Assignment: Expert in the Field: Addressing Gaps in Practice
For this Assignment, you will select a gap identified in Module 2 with RtI, PBIS, or MTSS. Referencing the Learning Resources and research conducted on each state, support your rationale as to why addressing this gap will improve services for diverse learners and enhance professional practice.
To prepare
Review the module Learning Resources. Pay attention to any gaps identified within the field of special education as it relates to improving services for students with diverse needs.
Select a gap identified in the research from Module 2 relating to RtI, PBIS, or MTSS.
Listen to Dr. Research discuss gaps between research and practice in relation to school-wide interventions. Reflect on all you have learned through this course and compare the research to your current cite. What types of school-wide interventions are being implemented with fidelity? What did you find in research that you dont see being implemented in the field?
A 3- to 5-page draft addressing a gap that you identified in the research that interests you. Include the following sections:
Section 1: Problem Statement
Provide a 1- to 2-paragraph statement that is the result of a review of current literature and practice that contains the following information:
A logical argument for the need to address an identified gap between research and special education practice. Make sure to clarify why you believe that this is a problem of practice in special education.
Preliminary evidence that provides justification that this problem is meaningful. Evidence should include a minimum of three to five key citations that support the relevance and currency of the problem. Note: These references need not all be from peer-reviewed journals but should be from reputable sources, such as national agency databases or scholarly books, and they should ideally be current, i.e., from the past 5 years.
Section 2: Significance
Provide one or two paragraphs informed by the topic outlined in the problem statement that explains the following:
How this study will contribute to filling the gap in special education practice identified in the problem statement.
What original contribution will this study make to the field of Special Education?
How this research will support professional practice or allow practical application, i.e., answer the So what? question.
Section 3: Questions
List the questions or a series of related questions that are informed by the purpose, which will lead to the development of what needs to be done to research the identified gap in practice. A research question informs the research design by providing a foundation for:
Generation of hypotheses in quantitative studies,
Questions necessary to build the design structure for qualitative studies, and
A process by which different methods will work together in mixed-method studies.
Section 4: Nature of the Study
Using one of the following terms as a subheading, provide a concise paragraph that discusses the approach that will be used to address the research questions(s) and how this approach aligns with the problem statement. The subheadings and examples of study designs are as follows:
Quantitative for experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental designs, treatment-control, repeated measures, causal-comparative, single-subject, predictive studies, or other quantitative approaches;
Qualitative for ethnography, case study, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, phenomenological research, policy analysis, or other qualitative traditions;
Mixed methods, primarily qualitative for sequential, concurrent or transformative studies, with the main focus on qualitative methods, and single subject.
Section 5: Social Change
Consider the relationship between the identified problem of practice and social change. In 2 or 3 paragraphs describe:
How the claim aligns with the problem statement to reflect the potential relevance in this study to society: How might the potential findings lead to positive social change for students with exceptionalities?
Then, give your perspective. Craft a Research Promise to Students with Exceptionalities. Take the researchers perspective as you craft this promise.
Example: As I move through my program, I promise to seek the highest and deepest levels of scholarship in order to bring about meaningful social change for students with exceptionalities. As a part of this promise, I will: list two to three ways in which you will pursue and fulfill this promise.
Section 6: References
On a separate page, cite the text, articles, and other current peer-reviewed research in support of your position. Be specific and provide examples.
Remember to use APA format in completing this Assignment.
For this Assignment and all others in this course and throughout the program, you will be expected to use APA style (7th ed.). Use the Walden Writing Center as a resource for completing Assignments.
Learning Resources
Brown-Chidsey, R. & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Chapter 6, The Essential Role of Teams in Supporting All Students (pp. 5160)
Chapter 7, The Logistics of Setting Up and Running Effective School Teams (6170)
Chapter 17, Treatment Integrity (pp. 169175)
McIntosh, K. & Goodman, S. (2016a). Conclusion. In Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 325-332). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Nelson, J. R., Oliver, R. M., Hebert, M. A., & Bohaty, J. (2015). Use of Self-Monitoring to Maintain Program Fidelity of Multi-Tiered Interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 36(1), 14-19.
Moolenaar, N.M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools innovation climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.
OConnor, P., & Witter Freeman, E. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297-310.
Whitelock, S. (2010). Its not your grandmothers school: Leadership decisions in RtI. Communique, 38(5), 26-27.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2008). Response to intervention: Possibilities for service delivery at the secondary school level. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement Newsletter. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502906.pdf
Colorado Department of Education Implementation Rubrics
Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.-b). RtI implementation rubric: District level. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/rti/downloads/pdf/rubrics_district.pdf
RtI Implementation Rubric: District level. Reprinted by permission of Colorado Department of Education.
Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.-c). RtI Implementation rubric: School level. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/rti/downloads/pdf/rubrics_school.pdf
Fidelity of Implementation Tools: School-Level Rubric. Reprinted by permission of Colorado Department of Education.
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012b). RtI meeting: High school [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 13 minutes.
Accessible player –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript
‘ ” ‘ ‘
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. Remedial and Special Education
2015, Vol. 36(1) 14 19
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741932514544970
rase.sagepub.com
Article
A Significant Advancement: Multi-
Tiered System of Supports
We believe that multi-tiered system of supports represents
one of the most significant advancements in improving the
outcomes of students for whom typical instruction is not
effective. This widely used evidence-based model of
schooling relies on data-based problem solving to integrate
and deliver efficacious academic instruction and behavior
supports in varying levels of intensity (multiple tiers) based
on student need (Martella, Nelson, Marchand-Martella, &
ORielly, 2012). The use of multi-tiered systems of supports
is borrowed from the field of prevention science whereby
primary, also known as universal prevention procedures
(e.g., immunizations) are effective for approximately 80%
of the population. Secondary prevention procedures (e.g.,
targeted education) are necessary for approximately 5% to
15% of the population that does not respond to primary pre-
vention. Finally, tertiary procedures are needed for approxi-
mately 1% to 5% of the population that does not respond to
primary or secondary procedures (e.g., direct care). The
same multi-tiered system of supports model applied to
schools suggests most students will achieve state- and dis-
trict-defined outcomes based on core instruction (e.g., evi-
dence-based curriculum) and behavior supports (e.g.,
school-wide positive behavior supports). Some students
will need additional supplemental instruction (e.g., small
group reading) and/or behavior supports (e.g., check-
in-check out) in addition to that provided by the core to
achieve these outcomes. Still a smaller number of students will
need intensive instruction (e.g., 1:1 instruction) and/or behav-
ior supports (e.g., functional behavioral assessment-guided
behavioral support plans) to achieve successful outcomes.
We have chosen multi-tiered system of supports as a sig-
nificant advancement because it provides the supportive
context for promoting the integrative use of evidence-based
academic and behavior-related practices to improve the out-
comes of the full range of students who do not fully benefit
from the typical instruction provided by schools. Prior to
multi-tiered system of supports, few educators within
schools were trained to use evidence-based academic and/
or behavior practices in an integrative fashion to improve
the outcomes of all students, including those who for whom
544970 RSEXXX10.1177/0741932514544970Remedial and Special EducationNelson et al.
research-article2014
1University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Corresponding Author:
J. Ron Nelson, Department of Special Education and Communication
Disorders, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 202 Barkley Center, Lincoln,
NE 68583-0732, USA.
Email: [emailprotected]
Use of Self-Monitoring to Maintain
Program Fidelity of Multi-Tiered
Interventions
J. Ron Nelson, PhD1, Regina M. Oliver, PhD1, Michael A.
Hebert, PhD1, and Janet Bohaty, MA1
Abstract
Multi-tiered system of supports represents one of the most significant advancements in improving the outcomes of
students for whom typical instruction is not effective. While many practices need to be in place to make multi-tiered
systems of support effective, accurate implementation of evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical to
obtain student outcomes. Effective strategies to achieve program fidelity are available; however, maintaining program
fidelity at the individual level remains elusive. Lessons drawn from medicine indicate strategies to maintain program fidelity
should address the implementer. Medical practitioners have used self-monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity with striking
results. Research evaluating strategies to maintain program fidelity at the individual level represents an important next step
in the field of education. Recommendations for a systematic research agenda focused on self-monitoring checklists are
presented.
Keywords
academic achievement, behavior, evidence-based practice
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0741932514544970&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-08-12
Nelson et al. 15
typical instruction is not effective. Furthermore, many evi-
dence-based practices (e.g., problem-solving method, cur-
riculum-based general outcome measurement) were
primarily used for students experiencing significant diffi-
culties rather than the full range of students for whom typi-
cal instruction is not effective. Although there is certainly
much more work needed to fully understand how to use
multi-tiered system of supports more effectively, they have
provided the supportive structure necessary for the wider
use of evidence-based academic and behavior practices to
improve the outcomes of all students, including those for
whom typical instruction is not effective.
Central to the effective use of multi-tiered system of sup-
ports by schools is not only achieving initial high levels of
program fidelity but also maintaining it over time. Schools
implementing multi-tiered system of supports tend to focus
on systems level factors (e.g., capacity-building) or pre-
implementation factors (e.g., action-planning) to enhance
the adoption of practices and maintaining program fidelity
(Hagermoser Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009; Han & Weiss,
2008). Although these factors are important, lessons drawn
from medicine indicate that more central to the issue of
maintenance of program fidelity are factors related to the
implementer because maintaining program fidelity is ulti-
mately based on these individuals. Indeed, program fidelity
declines or is low within 1 to 10 days after teachers begin
implementation (Hagermoser Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009;
Hagermoser Sanetti, Luiselli, & Handler, 2007; Noell, Witt,
Gilbertson, Ranier, & Freeland, 1997; Witt, Noell, LaFleur,
& Mortenson, 1997). Current efforts in the field of educa-
tion have appeared to ignore the need for such practices and
procedures (Han & Weiss, 2008). Thus, we believe research
focused on maintenance of program fidelity at the individ-
ual level represents an important next step.
Next Step: Maintenance of Program
Fidelity at the Individual Level
Importance
While many practices need to be in place to make multi-
tiered systems of support effective (e.g., universal screen-
ing, progress monitoring), accurate implementation of
evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical
to obtain student outcomes (The Evidence-Based
Intervention Work Group, 2005). Research demonstrates
that when program or treatment fidelity is high, larger
effects are obtained (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury,
Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Gottfredson,
Gottfredson, & Hybl, 1993; Telzrow, McNamara, &
Hollinger, 2000) and lower levels of treatment fidelity make
evidence-based practices less effective (Dusenbury et al.,
2003). Lower accuracy of program fidelity can happen
because the implementer only uses porti
