SASHA Learning Brief
Make Tier 2 progress easier to review
A practical review plan that separates completed activity from evidence of learning.
A useful review starts before the next activity
A completed worksheet, an app session and an encouraging conversation each tell us something. They do not necessarily tell us the same thing. For a team providing additional learning support, a useful question is whether the agreed measure shows progress toward the learner's goal—and whether the next person can understand what to do with that information.
This article offers an original planning exercise for a Tier 2 review. It draws on established progress-monitoring guidance rather than a new study published today. It does not claim that SASHA improves learning outcomes or replaces an institution's support process.
Choose the question and the measure together
The National Center on Intensive Intervention describes planning that identifies a measure, a goal, and a schedule for collecting and reviewing data. The Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports also emphasizes a suitable measure, baseline, decision rules and review dates. These sources support making the plan explicit; they do not establish one universal collection frequency for every learner, goal or intervention.
Begin with a question the team can answer. For example: is the learner making progress on the particular reading skill being supported? Select an appropriate measure through the institution's established process. A count of logins can describe activity, but it should not quietly become a measure of that reading skill.
Write a review card someone else can use
An original six-field review card can record the agreed goal, the selected measure and baseline, who collects the observations, the collection schedule, the decision rule, and the review date. This is a planning aid; the team should adapt it to its approved tools and responsibilities.
Consider a fictional tutoring group. The tutor records the agreed measure at the planned times. The teacher checks the pattern at the review. The family receives an understandable explanation through the institution's approved route. Each person knows the next action, without requiring every person to receive every note.
Make the decision traceable
Both guidance sources connect progress information to decisions about instruction. Before a review, decide how the team will interpret the results and what it will check when progress differs from the goal. Consistent administration and scoring matter; so does understanding whether the planned support was delivered as intended.
A short record might say: 'We reviewed these observations against this goal on this date. The team agreed to continue this part of the plan and revisit this question at the next review.' Describe missing observations as missing. Do not turn a gap in the record into a conclusion about a learner's effort or ability.
Keep the current plan and the unanswered questions visible
A review card also needs to survive a change of plan. In a fictional case, suppose the team moves its next review from Friday to Monday after an agreed activity is postponed. The revised card can state the new date, who confirmed it, and which observation is still outstanding. A colleague arriving later can distinguish the current plan from the earlier message. This is an original coordination example, not a rule about how every school must organize its records.
Leave a place for questions the evidence cannot yet answer. A record can say that an observation is missing, that the agreed task has not been tried, or that a team decision is pending. Those are different situations. Giving each a clear description helps the next person ask an appropriate question rather than fill a gap with a guess. Use the institution's approved communication and recordkeeping routes; a new planning exercise should not become a reason to copy real learner notes into additional apps.
Try the handoff with a fictional case
Before using a new coordination workflow with real learner information, ask two colleagues to complete the review card for a fictional case. Can the second person identify the goal, understand the measure and find the next review date? Which part needs an explanation? Keep the exercise focused on the handoff.
For a SASHA demonstration, these are practical questions to bring: how is the agreed goal represented, what evidence accompanies a progress signal, and how can a person see which action is theirs? Ask for the available release to be demonstrated. A clear plan is useful because it makes a team's reasoning reviewable—not because a dashboard by itself proves learning.
Sources and further reading
These sources inform the discussion; they do not certify SASHA or establish its effectiveness. Follow each link to inspect the original context.