RESPONSE WORKGROUP

Overarching purpose of the workgroups is to respond to the question:

“What are the human and technical challenges to – and opportunities for – the development, use, and scaling of a next generation of indicator and response systems aimed at increasing post-secondary persistence and success for all students? How shall these be addressed?”

Overarching desired outcomes and products of the workgroups:

The workgroups will make recommendations to the initiative for developing a framework organizing the next generation of effective student success indicator and response systems. The framework will bring consistency and quality control to the emerging field by codifying effective practices and lessons learned from existing users and the research base, so that new users can base their efforts on shared definitions and accurate understandings. Workgroups and staff will curate implementation tools, resources, and a glossary for the next generation of indicator and response systems aimed at increasing both high school graduation and college and career access and persistence.

Framing Questions

Definitions:

  • How should we define “response” and “Intervention”? Do they mean the same thing, or not, what are the differences and similarities, and which is preferred?
  • What is the difference between a response or intervention program and a response or intervention system?

Decisions:

  • What are the characteristics and components of the present most effective “response” and/or “intervention” programs/systems?
  • What are the implications for response and intervention programs/systems when the bar is moved from high school graduation to post-secondary attainment and persistence?
  • Should such systems (be) sourced in K-12 schools and districts only, or are there roles for the community, employers and higher education (currently and ideally)?
  • To what extent are there inherent challenges and opportunities related to the need to transform “response” or “intervention” programs into positive, pro-active systems? If so:
    ~ What is the leadership required?
    ~ What are the beliefs needed?
    ~ Who are the people needed?
    ~ What other input is needed? From whom?
    ~ Are there structural/organizational changes required for greatest effectiveness?
    ~ Are there financial implications (and if so, what?)
    ~ What is the likely time frame for a shift from program thinking to systems’ thinking?
    ~ What are the challenges and opportunities in integrating indicator and response/intervention systems with A) existing students support/intervention efforts-RTI, MTSS, PBIS, Special Education, B) instructional improvements and data based decision making (formative assessments, etc.) and C) whole school improvement efforts/frameworks?
    ~ Are there must haves-for effective indicator and response/intervention systems that need to be taken into account when building whole school improvement frameworks, e.g., teacher teams, scheduling collaborative work time, etc.?
  • How can K-12 data systems be better used (and refined) to play a bigger role in developing a next generation of “response” and “intervention” systems?
    ~ Uncovering patterns?
    ~ Predicting outcomes?
    ~ What can K-12 learn from higher education and employers?
    ~ Data based decision making?

Follow this link to download the PDF of the Workgroup Framing Questions.

Upcoming Events

  1. PAS Conference

    October 22 - October 23