Discussion: Leadership for Fostering Family–School Partnerships
softballplayer23
KamiExport-MD3Reading3.pdf
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hepc20
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation
ISSN: 1047-4412 (Print) 1532-768X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20
Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change
John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman
To cite this article: John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman (2015) Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:2-3, 160-177, DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Published online: 22 Dec 2014. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4583 View related articles
View Crossmark data Citing articles: 20 View citing articles
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:160–177, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online
DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between
School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change
JOHN W. EAGLE, SHANNON E. DOWD-EAGLE, ANDREW SNYDER, and ELIZABETH GIBBONS HOLTZMAN
Rhode Island College
Current educational reform mandates the implementation of school-
based models for early identification and intervention, progress
monitoring, and data-based assessment of student progress. This
article provides an overview of interdisciplinary collaboration for
systems-level consultation within a Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) framework. The roles of school psychologists and school-
based administrators are presented in relation to the implementa-
tion of MTSS practices within an implementation science model.
The training and expertise of each discipline are highlighted re-
lated to respective aspects of implementation drivers (i.e., com-
petency, organization, leadership). Functions of principals and
school psychologists during team-based, problem-solving MTSS prac-
tices are described based on a problem-solving framework consis-
tent with school-based consultation. Future directions for graduate
training of school psychologists and principals and directions for
consultation research are provided.
Educational policy has explicitly recommended the need for models that promote early identification and intervention, employ progress monitoring, and use data to assess student progress (President’s Commission on Excel- lence in Special Education, 2002). These mandates have served as a catalyst for educational reform, resulting in the emergence of school-wide problem- solving frameworks such as Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive
Correspondence should be sent to John W. Eagle, PhD, Department of Counseling, Educational Leadership, and School Psychology, Rhode Island College, 600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Providence, RI 02908. E-mail: [email protected]
160
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 161
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). However, these approaches have often been delivered in ‘‘silos’’ in which one system was devoted to academic difficulties and another to behavioral concerns. Given the strong alignment of several key features of RTI and PBIS (Sugai, 2009), increasing attention has been placed on the need for an integrated model that braids initiatives for academic, behavioral and social-emotional needs (McIntosh, Goodman, & Bohanon, 2010) into a single Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). MTSS can be defined as ‘‘an evidence-based model of education that employs data-based problem-solving techniques to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention’’ (Gamm et al., 2012, p. 4).
Rationale for MTSS
The basis for MTSS reform efforts is multifaceted and predicated upon theo- retical, empirical, and practical considerations. The conceptual framework for RTI and PBIS mirror one another, with both models emphasizing prevention, data-based decision-making, problem solving, evidence-based interventions, and implementation fidelity (Sugai, 2009). This, coupled with the recognition that academic and behavioral difficulties are often interconnected (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004), provides a theoretical basis for merging RTI and PBIS initiatives. Preliminary research has helped establish an empirical foundation for MTSS. Specifically, there is a growing body of evidence sug- gesting that integrated approaches are associated with greater improvements in both academic and behavioral outcomes (Ialongo, Poduska, Werthamer, & Kellam, 2001; Lane & Menzies, 2003; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007). Finally, there are pragmatic justifications for reform efforts. The current climate in edu- cation is often characterized by waning financial resources and overbur- dened educators. As such, viewing RTI and PBIS as competing initiatives is counterproductive and may unduly stress an already strained educational system. Further, implementation of two parallel systems-change initiatives may hinder sustainability (McIntosh et al., 2010).
Implementation Science as a Framework for Systems-Level Change
The scientific study of effective processes for implementing evidence-based interventions into practice with fidelity and sustainability, otherwise known as implementation science, is at the forefront of systemic-change initiatives in education, psychology, and health (Eccles & Mittman, 2006; Forman et al., 2013; Green, 2012). Although there are variations of implementation science models, this paper will follow a widely used model developed by Fixsen and Blase (2008). This model is currently used by the majority of states and supported by the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) State
162 J. W. Eagle et al.
FIGURE 1 Implementation drivers. Source: Fixsen & Blase (2008).
Personnel Development Grants program to implement a MTSS framework within schools.
Facilitating meaningful and sustainable systems-level change as related to MTSS is a complex process. It requires an understanding of the compo- nents associated with the evidence-based program (e.g., MTSS), effective im- plementation practices (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), and an interdisciplinary approach. Implementation science provides a frame- work for thinking about organizational change and bridging the ‘‘research to practice’’ gap often found in the field of education. Within this frame- work, implementation is viewed as a process with distinguishable stages including (a) exploration, (b) installation, (c) initial implementation, (d) full implementation, (e) innovation, and (f) sustainability. This continuum of implementation development extends over a period of 2–4C years. Further, successful implementation incorporates a common set of core components referred to as implementation drivers. These are categorized (see Figure 1) as (a) competency drivers (i.e., selection, training, coaching, and performance evaluation), (b) organization drivers (i.e., systems intervention, facilitative administration, and decision support data system), and (c) leadership drivers (i.e., technical and adaptive; Fixen et al., 2005).
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 163
All three forms of implementation drivers are critical to changing the behavior of adults who provide evidence-based practices within schools. Ef- fective and sustainable implementation of MTSS practices occurs through the building of staff competencies and system capacity for school-wide reform. This competency development requires the careful selection of staff who provide professional development training and ongoing coaching. However, change is unlikely to occur without the presence of organizational compo- nents to support implementation over time. Organization supports are de- veloped by facilitative administrators (e.g., principals, superintendents) who provide the leadership and structure needed to implement MTSS practices. Effective leadership represents the third component needed to successfully implement systems-level change. Two types of leadership are identified within implementation science: technical and adaptive. Technical leadership, akin to management, uses an established procedure to respond to straight- forward issues (e.g., managing time and budgets). Adaptive leadership refers to guiding others through complex changes and times of uncertainty, which may include issues related to motivation, consensus building, and changing roles among staff.
School-based consultation can apply implementation drivers to support change at multiple levels, including the individual student (client-centered), classroom (consultee-centered), building, or district (systems-level). For ex- ample, a consultant may consider several implementation drivers, including selection (competency driver), systems intervention (organizational driver), and performance assessment, through a systems-level/organizational consul- tation approach (Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huttleston, 2012). In developing the competency drivers related to training and coaching of school staff, a consultant might engage in consultee-focused consultation (Knotek, Kaniuka, & Ellingsen, 2008). And, a client-centered consultation (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990) focus may be emphasized in evaluating individual student outcomes related to MTSS services.
This article focuses on an interdisciplinary approach between school psychologists and administrators to promote the implementation of MTSS practices. Each discipline is uniquely positioned to support necessary im- plementation drivers, offering distinct yet complementary skills critical to successful large-scale reform. School psychologists provide content expertise in the core components of MTSS, including data-based decision making, curricular and instructional methodology, evidence-based interventions, and systematic problem-solving procedures. This knowledge base is essential for developing staff competency in the use of intervention practices (i.e., competency drivers). Educational leaders such as superintendents and prin- cipals exhibit expertise in fostering hospitable organizational and systems environments that support effective and sustainable implementation of MTSS practices (i.e., organizational drivers). Both principals and school psychol- ogists may possess knowledge of technical and adaptive leadership and
164 J. W. Eagle et al.
may utilize social influence strategies (French & Raven, 1959; Cialdini, 1984) to achieve meaningful change (i.e., leadership drivers). It is essential that these respective disciplines cultivate a collaborative relationship by sharing common values and perspectives, as well as leveraging their expertise to maximize MTSS reform efforts.
Successful reform efforts in schools require the development of a col- laborative culture and strong leadership (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). In systems-level change, district leadership needs to be knowledgeable, aware, and involved in the scaling-up process (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012). Knowl- edge about the systemic change initiative is essential, but it is as important to be aware of the personnel skills and capacities existing within the system to strategically utilize staff. As the understanding of other professions increases, collaborative partnerships become more effective, as does the ability to provide more comprehensive supports to students and families (Winitzky, Sheridan, Crow, Welch, & Kennedy, 1995). To effectively implement systems- level change initiatives, it is also critical to leverage the expertise of the re- spective disciplines to promote competency in intervention practices, ensure organizational support, and establish effective leadership.
Promoting Competency Development Within MTSS
School psychologists play an integral role in promoting and supporting competency development within the core components of MTSS, includ- ing data-based decision making, evidence-based interventions, implemen- tation fidelity, and systematic problem solving. In MTSS, data-based deci- sion making includes universal screening of all students, implementation of evidenced-based interventions at multiple tiers, and ongoing progress monitoring to inform the decisions at each tier. A problem-solving process supports ongoing evaluation of the data in order to make timely and ongoing informed decisions (Gresham, 2007). The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) has identified (a) data-based decision making, and (b) consultation and collaboration as two school psychology practices that permeate all aspects of service delivery (NASP, 2010).
In addition to having training and knowledge related to the core com- ponents of MTSS, school psychologists have the capacity to support effec- tive implementation practices. In an indirect service capacity, school psy- chologists can promote and support the development of the competencies needed for MTSS to be effective. This can be accomplished through specific competency drivers, such as selection, training, coaching, and performance assessment.
In MTSS, it is important to understand who is best able to provide screening/assessment, intervention, progress monitoring, and evaluation pro- cedures in promoting the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral health of all students. The selection of team members who will lead by example
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 165
as well as promote the value of the approach is integral to the success of the system change. The critical aspect for selection is to focus upon the individual’s ability to fulfill the functions of the role, not the person’s current position or title. Thus, school psychologists play an important role in the selection of appropriate personnel for positions as coaches and/or members on MTSS teams.
Due to their knowledge base, expertise, and educational background, school psychologists often serve as providers of professional development content to school staff. This training is essential in building infrastructure and is often done in a gradated manner, with designated individuals receiving outside, in-depth training and then using the trainer’s model (Castillo et al., 2012).
Once trained, for implementation to be successful, ongoing support and coaching is necessary. School psychologists are well positioned to serve in the role of coach in areas of assessment and intervention. Many skills required in MTSS are new to school-based personnel and ongoing support allows for scaffolded application of new learning. It has been shown that when there is sustained support for new practices, the fidelity of implemen- tation increases significantly (Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Merrell, 2008).
Often fulfilling roles as problem-solving team facilitator, professional development trainer, and/or ongoing coach, school psychologists utilize their knowledge of evaluation to assist in the final competency driver, perfor- mance assessment. Related to the delivery of MTSS practices, performance assessment is provided at a variety of different levels: student progress and outcomes, fidelity of instruction and/or intervention supports, fidelity of problem-solving process within teams, and staff perceptions of the effec- tiveness and acceptability of MTSS supports.
Ensuring Organization Support for MTSS
It is widely regarded that the actions of a building principal play a key role in effective systemic change within schools (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Stollar et al., 2008). In a complementary role to school psychologists, principals often utilize their training and expertise to function within schools to promote MTSS practices from an organizational driver perspective. Organizational drivers include (a) systems intervention, (b) facilitative administration, and (c) decision-making data systems. Clearly, principals establish organizational support for MTSS implementation by providing facilitative administration, but administrators also play major roles in providing a systems interven- tion orientation and selecting, financing, and utilizing decision-making data systems.
In general, facilitative administrators provide support in the form of proactive, enthusiastic, and dynamic attention to the barriers and organiza- tional climate related to effective implementation of MTSS by school staff.
166 J. W. Eagle et al.
This support addresses needs related to the effective implementation and sustainability of competency drivers through policy decisions, allocation of resources, procedural considerations, and addressing system culture issues. Organizational support also includes actively seeking input and feedback (particularly related to staff satisfaction) from different systems within the organization and using the information to make appropriate modifications to organizational activities.
Within the control of the school leader is the decision-making author- ity around the allocation of resources, including those related to finances, building space, and personnel. How a principal divides up resources among competing interests and needs impacts the potential investment of faculty and staff toward MTSS initiatives. Financial resources allocated by principals related to MTSS include (but are certainly not limited to) professional de- velopment funds, cost of core curricula and supplementary interventions, purchase of data management systems (e.g., School-Wide Information Sys- tem, AIMSweb, STAR), supplies related to MTSS activities, and financing substitute teachers during times of staff professional development. Space in school buildings remains a premium, and building administration can systemically support MTSS implementation by providing adequate locations for staff professional development, dedicated areas for student support (both at the targeted group and individual levels of support), dedicated and tech- nologically sufficient areas for MTSS team meetings, and additional space needed for MTSS activities (e.g., check-in/check-out, data entry). Addition- ally, MTSS initiatives require the allocation of personnel to engage in dif- ferent activities than their traditional position. For example, school psy- chologists might be utilized in roles related to professional development trainings.
District- and building-level administrators are in positions that can en- hance MTSS implementation and provide structures within school sched- ules that can assist the sustainability of systems-level change. Among these are establishing specified intervention periods (or blocks) to allow targeted group-based supports or individualized intensive supports to be provided to students. Principals can also establish consistent schedules for common team planning and MTSS team meeting times. The consistency of these meetings establishes a routine that promotes communication, collaboration, and the fidelity of team-based, problem-solving processes. Further, building admin- istrators need to provide adequate time for staff competency development, via training and ongoing coaching.
Effective Leadership in MTSS Reform Efforts
Today’s educational leaders operate in a post-A Nation at Risk (1984) and post-No Child Left Behind (2001) environment. Of paramount importance in this system are high-stakes testing results that demonstrate marked im-
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 167
provement on a yearly basis and the increased accountability of the school principal. This all occurs amidst meager budgets, lower teacher morale, and increased teacher turnover, and increased numbers of at-risk students (Tucker & Codding, 2003).
New paradigms of school leadership (several born out of the business literature) abound. Most reference and promote these overlapping terms: ‘‘shared leadership’’ (Sergiovanni, 2005), ‘‘distributed leadership’’ (Spillane, 2006), and ‘‘leverage leadership’’ (Marzano, 2005). All of these models see the principal akin to a symphony concertmaster, ensuring that everyone is doing his/her job just right—not too fast, not too loud—in harmony with the other players. Integral to this model is the principal’s ability to leverage the expertise (e.g., knowledge, skills, and dispositions) of those in the building. Their primary leadership functions include setting the direction, then identifying those who can share in the work of improving teaching and learning. Indeed, distributed leadership embodies the collaborative nature in which principals and school psychologists provide leadership drivers for the implementation of MTSS.
In order to be successful in the current educational climate, a paradigm shift within educational leadership training and practice has occurred related to the conceptualization of the roles and responsibilities of a principal. A distinction has been made between ‘‘leadership’’ and ‘‘management’’ and an understanding that they both represent distinct knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In short, ‘‘leadership’’ refers to the bigger-picture, strategic, visioning domains (who, what, and why), while ‘‘management’’ deals with operations and tactics (how and when). In a similar manner, implementation science views leadership drivers in two categories: adaptive and technical. Adaptive leadership is synonymous with the above ‘‘leadership’’ denotation and represents the facets of leadership related to the direction of the school through systemic reform via adherence to vision, motivation, enthusiasm, and establishing building consensus. Technical leadership is tantamount to ‘‘management’’ and is centered upon the procedures required to implement innovations effectively at the practice level. In MTSS reform many of the aspects of adaptive and technical leadership are fulfilled by the roles of both principals and schools psychologists.
One of the most critical roles for adaptive leadership is to manage expectations and ‘‘keep the plane flying while it is being built.’’ In his groundbreaking book, ‘‘Leading in a Culture of Change,’’ Michael Fullan (2001) presents a model depicting leadership’s function within an institution and the favorable results that come when the role is successfully carried out. Fullan acknowledged that 100% approval ratings and success measures are impossible in times of competing interests and limited resources. Instead, he established the following goal: ‘‘More good things happen; fewer bad things happen.’’ Through energy, enthusiasm, and hope and the commitment from school faculty/staff and external stakeholders (e.g., parents and com-
168 J. W. Eagle et al.
munity members), leadership can maintain the system’s persistence toward the school’s vision.
This framework for establishing realistic expectations within system change is consistent with adaptive leadership in implementation science that promotes leadership to manage expectations and ‘‘manage the awk- wardness’’ (Blase & Goodman, 2013) of the implementation stages of MTSS reform. Effective leadership understands that systemic change is a slow, deliberate process and that even though it won’t always go smoothly, it will get better over time as staff gain more competencies, experience, and efficiency with the process.
Many school staff participating in the implementation of MTSS may find their professional roles modified to a certain degree. Principals and school psychologists are in prime leadership roles to encourage, facilitate, and reinforce staff for altering their previous, traditional responsibilities. They also have the ability to provide staff with additional professional development opportunities to assist them in building capacity for their new roles.
Implementing MTSS Within a Consultation Process
School-based consultation provides a structured approach for the delivery of prevention-based interventions (Meyers, Meyers, & Grogg, 2004). Within the school consultation literature, several models offer important implications for primary prevention and the delivery of services within a tiered frame- work, including mental health consultation (Caplan, 1970), school-based problem-solving consultation (Kratochwill, 2008), organizational consulta- tion (Meyers et al., 2012), and team-based approaches such as pre-referral intervention teams (PITs; Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). Notably, the focus of consultation within these models may vary to inform deci- sions across multiple tiers. For example, a client-centered approach may inform decisions at an individual student level, a consultee-centered ap- proach at a classroom level, or systems-centered approach at a school- wide level. Although there are some nuanced differences between problem- solving activities emphasized in the school consultation literature and those in tiered frameworks such as MTSS (Erchul, 2011), a key similarity is the systematic use of a stage-wise process consisting of problem identifica- tion, problem analysis, plan development, plan implementation, and plan evaluation.
Given the shared use of structured problem-solving procedures and a growing body of evidence suggesting a multi-tiered system can be imple- mented through a consultation process (Kratochwill, 2008), the authors pro- pose that school-based, problem-solving consultation offers one approach that can be used to collaborate with other key stakeholders when imple- menting systems-level reforms. The following fictional case study is intended to illustrate best practices by depicting the roles of school psychologists and
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 169
principals in implementing MTSS within a consultation process, as well as the connections between those roles and implementation science.
Background Information
John Doe High School is located in a large urban district, serving 1,900 students in ninth through 12th grade. Approximately 14% of the students receive special education services and 2% of the population is English Lan- guage Learners (ELLs). The school is currently in its third year of imple- menting MTSS reforms. The building-level team is comprised of the prin- cipal, school psychologist, two general education teachers and one special education teacher. The team meets on a monthly basis to review data re- lated to implementation and outcomes associated with MTSS practices. The school psychologist serves as the team leader, facilitating the problem-solving process.
Problem/Needs Identification
During a monthly problem-solving meeting, the building-level team dis- cussed a growing concern related to high rates of student absenteeism and disengagement. Several team members expressed that poor attendance may increase students’ risk for dropping out and poor learning outcomes due to missed instructional opportunities. To determine the extent of the problem, the MTSS team examined several sources of school data that may be related to disengagement, including students who (a) attend school less than 80% of the time, (b) averaged 3 or more office discipline referrals (ODRs) per month, or (c) were failing one or more classes. A review of the data revealed that approximately 80 students met all three criteria. Of those students, almost half were currently receiving special education services. The team decided to target a reduction in ‘‘disengagement,’’ which it defined as students who attended less than 80% of the time, averaged 3 or more ODRs, and were failing at least one class. To make the process more manageable, the team decided to focus on a pilot group of students who met the above listed criteria and were currently receiving special education services. The team planned to track students’ level of disengagement via ODRs, attendance records, and course grades via the school information management sys- tem (IMS).
Roles supporting implementation. Systems-level consultation within a tiered framework requires both knowledge of MTSS intervention components and effective implementation practices. During the initial phase of problem solving, the school psychologist provided content expertise by facilitating the problem-solving process with fidelity, operationally defining the target concern, establishing systematic selection procedures to identify students that will receive the intervention, and using data to validate the problem
170 J. W. Eagle et al.
and establish baseline levels of performance (competency driver: perfor- mance assessment). Similarly, the principal played a key role in providing organizational support by ensuring the team had sufficient time to meet, substitute teachers to cover team members’ classes during meeting times (organizational driver: facilitative administration), and had access to data to inform the team’s decisions (organizational driver: decision support data system).
Problem/Needs Analysis
Analysis phase. During the problem analysis phase, a multisource and multi-informant process was used to identify factors that may be influencing attendance rates and engagement levels for the group of students targeted for the intervention. Data sources included academic data (e.g., grades, course failures, credit accrual) and interviews with case managers/special education teachers. Factors believed to trigger high rates of absenteeism and disen- gagement included (a) limited connections to the school (e.g., not involved in any extracurricular activities), (b) limited positive interactions between the students and building staff, (c) instructional mismatch between students’ skills and tasks presented to them, (d) low levels of student motivation, and (e) low levels of family involvement in the students’ education. Con- sequences associated with high absenteeism and disengagement included missed instructional opportunities, failing grades, and low levels of work completion.
The school psychologist shared several evidence-based interventions targeting increased student attendance and engagement. The team discussed several factors that may influence intervention selection and implementation, such as (a) time to implement the intervention, (b) personnel with the expertise needed to implement the plan, (c) cost of intervention materials, and (d) strategies to assess progress and monitor fidelity. Based on these criteria, the team selected Check & Connect (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012) as the Tier 2 intervention.
Plan development phase. Check & Connect is a comprehensive inter- vention model designed to promote students’ engagement with school. The key components of the intervention include (a) ‘‘Check,’’ which refers to systematic monitoring of a student’s educational and behavioral progress via alterable variables, such as absences, behavioral referrals, and grades; and (b) ‘‘Connect,’’ which refers to building the capacity for problem solving within the student in an individualized and timely manner. This is achieved through establishing a trust-based, mutual relationship between a student and a mentor and providing a persistent source of motivation. After select- ing the intervention, the team decided to modify their original data col- lection strategy. Rather than reporting on the three sources of data via the IMS system, the team opted to monitor progress using the ‘‘Check &
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 171
Connect High School Monitoring Form,’’ which tracks several additional alterable indicators of student engagement, such as academic data (i.e., number of Ds and Fs, number of missing assignments, cumulative grades, credit accrual), behavior data (i.e., unexcused absences, tardies, office dis- cipline referrals), and communication data (i.e., contact with students and families).
As part of the plan development phase, the team reviewed the roles and personnel required to implement the intervention. The school psychologist agreed to be the intervention coordinator, responsible for selecting and training the mentors, overseeing fidelity, and monitoring progress toward goals. Given the emphasis on enhancing relationships with adults in the building, several of the students’ case managers/special education teachers were asked if they would be willing to serve as mentors. Mentor respon- sibilities included weekly checks of data using the monitoring form and weekly meetings with the student to share the data, support problem solving, and discuss the importance of school. An Excel file based on the Check & Connect monitoring form was developed by the school psychologist to support data collection efforts. The tool was also used to monitor the fidelity of intervention implementation, as mentors were required to check off the days of the week that specific activities occurred.
Roles supporting implementation. During the problem analysis stage, the school psychologist supported effective implementation by facilitating the problem-solving process with fidelity, suggesting an intervention that has a strong evidence base, and using alterable indicators of student engage- ment to monitor progress (competency driver: performance assessment). The principal facilitated implementation by providing funds for the ancillary costs associated with intervention implementation, and leveraging existing personnel resources to serve as the intervention coordinator and monitors. Specifically, the building administrator released the special education teach- ers from other duties (e.g., bus duty) and agreed to provide a small stipend to the Check & Connect coordinator and mentors (organizational driver: facilitative administration).
Plan Implementation
During the plan implementation stage, the school psychologist operated as a consultee-centered consultant when the consultation focus shifted to developing the skills and competencies of the mentors in Check & Connect intervention procedures. This was accomplished by (a) jointly (with the MTSS team) selecting case managers/special education teachers with the personal characteristics and willingness to serve as monitors (competency driver: selection); (b) providing training to the mentors that was skills based and incorporated adult learning principles (competency driver: training); (c) offering ongoing coaching and technical assistance by observing the
172 J. W. Eagle et al.
mentors, providing feedback on their performance, and assisting with the development of intervention materials (competency driver: coaching); and (d) participating in weekly meetings to review student outcome data and fidelity data collected via the monitoring form (competency driver: perfor- mance assessment).
In addition to jointly selecting staff as mentors (competency driver: selection), the principal also ensured adequate time for the school psychol- ogist to provide training to the mentors (organizational driver: facilitative administration). In addition, the principal eased concerns related to changing roles of the staff serving as monitors (leadership driver: adaptive).
Plan Evaluation
During the plan evaluation phase, the team collaboratively evaluated the outcomes related to the MTSS Tier 2 intervention: Check & Connect. First, the team assessed the fidelity of implementation for the Check & Connect intervention. A synthesis of data from the Check & Connect Monitoring Sheet was presented at the meeting. Specifically, the team determined that mentors met with their students to check in at least 80% of the time. Second, the team reviewed the Monitoring Sheet to evaluate student progress, assess patterns of risk, and establish decision rules to determine if particular students would benefit from more individualized supports. Results indicated that the majority of students met their individual goals on the indicators (e.g., grades, ODRs, attendance). However, 5 students did not respond to the basic level of intervention and were considered high risk and in need of a more intensive intervention. In these cases, the intensive version of ‘‘Check & Connect’’ was implemented. Each of the five students received additional supports, de- pending upon the area of need. Examples included more intensive problem solving with families and staff, facilitation of goal setting, and/or referral to mental health supports outside of the school. Finally, the team then discussed how to share and disseminate the results with key stakeholders (e.g., larger school staff, families, students).
Roles supporting implementation. The school psychologist had previ- ously provided the Check & Connect monitoring sheet to staff implementing the intervention, compiled the datasheets over time, synthesized the data, and presented the data to the team (competency driver: performance assess- ment). The principal gave the team access to the data management systems needed (organizational driver: decision-making data system) so that the team was able to review outcome data related to the alterable outcome variables targeted by the intervention. The school psychologist facilitated team dis- cussion pertaining to specific decision rules regarding particular students’ response or nonresponse to the Check & Connect intervention. The school psychologist then informed team members of the school’s procedures related to informing families about their child’s performance and educational policy
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 173
related to obtaining parental consent for the provision of more intensive supports (leadership driver: technical).
DISCUSSION
The continued philosophical, political, and practical impetus for MTSS re- form has brought renewed interest in systems-level consultation and the roles that educational personnel undertake within these initiatives. School psychologists and educational leaders provide critical content knowledge and leadership for effective implementation of MTSS practices. Founded on a problem-solving framework, systems-level MTSS implementation is guided by both a problem-solving framework (consistent with a behavioral consul- tation model), and an implementation science framework. Within an im- plementation science paradigm, principals and school psychologists pro- vide distinct expertise in competency (school psychologists) and organiza- tional (principals) drivers and complementary and collaborative skills within leadership drivers. These professions also serve essential and pivotal roles throughout problem-solving practices within MTSS. The problem-solving practice within behavioral consultation and the systemic development pro- vided through implementation science are not exclusive of one another, just as the roles and functions of principals and school psychologists complement each other throughout MTSS reform.
Implications for Training
Both principals and school psychologists play a significant role in MTSS reform. It would be beneficial for each discipline to have a stronger knowl- edge base related to each other’s training, areas of expertise, and pro- fessional roles. By training in interdisciplinary environments, future school psychologists and principals can gain better perspectives of their potential complementary and collaborative activities. It would be most beneficial if this training occurred within the framework of systems reform, as both disciplines would significantly benefit from more comprehensive content knowledge, training, and experience in implementation science.
The background of school psychologists in facilitating team-based, problem-solving activities with fidelity is necessary for the effective imple- mentation of MTSS practices. School psychology courses in consultation should emphasize not only the problem-solving process of a behavioral consultation model, but other process variables related to providing con- sultative services in teams. This would include content such as developing collaboration among a variety of individuals, moderating relational variables among team members, and effective use of social influence to build team consensus. A comprehensive approach to consultation training including
174 J. W. Eagle et al.
systems-level, consultee-focused, and client-focused consultation models would be preferential to support effective preservice training for school psychologists working in schools implementing a MTSS framework.
Principal and educational leadership training would be enhanced if graduate programs extended the amount of content related to both the structure of MTSS practices and aspects of effective implementation and sus- tainability. Although principals are able to delegate different responsibilities within MTSS reform, deeper knowledge of competency drivers as pertaining to MTSS practices will enable them to make effective adaptive leadership decisions.
Implications for Future Research
A systems perspective of MTSS reform, via implementation science, has significant implications for future research in the area of consultation. Al- though developed from a problem-solving framework, consultation practices within MTSS implementation provide unique environments and challenges. As much of the problem-solving structure within MTSS is team-based, future research should focus on the aspects of group dynamics (particularly related to collaboration and team leadership) that lead to effective outcomes. Much of MTSS team-based practices are based upon the efficient use of time and resources, indicating that future research should address streamlining the problem-solving process while maintaining fidelity of the process and intervention implementation. Further, a large part of consultation within MTSS involves building capacity within school staff to implement practices or interventions with fidelity. Thus, it would be important to assess whether the provision of professional development trainings, based on adult learning principles, within MTSS provide changes in staff behavior, and if those changes are sustainable over time.
REFERENCES
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Blase, K., & Goodman, S. (2013). Stages of implementation: Initial implementation. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.signetwork.org/event_calendar/ events/728.
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., Minch, D., & Hines, C. (2012). Problem solving: Response to intervention evaluation tool
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 175
technical assistance manual (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.floridarti. usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/ta_manual_revised2012.
Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive
student engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Imple- mentation Science, 1, 1.
Erchul, W. P. (2011). School consultation and response to intervention: A tale of two literatures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21,
191–208. Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A. (2008). Drivers framework. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina, The National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield,
S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 77–100.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a time of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gamm, S., Elliott, J., Halbert, J. W., Price-Baugh, R., Hall, R., Walstron, D., Uro, G., & Casserly, M. (2012). Common core state standards and diverse urban students:
Using multi-tiered systems of support. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Exceptional Children, 51, 377– 384.
Green, J. (2012). Editorial: Science, implementation, and implementation science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 333–336.
Gresham, F. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDer-
Heyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Springer.
Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in
early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146. Knotek, S. E., Kaniuka, M., & Ellingsen, K. (2008). Mental health consultation and
consultee-centered approaches. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of
research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 127– 145). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consulta- tion: Applications in prevention and intervention systems. In A. Thomas & J.
176 J. W. Eagle et al.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1673–1688). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2003). A school-wide intervention with primary and
secondary levels of support for elementary students: Outcomes and considera- tions. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 431–451.
Marzano, R. J. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexan- dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and inci-
dence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146–154.
McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanon, H. (2010). Toward true integration of
academic and behavior response to intervention systems, Pt 3: Tier 3 support. Communiqué, 39, 30–31.
Meyers, A. B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., Proctor, S. L., & Huttleston, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in
educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 106–124.
Meyers, J., Meyers, A. B., & Grogg, K. (2004). Prevention through consultation: A model to guide future developments in the field of school psychology. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 257–276. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Standards for graduate prepa-
ration of school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. L., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achieve-
ment of K–12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73.
O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in support- ing and sustaining RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–
310. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revi-
talizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved from http:// www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinal
report.pdf. Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A
classwide consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37, 315–332.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together
in schools. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Three- tier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive
Interventions, 9, 239–252. Stollar, S. A., Schaeffer. K. R., Skelton, S. M., Stine, K. C., Lateer-Huhn, L., & Poth, R. L.
(2008). Best practices in professional development: An integrated, three-tiered model of academic and behavior supports. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 875–886). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 177
Sugai, G. (2009). Reaching all students: RTI & SWPBS. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from http://www.pbis.org/pbis_resource_detail_page.aspx?Type=1&PBIS_ ResourceID=807.
Tucker, M., & Codding, J. (2003). The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psycho-
logical Consultation, 20, 58–74. Winitzky, N., Sheridan, S., Crow, N., Welch, M., & Kennedy, C. (1995). Interdisci-
plinary collaboration: Variations on a theme. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 109–119.
John W. Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. He serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode Island State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks.
Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. She serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode Island State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks.
Andrew Snyder, EdD, directs the Educational Leadership Program at Rhode Island College. A former middle school principal, Dr. Snyder teaches courses in change leadership, ethics, and community partnerships.
Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. Her interests include interdisciplinary training in assisting school staff to provide effective supports in educational settings.
Note : The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this article.
