Another criticism includes the lack of a universal definition or formula for student success. While programs have searched for the “Magic Bullet” or one key metric to define student and program success, Progressive Intervention’s identification and use of a broad spectrum of Key Performance Indicators, give a rich, multifaceted picture of student and program performance. A common structure, but individually applied between programs balances the individuality and mission of various programs, while still facilitating consistent metrics to compare programs.
Like RTI, Progressive Intervention can be very time consuming and require extensive training in order to implement this model correctly and appropriately. As a critical component of T.H.E. Company Inc. Online Program Operations Consulting Group’s efforts with a program are to leverage previous models and best practices to dramatically reduce the adoption time, support professional development, and consistent implementation of Progressive Intervention models. Additionally, extensive care is taken to ensure interventions are scalable operationally and fiscally for the program. It is in this area where professional consulting reaps the greatest benefits in operational efficiency and cost reduction for online programs.
A third opposition to Progressive Intervention centers on a belief that all interventions need to be individually tailored and applied. The desire to completely “custom build” interventions for individual students quickly results in a non-scaling system that either introduces untenable costs or creates program growth caps that limit the number of students that can be assisted by an online program. One of the key features of Progressive Intervention in which the definition of data driven key performance indicators that drive students’ tier assignments, and tier assignments that drive a tier defined set of interventions provides program scalability at reduced or manageable costs. The research at this point does not point to a degradation of student learning when applying this method compared to programs not using a Progressive Intervention model.