Should teachers recommend the promotion of struggling learners to the next grade if they've worked hard but achieved little? The answer is yes, but ... But provide learners with whatever supports they need.
Needed supports may well include preteaching, mentoring, cooperative learning, peer teaching, active co-teaching and 1-1 tutoring. For all such learners, it will require individual and group activities, homework and materials at their proper instructional and independent levels. Frequently, this alone will prevent struggles and accelerate progress.
For struggling learners eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), it will also require carefully crafted IEPs that include a Comprehensive, Accurate, Relevant and Explicit (CARE) Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP), Meaningful, Measureable and Manageable (MMM) goals (and in some states, objectives). It also requires all needed services, frequent progress monitoring and an explicit acknowledgement of whatever training and supports teachers and support staff will need to knowledgeably and skillfully implement the IEPs.
Generally, and often controversial, the same recommendation for promotion should apply to struggling learners who appear to "lack" motivation to correctly focus and make reasonable, sustained efforts to succeed, or who habitually disrupt instruction, wasting precious instructional time. These learners need to pass, but they also need to develop the motivation and competency to cooperate and make sustained efforts to succeed.
Achieving this, however, will prove nothing more than wishful thinking unless schools and teachers make the changes these learners' need to accelerate progress and feel good about their efforts.
The Reasoning
Despite many state laws and district policies that demand schools retain struggling learners with poor test scores, logic supports promoting and providing them with whatever educational supports they need. The logic includes the high likelihood that:
- Grade retention will fail to improve the long-term achievement of most struggling learners.
- Grade retention will have a terrible psychological effect on learners.
- The troubles of struggling learners are frequently caused or exacerbated by programs that fail to meet their educational needs, which include their emotional and motivational needs.
In addition, both schools and individual teachers have a moral and professional obligation to do whatever is ethical to meet the educational needs of struggling learners. This moral obligation, which motivates many educators, does not stand alone.
IDEA, which governs most of special education, strongly supports it. IDEA states that the purpose of special education is to meet children’s “unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living" (34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300, §300.1 Purposes).
For struggling learners covered by IDEA, failure to offer programs that are "reasonably calculated" to meet IDEA's purpose will dramatically impede learners' progress. This is true for decisions to retain learners, which often increases the likelihood that they will repeatedly face severe struggles and "failures," and eventually drop out of school.
Thus, it's critical that the decisions and programs of teachers and schools consider the long-term effects of retention. Analysis of the retention research shows retention often undermines efforts to strengthen the academics and emotional well-being of struggling learners.
This contradicts IDEA's purpose. It also contradicts the morals and ethics of many teachers: to do what I can to enhance the lives of my students.
Programs
It's easy to summarize the solutions to these problems. For unmotivated struggling learners, redesign their programs so they'll be motivated to keep doing what’s needed to succeed. Once motivated, they’ll make the effort. And they’ll keep making it, because they’ll start to believe they can succeed, that it’s important to them, and it feels good.
Though the solutions are easy to summarize, they’re often hard to do. Nevertheless, educators — which includes me — have a moral and professional obligation to these children: to arrange or advocate for their immediate and long-term emotional and academic success.
For struggling learners who work hard to succeed, the answer is similar. Redesign their programs so they’re likely to make accelerated progress with tasks and materials at their proper instructional and independent levels.
Programs that produce higher rates of success continue to help struggling learners eliminate, minimize or compensate for the barriers impeding their success. To do this, they closely monitor progress and quickly adjust programs to reflect emerging needs.
In contrast, programs with far lower rates of success tend not to do this. Instead, they tend to offer all learners one or two prepackaged programs that may well ignore the barriers impeding progress.
In other words, programs that produce greater success continually diagnose problems to identify and mitigate current barriers to success. They do this before launching instructional programs. Through brief probes of three-to-five minutes and structured observations, they continue to do this throughout the program.
As mentioned above, less successful programs don’t. Often, this diagnostic omission wastes years of precious instructional time and keeps struggling learners in programs that produce disappointing progress. Consequently, many struggling learners begin to feel hopeless or resentful, as they no longer believe success is possible.
This is not to say that one-size-fits-all programs don’t benefit some struggling learners. They do. But usually far fewer than programs that accurately and continuously identify current barriers to success and help learners eliminate, minimize, or compensate for them.
Despite the enormous value that quality diagnoses, quality teaching and quality supports add to the likelihood that struggling learners will make substantial progress, educators cannot guarantee such progress. Sometimes, the research to address their difficulties is lacking. It has yet to identify the knowledge we need to meet every need of struggling learners. But usually, we can meet many or most of their needs. Sometimes all.
It starts with the answers to three questions:
- Are we willing to meet all their academic, social, emotional, functional and recreational needs?
- Will we invest the needed resources and efforts?
- Will we do this without sacrificing the needs of other students?
If the answers are yes, schools can help many struggling learners. Too often, the "no" answers are painfully obvious.
Principles for motivating the unmotivated
Though this article will focus on struggling learners who appear unmotivated to academically succeed, many of its recommendations readily apply to well-motivated learners. Often, they too have areas of doubt, concern and struggle that may cause resistance to involving themselves in particular subjects.
For example, a highly motivated learner may pay attention, participate and do exceedingly well in reading, writing, social studies and science. But he "hates" math because "I just can’t get it, no matter how much I try." And so he stops trying, fiddles around and makes disturbing noises. (Every morning, when I look in the mirror, I recognize that student.)
In developing programs to motivate unmotivated learners, program developers need to ensure that their curriculums and programs emphasize these 10 overarching principles:
- Base programs on a valid diagnostic assessment of what each learner knows and doesn't know, can and cannot do, observations that identify what he (or she) can do under different conditions, and, if possible, diagnostic teaching that suggests what approaches might work with him. (Here is an example of how observations can help.)
- Involve unmotivated learners in instructional level tasks, curriculum and programs that require only moderate effort to reliably produce successes they value highly. Teach them how to attribute their successes to effort, correct use of proper methods, and persistence.
- Involve unmotivated learners in curriculum and programs that, from the start, make extensive use of topics and activities that motivate them.
- Involve unmotivated learners in curriculum and programs that clearly represent their positive values and those of society.
- Make intensive, ongoing, systematic attempts to involve learners’ families and communities in their programs.
- If possible, involve unmotivated learners in before- and-after-school activities that they enjoy and that reinforce their learning.
- Help unmotivated learners develop a few short and long-terms goals aligned with their curriculum and programs, and which, with moderate effort, they can achieve.
- Provide unmotivated learners with frequent feedback on goal-achievement and help them develop solutions to overcoming obstacles to achievement.
- Provide whatever supports these learners need, when it’s needed, both in and out of school.
- Actively listen to unmotivated learners, to better understand their concerns, their feelings, and their aspirations. Remember, education is about their lives and their development, so listen with the intent of understanding.
Though there are other important principles to consider, many programs miss these critical 10. This can cause some struggling learners to founder.
Programs
Programs that emphasize these principles will probably have vastly different looks than the public’s traditional idea of "school." These programs may not even take place in school buildings. They may look as if "the powers that be" seriously considered Mark Twain’s quip: "I have never let schooling interfere with my education."
But if we want to stop failing these learners, we must do something different — now.
Of course, even if we start now, it will probably take years to design and perfect local programs. This doesn’t help today’s teachers — many of whom have few if any reinforcers these students value and who must teach a mandated curriculum that struggling learners may care little about.
Short-term, these teachers and students can be helped by schools committed to and skilled at implementing programs of mentoring, self-efficacy, positive behavioral supports and before-and after-school activities.
Mentoring
The Check & Connect program makes extensive use of mentors. It was designed, in part, to "promote engagement among youth placed at high risk for school failure." Many unmotivated struggling learners fit this description; they’re "high risk for school failure." In fact, to a greater or lesser degree, they’re already struggling.
As part of Check & Connect, adult mentors are assigned to fuel students’ "motivation and foster the development of life skills needed to persevere in the face of obstacles." To accomplish this, mentors work to "build relationships with students and their families and ... address student issues of autonomy, belonging, and competence." They, as the students they mentor, are never to give up.
An evaluation of Check & Connect showed that it worked: It positively influenced student engagement in school and reduced the dropout rate. In other words, it helped to motivate students to learn, to succeed, to persevere.
If mentoring programs are well planned and supervised, and if mentors are carefully selected and trained, mentoring programs have the potential to motivate unmotivated learners. Though schools often pay only lip service to motivation, its importance cannot be overestimated:
Motivation is perhaps the indispensable element needed for school success. Without it, the student never even tries to learn.
Self-efficacy
Practically speaking, self-efficacy is a struggling learner’s belief that he can succeed if he correctly uses the right strategies, makes reasonable efforts, and persists when necessary. For strong self-efficacy to help learners, their belief must be accurate.
If it’s too weak, learners may retreat from even trying. If it’s too strong, they may soon feel frustrated and retreat, or blame someone else for their difficulties, or rush through the work without giving thought to what they’re doing. The possibilities are numerous.
To strengten struggling learners’ self-efficacy, teachers and parents can:
1. Limit tasks and materials to each learner’s proper independent or instructional levels. Generally, the levels for reading and mathematics should adhere to these figures, without signs of frustration or excessive anxiety.
Independent Level for Reading — The independent level is the level for all work that struggling learners do by themselves, such as homework and independent practice. Independent-level work is easier than instructional level work. This allows struggling learners to focus on content and concepts, rather than struggle with words and content.
The International Reading Association's The Literacy Dictionary notes that "although suggested criteria vary, better than 99 percent word identification accuracy and better than 90 percent comprehension are often used as standards" (italics added). As with the instructional level, these figures are guidelines, guidelines that refer to materials new to struggling learners and other students.
Instructional Level for Reading — The instructional level is the level for all work in which the teacher directly teaches students. For example, introducing a new set of stories for struggling learners to read, with few word recognition and comprehension errors. The Literacy Dictionary offers a formal definition: "Better than 95 percent word identification accuracy and better than 75 percent comprehension" (italics added). To word identification I would add, "with good fluency."
As with the independent level, these figures are guidelines, guidelines that refer to materials new to struggling learners and other students.
Guidelines for Mathematics — "Depending on the student and the task, [appropriately] challenging material usually produces rates of correct student response of between 85 and 95 percent. For struggling learners with excessive anxiety, these levels may initially prove too severe. To help reduce their anxiety, they may need easier materials and tasks."
2. Explicitly link new work to recent successes. As I noted in Educational Leadership, "Struggling learners with weak self-efficacy regularly need visible encouragement. Words alone often fail. If, before you introduce a new assignment, you show and briefly discuss with them a similar one they succeeded on, expectations of success can soar. Ensure they have sufficient supports and they understand the strategy for succeeding. If needed, demonstrate it. This can add to their expectations of success: 'I've done this before. I succeeded. I know the steps. I can do it again.'"
3. Use peer models. A powerful way to help students acquire new skills and strategies is to have them watch other students do well on targeted tasks. To maximize the effects of modeling on self-efficacy, models should be similar to student observers in ways the observers deem important. Similarities can include age, race, gender, ability, interests, clothing, social circles and achievement levels.
4. Teach facilitative attributions. Attributions are people's explanatory beliefs about why things happen to them. They explain success and failure and influence future actions, including effort, choice, persistence, and the use of specific strategies. Facilitative attributions avoid the all-too-common practice of assigning global condemnations to oneself: "I’m just too stupid. I’ll never learn anything." Instead, they focus on factors that learners can control.
By teaching struggling learners to sculpt attributions that focus on controllable factors — such as their effort, their persistence and their use of learning strategies — teachers put struggling learners in control of themselves. This can succeed, in the short and long term, if learners work with materials and tasks at their proper instructional or independent levels. (Here is further guidance on levels.)
In such situations, teachers should help learners to stress positive attributions, such as "I succeeded because I tried very hard. I stuck to it. I correctly followed the steps on my cue cards." Similarly, in these situations, teachers should help learners attribute poor performances to the same controllable factors, but stress what they didn’t do: "I did poorly because I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t stick to it. I didn’t follow the steps on my cue cards."
When teachers model these attributes throughout the day and show learners how they, as adults, use them, large numbers of learners will often embrace the practice. Many will find it liberating. However, it will fail if teachers’ relationships with their learners are poor or the tasks and materials they use are at the learners’ frustration level.
Positive behavioral supports (PBS)
Natalie Rathvon described positive behavioral supports as an approach "to assist students with challenging behaviors in developing and using prosocial behavior ... PBS models focus on modifying not only students’ behavior but also environmental variables such as the physical setting, task demands, curriculum, instructional pace, and reinforcement systems."
What's most encouraging is that PBS tends to work: It decreases discipline problems and improves school climate and academic performance. In a sense, well-designed and well-implemented PBS programs "stack the deck for success."
Take the story of Ryan, a composite of many unmotivated learners with whom I've worked. The universal measures that his school used with all students — discussing school rules, complimenting students for following them, using class-wide peer tutoring, and holding class meeting to discuss how to improve the program — didn't work with him.
He needed a more personalized and intensive program that moved his seat closer to his teacher; paired him with a task-oriented study buddy he admired; gave him a two-minute work break every 15 minutes; had him read nonstigmatizing, independent-level materials on topics his class was studying; reduced the number of concepts he had to master; had him meet three times weekly with a mentor from a local college who reviewed his work, reinforced him for using the right instructional strategies, and played chess with him.
In addition, the school’s reading specialist worked with Ryan four times weekly and met with his teachers and his parents to monitor progress and plan next week’s lessons.
Was Ryan’s program ideal? Yes. Was it much more than most unmotivated learners get? Yes. Was it more than most schools offer? Yes. Was it necessary? Yes.
For excellent insights into PBS, visit the workshop program offered by the Boggs Center of Rutgers University.
Before- and after-school activities
Many politicians ridicule before-and after-school activities, like "midnight basketball." They lampoon their names, mischaracterize them, and sadly, refuse to fund them. Not surprisingly, science says they’re wrong.
In 2007, Joseph A. Durlak and Roger P. Weissberg published a statistical analysis of many studies. From their meta-analysis, they concluded that:
"Youth who participate in after-school programs improve significantly in three major areas: feelings and attitudes, indicators of behavioral adjustment, and school performance. More specifically, after-school programs succeeded in improving youths’ feelings of self-confidence and self-esteem, school bonding (positive feelings and attitudes toward school), positive social behaviors, school grades and achievement test scores. They also reduced problem behaviors (e.g., aggression, noncompliance and conduct problems) and drug use. In sum, after-school programs produced multiple benefits that pertain to youths’ personal, social and academic life."
Students and teachers: They need more
But alone, mentoring, self-efficacy interventions, positive behavioral supports, and before-and-after school activities may not be enough. Throughout struggling learners’ school day, we need to institute programs that incorporate the principles in this article.
If we don’t start now, many unmotivated learners may drop out of school or continue to disrupt the learning of other students. Some will drive teachers to despair. And unfortunately, many of these teachers — often outstanding people — will quit. Just as bad, or perhaps worse, they’ll stay, demoralized and depressed, teaching to get through the day.
The challenge
Teachers and schools cannot depend on most politicians to create the policies and budgets that unmotivated learners need. Few politicians will support increased taxes, and few know much about education, educational research, or the historical effects of policies that sound good, but time-after-time, proved horrible. Moreover, unmotivated learners are easier to demonize than help.
Thus, to improve the lives of all learners, not just unmotivated ones, teachers (and parents) must take the lead. They must educate the public and must influence politicians and policy.
Although this will take years of toil, lots of study and require thick skins to minimize the damage of hostile criticism, to do less is to tacitly support a system that often punishes rather than helps unmotivated learners. In other words, it’s up to us.
