Discussion 1: Leadership Competencies

' " ' '

0 7

0 �

: ,. �111(...{)1 / ,/ //,,/,,::/Jill

LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

325

Conclusion

As you've no doubt experienced, academic and behavior supports are most often implemented

in parallel systems that typically work independently of each other. We have shown that aca­

demic RTI and PBIS can be integrated and that doing so can optimize systems and improve

student outcomes. However, we do not want to simply force full integration without considering

whether it will produce better outcomes than parallel systems. Instead, we believe that the best

outcomes can be achieved by strategically considering what to integrate and how best to do it,

based on each school and district's unique context. This viewpoint has been strengthened for us

over the course of writing this book. This final chapter summarizes lessons we've learned along

the way and what lies ahead for integration in the future.

KEY LESSONS IN INTEGRATING SYSTEMS

We have focused on identifying the key features of integrated MTSS models and their efficient

and effective implementation, while understanding that variations are needed depending on

priorities, resources, and local capacity. There are many excellent resources that describe aca­

demic RTI and PBIS separately. At every turn, we have pushed each other to go beyond simply

describing both systems in the same book and calling that integration. Instead, we have tried

to explore what true integration really means and what that would look like from the individual

student level to the district level. In the process of getting it all down on paper, six key lessons

that we have learned about integrated MTS S models have become clear.

Lesson 1: Integrate Strategically

The first lesson is the notion that an integrated approach is best accomplished strategically.

Although maintaining parallel systems is less efficient and can add to conflict and confusion

about priorities and responsibilities, we need to make sure that integration adds real value. In

327

328 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

theory, full integration improves effectiveness, efficiency, and ease of use, but we can't afford

to add more complexity to educational systems that are already stressed. Strategic integration

is thus a viable middle road between parallel systems and full integration. In strategic integra­

tion, we look for the easiest and most logical aspects to integrate before taking on more painful

change. In our experience, it is easier to start by integrating systems at Tiers 2 and 3 than at Tier

1. Because of the importance of considering individual needs of the whole child when planning

support, we do better when we have the same team looking at both types of data, with more

options for intervention. Using this planful, sequential, and systematic approach can avoid an

undue burden on teachers and educational systems.

Lesson 2: Function Is More Important Than Form

As we have discussed in the case study chapters, schools and districts implement integrated

MTSS models in different ways. In our experience, it is more important to focus on implement­

ing critical features and addressing key functions than trying to replicate the exact form of these

examples. The case studies illustrate a wide range of how different districts and states integrate

systems, and each study is based on its particular context, including policy, priority, and capac­

ity. We acknowledge and have come to appreciate that integration takes place in different forms.

Instead of stipulating one way to do it, it is probably better to identify how the various elements

described in this book could fit with the local school or district context and then be open to the

shape that develops.

Lesson 3: Lead with a Team

We have learned that any initiative is better supported by a team working as a unit than by a sin­

gle, motivated leader or a group of individuals working separately. The number and makeup of

teams will vary from school to school and district to district, but the critical features underlying

integrated MTSS models are the use of teams and effective teaming processes. It is unreason­

able and unfair to rely on teachers' heroic individual performances every single day. Although

the bottom line of education is to provide the individual student with high-quality instruction

by the educator, we know that this outcome is more attainable and sustainable through a collab­

orative schoolwide approach guided by school leadership teams, which are supported in their

implementation by district teams.

Lesson 4: Focus on Doing a Few Things Well

An important lesson is that we should not only choose the most effective practices, but also cre­

ate the systems needed to support implementation of the practices with fidelity. Whenever we

choose to implement a practice, we should do it with as much commitment to ensuring fidelity

as possible. With current levels of educational funding, we do not have the resources to imple­

ment every good idea or everything that that we would like to do. This acknowledgment means

that we are better off implementing fewer initiatives well than more initiatives poorly. It also

highlights the importance of increasing the support provided to educators, embedding MTSS into existing structures and key initiatives, and removing barriers to implementation.

Conclusion 32

Lesson 5: Integration Is Hard Work

Integration has at least a few things going for it. Both academic RTI and PBIS share common

features that make them easier to integrate (e.g., team approach, focus on effective instructional

practices, data-based decision making). In addition, for most schools, integration will be viewed

as building on previous successes. However, all change is difficult, even when we know that

this change will lead to improvement in outcomes we value. There are so many tasks competing

for our time, focus, and energy. Integration requires new learning and negotiating new roles in

collaboration. There is always resistance to doing things differently, as well as turf wars when

budgets are merged. At times, we may need to seek support from administrators with the level

of authority to force us to work together for the benefit of students. At times, it may seem easier

to go back to the status quo of having separate systems. George Batsche uses the analogy that

an integrated MTSS model is like a blended family: At the end of the day, somebody's couch is going to end up on the curb. Any change is hard, but it is even more difficult to give up or share

ownership of systems that have produced such great student outcomes. It is important not to

gloss over this very real challenge to integration.

Lesson 6: Integration Is Worth the Effort

Given the hard work involved in integration, it is easy to overlook what is gained from it. Yet

there are so many advantages to taking on the challenge. An integrated MTSS model holds

amazing promise for improving student outcomes and developing more efficient, effective, and

sustainable systems. As we discussed in Chapter 2, research supports the effectiveness of an

integrated MTSS approach over parallel systems. If we return to George Batsche's metaphor of a

blended family, when we integrate, we might lose a couch but gain a nice big-screen TV. During

times of uncertainty about integration, we need to help people focus on what is gained rather

than only on what could be lost in the process.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW

Although we've learned much about an integrated approach over the past few years, this under­

standing is still emerging, and we all still need to know more about refining the process and

implementation roles for key individuals, such as teachers and administrators. Many more ques­

tions remain. As we've described, integrated models have considerable promise, and they will

have even more potential once the following important questions are answered.

Data

We probably know more about the collection and use of data than we know about any other

feature of an integrated MTSS model. There are established tools for assessing student out­

comes and fidelity of implementation across domains and content areas, and the analysis pro­

cess and decision rules generalize fairly well. In addition, it is clear that having integrated

data warehouses to store and access the different data sources would be incredibly helpful for

teams. However, there are many obstacles to making this vision a reality. Data systems are typi­

330 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

cally created to collect, store, and summarize specific sources of data; however, they are often incompatible with other data systems. These systems do not typically interact effectively with one another. Moreover, technologies for making data systems compatible across systems and third-party vendors (i.e., technology companies) are always shifting, and thus there is currently no standard for integration. In some cases, there is a disincentive for vendors to allow integra­ tion because of the cost of updating software code, as well as their interest in marketing their own products. We need to learn how to encourage a concerted effort from districts and states to demand that vendors allow and facilitate integration across different data systems.

Practices

When discussing integrated MTSS models, it is fairly easy to consider behavior and literacy together in the elementary grades, but straying too far from these content areas and age groups (particularly in academics) highlights how much we need to know about effective interven­ tions across the spectrum of domains and school types. Although the same principles of effec­ tive instruction apply, it appears that there are enough differences between literacy and other content areas that we need to vary our practices. However, we can build on our experiences implementing systems in literacy and behavior to help us when we implement in less familiar ground. Yet moving from elementary to middle and high schools presents challenges to our fundamental ideas about prevention and what interventions are feasible in complex systems (Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2010). We need to know more about what adaptations are needed to implement RTI systems with adolescents. The organizational struc­ tures and the focus of high schools on content-rich courses require more attention to building an array of effective practices geared to secondary students.

Teaming

Along with other researchers and practitioners, we note that a team approach is absolutely essential for implementing any kind of educational systems change. We also recommend that schools and districts take advantage of existing teaming structures instead of creating new teams solely for the purpose of implementing integrated MTSS. However, there are times when add­ ing too many items to one team's agenda prevents the team from addressing any item fully. Can a school leadership team that works effectively on Tier ! literacy also add behavior support and still function well? What about adding mathematics? Written expression? Tier 2? Tier 3? We don't have the evidence base to tell us the perfect configuration or the right balance between effectiveness and efficiency. Future research in integrated MTSS models may not identify one optimal teaming structure for every school (or even most schools), but hopefully at least some empirical guidance will emerge.

Integration

A great deal of time and effort go into the process of implementing integrated MTSS models. We can.suggest how to begin this process based on our own experiences, but these suggestions represent our best guess, without research indicating the most empirically supported approach. Is it best to invest in an individual domain first before integration? If so, is it better to start with

331 Conclusion

behavior or academics? Or do we invest in an integrated MTSS model from the start rather than

building on successes from individual systems? These are large questions that need large-scale

research to answer. However, we may very well find that each answer depends on the context. In many cases, thoughtful teams can make wise decisions about the particulars of integration

when they have the right data.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INTEGRATED MTSS MODELS

As this work on integration is emerging, it will become increasingly important to expand the

general concept of integration beyond literacy and behavior, furthering the work into numeracy, writing, and content-area instruction. We feel that the future will include work in both integra­

tion and alignment in areas that cut across special and general education systems in education and other fields. By integration, we mean that each system's actual components are blended to

create a functional single system. By alignment, we mean that the core features of systems are

systematically compared, adjusted, and coordinated for effective and efficient parallel perfor­

mance without friction, all within an overall system with the same overarching goals. We men­

tion alignment here because when we move beyond systems within education, state and federal

laws or structures may not allow true integration across social service agencies. There are two

main areas that we suggest for future MTSS work: (1) integrating vertically and horizontally

to form comprehensive educational systems and (2) expanding beyond educational systems to

social service agencies and public health services.

Integrating to Form Comprehensive Educational Systems

In this book, the primary unit of implementation has been the school level, and the primary unit

of support has been the district level. This focus is a perfectly reasonable starting point (espe ­ cially for school personnel), but at some point, mature initiatives would strongly benefit from

integrating and aligning at regional, state, and federal levels (McIntosh, Mercer, et al., in press). There are many serious challenges in education that cannot be tackled sustainably without a broad systems approach, which often means coordination with policymakers. For example, we

should take the opportunity to learn how to best embed an integrated MTSS model within new

state curriculum and college and career readiness standards to clarify how MTSS connects with

these standards. Another example of integrating comprehensive systems involves linking MTSS

with teacher evaluation schemes. Instead of simply viewing evaluation as a dubious way to

identify and remove underperforming teachers, districts and states can link evaluation criteria

to objective MTSS competencies and then identify professional development activities that will

enhance effectiveness.

Expanding beyond Educational Systems

At the federal level, there has been a recent emphasis on collaborating across agencies to improve outcomes for students even further. For example, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice have collaborated on the Supportive School Discipline Initiative (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011) and Nondiscriminatory Provision of School Discipline (U.S. Departments of

332 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

Education and Justice, 2014). The knowledge gained through implementing integrated MTSS

systems within a school setting may contribute to leveraging integration with systems that exist

outside of education but also serve students and their families. The interconnected systems framework (Barrett et al., 2013) shows how school teams using a PBIS approach can work col­

laboratively with community-based mental health providers and other social services. Some social problems (e.g., homelessness, poverty, community violence, and substance abuse) clearly affect student learning but are so enormous that they require more resources and approaches

than can be addressed through education alone. However, working in an integrated approach

with other agencies has significant potential to improve outcomes on a societal level. Although such cross-agency integration and alignment makes good sense, it will require new approaches

to addressing barriers to integration, such as constraints in how funds are utilized.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Regardless of what we still need to know and the enormity of these new directions, we are thor­ oughly optimistic about education and the role of integrated MTSS models in it. When looking back at the history of systems in schools shared in Chapter 1, we see that previous challenges included agreeing on what constitutes valid measures and effective practices. Although these debates are not fully settled, the tools and strategies available to today's educators are more advanced than ever before. In the same way, we have made progress in terms of developing systems for implementing academic and behavior models that have been shown to improve stu­ dent outcomes. Academic RTI and PBIS represent true sea changes in education. We also better understand the systems required to ensure that effective practices can be implemented with fidelity and durability. This work is difficult, but it has advanced from simply developing effec­

tive practices and accurate measures, to developing these systems for effective. implementation of practices and data, and now to the challenge of integrating them for even more effectiveness

and efficiency. Although any single content area or instructional strategy is important, we know

that it is the combination of each and all of these that defines a comprehensive and quality education. This blending of our work is one of the key promises of integration. There are many paths to integrated MTSS models and improved student outcomes, and we hope that this book is useful as a roadmap for the work ahead.