the strategies that are there.

Ms. Ramirez understood that there were instructional strategies involved in the RtI process; however, she was not aware of the equity impact of doing this work within an RtI context. She was unsure of the purpose and meaning of RtI for instruction for her CLD students. Our observations supported this finding. During the year of this study, there were no scheduled RtI trainings or professional development provided for teachers by school leadership. Furthermore, teachers did not speak on engaging in RtI as a means of closing the academic achievement gap for their students.

Underlying this lack of understanding was the expressed need for training and support. For example, Ms. Solano commented that the ESOL teachers were still awaiting RtI training. She also noted that teachers did not have administrative support for RtI during the school year. When asked about the district and school leadership that was present at High School A during the pilot study conducted the semester before, she explained, “[the assistant principal] had been [temporarily] transferred” and that “no district representative has come to the school” during the current school year. A temporary replacement was sent to the school to take over the assistant principal’s responsibilities; however, she was not a part of the RtI effort. Subsequently, there was limited RtI leadership at High School A during the time of this study.

This absence of leadership at School A was also observed by the limited number of RtI meetings held. School A only had one “official” RtI meeting at the time of this study. It was the only meeting in which RtI was in the title of the meeting. Limited district support was in part due to a budget shortage. During the tenure of this study, the district was undergoing budget cuts that affected the amount of support teachers received for RtI (i.e., district interventionists positions were cut from the budget during this time). During one of the RtI meetings observed at High School B, the district representative discussed this change. She stated that their support would be reduced. Instead of coming to RtI meetings on a weekly basis, they would only join on a “needs based basis.”

Technical forces may have affected teacher ability to use RtI in both positive and negative ways. Teachers were able to engage in progress monitoring and individualized consultation with students because of the additional technology. However, teachers did not have a clear understanding of the equity promise of RtI for their struggling students. Instead, teachers expressed a disconnection from district attempts at implementing the RtI policy mandate and their teaching. Ms. Lopez, the lead teacher of the effort to implement RtI at School B, exemplified this sentiment, “. . . I really don’t get to know what they [the district] do for us because I’m not part of that especially since I am in the classroom the whole time.”

Top-Down Accountability Pressures

Although teachers were unsure of the meaning and purpose of RtI because of political forces, specifically accountability pressures, they understood that increasing student test scores was top priority. Graduation rates and student performance indicators as measured by standardized tests, the state graduation test, in particular, was repeatedly discussed as being the focal point for teachers. Participants were acutely aware that if students did not perform well on high stakes standardized tests, the consequences would affect not only their teaching evaluations but also their livelihoods. As Ms. Flores at High School A stated, “It affects your grade as a teacher and your bonuses.”

Student test scores were used as criteria by the state to determine teacher and school effectiveness. This heuristic is a direct political force that shaped how leadership and teachers channeled their resources and evaluated progress locally. Because of the direct impact accountability mandates had on school evaluations and funding, district personnel and administrators ensured that teachers were well versed in using test data to make educational decisions by providing training on data use. The training focused on ways to increase student test scores. This focus on increasing test scores shaped teachers’ sense-making of data to make educational decisions for their CLD students. For example, teachers articulated that ESOL and Math students were selected for RtI as a way to increase test scores and, consequently, school and teacher performance evaluations. From School A, Ms. Solano explained why ESOL students were selected:

ESOL levels 1 through 4 [are the population we are working with]. Why? Because they are the learners, who are struggling most in our school by population . . . at least the [special education] kids have a shelter or an umbrella to catch them if they don’t pass [the graduation test] or they don’t meet graduation requirements on time. Because they are able to stay here additional years and they can waiver their [graduation test] if they don’t pass it. But unfortunately, the ESOL kids don’t have that window, so that is who suffers the most because of their lack of success . . . and they affect so many things. The [graduation test] scores, retentions, graduation rates, they affect everything because if you don’t pass the [test], then they don’t graduate. And so that not only affects our scores, they affect our retake scores, and then they affect our graduation rate, so its, you know, its continuous whammy, whammy, whammy. We get hit with them three times in a row.

This process is arguably an unintended consequence of aligning accountability with high stakes test within an RtI framework. Teacher sense-making of using data to CLD students within the RtI framework meant narrowing instruction and intervention in ways that privileged increasing scores on high stakes assessment. Providing equitable opportunities for CLD students did not emerge from teacher interviews or observations. The teachers in both schools expressed that students were selected because they lacked special protections but still “counted” within the accountability system. Ms. Lopez explained that a particular group called “bubble kids” were identified for RtI services. She noted that “bubble kids” were “the kids anywhere between the 38 to 41st percentiles on the graduation test.” After showing author one of the high school graduation test data, Ms. Lopes explained why “bubble kids” were chosen for RtI:

The reason we pick the “bubbles” . . . was because the “bubble kids” have a better chance of not just passing, but making the most gains. The lowest 25 is more of let’s see how far we can get them, but not necessarily that they will actually pass the test . . . they usually end up being your [special education] kids that they end up [getting] a waiver anyway . . . versus the “bubble kids” that don’t have another route to go by.

Ms. Lopez comments echoed Ms. Solano with regard to selecting students who were perceived to be vulnerable due to lack of options from the penalties of failing the high-stake standardized test. She stated that the lowest 25th percentile were not selected because of their (lowest) status on the graduation test. She also pointed out that targeting “bubble kids” was a strategic move because they were capable of making more gains on these tests.

Being strategic with the data was an important component of teacher sense-making of RtI for their CLD students. When teachers discussed the use of progress monitoring and DbDM at the school/department level (i.e., using standardized tests to measure growth), they indicated that it was done on a fairly systematic and frequent basis. Both schools regularly engaged in what they called “data chats” which are discussions with their department chair and/or the assistant principal about ways to improve student test scores. The tests frequently discussed were the interim and progress monitoring assessments, both designed by the state. These tests were monitored to predict the likelihood of success on the high stakes graduation assessment. Ms. Lopez describes how data chats were handled at her school. She underscores the importance of keeping teacher evaluations separated by those with more high or low achieving students. She explained,

Well, we start with knowing whether or not we met the goal of being the same as the district, and then we compare with other schools that are more or less in the same category as us. We do measure amongst each other. With teachers that have more or less the same mix of students. It’s kind of unfair to mix the honor kids with the regular kids and vice versa. So, we try to compare when it comes to the numbers based on who is teaching what.

Ms. Lopez’ statement highlights another unintended consequence of DbDM within an RtI framework: separation and competition among teachers. During a math department meeting, observation notes revealed that DbDM meetings created a competitive environment. During this meeting, the math chair provided an overview of the standardized test results and its implications for math teachers. They compared current scores on the current interim exams to the year before. The department chair stated that “The scores were disappointing.” She also stated that during “data chats” with the assistant principal this year, she would not be able to support the teachers as she had in the past. She had to “let them defend themselves.” Teachers understood DbDM meetings as a space for competition and contention. Teachers were concerned with having their scores compared with one another and felt the need to “defend” themselves. These concerns lead to expressions of frustration for bearing the responsibility for student test performance. This frustration was directed to the value-added model; an equation used to judge teacher effectiveness based on student test scores, as evidenced by Ms. Rodriguez who asked, “How can teacher performance be measured by an equation no one understands?” Teachers indicated that they were not only frustrated by the model but also by the narrow focus on student test results as the indicator of teacher effectiveness. For example, Ms. Lopez stated,

How can you be looked at and rated and determine whether you are a good teacher, bad teacher or your students do well or not well based on what a student does on a piece of paper. Um, the student can decide not to do anything. That doesn’t mean I didn’t teach.

Ms. Lopez expressed a concern many teachers felt. The single method of evaluation is insufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher. This sense of unfairness in evaluation was a cause of concern for many participants.

The political forces requiring test scores as an accountability heuristic created what teachers saw as an unfair environment that encouraged unhealthy competition and strategizing. In the case of this study, teachers felt powerless to change the terms of evaluation because the state clearly valued student outcomes on standardized tests. Consequently, teachers’ sense-making of DbDM within this context was limited only to increasing those scores and sorting students by their chances of passing the test with no consideration of providing equitable academic opportunities for their CLD students.

Deficit Views on Student Performance

Interview and observation data indicated that teachers held deficit beliefs about students’ performance and work ethic. Teacher beliefs are normative forces that influenced their sense-making and engagement of DbDM for their CLD students. These normative beliefs were mediated, in part, by political forces that mandated the adherence to test scores as heuristics of success for schools and teachers. Subsequently, even though teachers wanted their students to be successful in other areas (i.e., socially/emotionally, morally, and behaviorally), the accountability mandate encourages a central focus on increasing test scores.

Although most teachers in the study had similar ethnic and/or language backgrounds as their students, teachers expressed a disconnection with their students. This “othering” (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz, & Suda, 2012) was expressed by teachers noting that students and their families behaved differently than themselves and previous generations of students related to performance. Ms. Solano explained,

. . . I’m Cuban as well. The majority of the ESOL kids are Cuban. But when I came here it was, my parents were of the mentality in this country you have to work, you have to study, if not, you are nobody. But that’s not the mentality that I hear from the students or their parents. It’s a different kind of culture. Remember that, that, there is a whole new culture in Cuba and you know, every time I sit and talk to students and I, you know, like glean a little bit more information from them, it’s a different culture. It’s similar, and there is still some of the old culture, but it’s a different culture now.

Teachers also used culture as a way to “other” students. Ms. Ramirez, who self-identifies as Colombian American, found her students’ culture to be distinctly different. She stated, “No, they are coming from Cuba, but it’s very different because I’m not Cuban. Our cultural differences are very different.” Ms. Ramirez also believed that there was a generational difference between herself and her students. She explained,

You were brought up to say thank you and may I, good morning, sir and madam; very polite. So, it’s just very different when you are trying to teach kids that have not been taught to say good morning, may I, thank you.

Ms. Flores, who is a White European immigrant, shared a similar sentiment. When discussing her students’ behavior, she stated, “They talk to you like you were their friends. They have no respect. These [comments] are things that you know, in your culture, you would never dream of saying to an adult.”

Ms. Lopez also indicated that there was a generational difference between herself and the students as she stated,

But if you look at the news, listen to the news and you watch the different shows that are out there, that’s the image that they portray. School is not a necessity;

school is something that you do because you have to. There is not one single [TV] program out there that takes education seriously in any way, shape or form, just like there’s not one single [TV] program out there that takes family as an important thing or support in anyway an important thing. So, if that’s what they are getting everything from because the reality is that they usually don’t listen to parents anyway, they listen to their friends, and they listen to what is out there. If their biggest concern is how many tweets, how many followers they have on twitter, and how many people they are following on Instagram, than what is there to say that school has to be important . . . How do you compete when a kid comes and says “Miss I finally got 3000 people following me”?

These perspectives refer to the larger societal factors that influence student engagement and behavior in school. Furthermore, there was a sense of hopelessness as Ms. Lopez asked, “how do you compete with 3,000 followers?” These technologies were not available during the time of this teacher’s youth and were viewed as a deficit, something subtractive from student learning.

Teachers believed that if their CLD students assimilated into dominant White culture (which is valued in American schools), students would experience academic success. Ms. Flores stated, “The ones that don’t adapt, really are going to flunk [graduation test], are going to flunk everything.”

Teachers had different ideas of the best way to assimilate. Some teachers focused on fully adopting the English language, becoming more “American” in general, and yet, others noted the challenges with youth culture. Furthermore, Ms. Flores had a personal belief that students should acclimate to an American way of life. As an immigrant who came to the United States reluctantly many years ago, she believed that immigrant students would be happier if they embraced American culture. She explained,

I want them to pass the [graduation test]. I want them to talk. I want them to feel comfortable here in the United States, to really feel that here it is a melting pot and they are part of it. So I want them to feel like one day they will feel like me, American. You know. Because now I feel like American, at the beginning I didn’t want to come here. That was not my choice, but I took up for my husband. I was reluctant to come here. But I think it’s the best country. So I want them to feel that.

Ms. Lopez noted that students have very little chance of being academically successful today because kids do not see school as being a necessary step in their future. She stated,

Sometimes it’s frustrating. Especially when you give a test and they all . . . complain and whine, oh this is too long, or this is too hard, or this is too this, and it’s like enough already. It’s time, you know. Like my 10th graders, I tell them you’re going to be juniors in a couple of months, the whining needs to stop, you are not little kids and [to] my juniors . . . you are about to be seniors and you with this whining. I don’t think so. You know, it’s like a lot of you work. If you whine like this to your boss, your boss is going to fire you, right? But they don’t view school as a tool to get somewhere.

In sum, teachers had a deficit view of the CLD student performance because of their struggles on standardized tests and believed that by assimilating to dominate White middle-class American values they would experience academic success.