EDSD 7074 Walden University Effective Implementation of School Wide Support Systems Paper Effective collaboration is a vital component to implementing any

EDSD 7074 Walden University Effective Implementation of School Wide Support Systems Paper Effective collaboration is a vital component to implementing any school or district initiative. This is especially true for implementing a multi-tier system of support (MTSS) within a school facility. Teams must work together to develop a plan for implementation and ongoing evaluation. Throughout the process of creating, implementing, and evaluation of a support system, strong leadership is needed to help guide teams through conflict and to ensure the system is being implemented and monitored with fidelity. For this Course Project, you will use the CEC Standard for Collaboration to guide your work in creating a professional development session, a resource guide, and a data collection tool for either an RtI or PBIS process. You will conclude the Course Project by reflecting on collaboration and its impacts on implementing an MTSS with fidelity within an educational setting.

To prepare

Consult and reflect upon the course resources as well as on outside resources (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles) that you found and integrated into your work to illustrate and support your Discussion posts and your assignments—you will need to use these as resources to complete your work.
Reflect upon the training needs of staff working within educational settings regarding collaboration for school-wide support systems.
Review the CEC Advanced Preparation Standard 7: Collaboration and reflect upon your experiences with collaborating with others to improve outcomes, services, and programs for students with exceptionalities. Think about how effective collaboration can impact the implementation of school-wide support systems.
Review the CEC Advanced Preparation Standard 7: Collaboration and reflect upon your experiences with collaborating with others to improve outcomes, services, and programs for students with exceptionalities. Think about how effective collaboration can impact the implementation of school-wide support systems.

CEC Advanced Preparation Standard 7 Collaboration 7.0 Special education specialists collaborate with stakeholders to improve programs, services, and outcomes for individuals with exceptionalities and their families.

Key Elements

Format for the project: Use the following format to complete this Course Project. It is critical that you use multiple reference citations from the modules as well as your own research. Please see the rubric for evaluation criteria.

Title Page

Part 1: District-wide Professional Development Presentation

Create a 12- to 15-slide multimedia presentation introducing an RtI or PBIS that you can implement in the future to an elementary or secondary school staff. Design your presentation to meet the needs of your current district or community. Include the following:

Overview of identified model
Identification of each tier including the process of moving between each tier
Three examples of interventions that could be implemented at each level
Use of checklists or illustrations to describe the process
Explanation of the role of special education within the model selected
Importance of collaboration in the RtI or PBIS process

Part II: Resource Guide for Teachers

Create a Resource Guide for Teachers (depending on your choice for Part I), with at least 10 resources that provide information regarding the RtI or PBIS process you chose, to be distributed during your presentation. Concisely explain how each resource may be used to support students with diverse learning needs.

Part III: Collaboration

Write a 4- to 5-page reflection addressing the following topics:

Explain the role of collaboration in the implementation of MTSS across levels (i.e., school, district, state). Discuss two strategies for effective collaboration and at least one additional strategy that discusses culturally responsive practices.
Describe at least two strategies to collaborate and involve parents/guardians with regards to MTSS. Analyze the impacts on student learning when parents/guardians are partners with educators, citing evidence from the course readings.
Analyze the role of leadership in guiding collaborative implementation of MTSS across tiers in a school. Provide two or three examples, with descriptions, to support your analysis.
Examine the relationship between conflict, collaboration, and consensus. Provide at least two strategies for collaborative problem solving when conflict arises.

Your final document for this Course Project must include the following:

Title page
Part I: 12- to 15-slide multimedia presentation
Part II: 2- to 3-page Resource Guide
Part III: 4- to 5-page paper
Reference page

For this Assignment, you will compare the RtI processes used in the elementary school and high school shared in the media examples.

Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

REQUIRED READINGS

Brown-Chidsey, R. & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Chapter 9, “The Science of Change” (pp. 87–94)
Chapter 12, “Innovation and Sustainability (pp. 115–128)

McIntosh, K. & Goodman, S. (2016b). Integrating entire systems. In Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 236-264). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Moolenaar, N.M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovation climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.

Cook, C. R., Lyon, A. R., Kubergovic, D., Wright, D. B., & Zhang, Y. (2015). A supportive beliefs intervention to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices within a multi-tiered system of supports. School Mental Health, 7(1), 49–60. .CHAPTERi7
Integrating Entire Systems
Throughout this book, we have discussed the reasons for integrating RTI systems for academ­
ics and behavior. We described a rationale and strategies for integrating data in Chapter 3,
practices in Chapter 4, teaming in Chapter 5, and district systems in Chapter 6. In this chapter,
we take a broader view to examine more of the “how” for putting all of these elements together
into one integrated system. As you might guess, this is no easy task. To do it well, we need to
consider current systems and the foundational research behind implementation so that we can
be most successful.
As we have previously emphasized, integration is best viewed not as a goal in of itself.
The true goal is improved student outcomes, and any efforts at integration should be viewed in
terms of whether or not they help us meet that goal. Figure 7.1 shows how we conceptualize this
process. On the right of the figure, we see our goal of improv d student outcomes. Then, at the
middle, we implement systems to improve outcomes, and to the extent that they are effective,
efficient, equitable, and sustainable, we will see durable improvements in student outcomes.
Systems Qualities
Effective
Efficient
Equitable
Sustainable
FIGURE 7.1. How integration might indirectly improve student outcomes.
236
Integrating Entire Systems
237
Integration, then, is a vehicle for helping us make our educational systems better by addressing
these four qualities of systems. If we reach the point at which more integration does not make
our systems better, we may want to focus on other enablers until it does.
Considering integration as an enabler of better systems helps us understand how and why
school and district efforts at integration will always vary along a continuum. One end of this
continuum is represented by parallel (or siloed) systems. In parallel systems, the school is imple­
menting academic RTI and PBIS as separate initiatives within the building. Each initiative
might have separate teams doing the work, with separate data systems and separate practices.
Some may view this approach as an integrated MTSS model ( because both academic RTI and
PBIS are in place in the school), but true integration is something different than simply trying
to implement two separate initiatives at the same time. At the other end of this continuum, true
integration involves the same people (i.e., the same team) implementing both academic RTI and
PBIS as interrelated pieces of the larger educational system. Many schools will find themselves
at, or initially aiming for, a reality somewhere between these extremes.
A good approach to integration is purposeful. Our actions are more effective if we under­
stand when integration is best started and how this integration can take place. Through a stra­
tegic integration approach, we recognize that it is neither possible nor advantageous to force an
integration of every academic and behavior practice with every student. Instead, it is helpful
to look for and consider opportunities where integration is logical and makes teaching easier.
In this chapter, we describe various strategies for integrating entire systems of academic
RTI and PBIS and explain how to plan a logical order for the integration process. Next, we dis­
cuss stages of implementation, informed by the field of implementation science, with an aim of
maximizing the implementation and sustainability of any practice, but with a particular focus
on integrated MTSS models. Finally, we address common barriers to implementation and offer
suggestions for overcoming them.
MOVING TO INTEGRATED MTSS MODELS:
HOW DO WE GET THERE?
There are a few general paths that schools may take for integrating their systems. In some
schools, one initiative (i.e., academic RTI or PBIS) may already be in place. The plan in this case
is more straightforward. The integrated MTSS model can be developed by using the existing
system as a framework and expanding the scope, especially if the system is both implemented
well and seen as effective on student outcomes. In others, neither academic RTI nor PBIS sys­
tems are in place (or they are in place, but without high fidelity). The question then becomes
whether to implement one fully and then the other or, alternatively, to implement an integrated
system from the start. In both approaches, the desired outcome is an integrated MTSS model.
The choice of how to get there depends on each school’s circumstances and needs, as well as the
systems-level factors we describe in this chapter.
Simultaneous Adoption and Implementation
When schools have neither academic RTI nor PBIS strongly in place, implementing a fully
integrated model from the start is one option. The main benefit of starting “fresh” by adopting
238
CORE COMPONENTS
a fully integrated MTSS model involves the expectation that academic and behavior will be
integrated right from the beginning. In this path, administrators provide a clear message that
the goal is an integrated MTSS model, and therefore all training is described as part of the
same initiative. This initiative may have stronger support because of its acknowledgment of the
importance of teaching the “whole child.” In addition, rolling out MTSS as one initiative is often
more efficient because of combined training and systems development. Systems that would
require development and then integration can simply be built with the final goal in mind. It also
avoids fragmentation and the misconception that we need to stop current work in academic sup­
port to focus on behavior support, or vice versa. In the same way, it preempts the development
of silos of RTI and PBIS. Key staff members often champion academic RTI and PBIS initiatives
(Andreou et al., 2015). These individuals typically invest a great deal of time and energy in
these initiatives. The longer academic or behavior RTI systems have been in place in isolation,
the greater the risk of conflict when integration eventually happens. The champions may feel a
sense of loss or reduced competence or expertise with an integrated MTSS model. Adopting an
integrated model from the beginning may minimize or preclude these potential issues.
However, there are also possible challenges associated with the simultaneous adoption and
implementation path. Today more than ever, educators are often given more work to do than is
reasonable. With increased calls for higher student proficiency, demands for teacher account­
ability, and introduction of new state standards, educators may feel overwhelmed with a true
overhaul of the educational system all at once. This perception can be aggravated if the benefits
of an integrated approach are not shared with staff in a manner that communicates how this
approach will be better for both students and educators in achieving successful outcomes. It
may also seem like too much too soon to tackle an integrated MTSS model due to cognitive
overload and limited resources to support the work. If this feeling is common, it may be better
to start small (i.e., one domain), experience success there, and then build on that success.
A Staggered Approach to Integration
An alternative to the simultaneous adoption and implementation path is a staggered process, in
which one domain is implemented to criterion and then another is added to it. This path can
be taken whether or not an existing system is already in place (e.g., PBIS). If neither is in place,
the school or district implementation team selects one domain to implement and adds the other
in the future. A key advantage of this path is that educators will have already developed skill
sets and hopefully experienced success in one domain of MTSS before adding complexity. In
this “build-on” procedure, the key concepts, resources, and structures have been developed,
refined, and can be relied upon to implement any other MTSS model. Another benefit with the
staggered approach is that staff may be more motivated and open to integrate a second compo­
nent in an integrated model when benefits and similarities of an integrated model are presented.
As described above, the possible challenges with the staggered path are the ones that make
a simultaneous approach advantageous. For example, the staggered approach may lead to “turf
wars” for priority of systems. In addition, without clear articulation of the objective of a fully
integrated model, educators may feel that they are supposed to abandon one domain to make
room to focus on the other. One possible way to take advantage of both the simultaneous and
staggered approaches is by starting with a clear, consistent, and continual message from school
and district administrators of the vision of a fully integrated model that will be implemented
Integrating Entire Systems
239
within a 5- to 7-year time frame, starting with one domain and adding others. If this message is
consistent, school personnel may be able to keep the ultimate goal in mind when doing the work
to put one domain in place, then the other. Throughout training and professional development
events, trainers and coaches can share the vision and provide explicit training and examples of
how the separate components can be integrated.
Which Comes First: Academics or Behavior?
A common question for schools or districts that choose the staggered implementation path is
which domain to implement first. This decision primarily depends on the strengths and needs
of the school. For example, if a school has some items in one domain already in place (e.g.,
schoolwide behavior expectations and a matrix), moving from partial implementation to full
implementation in that domain may be easier, leading to a strong sense of accomplishment and
momentum to address the other domain. Showing quick progress in a large initiative can moti­
vate staff and reduce resistance to change. In other circumstances, preferences of the staff may
help determine the order of implementation. For example, the school staff may be more commit­
ted to improving academic outcomes than reducing problem behavior. Just as it is helpful with
student behavior, providing choice (in terms of a vote) is a powerful tool to increase ownership
in the implementation process.
Reasons to Start with Academics
In the absence of a clear majority of support for one direction or the other, there may be some
advantages to starting with academic RTI before adding in behavior systems. A primary reason
for choosing academic RTI first is student need. Many schools are in situations where there is
a sense of urgency to improve student academic outcomes. Starting with an academic approach
can reduce political pressure and meet the needs of staff members who are concerned about
student achievement. Starting with academic RTI may also align more easily with state and
district mandates for improving student outcomes on high-stakes assessments.
Reasons to Start with Behavior
However, there may be even more advantages to starting with an emphasis on behavior support.
First, implementing PBIS often involves immediate changes in the physical school environment,
such as posting behavior expectations throughout the school. Although these initial changes are
superficial, it can be helpful for staff to see visible differences to prompt and motivate further
implementation efforts. Further, it is more common to see rapid, noticeable improvement in
student behavior than in academic skills, further reinforcing staff for implementation efforts.
In addition, it is often difficult to implement academic RTI if considerable instructional time
is lost to dealing with problem behavior. Implementing PBIS first in the sequence can thus set
the stage for more efficient and effective implementation of academic RTL Finally, sometimes
changing one’s approach to academic instruction can be more challenging. Although there are
also philosophical differences to overcome in explicit teaching of social behavior, adding brief
instruction in social expectations and routines, especially when lesson plans are provided, may
be easier than changing one’s personal academic teaching style for the entire period. It’s best to
CORE COMPONENTS
240
avoid wars (e.g., reading wars, math wars) until there is enough belief in the system to be willing
to bridge the gaps between philosophical differences in academic instruction.
STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Regardless of the path or order of implementation selected, there is some foundational theory
and research that can guide the integration process. Too often in schools, new initiatives are
selected without considering the science that supports quality implementation and integration.
For example, a new practice may be chosen because someone from the district read a book or
saw an engaging speaker present on a topic. All of a sudden, this initial enthusiasm results in
contracts, one-shot trainings, manuals, and expectations that teachers will then implement this
practice districtwide, with sanctions for those who do not implement it correctly. Attention to
research (or simply common sense in many cases) would highlight a number of potential pit­
falls to this approach. Any of these pitfalls may sink the entire initiative, even if it is a sound,
evidence-based practice that meets school needs.
The study of how systems and practices are adopted, implemented, and sustained is known
as implementation science (Cook & Odom, 2013). Knowing about implementation science can
be as important as knowing the content of instruction, as it permeates every part of integrated
MTSS models. One aspect that is particularly helpful in integration is the concept of stages of
implementation (Fixsen et al., 2005; Horner & Sugai, 2006). These stages do more than simply
track the progress of implementation of MTSS within a school or district; they also provide a
framework with which to identify specific activities and accomplishments at each stage that can
expedite implementation and integration (Goodman, 2013a). Each stage requires a different
Focus
Should we
do it?
Stage
Exploration/
Adoption
Activities
•Understand implementation requirements.
•Evaluate “goodness of fit.”
•Develop implementation commitment.
Installation
• Create leadership teams and data systems.
•Audit current resources and capacity.
• Plan and prepare for implementation.
Initial
Implementation
•Test the practices on a small scale to learn best
methods for broad implementation.
• Provide intensive support to implementers.
•Expand to new areas, individuals, and times.
•Adjust practices and systems based on initial
implementation.
•Make it more effective and efficient.
•Embed within current practices.
•Adjust to changing contexts.
Work to do
it right!
Work to do
!t better!
Elaboration
Continuous
Regeneration
FIGURE 7.2. Stages of implementation.
Integrating Entire Systems
241
emphasis, so strategies that are critical in one stage may be less so in others (Mercer, McIntosh,
Strickland-Cohen, & Horner, 2014; Turri et al., in press). By attending to these stages, we can
prevent seemingly insurmountable barriers (e.g., lack of buy-in, competing initiatives) to inte­
grating systems in education.
A visual depiction of the five stages is provided in Figure 7.2. There are five distinct stages,
but they can be chunked into three larger categories: (1) Should we do it?, (2) Work to do it
right, and (3) Work to do it better! Although the stages and their order are common across sys­
tems, it is important to note that the speed at which schools and districts move through them
will vary based on the experience of staff and the allocation of resources (Schaper, McIntosh,
& Hoselton, in press; Nese et al., 2016). In addition, it is not uncommon to cycle back to earlier
stages, particularly if personnel or resources shift. For each stage, we provide an overview, the
intended outcomes, and how the stage can help us identify and avoid common pitfalls. Schools
working to adopt a fully integrated model or starting to implement a first MTSS would consider
these systems as the practice or model to use throughout each stage. For schools working toward
integrating existing component systems (either integrating two parallel systems or adding on
a new system to an existing academic RTI or PBIS model), we also provide considerations for
integration within each stage of implementation.
Stage 1: Exploration/Adoption
The exploration/adoption stage includes the process by which a team decides whether to select
a given practice or initiative. So many of us educators are solution-focused, and when we see a
problem, we immediately start thinking about fixes to try the very next day. Although this focus
on changing outcomes immediately is admirable, the large systems-level decisions involved in
implementing or integrating an MTSS require slowing down the selection process and ensuring
that the options are sound. This stage can be used to determine whether an integrated MTSS
model is the “right thing” for the school or district to do. This determination involves consider­
ation of student need, fit with the school, and evidence that this approach will be successful for
the students in that setting. The key point of this stage is not to rush ahead with implementation
before considering whether there is a problem, what its presumed causes are, what options are
available, and how to plan for success. This series of questions fits well within the integrated
problem-solving process described in Chapter 5 (see p. 183).
The steps in this stage are led by an exploration team charged with investigating the pos­
sible adoption of practices or models, such as an integrated MTSS model If the school already
has an existing school leadership team (or the district has a district leadership team), that team
will take on this role. This scenario is common for schools using the staggered implementation
approach, in which one team (e.g., school PBIS team) considers whether to expand their model.
For schools or districts without existing leadership teams, an ad hoc exploration team may be
created for the sole purpose of this stage of implementation. As with any leadership team, it is
important for the team to include those with administrative and budgetary authority, as well as
representative leaders from the school or district. Even for school teams, it is crucial that the
district administration plays a role in the exploration/adoption stage. Central administration
can articulate the vision for the district (e.g., an integrated MTSS model), provide political sup­
port to school teams, allocate needed resources, and ensure alignment between the integrated
model and other district initiatives. It is also helpful to engage with the local parent-teacher
242
CORE COMPONENTS
organization and gather input from the school community through family and student surveys.
This information can be used to galvanize support for integrating systems.
Before considering any specific practice or model, a good first step for the exploration team
is to collect data on current student outcomes. As described in Chapter 3, common methods
include reporting the percent of students performing at or above academic expectations on
high-stakes achievement tests or CBM benchmarks, as well as rates of exclusionary discipline
(e.g., ODRs, suspensions). When sharing this information, it is important to show how these
outcomes compare to district, state, or national averages. It is also important to consider the
rate of growth (i.e., are student outcomes improving over time?). If student outcomes are lower
(or growing more slowly) than expected, there may be stronger motivation to change current
practices, particularly if team members ask themselves, “Do we think that our student outcomes
will improve if we continue with our current educational program?” Starting with student out­
comes, as opposed to evaluating a particul…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment