Assignment: Course Project – Collaboration for Effective Implementation of School-wide Support Systems

.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

237 Integrating Entire Systems

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

CORE COMPONENTS 238

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

239 Integrating Entire Systems

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

240 CORE COMPONENTS

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

Activities

Exploration/

Focus Stage

•Understand implementation requirements. Adoption •Evaluate "goodness of fit."

•Develop implementation commitment. Should we

do it?

Work to do it right!

Work to do !t better!

Installation • Create leadership teams and data systems. •Audit current resources and capacity. •Plan and prepare for implementation.

•Test the practices on a small scale to learn best Implementation Initial

methods for broad implementation. •Provide intensive support to implementers.

Elaboration •Expand to new areas, individuals, and times. •Adjust practices and systems based on initial implementation.

Continuous •Make it more effective and efficient. Regeneration •Embed within current practices.

•Adjust to changing contexts.

FIGURE 7.2. Stages of implementation.

241 Integrating Entire Systems

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 particular program, allows the team to assess both the level

of student need as well as what types of supports will best address the need. Once student outcomes have been identified and a need for change is established, the team

can then evaluate possible approaches for improving outcomes, including integrating current

systems. Figure 7.3 (adapted from the National Implementation Research Network's hexagon tool; Blase, Kiser, & Van Dyke, 2013) illustrates the key areas that should be addressed when evaluating a new practice or model for adoption. There are six components of the new approach to consider. Three of the components (the shaded triangles) address the question, "Is it the right thing to do?" This question generally explores the goodness of fit between the practice and the needs of the school or district. The other three components address a related question, "Can we

do it in the right way?" This question assesses what would be needed to implement the practice

or model both fully and durably. Table 7.1 guides implementation teams through using this tool to evaluate whether particular practices or models are worth adopting.

Capacity to implement

FIGURE 7.3. Hexagon tool for evaluating adoption of practices. Adapted with permission from Karen A. Blase from Blase, Kiser, and Van Dyke (2013).

243Integrating Entire Systems

TABLE 7.1. Using the Hexagon Tool for Exploration and Adoption Decisions

The following steps can be used to guide exploration teams through the evaluation process shown in the hexagon tool in Figure 7.1. If multiple options are being evaluated, the process is repeated for each practice (or model).

"Is it the right thing to do?"

• Student need. Consider the previously collected student outcomes data and assess whether the proposed practice meets these needs. Practices may generally be good ideas and worth implementing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will address the specific needs of students that have been identified.

• Evidence of effectiveness. Use the criteria described in Chapter 4 to evaluate the practice's potential to improve student outcomes. Given the investment in resources that is necessary to implement new initiatives well, it is absolutely critical to select the options that are most likely to be effective.

• Fit with current initiatives. Assess how the practice aligns with current initiatives by completing the MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet in Appendix 7.1 (see p. 264). First, list all existing school or district initiatives in the rows. For each current initiative, note its intended recipients, outcome measure(s) used to gauge success, and whether it is a mandated (i.e., required) initiative. Next, describe how the potential practice aligns with each existing initiative (e.g., does it conflict with or duplicate efforts?), and what value it adds for each existing initiative. Once complete, consider whether the proposed practice (1) meets a need, (2) could be integrated with or replace an existing initiative, and (3) could make other initiatives (especially mandated ones) better. This value added can be shared with administrators, staff, and the school community to mobilize support for a new practice. In addition, identify any initiatives that can be removed or modified to make room for a new initiative.

"Can we do it in the right way?"

• Capacity to implement. Assess existing skill levels of school personnel in practice implementation, which existing systems could support implementation, and what components of the practice may already be in place. In many cases, schools already have some effective practices or structures in place that can be used or adapted for the new initiative. Complete a self-assessment of fidelity of implementation to understand more about the practices and which critical features are already being implemented (see Chapter 3 for tools). These tools can also be used for needs assessment. For example, the PBIS Self Assessment Survey (Sugai, Horner, & Todd, 2000) includes ratings for each critical feature of PBIS that assess both whether the feature is already in place and the perceived priority for implementation. This information can be shared again with the team to document support for implementation, as well as build the habits of collecting and using data for decision making. Having low capacity to implement does not mean that the practice shouldn't be implemented, but it does mean that additional resources and supports may be needed to compensate.

• Readiness for replication. Consider how easily the practice can be put into place in the school or multiple schools in the district. Identify the extent to which the practice is clear and understandable. Is there access to high-quality materials and experts who can guide the implementation process? Has the practice been implemented in a range of schools, with documentation of the resources needed for implementation and sustainability? Identify if there are demonstration sites nearby that can be visited to see the practice in action. If a district is considering it, create a plan for supporting pilot schools to create local demonstration sites.

(continued)

244 CORE COMPONENTS

• Resources and supports. Determine what types of support school personnel may need to implement the practice with fidelity. For any systems-level initiative to be implemented well, schools need specific support from the district, including the implementation drivers described in Chapter 6. A true evaluation of any practice will need to include evaluation of the proposed action plan for obtaining the resources needed to put the practice in place in a manner that is strong and durable.

Outcomes of the Stage

The exploration/adoption stage of implementation is complete when a particular practice or model has been selected for implementation. However, there are two key underlying components of this selection process that are both important and often overlooked. First, there must be broad support to implement the practice or model before this stage is considered complete. A common

criterion for academic and behavior systems is commitment to implement from 80% of staff and all

administrators at the school (Horner, Sugai, et al, 2005). Second, for the commitment to be genu­

ine, teachers and administrators must have a basic understanding of the practice or model that is

being adopted. Individuals need to be able to idenfify the practice or model's critical features (e.g.,

explicit instruction in academic and behavior, progress monitoring), how these critical features are implemented, and how they relate to their classroom or administrative responsibilities. All should also understand the requirements, activities, and multiyear time commitment involved with implementing the program. This point is particularly true for the school administrator, as he or she will be leading the effort (McIntosh, Kelm, et al., in press; Strickland-Cohen et al., 2014). Table 7.2 provides a set of critical features for administrative leadership in cultivating and main­ taining staff support for MTSS. As an outcome of these leadership efforts, all staff should know both the benefits and drawbacks of the approach before signing on. Without this understanding,

a true commitment to implement the practice or model is not possible.

Pitfalls to Avoid

As we've noted, the key pitfall of the exploration/adoption stage is pushing forward too quickly

to adopt the new initiative without a clear, measured decision that is supported by a vast major­ ity of staff. The point of spending time in this stage is to avoid the tendency to adopt practices that are either (1) a poor match for the school or district's needs or resources or (2) not under­ stood or supported by school personnel. In addition, it is key that before an adoption decision is made, the exploration team identifies whether the school has the capacity to support implemen­ tation (e.g., funding, resources, time, skills) and has a plan for building adequate capacity before moving forward. Moving deliberately through the exploration/adoption stage can help address each of these pitfalls.

Considerations for Integrating Separate Systems

Although this stage is easier to understand when considering adoption of specific programs, the same steps and strategies pertain to the decision to integrate existing systems as well. The hexa­

gon tool and the MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet are completed in the same way, but with

245 Integrating Entire Systems

TABLE 7.2. Critical Features of School and District Administrator Support for Integrated MTSS Models

Critical feature Rationale Examples

1. Make public M Visible support by the building statements of administrator signals priority support. and helps to mobilize staff

support.

2. Build staff Developing a "critical mass" of consensus. staff support helps to get the

initiative started. Obtaining broad support provides defense against small numbers of detractors. Consensus helps to keep the initiative moving forward during the fragile initial implementation phase.

3. Establish and By promoting a team approach, support school administrators can build local leadership capacity for leadership without team(s). having to be there to "run the

show." Building the skills of teams enhances effectiveness and sustainability beyond the time frame of an administrator's position at the school or district.

4. Set and Teams and staff need a clear maintain framework and criterion for standards for what successful implementation implementation. of integrated MTSS looks like.

Once the vision is created, it is important to use this information to guide implementation plans.

5. Guide decision- The building administrator can making/ help to establish ongoing cycles problem-solving for collecting data and use process. information for decision making.

It is important for administrators

• Discuss support of MTSS model at staff meetings.

• Provide statements of support in staff communications.

• Review school improvement goals (integrated MTSS should be considered within the top three school goals).

• Share current status of student academic and behavior outcomes with staff.

• Ask staff if things are likely to improve if the school continues in the same way.

• Help staff see how the chosen practices address needs and have documented effectiveness and "goodness of fit."

• Communicate a common vision for schoolwide supports.

• Work to establish the team's capacity to support all students.

• Commit resources to integrated MTSS model.

• Ensure that the team has regular meeting schedule and effective meeting structures. Develop methods for evaluating progress toward measureable outcomes.

• Build action plans based on data.

• Collect fidelity of implementation data and update action plans.

• Review implementation efforts on a monthly basis.

• Compare implementation to fidelity criteria and provide performance feedback to staff.

• Examine multiple data sources, including fidelity and student academic and behavior outcomes.

• Revise implementation plans based on data.

to monitor implementation activities and provide feedback to staf£

(continued)

246 CORE COMPONENTS

TABLE 7.2. (continued)

Critical feature Rationale

6. Reinforce leadership team and school faculty.

Administrators play critical roles in providing staff recognition for accomplishment Acknowledgment is especially important any time an activity is new or difficult for staff.

• Acknowledge faculty and staff for moving in the "right direction" toward goal.

• Focus on acknowledging activities related to the critical implementation features (i.e., fidelity data).

• € Consider ratios of feedback provided (e.g., five acknowledgments to every one suggestion for change or correction).

integration as the practice. For example, the exploration team assesses how integration would fit with, or add value to, existing initiatives, as well as current capacity and resources. Two issues should be addressed when considering whether to integrate systems. First, because the process of integration is often tailored to each school's strengths and needs, integration has a lower readiness for replication than a packaged, manualized program. As such, teams may need more resources and supports (e.g., coaching) to compensate and to make integration work However, integration may add more value to existing initiatives than other options. The second issue, as we described above, is addressing the sense of loss that champions may feel when they are asked to work with each other. Including those who have strong program ownership as members of the exploration team will help the team make decisions that are more reflective of staff needs! and build support instead of resistance.

Stage 2: Installation

Once the school has decided to move forward with the new practice (e.g., an integrated MTSS model), there is important work to be done to install the necessary structures to ensure ade­ quate implementation. The installation stage does not include actual implementation with students. Instead, the stage helps teams focus on what needs to be in place to support the initiative. Because this distinction is somewhat subtle, well-intentioned teams often skip this stage entirely; in their efforts to accelerate systems change, they move directly from adoption to implementation. This mistake is one of the biggest problems in education today (Fixsen et al., 2005), and it can be addressed with careful attention to the components of the installation stage.

As with exploration/adoption, the installation stage is facilitated by a team. The team may be an existing school leadership team, district leadership team, school improvement team, or a repurposed team (e.g., school discipline team, professional learning community, even the explo­ ration team). This team will then take on the job of moving the practice or model through the rest of the stages of implementation. In light of this point, it is important for the membership of this team to be representative and to have administrative authority to make key decisions (see Chapter 5 for more details).

During this stage, the school leadership team creates and follows a comprehensive instal­ lation plan that addresses practices, data, and district support. Team members can complete the MTSS Quick Audit described in Chapter 4 (provided in Appendix 4.1) to take stock of cur­ rent practices and assess the need to remove or add practices before initial implementation.

247 Integrating Entire Systems

They can complete a similar audit of assessment tools in use (e.g., fidelity, screening, diagnostic

assessment, progress monitoring; described in Chapter 3). Once these assessments have been identified (with removal of redundant tools and additions of new tools to address gaps), this

information is combined into an integrated evaluation component of the plan to assess and

report progress as part of the school's continuous improvement process. Finally, during this stage, a plan is created to provide training and coaching (see Chapter 6) in both the practices

and assessment procedures. This plan may include support provided by the school leadership

team, but more often than not, it will include district, regional, or state training, with coaching

and coordination provided locally. As part of this support, it is important to clarify the roles

and responsibilities for all involved in the implementation process, including school administra­

tors, the school leadership teams, the staff, district administrators, and the school community. Although all of these individuals should have acquired a basic understanding of the practice by

the end of the exploration/adoption stage, the specific tasks of involvement need to be articu­ lated clearly during installation. Of course, the team also needs to acquire or develop the mate­

rials for implementation (e.g., posters of expectations for the classroom, integrated teaching lesson plans) and train staff in their use. The plan for support may also include formal structures for staff or school teams to collaborate by sharing strategies, as well as by modeling and viewing

the teaching of lessons in a peer-to-peer community of practice.

A related part of the installation plan is considering how to integrate the practices into

existing work. The MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet (described in the previous stage and

in Appendix 7.1) is a useful tool to guide the integration of initiatives. The alignment column

may identify both opportunities for integration (e.g., integrating teams that do similar work)

and potential barriers that need addressing (e.g., a potential turf war, such as an initiative with

a different philosophy). In addition, the value-added column indicates where there is common

ground and shared objectives. This visioning work, either for integration or busting barriers, is

more easily accomplished before the initial implementation stage, when the focus shifts more

to the fine details of intervention. District teams may want to complete a separate MTSS Ini­

tiative Alignment Worksheet for aligning their work with state initiatives. This process can be

extremely helpful in showing everyone how an initiative such as an integrated MTSS model can be used to meet multiple state requirements. Of course, astute school teams can do the same for district initiatives, providing a mechanism to avoid initiative overload (McIntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009).

Another useful method to enhance integration is the school improvement plan process.

Because it is required in most schools, aligning the practice (e.g., integration) with school

improvement goals gives it both instant priority and an existing framework for implementa­

tion. Implementing the practice with fidelity should be one of the top three goals of the school

improvement plan, and the activities for implementation can be embedded within its steps. This

approach may be easier for installing academic RTI systems than for PBIS. Although there is

consensus among educators and stakeholders that improving academic outcomes is a top priority for schools, some educators do not include behavior supports within their school improvement plans because they believe (or are told) that the plan should address only academic concerns. In these circumstances, we suggest framing behavior initiatives in a way that stresses the positive academic outcomes of PBIS, such as developing an educational environment that is conducive to learning (e.g., safe and free from disruption). Those who are integrating their systems will find this task even easier.

248 CORE COMPONENTS

Installation is also the time to consider the terminology used in the new practice. The words that are used in this stage may seem insignificant, but they are surprisingly important in facilitating systems change. For example, Adelman and Taylor (2003) recommend avoiding the

use of terms such as project because they are associated with time-limited work and not with an enduring change to typical job responsibilities. Regarding integration, if the ultimate goal is an integrated MTSS model, it is useful to start using this term early and explain that academic RTI and PBIS systems are MTSS models. Otherwise, staff may oppose it simply because they

think that it is a whole new way of doing things that disregards the strategies that are currently working for them.

Outcomes of This Stage

The main outcome of the installation stage is that the practice or model is ready to be rolled out with students. By the end of installation, teams should have built the practices, data, and team­ ing structures to ensure strong implementation, and educators should have been trained in what they are expected to do and how to do it. Without this level of preparation, the likelihood of an easy initial implementation is low.

Pitfalls to Avoid

The primary pitfall during the installation stage involves underestimating the need for careful

work before the actual implementation begins. Too often, once a practice is selected, admin­ istrators expect staff to "just do it." As noted by many researchers and practitioners, expecting

school staff to implement simply because they have been provided an initial training is both ineffective and unfair (Fixsen et al., 2005; Joyce & Showers, 2002). It is important to assess and adjust existing job requirements to make room for the new work, as well as to identify what district supports are needed to do it well. For quality implementation, these supports need to be in place prior to implementation. Often, there are pressures (from administrators, families, or community partners) to move quickly to the implementation stage, but rushing installation is unlikely to lead to the results that these stakeholders really want to see-a durable, fully implemented initiative.

Considerations for Integrating Separate Systems

When integrating separate systems, alignment is an absolutely critical part of the installation stage. If schools have separate teams for academics and behavior, it is important to integrate

these teams when feasible. One team can better manage, coordinate, and communicate imple­

mentation efforts than two teams doing the same work-or worse, working at cross efforts. It is also important that work is done at this stage to help educators see the similarities across academic and behavior systems (e.g., similar features, processes) so that integration will be as easy as possible. Integration is tricky business, and so it is important not to assume that everyone can draw connections across systems (e.g., using data for decision making, focusing on quality core instruction). Much professional development in education focuses on facilitat­ ing practical understanding (i.e., the steps and procedures of assessment or intervention). Such specific skill sets rarely generalize to new domains, however. For generalization (e.g., applying academic RTI components to PBIS), educators need to have a conceptual understanding (i.e.,

249 Integrating Entire Systems

the theory of why practices work) as well. Therefore, training for the integrated MTSS model

is most effective when it builds both practical and conceptual understanding (Gersten, Chard,

& Baker, 2000).

Whenever possible, we suggest starting to combine actions from each separate initiative

into one overall school improvement plan, even if these tasks are still completed in isolation. The

framework for the school improvement plan provides a logical process for combining the work

of parallel systems into a central plan. Essentially, it is easier to see opportunities to integrate

when you're actively looking for them. The simple act of putting all of the tasks from both initia­

tives on one page can highlight areas where integration makes the most sense.

Stage 3: Initial Implementation

During the initial implementation stage, the practice or model is finally implemented with

students. Too often, this stage is viewed as a full roll-out of the practice, either with staff imple­

menting all elements in the school at once or every school in the district implementing. Although

this view is a good ultimate goal, the true intent of initial implementation is to pilot-test the new

practice on a small scale so that there is (1) documentation of successful local implementation

and (2) a model of the implementation process (i.e., what is needed for successful implementa­

tion) that can be improved upon when expanding the practice. Starting small in a school may

involve implementing at one grade level initially, or beginning with foundational Tier 1 supports

in one area before adding tiers or another content area. Starting small in a district may involve

working with one or two schools in the same way. Purposefully limiting the number of initial

implementation sites allows the team to provide adequate resources. At this stage, there is a

heavy investment in initial implementation through intensive training and coaching. Failure at

this stage means certain doom for the initiative. With more resources to bear, the implementa­

tion can start on a slightly larger scale, but it is important to resist the temptation to go too big

too soon.

The first step in initial implementation is to select sites that are enthusiastic about trying

out the practice and willing to work through the various bumps in the first steps of implement­

ing something new. Initial attempts are often clumsy and inefficient. Selecting "early adopters"

(Rogers, 2003) for piloting is helpful because they will be aiding in troubleshooting the systems

and their implementation, which can take time and drain enthusiasm. It is far better to learn

from mistakes that take place in a small-scale pilot, with staff who understand the challenges of

going first, so that risks can be minimized without frustrating the rest of the staff, who may be

understandably less willing to endure these problems. At the district and state levels, we have

found that using a selection process, whereby schools apply to be the pilots (using readiness

criteria such as those in Appendix 6.2), can generate excitement about implementation and help

identify the strongest candidates for this initial undertaking.

Once the initial implementation sites are identified, it is useful to use a structured process

for providing support and eliciting feedback from these sites. For the team to identify the most

effective and efficient methods for implementing on a larger scale (e.g., schoolwide, district­

wide), it is key to document what types of support were provided and how useful they were

perceived to be. It is important to adjust the support provided to make implementation stron­

ger for these schools, but also to learn from this experience. There should be ongoing two-way

communication with administrators to share data on fidelity of implementation and feedback

regarding what support is most useful to increase it.

250 CORE COMPONENTS

Outcomes of This Stage

The key desired outcomes of initial implementation are a demonstration that the practice can

be done locally, a practice that has some of the bugs worked out, and a catalog of the lessons

learned as school personnel actively engage in implementation and create the systems to sup­

port implementation. Although it is helpful to learn from experts and other implementers, hav­

ing local implementation sites is incredibly valuable in understanding what is needed to support

local staff in their work.

Pitfalls to Avoid

The main pitfall to avoid in initial implementation is the temptation to implement in too many

schools too soon. Limiting the number of initial implementation sites is an absolutely critical strat­

egy for success. Implementing in too many places at the outset runs the risk of spreading resources

too thin and trying to implement in infertile ground (e.g., with implementers who are only partially committed; Rogers, 2003). Initial implementation is truly a fragile stage. Schools are more likely to

abandon new practices in the first year or two of implementation, before they are firmly in place

(Nese, McIntosh, et al., 2016). As such, it is necessary to provide intensive support to staff members in their efforts. There is often an expectation that implementation will be perfect. In reality, initial

implementation is more typically an experience of repeatedly running into unforeseen obstacles.

There is a simple need to get started-even imperfectly-with a group that is willing to be pilot

testers, and then to use this stage to learn how to be more perfect. If staff is not enthusiastic about

the practice, it may be abandoned as soon as that inevitable first barrier is encountered.

On a related note, it is also important to be patient in this initial implementation stage. In

many situations, staff will expect to see immediate changes in student outcomes. Although these

results are possible (and usually more likely with PBIS than academic RTI), it is important to

provide the message that change in outcomes comes from high fidelity of implementation. Com­

plex, systems-level models such as academic RTI and PBIS can take 3-5 years to implement

all of the critical features (Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). Therefore, change in student outcomes

could take that long (or longer) to see as well. Selecting sites (e.g., schools, classrooms) with this

long-term commitment in mind is helpful in avoiding abandonment of the entire undertaking

(Nese, McIntosh, et al., 2016).

Considerations for Integrating Separate Systems

Initial implementation for integration can be a distinctive challenge, because there is much

variation in how integration can happen and there are no true local examples in this stage. It is

much easier to understand piloting a new program that comes with a manual and clear steps for

implementation. However, the advice to implement in fertile ground pertains equally well to

integration. When school personnel face conflict or uncertainty regarding integration, they may

be tempted to revert back to the "old days" of using parallel academic and behavior systems. As

a result, it is useful to look for the easiest opportunities to integrate, where initial successes can

build confidence and trust. As described in previous chapters, integrating the practices, team­

ing, and decision making at Tiers 2 and 3 may be a logical place to start.

One key point in this stage of initial integration is not to underestimate the level of coach­

ing that may be needed, even for experienced MTSS teams. Implementing one domain of MTSS

251Integrating Entire Systems

well does not always generalize to the other, so more obstacles should be expected. On-site

coaching can help teams identify the easier first steps for integration, as well as keep in mind

the ideas of improved efficiency and effectiveness, which can bolster support for integration.

Stage 4: Elaboration

After successful initial implementation, the next stage is expanding the practice to new set­

tings, areas, and students, or alternatively, simply more complete implementation. It is tempting

to call this stage "full implementation," because it is the extension of the practice beyond its

pilot to a broader audience. Full implementation (e.g., implementation of more of the practice's

critical features) is certainly a core aspect of the elaboration stage, as more staff and schools

become engaged, but a deeper understanding of this stage includes continued testing and learn­

ing through the implementation process. More complete implementation often leads to more

lessons learned, which enhances efficiency and effectiveness. As the model is further improved

through several implementation iterations (e.g., multiple grade levels, multiple cohorts of imple­

menting schools), it becomes more stable and more articulated, with increasingly clear identi­

fication of what works and what does not-in terms of both practice and support. We learn not

only what components of the practices are effective but also how to effectively support those

practices with fidelity. The structures that were created for initial implementation become more

developed through continued use. In addition, daily implementation of the practice becomes,

more and more, a part of typical job responsibilities-or, in other words, "what we do here." This shift toward institutionalization is a key part of both elaboration and sustainability (Adel­

man & Taylor, 2003; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000; McIntosh, Predy, et al., 2014).

In the context of MTSS, this stage often involves both horizontal and vertical elaboration.

The Tier 1 systems can be spread across multiple grade levels or schools, as described above,

and schools that have implemented Tier 1 systems to criterion can begin building up the tiers

and enhancing their systems at Tiers 2 and 3 for complete MTSS models. Elaboration may also

mean moving further along the path toward full integration, with teams finding more opportu­

nities to integrate as they move forward.

One aspect of the elaboration stage is particularly worth noting. Elaboration is intended to

include (1) implementation of systems that have been tested and proven through initial imple­

mentation or (2) changes that carry few political or social risks. It may be more effective to

consider bigger changes as comprising a new practice and start again at the exploration stage,

with another adoption decision, installation, and pilot process. For example, expanding PBIS to

include systematic supports for Tiers 2 and 3 may be more effective if tried again in one or two

schools as opposed to implementing such a change districtwide. The existing system strengths

and the availability of district resources will also help determine how cautiously to move for­ ward with these changes.

Outcomes of This Stage

Elaboration is considered complete when the practice or model becomes a mature, accepted

schoolwide or districtwide initiative. This level of use doesn't necessarily mean that all parts are

fully implemented or that all schools are implementing, but rather that it is recognized and pro­

moted by administrators as a worthwhile initiative for all teams. One mark of this outcome is the

embedding of the practice into school and district policy (Fixsen et al., 2005). The practice can

252 CORE COMPONENTS

be included as a recommended model for meeting district goals, incorporated into the budget,

evaluations (both for school improvement and individual performance), job descriptions, hiring

criteria (e.g., experience in implementation), and ongoing professional development plans. For

example, the district may include new staff trainings for the practice as a regular and required

offering instead of relying on each school to train their new staff.

Another important district-level outcome of the elaboration stage is the additional demon­

stration of the effects of the initiative on (1) the number of schools participating, (2) the number

of schools implementing with adequate fidelity, and (3) valued student outcomes, for schools

implementing adequately (Algozzine et al., 2010). Although the pilot effects that can be seen

from initial implementation are useful in garnering more interest, the effects from broader, more complete implementation will be more compelling for more stakeholders, including the

superintendent, school board, and community agencies.

Pitfalls to Avoid

Pitfalls within the elaboration stage involve the temptation to scale up too much and too quickly.

Unless there is a strong district commitment, there are often not enough resources to support

elaboration with all implementation sites at once. In such cases, it is helpful to use a cohort

model of implementation, in which waves of schools receive the level of attention and resources

that the initial implementation sites received. Another problem during the elaboration stage

is neglecting Tier 1 systems when moving to implement practices at Tiers 2 and 3. When too

much effort is placed on expansion up the tiers, there can be a loss of focus on fidelity of imple­

mentation at Tier 1, which has damaging effects on installation of the upper tiers. It is helpful

for administrators and coaches to continue to prompt implementation of Tier 1 strategies while

assessing fidelity and providing feedback to educators on their efforts in this area.

Considerations for Integrating Separate Systems

In the context of integrating systems, elaboration often means moving beyond the easy steps

and taking on areas to integrate that are more challenging but also yield rewards in terms of

increased effectiveness and efficiency. As with individual practices, integration itself can be

embedded into policy, with a stronger expectation that systems will be more interactive and

collaborative. Once teams have been successful with their initial integration efforts and have

fostered the trust and commitment to move forward, some of the harder work becomes more

feasible. This work is often done by combining or removing some of the structures that were developed when these separate systems were initially implemented. Merging district teams,

professional development calendars, and budgets in particular will help to hasten elaboration.

Obviously, however, this integration process may need more time to be successful than was

needed to establish the parallel systems in the first place.

Stage 5: Continuous Regeneration

The final stage of implementation is one that we call continuous regeneration. Alternatively, this

stage is sometimes called sustainability or continuous improvement. We prefer the term contin­

uous regeneration because this stage is characterized by making ongoing, iterative changes to

Integrating Entire Systems 253

the practice or model to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and durability in response to changes

in the environment (McIntosh, Filter, et al., 2010). These changes in the environment could

include shifting district or state priorities, extensive turnover, or changing community demo­

graphics. In essence, if a practice or its support structure can't be modified to better fit current

needs, it is far less likely to be sustained.

By this point, the practice or model should be running smoothly. There has been sufficient

time both to test and refine the content and systems for each tier. The main purpose of this

stage is to make it more effective on student outcomes, easier to implement, and more durable.

Efficiency becomes a key mantra, because the initiative can no longer rely on the enthusiasm

evoked by a new way of doing things. Instead, it must become so easy to do that it is not compel­

ling to stop doing it. The incorporation of the practice into typical job responsibilities continues,

with more standardization of activities, highlighting the key mechanisms for why specific strat­

egies work (Embry & Biglan, 2008). In addition, there is an important need for administrators

to communicate the purpose, priority, and vision for the approach at the start of each new school

year. If there is a new school, district, or state initiative, it is key for administrators to explain

how it connects to the existing initiatives, or how the practice is the preferred way to meet that

initiative's goals (McIntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). For example, it is much easier to address a

state anti-bullying initiative through adding lessons within PBIS than it is to adopt a whole new

program that may compete with PBIS for time and resources (Good, McIntosh, & Gietz, 2011).

Outcomes at This Stage

This stage does not have the clear outcomes that the others do because it is the ultimate stage, and

therefore there is no need to identify when to move on. However, deep continuous regeneration

is reflected in a few important aspects. First, there is an institutionalized memory of the practice

through manualization, documentation, and a system for storing and sharing information. Second,

there is an ongoing cycle for reviewing and acting upon MTSS data (e.g., fidelity, student outcome,

progress monitoring) at all tiers. Third, the practice is fully embedded within existing school

structures and official policy. Fourth, there is ongoing professional development to increase the

skills of existing staff and to orient new staff Fifth, there is an ongoing process for administrators

to integrate the practice with new initiatives and assess and remove barriers to implementation.

Pitfalls to Avoid

There are two major pitfalls to anticipate and prevent during the continuous regeneration stage.

The first pitfall is to slowly neglect implementation over time, either deliberately or unknow­

ingly. In many circumstances, the primary motivation to adopt and implement a practice comes

from alarming student outcomes, in either academics or behavior. When a practice is first imple­

mented, the effects are often apparent and clearly linked to fidelity of implementation (e.g., stu­

dents did better as soon as staff was implementing with fidelity). However, over time, as fewer staff members were at the school before implementation, this link may become less apparent,

and some may question the need to continue (e.g., "Our students are fine-maybe they don't

need to be taught the expectations"). In these situations, it is vital for administrators to stress measurement of fidelity of implementation, to provide a strong rationale for continuing, and even to describe what outcomes might look like if current practices were abandoned.

254 CORE COMPONENTS

The second pitfall is to continue implementation just as it has always been done without addressing changes in context. Over time, the practice may become stale, even when imple­ mented well, or slowly become less of a fit with the current needs of students and staff. The prac­ tice then becomes more endangered because it becomes dull and too routinized. Although stan­ dardization brings efficiency, new ideas can bring life back to a practice and help it meet needs better, enhancing its effectiveness. One helpful strategy is to regularly refresh membership on the various teams (Andreou et al., 2015). Bringing new staff onto the teams can bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm, enhance staff capacity, and allow veterans to cycle off to avoid burnout.

Considerations for Integrating Separate Systems

Continuous regeneration for integration generally means getting iteratively better at the integra­ tion process. It is important to attend to fidelity of implementation, as there are many working parts, and thus many aspects that can slip without attention. The recommendations regarding effective meetings in Chapter 5 are helpful to consider, as it is easy for some systems to crowd out others if no one is paying attention. Issues such as turnover of key staff or emerging student chal­ lenges may require additional coaching as teams work through how best to adapt their systems to become more effective, efficient, and durable. For teams that are highly skilled in integration, continuous regeneration may mean integrating systems beyond a ademic RTI and PBIS, such as by implementing school-based mental health, technology, or physical activity initiatives.

ADDRESSING CONCERNS REGARDING INTEGRATION

Even with close attention to implementation science and the stages of implementation, it is still common to encounter resistance in efforts to integrate academic and behavior systems. When faced with these challenges, we always reflect back on our strong belief that educators are doing the best they can, given their skills and support systems. From our experiences, there are a number of common and understandable barriers that are frequently voiced when teams specifi­ cally work to integrate academic RTI and PBIS models. The following sections explore common statements of concern we hear when educators work to implement an integrated MTSS model, along with strategies we have used to address them.

11/ Teach Science, Not Behavior. 11

The Concern

There is a general tendency to view educational skills and the practices used to teach them as unique and discrete from one another. For example, math concepts differ from key components of reading, which in turn, focus on different skills than those to develop social and emotional competence. This separation and specificity in teaching the content areas tends to increase dramatically during high school, as content becomes more specialized and educators feel the accountability to get through the academic content. As a result, it may seem. natural to teach them independently. Such a statement may reflect one's personal values, but it may also reflect how difficult it can be to change the status quo of silos within the field of education.

255 Integrating Entire Systems

Possible Solutions

Although each content area has distinct skill sets and strategies to develop those skill sets, there

are still commonalities and benefits to integration. To increase motivation to integrate systems,

it is helpful to begin with communicating why integration is good for students and staff. As

described in Chapter 2, the time saved for instruction and increased academic engagement

from implementing PBIS means that teachers will be better able to get through their academic

content over the course of the year. Sharing this information is useful in showing how the sys­

tems are complementary. In addition, if the team has completed the MTSS Initiative Alignment

Worksheet (Appendix 7.1, described earlier in this chapter), then they can describe the value

that is added through integrating systems.

111 Just Don't Want to Integrate Practices.11

The Concern

Even when the advantages of integration are shared, there may be more resistance to the idea,

reflecting a range of possible deeper issues. One is general resistance to change. Change is

difficult for anyone to go through, even when that change will likely make our jobs easier and

outcomes better. There may be general inertia, or possibly the notion of sunk costs-that we've

already invested too much in the current system to change it. Making a change may mean

admitting that we didn't get it right initially. In addition, combining two established, siloed

systems may be even more challenging when individuals associated with these systems have

difficulty in sharing ownership.

Possible Solutions

Generic resistance is tough to address because we may not have discovered the underlying cause

for opposition. One method for finding a more specific cause is to look back on previous attempts

at systems change by completing an "initiative autopsy." In an initiative autopsy, a team consid­

ers promising initiatives that were introduced and subsequently abandoned, noting perceived

reasons for the failure. In many cases, patterns across initiatives may emerge, and these patterns

can be used to prevent some of these concerns. Sticking with the status quo is more comfortable

when there are few exemplars for integrating practices, little technical assistance provided in

how to do it, and little priority at the policy level. Preventing these barriers to integration are

more likely to be successful than challenging beliefs and attitudes after implementation has

begun. The exploration/adoption stage is the best time to listen to the concerns of educators and

address them before moving forward (Feuerborn et al., 2013; Walker & Cheney, 2012).

Another approach is to use the same lens we might use when assessing student behavior.

When a student refuses to complete a task, we consider whether it is a "can't do" or "won't do"

problem (VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2008). Although it is tempting to blame the educator's per­

sonal philosophy for such a statement, it may be more accurate-as well as more helpful-to

consider the context in which the educator works. Educators need to hear a convincing argu­

ment that adopting the initiative will lead to improved outcomes for their students and them­

selves. If the answer is "won't do," perhaps for ideological reasons, it can be helpful to keep the

256 CORE COMPONENTS

focus on valued outcomes (e.g., student success) rather than feelings regarding a specific set of practices. That general aim provides a shared common ground for moving forward, even if there are conflicts regarding specific pedagogical practices (Dixon & Carnine, 1994).

11 / Don't Know How to Do lntegration. 11

The Concern

This concern describes the "can't do" issue from above. We all want to feel competent in our jobs. It is uncomfortable to have to use skills that we are just learning, ones that we are not sure we will do well. There is a common sentiment among educators that we now all have to be experts in all areas. By engaging in this complex task of integrating systems, some may feel that they are setting themselves up for embarrassment or criticism. It's no wonder why this feeling would lead to resistance.

Possible Solutions

There are obviously specific sets of knowledge and skills required for implementing academic RTI and PBIS, not to mention an integrated MTSS model. It is crucial for staff to have regu­ lar opportunities for high-quality professional development, based on their needs (identified through both fidelity data and staff requests). This professional development can be provided as a continuum of opportunities, such as inservice training, peer and external coaching, access to materials or webinars, and professional learning communities. Additionally, it is helpful to share that the team approach we emphasize in integrated MTSS models allows us to capital­ ize on shared expertise so that no one individual needs to be expert in everything. In reality, for each skill set, the team simply needs one member with expertise or access to external (e.g., district) expertise.

111 Will Not Be Adequately Supported to lntegrate. 11

The Concern

Educators are exposed to many initiatives throughout their careers, most of which will not be sustained (Nese, et al., 2016). New initiatives are often introduced with little planning for how the staff will be supported to implement the initiative, or if supports are promised, they may not be fully made available or for the time needed to allow deep implementation. Individual educators may have personal experiences of "unfunded mandates," where teachers are directed to implement a practice and then left on their own to figure out how to do it. As a result, new school or district initiatives may be perceived as an exercise in futility because of a history of initiative abandonment (Tyack & Cuban, 1995).

Possible Solutions

This concern is most easily addressed with careful attention to the stages of implementation and the outcomes of each stage. As described above, the tendency to move too quickly through the stages comes from a sincere interest in helping students, but it tends to backfire. With regard to

257 Integrating Entire Systems

adequate support for staff, installation is a particularly key stage. It is helpful to consider here what structures are needed to maximize support for implementation. Asking school personnel is useful here-experienced staff members often have useful suggestions for what types of support they feel would be best in improving implementation. In addition, to counter personal learn­ ing histories of unfunded mandates, it is critical to ensure and communicate explicitly how this initiative's implementation will be different (and better) than what has been done in the past.

110ur Policies and Procedures Don't Allow lor lntegration. 11

The Concern

This statement is based on the perception that some aspects of integration may not be permitted given the current rules of the school or district. Educational systems are indeed governed by policies that dictate what educators can do and how funds can be utilized. However, this bar­ rier is sometimes based more on how policies and practices are interpreted by administrators or educators than actual prohibition of integration.

Possible Solutions

It is important to remove this concern entirely as an excuse not to integrate. Prior to beginning an integrated approach, it can be helpful to collect all relevant policies and procedures to deter­ mine which ones may facilitate or inhibit integration. Noting policies that support integration and changing policies that do not will be helpful in disputing disagreements. Sometimes the concern of policy is raised by individuals in parallel positions of power (i.e., different adminis­ trators at the same rank within the system). In these situations, one solution is to request support from a higher-level administrator to clarify policy and help settle the conflict.

1111 We Add This New Focus, We May Stop Doing What We Do Well. 11

The Concern

This statement is based on a fear of being spread too thin by expanding on successful academic or behavior systems and then losing those gains by trying to do too much. Although building on strengths is a wise choice, overloading a strong team with too many responsibilities may result in initiative fragmentation. Educators may have experienced systems that worked exception­ ally well with a focused outcome before getting too big and then slowly deteriorating as those systems were overstressed.

Possible Solutions

It is obvious to everyone that adding another initiative and then losing the gains that were previ­ ously made helps no one. In reality, this is a legitimate concern whether or not systems are being integrated. The best solution is to be continuously vigilant in monitoring fidelity of implementa­ tion for the original systems. When integrating systems, initial implementation is a useful stage to assess overload. Generally, the weak point where integration may result in deterioration is in

258 CORE COMPONENTS

the teaming process. It is important to integrate teams slowly so that agendas do not become so

full that activities are consistently missed. A common MTSS mistake is to take preventive sys­

tems for granted and neglect Tier I systems when moving onto implementing supports in Tiers

2 and 3. Delaying (or even stopping) integration before this breaking point occurs may help

preserve the strength of existing systems. For these meetings, efficiency must be the mantra.

Chapter 5 provides strategies for both increasing meeting efficiency and finding creative solu­

tions through partial integration of teams.

11There Is Not Enough Time to Work on lntegration. 11

The Concern

This concern is probably the most valid of all, as educators are always extremely busy, and there

never seems to be enough time to do what needs to be done, let alone work on something that is

new and unfamiliar. There will always be competing initiatives that demand our attention, such

as implementation of new state standards or evaluation processes, not to mention instruction.

Just getting through the curriculum on schedule may leave little time and energy to devote to the heady process of integrating existing parallel systems that may be perceived as working fine

as siloed systems.

Possible Solutions

There is no getting around the fact that the process of integration will start with investing more

time than is currently spent. Ultimately, the way we see it, the time spent in integrating systems

will pay off in even more time recovered for instruction. Integration can make us more efficient

in our work, but these savings come only after an initial, often serious, investment. Our main

suggestion is to work with school and district administrators to create the room needed for

integration to take place. Administrators can support integration by being clear that it is a top

priority and removing tasks and meetings or discouraging activities that compete with this pri­

ority. At times, this idea may include pushing back against higher-level administrators on other,

less important initiatives to provide a buffer to allow school teams the time to integrate without adding another initiative.

One tool that is particularly useful for this process is the MTSS Initiative Alignment Work­ sheet. Although we described this worksheet primarily as a way to assess whether a proposed

practice fits with existing initiatives, it can also be used to identify opportunities to reduce

competing initiatives and save time for high-priority work Teams can look for initiatives with

similar intended recipients and outcome measures to find opportunities to be more efficient.

Options include braiding new practices into an existing initiative, integrating two existing ini­ tiatives, or removing low-priority (and nonmandated) initiatives that are a poor use of valuable

staff time. Using this process, teams may be able to reduce redundancies, eliminate siloed sys­

tems that work at cross-purposes, and strengthen the alignment of the work across initiatives.

The MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet can also be used to show how current efforts

align with state initiatives. To complete it for state-level alignment, state initiatives are listed in

each row instead of district or school initiatives. Then, the Alignment column is used to indi­

cate how the integrated MTSS model may already meet the requirements of these initiatives.

Integrating Entire Systems 259

If the worksheet shows that MTSS fulfills a state initiative's requirements without the need for

a separate initiative, the district can document its steps in MTSS implementation as evidence

of compliance and avoid more fragmented work. As a result, staff can see that implementing an

integrated MTSS model is not an add-on initiative. Instead, it is central to the mission of the

district and state.

TEAM CHECKLISTS: INTEGRATING ENTIRE SYSTEMS

This final set of checklists serves to provide a concise list of the strategies for integrating sys­

tems, whether the process is simultaneous, staggered, or simply involves integrating existing

parallel systems. Across each of these paths, there are common steps and strategies for building

support and maximizing success throughout the stages of implementation.

SCHOOL-LEVEL TEAM CHECKLIST

FOR INTEGRATING ENTIRE SYSTEMS

Implementation Step

Implementation Status

Not in Partially place in place In place

1. The school forms an exploration team to decide whether to adopt an integrated MTSS model.

2. The exploration team completes the hexagon tool (Figure 7.3 and Table 7.1) and MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet (Appendix 7.1).

3. The exploration team informs staff about basic concepts and responsibilities for integration.

4. The exploration team obtains 100% commitment from administrators and at least 80% commitment from staff to integrate before adopting an integrated MTSS model.

5. School administrators provide a clear, consistent message of a vision of an integrated MTSS model for staff.

6. The school leadership team develops and maintains an ongoing action plan for integrating (a) practices, (b} data, and (c} teams, as well as evaluating implementation and outcomes.

7. The school leadership team builds integration goals and steps into the school improvement plan.

8. The school leadership team aligns integration with existing initiatives .

9. School administrators buffer staff against new initiatives during the initial implementation period.

10. The school leadership team uses an application or selection process to determine the best areas for initial integration.

11. School administrators provide high rates of reinforcement during the initial implementation period.

12. The school leadership team establishes a structured process for gathering feedback and improving implementation.

13. The school leadership team continues to monitor fidelity of implementation and identify ways to make implementation more efficient.

14. The school leadership team refreshes team membership, bringing new staff on and easing roles of veterans.

(continued)

From Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS by Kent McIntosh and Steve Goodman. Copy­ right © 2016 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this checklist is granted to purchasers of this book for personal

use or use with individual students (see copyright page for details). Purchasers can download additional copies of this

che<Jklist (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

260

SCHOOL-LEVEL TEAM CHECKLIST FOR INTEGRATING ENTIRE SYSTEMS (page 2 of2)

Priority for Action Planning (the three most important items from above) Who is responsible? By when?

How will we know when it is accomplished?

l.

2.

13.

261

13.

DISTRICT-LEVEL TEAM CHECKLIST

FOR INTEGRATING ENTIRE SYSTEMS

Implementation Step

l. The district team identifies whether the district will support a simultaneous or staggered approach to integration. If staggered, the team selects academics, behavior, or school choice for order of implementation.

2. The district forms an exploration team to decide whether to adopt an integrated MTSS model.

3. The district exploration team completes the hexagon tool (Figure 7.3 and Table 7.1) and the MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet (Appendix 7.1) for both district and state initiatives.

4. The district exploration team informs staff about basic concepts and responsibilities for integration.

5. The district exploration team obtains at least 80% commitment from administrators, staff, and families to integrate before adopting an integrated MTSS model.

6. District administrators provide a clear, consistent message of a vision of an integrated MTSS model for the district.

7. The district installation team identifies terminology to align integration with existing initiatives.

8. District administrators delay implementation of other initiatives to allow time for integration.

9. District administrators articulate how integration helps schools meet requirements of state initiatives.

10. The district installation team builds integration goals and steps into the district improvement plan and assists schools in building integration into their school improvement plans.

11. The district installation team establishes training and coaching systems to support integration.

12. The district installation team uses an application or selection process to determine enthusiastic pilot schools.

District administrators provide high rates of reinforcement during the initial implementation period.

Implementation Status

PartiallyNot in place in place In place

(continued)

From Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS by Kent McIntosh and Steve Goodman. Copy­ right © 2016 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this checklist is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or. use with individual students (see copyright page for details). Purchasers can download additional copies of this checklist (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

262

DISTRICT-LEVEL TEAM CHECKLIST FOR INTEGRATING ENTIRE SYSTEMS (page 2 of 2)

Implementation Status

Implementation Step Not in place

Partially in place In place

14. The district installation team establishes a structured process for gathering feedback and improving implementation.

15. The district installation team continues to monitor fidelity of implementation and identify ways to make implementation more efficient.

Priority for Action Planning (the three most important items from above) Who is responsible? By when?

How will we know when it is accomplished?

l.

2.

3.

263

· APPENDIX 7.1

MTSS Initiative Alignment Worksheet

Directions: List all existing initiatives (school and/or district), their intended recipients, outcomes measures used to gauge success, and whether they are mandated. Then, for each practice (or model) being evaluated for adoption, complete the worksheet by describing how the practice aligns with each existing initiative (e.g., does it conflict with or duplicate efforts?), and what value it adds for each existing initiative. If multiple options are being evaluated, complete a separate worksheet for each practice. Once complete, consider whether the proposed practice (1) meets a need, (2) could be integrated with or replace an existing initiative, and (3) could make other initiatives (especially mandated ones) better. This value added can be shared with administrators, staff, and the school community to mobilize support for a new practice. In addition, identify any initiatives that can be removed or modified to make room for a new initiative.

Practice (or model} being evaluated for adoption:

Existing Initiative

Intended Recipients

Outcome Measure(s}

Mandated Initiative?

Alignment with Practice Being Evaluated Value Added by Adopting Practice

D Yes

D No

D Yes

D No

D Yes

D No

D Yes

D No

D Yes

D No

D Yes

D No

Adapted with permission from George Sugai (2010).

From Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS by Kent McIntosh and Steve Goodman. Copyright © 2016 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy

this appendix is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with individual students (see copyright page for details). Purchasers can download additional copies of

this appendix (see the box at the end of the table of contents).