University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

(USC Thesis Other)

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Implementing an Equity-Based Multi-Tiered System of Support in a Large Urban School
District: The Grows and Glows

Sarah Yuki Scheidt

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Sarah Yuki Scheidt 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Sarah Yuki Scheidt certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Bradley Ermeling
Gregory Franklin
David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) is incorporated into the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) as a framework to meet students’ needs using evidence-based practices and data-
informed decision making through systematic alignment and integration. Despite ESSA and
previous legislative attempts to increase educational equity for marginalized learners,
educational inequities persist. To ensure equitable student outcomes, leaders must be equipped
with strategies to support MTSS implementation and combat implicit bias. Through a convergent
parallel mixed method approach, this study aimed to understand leaders’ perceived challenges
and opportunities during the early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
California urban school district and identify leader strategies to support MTSS implementation
and equitable student access and participation in educational supports. Furthermore, this study
gathered what resources leaders believe are needed to implement and sustain an equity-based
MTSS. Findings revealed that high staff turnover and lack of system-wide collaboration hindered
MTSS implementation; however, implementation presented opportunities for increased dialogue
around equity and educator self-reflection. Leadership strategies to promote student access and
participation included maximizing teams to make student-centered decisions, creating equitable
educational environments, and shifting mindsets. The resources needed to implement and sustain
an equity-based MTSS included an integrated data system, high-quality professional learning,
and job-embedded coaching. This study provides implications for leaders and practitioners
seeking to implement an equity-based MTSS in a large urban school district.
Keywords: educational equity, leadership strategies, multi-tiered system of support, large
urban districts

v
Dedication
To my Creator, loving mother, devoted husband, and beautiful daughter. This dissertation could
not have been completed without your unwavering grace, support, compassion, and love. Your
faith in me provided the motivation and willingness I needed to take on this enormous challenge
and see it through to completion. I want to express my profound gratitude and appreciation for
your continuing belief in me and the many ways in which you have helped me succeed. As I
complete this journey and move on to the next, know that wherever this marvelous universe
takes us, we walk together every step of the way on the road of happy destiny.

vi
Acknowledgments
I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. David Cash, Dr. Gregory
Franklin, and Dr. Bradley Ermeling. Each of them mentored and guided me throughout the
dissertation process. I would also like to thank Dr. Bob Nelson for his continued support and
inspiration throughout the doctoral program. Thank you for being a true example of servant
leadership. Thank you to my USC colleagues for your invaluable support during the entire
doctoral program, particularly the Tuesday and Thursday night cohorts, for your continued
support, motivation, and humor as we worked together to complete our classes. We had some
hilarious and memorable breakout sessions! Thank you to my coworkers who believe in this
work and understand that implementing an equity-based MTSS across our system will cultivate
the educational organization our students, staff, and community deserve. Thank you to my
friends, who reminded me to trust the process, stay willing, and keep trudging (a.k.a., walk with
purpose). Last, thank you to the leaders who took the time to interview with me. Each of you is
engaging in the brave and transformative leadership needed to disrupt the status quo and nurture
environments that foster educational equity. Thank you for your continual work despite the
overwhelming challenges. You are seen and appreciated. Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
The Historical Fight for Educational Equity ..................................................................... 11
Multi-Tiered System of Support ....................................................................................... 17
Implementing an Equity-based MTSS .............................................................................. 24
Implicit Bias ...................................................................................................................... 31
Transformative Leader Theory ......................................................................................... 38
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 46
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 50

viii
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 50
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 51
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 51
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 52
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 53
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 55
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 57
Trustworthiness and Credibility ........................................................................................ 58
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 59
Researcher Positionality.................................................................................................... 59
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 61
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61
Results…… ....................................................................................................................... 62
Results: Research Question 1............................................................................................ 63
Discussion: Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 68
Results: Research Question 2............................................................................................ 68
Discussion: Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 76
Results: Research Question 3............................................................................................ 77
Discussion: Research Question 3 ...................................................................................... 84
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 85
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 87

ix
Findings............................................................................................................................. 88
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 97
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 101
References ....................................................................................................................... 103
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 122
Appendix B: Survey .................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 126
Appendix D: Recruitment Email for Survey Participants........................................................... 128
Appendix E: Central Valley Unified District Overview ............................................................. 129

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Interview and Survey Selection Criteria for District and Site Leaders 53
Table 2: Research Question and Data Collection Method 54
Table 3: Interview Participants 62
Table E1: School Sites by Type 129
Table E2: Student Demographics 129
Table E3: Student Enrollment by Program 129

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teaming Structures of MTSS 21
Figure 2: Model of Transformative Leadership 42
Figure 3: Transformative Leaders Cultivating Equitable Student Outcomes 47
Figure 4: District Messaging Regarding MTSS Implementation 65
Figure 5: Leaders Trained in Strategies to Combat Implicit Bias 72
Figure 6: Resource Needed: Integrated Data System 79
Figure 7: Principals Trained on Essential Components of Equity-Based MTSS 82
Figure 8: Leader Strategies to Support MTSS Implementation 82
Figure 9: Resource Needed: Staff Professional Learning 83

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This dissertation examined the challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-
based multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) in a large urban school district in California.
Leadership strategies were explored to promote equitable student outcomes to understand how
leaders ensure students have access to and participate in educational supports and services during
MTSS implementation. Furthermore, this study investigated the resources leaders believe are
necessary to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS in a large urban district. The
following chapter discusses the background of the problem, the significance, and purpose of the
study, the limitations, and concludes with the organization of the study.
Background of the Problem
With school closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and social unrest reignited by
police killings of unarmed Black people, educational equity, or the lack thereof, has taken center
stage across the country. These national crises have once again called into question the
systematic educational practices that have resulted in pervasive disparities in student outcomes
for marginalized youth (Anand & Hsu, 2021). Students of color, students with disabilities,
foster/homeless youth, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are examples of
marginalized youth who typically achieve lower standardized academic scores and have higher
rates of exclusionary disciplinary referrals than their White and Asian American peers (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Henry et al., 2020; Losen & Martin, 2018). Students who face these disparities
are more likely to enter the school–to–prison pipeline, have limited socioeconomic mobility, and
rely on social services (Darensbourg et al., 2010; Fenning & Rose, 2007; Skiba et al., 2014).
Educational equity, as defined by Debnam et al. (2014), “Does not mean treating all
students in exactly the same way, but rather treating students fairly by ensuring that each student
2

receives what they need to be successful” (p. 448). According to the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment, a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection under the law” (Cornell Law School, n.d., para. 1). Policymakers and the courts have
had to intervene to ensure equal protection in schools. For example, one of the most influential
cases that impacted education as people know it today was Brown v. Board of Education (1954),
which required states to end racial segregation in education (S. Johnson, 2017). In 1965,
President Johnson created history by enacting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), the first federal legislation of its kind to provide funding to support equality in schools
by providing resources to marginalized youth (Sanders, 2016). In 2001, ESEA was renamed No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) by President George W. Bush. NCLB attempted to raise educational
equity to new heights through unprecedented accountability and commitment by providing
students with a quality education regardless of ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic background
(Ferguson, 2021). Despite its good intentions, it had a negative impact on marginalized youth
(Dennis, 2016). NCLB was replaced by President Obama’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
in 2015. In a continued effort to achieve equitable outcomes for all students, the U.S. Department
of Education incorporated multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) into ESSA. MTSS is a
“comprehensive continuum of evidence-based systematic practices to support a rapid response to
student’s needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making”
(ESSA, 2015, Section 8002).
According to McIntosh and Goodman (2016), MTSS is rooted in the data-informed
practices of response to intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS).
RtI refers to providing high-quality, multi-tiered instruction and interventions tailored to
students’ needs, frequently monitoring student progress to make instructional method decisions,
3

and routinely reviewing collected data on student progress to determine the need to refer for
special education support (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). PBIS represents a parallel model for behavior.
Preventative behavioral instruction is delivered to the student population to decrease negative
behaviors that may impede learning and to foster a positive school climate (McIntosh et al.,
2009). MTSS builds on the principles of RtI and PBIS by incorporating a continuum of system-
wide resources, strategies, structures, and practices providing a comprehensive framework for
addressing systemic barriers to student learning and supporting students’ academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral needs (California Department of Education, n.d.-b).
Student access and participation in needed educational services are MTSS pillars, and
implementation in schools is critical to creating equitable outcomes for all students. Clark and
Dockweiler (2019) concurred, emphasizing that “MTSS is the foundation for successful student
outcomes, the equalizer in providing a socially just education for all students, and the framework
for eradicating the school-to-prison pipeline” (p. 1). Building on the MTSS framework, McCart
and Miller (2020) stressed that an equity-based MTSS ensures the vision of inclusivity for all
students while maximizing educators’ talents and strengths using evidence-based practices
through a continuum of tiered supports.
The MTSS framework is typically distributed across three tiers. Tier I emphasizes school-
wide differentiated universal instruction and should meet 80% of students’ needs. Tier II
strategies and interventions are expanded to meet the needs of 10% to 15% of the student
population. The remaining 3% to 5% of students in Tier III have their needs met through
intensive and individualized interventions (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions &
Supports, n.d.). Data are used to monitor students’ response to universal instruction and tiered
interventions reviewed by high-functioning educational teams (Center on Positive Behavioral
4

Interventions & Supports, n.d.). Site leaders and teachers not only act as boots on the ground
MTSS implementers but also as gatekeepers to these critical services and must be supported in
implementation.
According to Fullan (2007), challenges and obstacles arise in system-wide
implementation, and MTSS implementation in schools has been no different (Bohanon et al.,
2016; Braun et al., 2020; Lesh et al., 2021). District and site leaders are the backbone of the
MTSS framework (Choi et al., 2018) and need to be aware of potential barriers that may impede
implementation. Perhaps the most significant barrier facing leaders is changing staff beliefs and
behaviors about the structures and practices of an equity-based MTSS during the implementation
process (Anyon et al., 2016). Fallon et al. (2021) indicated other barriers, including failing to
implement MTSS without authentic collaboration from all educational partners, addressing root
causes of discipline disproportionally, and ensuring that equity is at the center of the framework
and not compartmentalized.
When examining belief systems and addressing root causes, leaders must be cognizant of
implicit bias and its impact on educational inequities (Ferguson, 2021). According to Warikoo et
al. (2016), implicit biases are “automatic, unconscious cognitive associations people have
between a given social group and certain feelings, concepts, and evaluations” (p. 508). Without
awareness of, understanding, and acknowledging implicit biases, educators may unknowingly
deny students access to and participation in vital educational supports and services, resulting in
inequities. Implicit biases have been proven to have disparaging effects on marginalized students
within the educational system (Warikoo et al., 2016). All system implementers must recognize
implicit biases and how they affect students’ access and participation in the services required to
achieve equitable outcomes (Ferguson, 2021).
5

This study sought to uncover MTSS implementation challenges and opportunities by
learning about district and site leaders’ perceptions as they implement an equity-based MTSS
framework in a large California urban school district. What obstacles and opportunities do they
face as they engage in the implementation process? How can district leaders support
implementers’ efforts to maintain system-wide coherence, resulting in equitable access,
participation, and outcomes for all students?
Statement of the Problem
In 2016–2017, 11 million instructional school days were lost because of out-of-school
suspensions (Losen & Martinez, 2020). Despite policymakers’ mandates to implement programs
to achieve educational equity, disparities in student outcomes persist (Javius, 2017). A student
from a marginalized subgroup, such as Black, Latinx, or a student with a disability, is 2 to 3
times more likely to be suspended than a White peer without a disability (Losen & Martin,
2018). Students who are removed from their learning environment cannot access and participate
in their educational program, placing them at a significant disadvantage in achieving positive
academic and social outcomes (Gregory et al., 2018). MTSS is a preventive systemic approach
addressing students’ social-emotional, behavioral, and academic needs to support all students
learning (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). Although much emphasis has been placed on the
importance of MTSS implementation fidelity concerning data collection, the need for
professional learning, and the importance of scheduling (Braun et al., 2020; Dulaney et al.,
2013), little research has been conducted with leaders implementing MTSS to better understand
leader strategies used to implement the framework and what role implicit bias may play in
hindering MTSS implementation. Identifying and acknowledging barriers to student access and
participation and leader strategies to overcome them are vital steps in ensuring that an equity-
6

based MTSS framework is fully implemented, leading to sustainability and more equitable
student outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences and perspectives of
district and site leaders on the challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based
MTSS in a large urban school district. Furthermore, this study inquired into the leadership
strategies implemented by district and site leaders to ensure MTSS implementation and student
access and participation in educational supports and services. Interviews and surveys assisted in
identifying resources that district and site leaders perceived are needed to implement and sustain
an equity-based MTSS, along with leadership strategies needed to move implementation. This
research was based on transformative leadership theory (Shields, 2010). Transformative
leadership theory promotes social justice and democracy by calling attention to the existence of
inequitable practices that oppress marginalized groups. Transformative leadership continues to
challenge the status quo and necessitates critical thinking, analysis, and action against injustices.
It begins with an awareness of society’s and school systems’ challenges, weaknesses, and
strengths and a call for critical reflection on who the system works for and who it fails.
Furthermore, transformative leadership contends that to promote equity and solve problems, a
critical examination of beliefs, values, practices, and policies is required (Shields, 2018).
Transformative leadership theory is discussed more in Chapter 2. Three research questions were
examined during this study:
1. What do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation perceive
as challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban school district?
7

2. What leadership strategies are implemented by district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students have access to and participate
in educational supports to achieve equitable student outcomes?
3. What resources do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS
implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-
based MTSS in a large urban school district?
Significance of the Study
In the 69 years since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), courts, policymakers, and
educators have debated the continuing disparities in inequitable student outcomes, yet they
persist. If educators are serious about providing an equitable education to all students and
ensuring their success, the conversation should shift to student access to and participation in
differentiated, individualized instruction and services to meet the needs of the whole child (Zhao,
2016). Implementing an equity-based system that ensures success for all students in a large urban
school district necessitates stakeholders willing to examine personal and contextual barriers that
may impede the full intent of an equity-based MTSS. The study’s findings discussed the
challenges leaders face when implementing an equity-based MTSS framework and opportunities
to maximize implementation to promote equitable student outcomes. Identifying challenges and
opportunities will lead to developing strategies for practitioners to address systemic inequities,
potentially leading to equitable student access, participation, and outcomes.
Limitation and Delimitations
Every research study has its own set of limitations and delimitations. According to Simon
and Goes (2013), a limitation is a matter or occurrence that happens in a study that is beyond the
researcher’s control. Delimitations, on the other hand, are characteristics that result from
8

limitations in the scope of the study as well as deliberate exclusionary and inclusionary decisions
made by the researcher during the development of the study design. One limitation of this study
relates to generalizability. Because qualitative research focuses on unique settings or contexts
and individuals rather than settings or people that are representative of a larger population,
qualitative researchers are typically unable to generalize their findings (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). In this study, I used a purposeful sampling method to select district and site leaders in the
early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS framework in a large California urban
school district. The limitation is addressed because the participants are implementing an equity-
based MTSS framework in a large urban district in California with the hopes that findings can be
generalized to similar settings. Another limitation was the small number of principals who
responded to the survey. While unfortunate, it is understandable given their workload and
responsibilities.
This study was also constrained by the safety protocols imposed by COVID-19. Some
interviews were held virtually via Zoom based on interviewee preference. Holding the interviews
virtually may have restricted the ability to develop rapport and thoroughly interpret body
language and visual cues. The small number of interview participants chosen for the study was a
delimitation of this study. Purposeful sampling was used to select participants involved in
implementing an equity-based MTSS framework and those district and site leaders within the
selected urban district in California.
Definition of Terms
Access is a student’s right to obtain or make use of educational resources and services
regardless of race, gender, physical or cognitive ability, or socioeconomic background (Great
Schools Partnership, 2014).
9

Educational equity is ensuring that each student receives what they need to be successful
(Debnam et al., 2014).
Equity is “equality turned into action, a process of making equal and fair” (Unterhalter,
2009, p. 416).
Equity-based multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) is
a complex schooling structure that brings together educator knowledge of context,
science, and systems, resulting in positive benefits for all students. It is an organizing
framework that uses specific data sources to inform decisions coordinating diverse
academic, behavioral, and social resources to meet the needs of each and every student in
a dynamic and timely fashion. (McCart & Miller, 2020, p. 6)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, signed by President Obama in 2015. It mandates LEAs to use
a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based systematic practices to support a rapid response
to students’ needs with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision making
(ESSA, 2015).
Implicit bias is an “automatic, unconscious cognitive associations people have between a
given social group and certain feelings, concepts and evaluations” (Warikoo et al., 2016, p. 508).
Participation is a student’s right to actively be involved in an educational resource or
service available to them regardless of race, physical/cognitive ability, gender, or socioeconomic
background (Wrightslaw, 2016).
Positive behavioral intervention supports (PBIS) is preventative behavioral instruction
delivered to the whole school population in an effort to decrease negative behaviors that may
impede learning and to foster a positive school climate (McIntosh et al., 2009).
10

Response to intervention (RtI) is the practice of providing high-quality, multitiered
instruction and interventions tailored to students’ needs, frequently monitoring student progress
to make instructional method decisions, and reviewing routinely collected data on student
progress to determine the need to refer for special education support (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Social justice “occurs when all children, from all different backgrounds, regardless of
socioeconomic background or demographic characteristics, are valued in a school community
and have access to a relevant education” (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019, p. 272).
Student outcomes are academic, social-emotional, and behavioral data to determine
student standing and progress (Great Schools Partnership, 2013).
Organization of the Study
The research study consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provided context and outlined the
need for the study, the problem statement, the research questions, and the study’s limitations and
delimitations. The second chapter provides an overview of the relevant literature, emphasizing
the importance of implementing an equity-based MTSS framework and the essential and
contextual components that comprise the framework. The historical and current implications of
educational inequities and barriers to equitable student outcomes are also discussed along with
contextual barriers to MTSS implementation in a large urban school district and possible
strategies for leaders. The third chapter provides an overview of the methods used to facilitate
the research. The findings are reported in Chapter 4 by identifying themes that emerged from
participants. Finally, Chapter 5 provides implications for practitioners and future research
recommendations.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review explores the complexities of implementing an equity-based, multi-
tiered system of support (MTSS) in an urban school setting and the negative impacts of implicit
bias on student access, participation, and outcomes. The chapter begins with a historical
examination of the struggle for educational equity, including landmark court cases, federal
legislation, and the impact on marginalized learners. The following section provides an overview
of MTSS, including the recently developed equity-based MTSS. The impact of implicit bias and
leader strategies to overcome implicit bias are reviewed next. The chapter concludes with
transformative leadership theory (Shields, 2010), which can support school leaders in
implementing an equity-based MTSS in an urban setting.
The Historical Fight for Educational Equity
In 1910, despite public education being a state and federal institution, states were able to
distribute funds and determine per-pupil spending at their discretion. For instance, South
Carolina spent an average of $40.68 per White pupil and only $5.95 per Black pupil. The
average school for White students costs $30,056 per year, but $3,953 was allotted to a school for
Black students (Hillstrom, 2013). These disparities were justified in part by Plessy v. Ferguson
in 1896, which stated that if the facilities were equal, no violation of the 14th amendment
occurred (Hillstrom, 2013). These inequities and growing unrest against the social injustices for
the marginalized learner led to Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The year 1954 marked a significant turning point for marginalized learners when the
supreme court mandated that school segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
amendment with its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Because of a long history of
discrimination and segregation, the court provided equal access to education, institutional
12

structures, and resources within classrooms and schools. Despite the decision resulting in
dramatic changes in schools nationwide, efforts to bring about integration were met with fierce
opposition. Daugherity and Bolton (2008) stated that well into the 1960s, “only a small number
of black students attended formerly white schools, despite enormous efforts by African
Americans and African American organizations such as the NAACP” (p. x). The executive and
legislative branches of the federal government had to become increasingly involved in the school
desegregation effort. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most critical piece of federal
legislation for advancing school desegregation. Title VI of the act established a process for
withholding federal funds from school districts that failed to eliminate racial discrimination
(Daugherity & Bolton, 2008). In addition to Title VI of the act, President Johnson signed the
ESEA.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The ESEA was deemed a legislative miracle (Casalaspi, 2017) and the first to provide
federal aid and support for elementary and secondary schools. The ESEA transformed American
education by allowing the federal government to establish standards to promote a unitary
education system. Casalaspi (2017) concurred, stating, “ESEA was one of the most significant
legislative accomplishments in twentieth-century American politics because, up until this point,
the federal government had deferred most of the responsibility for schooling to local and state
governments” (p. 247). As part of his War on Poverty, President Johnson used this 1.3-billion-
dollar initiative to fund schools, provide equitable resources for marginalized students, and
encourage school desegregation. The act also provided federal funding to strengthen school
libraries, state education departments, and education research and subsequent amendments
provided funding for bilingual education and students with disabilities (Sanders, 2016). As a
13

result of the legislative requirements outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main
stipulation for eligibility of funds from the ESEA was compliance with the integration mandates
outlined in the Brown decision. The ESEA helped to place equity at the forefront of education
policy (Sanders, 2016). In addition to attempting to provide educational equity to Black students
and hold states accountable, the ESEA initiated a discussion regarding educational equity for
students with disabilities.
In the early 1970s, two court cases challenged the segregation of students with
disabilities, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children [PARC] v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972). During this
period, schools could deny students enrollment based on their disability (Itkonen, 2007). In both
court cases, parents sued the school system in an attempt to gain access to public education,
asserting a violation of due process and equal protection (Lanear & Frattura, 2007). The courts
sided with the parents, ruling that denying a student with a disability access to a free and
appropriate public education was unconstitutional. The Mills and PARC cases launched a public
outcry, and within 2 ½ years, 46 right-to-education lawsuits were pending or decisions made in
28 states (Zettel & Ballard, 1979). Congress also investigated the status of children with
disabilities and found that millions of children were not receiving an appropriate education. As a
result, PL 94–142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was signed by
Congress in 1975 (Wehmeyer et al., 2020).
Education of All Handicapped Children Act
The EHA mandated that all public schools accepting federal monies give students with
disabilities a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment to the
maximum extent possible alongside students without disabilities. This was to be determined
14

through a nonbiased assessment and the development of an individualized educational plan.
Additionally, parents were guaranteed their due process rights (Lanear & Frattura, 2007). The
EHA has been reauthorized several times and has been renamed the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. According to the most recent authorization, issued in 2004, students with
disabilities receive specially designed instruction in regular education settings in their
neighborhood school, allowing them to participate and progress in the general education
curriculum. Also, a child should only be removed from regular education if they are unsuccessful
despite receiving specially designed instruction and supplementary aids and services (Wehmeyer
et al., 2020).
No Child Left Behind Act
According to Krieg (2011), the ESEA’s multiple reauthorizations over the years have
resulted in increasingly stringent accountability measures for schools but culminated in the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act signed by President Bush in 2002. NCLB displayed an
unprecedented bipartisan commitment to reducing racial disparities and providing all American
students with a quality education regardless of their ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic background
(Thomas & Brady, 2005). The passage of NCLB expanded the federal government’s influence
over state education programs and put the U.S. Department of Education at the center of
“bipartisan efforts to use federal spending to pressure states to embrace test-based accountability
and implement a slew of reforms to close racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps”
(McGuinn, 2015, pp. 85–86). To achieve these goals, the government required higher
accountability criteria.
Congress and the President established Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements,
which would serve as a central component for measuring school success, linking federal funds to
15

student performance, and imposing sanctions for low student performance (Thomas & Brady,
2005). AYP goals were to be reported yearly to the State of Education and broken down by
student subgroups. These subgroups are classified as “five distinct racial groups and three
student categories: Black, Hispanic, White, American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, low-
income, bilingual, and special education” (Krieg, 2011, p. 654). NCLB supporters hoped the
standards would “dissuade schools from ignoring typically underserved groups of students”
(Gaddis & Lauen, 2014, p. 17).
However, critics argued that imposing testing-based requirements did not provide the
much-needed assistance to inner-city schools but instead put them at a disadvantage because of
reduced funding and ability to attract competent faculty. They also argued that the provided
culturally biased tests favored White culture and thus did not accurately measure all students’
achievement, having a negative impact on test scores (Williams, 2008). Unfortunately, NCLB
defined and equated the failure of any subgroup with the failure of the entire school (Gaddis &
Lauen, 2014).
Although all schools were required to meet AYP targets, a disproportionate number of
Title I schools faced increasingly severe state consequences for failing to meet AYP targets
because of funding constraints (McGuinn, 2015). Many Title I schools have a large number of
Black and Latino students whose test scores fall below the proficiency level required to meet
AYP. These students also fall into multiple NCLB subgroup categories, such as students with
limited English proficiency and economically disadvantaged, increasing their chances of not
meeting AYP (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). According to Reed (2016), the accountability
protocols outlined in NCLB did not address capacity issues, leaving students and teachers
without recourse. Dennis (2016) agreed that despite its best efforts, NCLB “ran counter to the
16

movement for educational equity” (p. 395). However, President Obama attempted to address
educational inequities with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Every Student Succeeds Act
ESSA was signed into law and approved by Congress in December 2015 (Black, 2017).
ESSA preserved NCLB requirements for states to test students from third to eighth grade and,
once they were in high school, to ensure equitable and inclusive state-level educational systems.
ESSA also maintains the federal mandate that school performance is reported publicly by various
demographic subgroups (Egalite et al., 2017). States are expected to ensure that student and
school performance accountability measures include non-test-score measures giving them broad
freedom to interpret this requirement in a manner relevant to their local environment.
Critics of ESSA indicated that states would not meet the expectations of providing
marginalized learners with adequate, let alone equitable, education (Black, 2017). Ross (2018)
concurred after a study reviewing ESSA state plans, indicating that less than half of the state
plans mention equity as a focus or require districts to demonstrate how they will address
inequities. McGuinn (2019) also found similar results indicating that despite the flexibility that
ESSA provided the states in designing their plans, the majority lacked innovation and did not
address significant concerns such as access to high-quality teachers, rigorous curriculum, or
enrichment programs. McGuinn, however, indicated that states were given little guidance in
writing their plans. Although ESSA reduced the harsh testing and punitive accountability
measures, it also drastically limited federal control over education, which has implications for
equity (Black, 2017). Black (2017) said, “A troubling new era in which states are willing to
actively disregard their duty under state constitutions to deliver equal educational opportunities”
(p. 1313). Supporters of ESSA disagree.
17

ESSA supporters praise the increased availability of school voucher programs, charter
schools, tax credit programs, and homeschooling (Heise, 2017). ESSA also gave states more
leeway in defining substantive standards and reduced federal control over consequences for
states that fail to meet their own self-defined achievement goals, which the U.S. Department of
Education approved before implementation. Title IV authorizes 1.65 billion for student support
services and academic enrichment grants. If 40% of the school population is low performing,
Title I funds may be used more liberally to meet the needs of students to develop more
comprehensive plans (Egalite et al., 2017).
The quest for educational equity remains a challenge for the marginalized learner.
Culturally and linguistically diverse students constitute 55% of the student population (Jackson,
2021). Despite educational legislation, the disproportionate rate at which marginalized learners
are suspended, expelled, and represented in special education has been an issue for decades
(Anyon et al., 2014; Beachum & Gullo, 2020; Darensbourg et al., 2010; Losen, 2015). In 2018–
2019, the graduation rate for public high school students was 86% overall. However, the rate was
only 80% for Black, 74% for Native American, and 82% for Hispanic students compared to 89%
for White students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). To eradicate these
disparities, MTSS was embedded into ESSA.
Multi-Tiered System of Support
ESSA indicates that states are to use an MTSS. ESSA (2015) defined MTSS as “a
comprehensive continuum of evidence-based systematic practices to support a rapid response to
student’s needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making”
(Section 8002). MTSS provides a single framework for integrating academic, social-emotional,
and behavioral prevention and intervention through alignment and integration. MTSS emerged
18

from the public health sector’s concept of tiered intervention and intervention science (McIntosh
& Goodman, 2016). MTSS is defined as “an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses
on instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs,
and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social
success” (Orange County Department of Education, n.d., p. 4). The California Department of
Education ([CDE], n.d.-a) recommended four core components of the MTSS framework:
• High-quality differentiated classroom instruction. All students receive high-quality,
standards-based (with a focus on CCSS [Common Core State Standards]), culturally-
and-linguistically-relevant instruction in their general education classroom settings by
highly qualified teachers, who have high academic and behavioral expectations,
attained through differentiated learning instructional strategies, such as Universal
Design for Learning. (para. 2)
• Systematic and sustainable change. MTSS encourages continuous improvement at all
levels of the system (district, school site, grade/course). Efforts to align key
objectives by analyzing data, establishing support, and developing strategies are
refined as required to maintain effective processes.
• Integrated data system: To inform decisions about tiered support placement to meet
the needs of students, “district and site personnel collaborate to create an integrated
data collection system that includes … universal screening, diagnostics, progress
monitoring, and teacher observations” (para. 4). Parental surveys can also be used
“for continuous systemic improvement” (para. 4).
• Positive behavioral support. “Schoolwide, classroom, and research-based positive
behavioral supports for achieving important social and learning outcomes” for all
19

students are integrated into instruction and intervention strategies (para. 5). Learning
environments are safe and predictable and provide “consistent classroom
management structures across the entire system” (para. 5).
MTSS is most recognized as a tricolored pyramid, representing a continuum of supports
offered to students, and processes may differ from district to district. Still, the fundamental
structure for establishing tiers of support remains the same. Tier I consists of fundamental,
universal, school-wide, high-quality classroom instruction and support with an emphasis on
optimizing learning and preventing difficulties early on. All students receive Tier I, which is an
education centered on grade-level standards and schoolwide behavioral expectations. Universal
screening is conducted in the areas of academics, social-emotional, and behavior using
progressive measures to assess students’ development. School teams evaluate the instruction
delivered to all students and verify that every student is progressing. Teachers differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of individual students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Primarily,
75% to 80% of the student population responds to Tier I instruction and support (Clark &
Dockweiler, 2019).
For students who may not respond to Tier I, Tier II provides more targeted intensive
support (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Students have access to and participate in supplementary
teaching geared to their identified needs and delivered in small groups with other students
identified as having comparable needs. Universal and diagnostic assessments help identify
students’ needs matched with targeted, evidence-based interventions. The educational team then
evaluates the student’s progress for improvement and adjusts as necessary to ensure the student’s
growth. Throughout this process, communication structures are in place with educational
partners, including parents, teachers, and staff working with the student to guarantee proper
20

support in various contexts. Notably, Tier II supports are in addition to Tier I (Clark &
Dockweiler, 2019; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Tier III is for students who require more individualized intensive interventions delivered
individually (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Tier III has the same structures as Tier II. Using
diagnostic assessments, an educational team oversees the implementation of evidence-based
interventions, progress monitoring, student progress, communication structures, and possible
linkages to community-based agencies for further support if needed (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019;
McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
At each tier, there are educational teams to guide instruction, support, and interventions;
review data; and implement evidence-based practices to support positive outcomes for students.
Because MTSS is a systematic approach, it takes multiple district and school teams working in
collaboration (see Figure 1).
District leadership teams support school leadership teams by promoting financing,
defining policy and accountability indicators, and increasing awareness and support for an
integrated MTSS model (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). District student support teams exist to
guide the evaluation, intervention, and instructional practices that support students of site Tier II
and Tier III teams. The school’s leadership team(s) oversees the initial and ongoing
implementation of MTSS at the site level. Their primary responsibility may involve coordinating
systems at Tier I while guaranteeing coordination and collaboration with teams at Tier II and
Tier III.

21

Figure 1
Teaming Structures of MTSS

Note. Nesting of Teaming Structures within schools and districts. From Integrated Multi-Tiered
Systems of Support: Blending RTI and PBIS (p. 163), by K. McIntosh, & S. Goodman, 2016, The
Guilford Press. Copyright 2016 by Guildford Publications. Adapted with permission.

Student support teams are responsible for addressing the needs of students who require
Tier I level assistance and beyond. The core duties of these teams include identifying students
who require further assistance, designing intervention plans, assessing the ongoing efficacy and
fidelity of plans, assisting staff with the implementation of plans, and monitoring progress
(McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). In their classrooms or subject areas, grade level or content area
teams evaluate the efficacy of practices benefiting all students. These teams examine student data
after benchmarks for grouping to assess whether or not differentiated or modified instruction is
required. Crockett (2022), who examined the implementation of MTSS in a rural district, found
that grade-level or content area teams learning from one another on specific instructional
22

practices to support diverse students were vital to the success of the MTSS implementation. Also
essential to the success of MTSS implementation was engaged leadership from site and district
leaders. All district and site teams are responsible for building a continuous cycle of
improvement model, a team problem-solving protocol, and assessing the implementation fidelity
of the structures they put in place to ensure MTSS implementation and sustainability (McIntosh
& Goodman, 2016).
Implementation Stages
Because of the complexity of MTSS, district and site-level teams frequently implement
MTSS through stages known as investigation and adoption, installation, initial implementation,
full operation, and sustainability (Blase et al., 2015). The first stage, investigation and adoption,
entails developing a sense of urgency among staff regarding the need for change. During
investigation and adoption, emphasizing the initiative’s necessity and seeking ownership from
others is crucial. For example, school staff may examine discipline data and recognize how many
students miss school because of exclusionary practices. It also involves aligning suggested
innovations with the vision and mission of the school. Stage two of the program installation often
entails forming educational teams to direct the strategy. These teams should be prepared to act as
a cohesive entity and be assigned distinct roles (e.g., preparing data for meetings and
communicating with staff; Bohanon et al., 2016). The third stage, initial implementation, may
involve piloting intervention components with small groups (e.g., grade levels, departments).
The purpose of pilots is to provide localized examples of the strategy to be shared with staff. The
fourth stage, full operation, could involve redefining the professional roles of the entire staff. For
instance, each teacher could be responsible for implementing class meetings to increase the
students’ sense of belonging (Blase et al., 2015).
23

During the fifth stage, innovation, the team implementing the initiative uses its growing
credibility with the staff to implement the new system and practice changes. Depending on the
success of their Tier I initiatives, schools could add more intensive interventions. Staff positions
become formalized to reflect their role and responsibilities. In the sixth stage, sustainability, new
members of the leadership team undergo training. Training new employees for leadership
positions enables school approaches to withstand personnel changes. This step may also involve
expressing the connection between the initiative and the school’s success to the entire school
community (e.g., students, faculty, and parents). Although actions appear linear, they are more
iterative (Blase et al., 2015). For instance, a school may be in stage five for school-wide
activities but Stage 2 for Tier III work.
Thus far, I have provided a technical overview of implementing MTSS. However,
schools are populated with diverse humans with unique hearts and minds. Schools require and
deserve more than technical reform. They need equity reform (Shields, 2018), reform that
constructs educational settings that are inclusive, equitable, and just for all students. Therefore, it
is morally imperative that district and site leaders learn strategies beyond technical execution.
Fullan (2020a) argued that there has been little improvement in the past 125 years and that most
systems do more harm than good. He continued by stating that majority bad is the new norm but
that this can be the catalyst for systemic change. If leaders are to cultivate the transformation
needed to bring about equity for all students, then revolutionary change is required for our school
communities to thrive (Shields, 2018). Implementing an equity-based MTSS, combating implicit
bias, and being a transformative leader will bring about the equitable outcomes our students are
entitled.
24

Implementing an Equity-based MTSS
Recent research has emphasized the importance of implementing an MTSS with an
equity focus. For example, Fallon et al. (2021) encouraged educators to address the root cause of
disproportionality rather than compartmentalizing equity. Jackson (2021) emphasized the
following:
Educational inequity must be viewed and understood with the historical backdrop of
segregation and long-standing policies that upheld unfair treatment of students of color
and students with disabilities. Given this history, the outcomes currently produced in
schools are largely the result of inequitable systems that have been in place for many
years. Addressing equity should be the overarching goal of systemic change done in
collaboration with existing frameworks, such as MTSS. (p. 4)
McIntosh et al. (2021) found that when the whole school staff received professional development
focused on understanding discipline decision making and the effects of bias, conducted a root
cause analysis of discipline data, and then developed strategies to address these root causes, there
was a significant reduction in racial disparities in school discipline when compared to control
schools. Finally, Choi et al. (2020) demonstrated that an equity-based MTSS framework
improved state math assessment scores for students with individualized educational plans they
were when implemented with fidelity.
McCart and Miller (2020) defined an equity-based MTSS as
a complex schooling structure that brings together educator knowledge of context,
science, and systems, resulting in positive benefits for all students. It is an organizing
framework that uses specific data sources to inform decisions coordinating diverse
25

academic, behavioral, and social resources to meet the needs of each and every student in
a dynamic and timely fashion. (p. 6)
An equity-based MTSS is a tiered support system that fully responds to all students’
needs. It is not about placing or labeling students. It is a systematic approach to using
instructional resources distributed to any student based on identified needs. All students are
served through one system with a continuum of support organized in tiers for immediate use in
this equitable and inclusive approach (McCart & Miller, 2020). Clark and Dockweiler (2019)
created the LIQUID model, a new theoretical concept that embodies an equity-based MTSS
framework. The LIQUID model was developed to assist schools in adapting MTSS to their
specific needs and demographics. There are six micro- and macrofactors of leadership,
inclusiveness, quality control, universality, implementation and feedback looping, and data-
based decision making. MTSS cannot be implemented if these six elements are not present and
functioning together.
Leadership
According to Choi et al. (2020), leaders are the backbone of MTSS. Clark and
Dockweiler (2019) concurred, emphasizing that leaders must have a holistic vision of all three
tiers and understand the relationship between them and how to effectively implement them while
managing school resources. Leaders understand their role of successfully building and nurturing
MTSS teaming structures, which are the heart of MTSS. Fidelity of evidence-based practices and
procedures must be created and monitored with school leadership guiding necessary
improvement. Highly effective leaders challenge low expectations, providing supportive
instructional guidance built on relations of trust and care (Krasnoff, 2015). Site leaders serve as
role models and problem solvers to support MTSS implementation openly, transparently, and
26

materially at all phases. Leaders must continually reflect and evaluate practices to determine
whether they support the transformational shift they seek. They must also allocate time and
resources for staff to build competencies that support MTSS sustainability (Clark & Dockweiler,
2019) and provide evidence of impact to build collective efficiency among their teachers and
educational teams (Donohoo et al., 2018).
Collective efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1997), is “a group’s shared belief in its
conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels
of attainment” (p. 477). According to Donohoo et al. (2018), collective efficacy comprises four
components: a shared belief among educators that they will produce results, a collaborative
culture to implement high-yield teaching strategies, evidence of collective impact, and a leader
who participates in frequent, specific collaboration. As previously stated, MTSS is designed with
educational teams collaborating to produce equitable student outcomes across all three tiers of
the framework. Leaders must form teams that understand their role and responsibility within the
framework while increasing collective efficacy. However, leaders must do their part, which
DeWitt (2016) called collaborative leadership. A leader fosters an environment in which
relationships can develop over time, allowing educators to grow in an environment free of fear or
threat. Leaders cultivate psychologically safe environments. In psychologically safe
environments, staff believe they will not be penalized or judged negatively if they make a
mistake. Also, they think that others will not resent or ridicule them if they need assistance
(Edmondson, 2012). Leaders can use meeting protocols to assist teams in creating an
environment that reduces conflict, envy, or resentment, thus supporting a safer and more
collaborative environment (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018).
27

According to Fullan (2014), the leader’s role is to lead educators through a learning
process to improve educational outcomes while also learning alongside them as the lead learner.
Fullan stated, “The most significant factor-twice as powerful as any other -is leading teacher
learning and development” (p. 58). Being a lead learner supports a climate of development rather
than a judgmental one with transparent norms across settings while establishing a few key
initiatives. Fullan emphasized that it is not just the people who make a successful organization; it
is the relationships between those individuals intertwined with moral purpose that make the
difference. A leader must comprehend the nuances of change while promoting major initiatives,
knowing that individuals with the problem must be part of the solution while creating coherence
(Fullan, 2020b).
Inclusiveness
An inclusive school embraces and serves all staff, students, and families, not only those
from the majority culture (Shields & Mohan, 2008). Understanding, accepting, respecting, and
appreciating diverse individual, group, and community values, as well as languages, beliefs,
philosophies, and practices, serve as the foundation for culturally competent activities in schools
(Lindsey et al., 2019). Cultural proficiency requires educators to become aware of their own
preconceptions and to constructively incorporate students’ cultural diversity into all aspects of
learning (Lindsey et al., 2019). Educators must be willing and capable of learning from many
cultures and effectively integrate individuals and groups from all backgrounds into every aspect
of the educational environment (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019).
The most crucial component of school inclusion is teaching students who they are,
validating where they come from, and giving all students the tools they need to reach their goals
(Shields & Mohan, 2008). Schools demonstrate strength when they embrace diversity and see
28

problems as opportunities to improve how they support students (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019).
Inclusiveness is one of the primary objectives of an equity-based MTSS.
Quality Control
Quality control in MTSS is based on strong leadership, shared accountability embedded
in school culture, and checks and balances built into system design to allow for cyclical
reflection on current practices and revisions in response to data-informed outcomes (Clark &
Dockweiler, 2019). Individual fidelity, integrity, and accountability contribute to group fidelity,
integrity, and accountability in MTSS implementation. Quality control in MTSS is achieved
when evidence-based educational practices are implemented with fidelity, and students can
access instructional opportunities they require when they require them (Clark & Dockweiler,
2019).
Microlevel assurance that procedures and processes are followed consistently for every
student, as well as macrolevel assurance that practices are evidence-based and updated by data-
informed improvement measures, go together (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). Quality control
supports framing practices through different perspectives to get to multiple angles of the same
problem, leading to better solutions when systematically implementing tiers of support to meet
the needs of all students.
Universality
According to Clark and Dockweiler (2019), “Universal means everyone” p. 11). The
most critical tier in MTSS is the universal tier, Tier I, which serves as the foundation for high-
quality instruction using evidence-based practices and affects all students on campus (National
Association of School Psychologists, 2016). If every student obtained a high-quality education in
a developmentally appropriate academic, social-emotional, and behavioral curriculum, the
29

majority of students would respond positively, avoiding undesirable consequences most of the
time. Poor universal instruction for underperformers, compounded with expensive, targeted
solutions that do not address the root cause for underperformance, are significantly less effective
than addressing the primary cause (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). Educational teams need to
examine and change universal policies to ones that will have the greatest impact.
Universal practices, which are directly related to inclusive practices, aim to maximize
educational opportunities for all students. Educators can provide the level of support students
need by beginning with universal benchmarking and routinely monitoring students for low
achievement and social-emotional and behavioral concerns that may be symptomatic of larger
overarching challenges. Universality in a school setting is captured by systems that reinforce
quality universal instruction and allow progressively extensive interventions, supports, and
services to be accessible in a timely manner to every student who needs it every time (Clark &
Dockweiler, 2019).
Implementation and Feedback Looping
Consistency in applying evidence-based practice and procedures at the microlevel
substantially impacts student outcomes (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). At the macrolevel, there
must be review and revision, using a continuous cycle of improvement with site leadership and
educational teams using a collaborative team-based approach embedded with feedback for
capacity building and sustainability to occur. Leadership must closely monitor and resolve
implementation fidelity issues while building a shared consensus on new processes.
Feedback looping focuses on the emergence of cause-and-effect processes, with the
observation of quantifiable outcomes leading to the implementation of additional variables to
positively influence student outcomes (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). Educators evaluate new data
30

to determine whether their actions produce the desired results. A sustainable feedback loop may
contain data on student discipline, graduation rates; and student, care provider, and staff surveys.
Continual reflection on practices coupled with data analysis using methods such as those
presented by Fisher et al. (2020) can assist teams in ensuring they are making data-informed,
equity-centered decisions. The solutions to almost all problems on a school campus are within
the school’s educators’ reach (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). A collaborative, team-based approach
will facilitate MTSS implementation and sustainability.
Data-Based Decision Making
Outcome data usually tell the truth about whether educational practices are effective or
not, but it does not always tell the whole story. Triangulating data from multiple sources to
provide information to make student decisions results in better decisions. Clark and Dockweiler
(2019) asserted that data-based decision making safeguards the MTSS pillars of access and
participation, ensuring that students receive the necessary support and interventions at the right
intensity. When data-driven decision making is included in the MTSS framework, school culture,
staff procedures, and team processes improve. Regardless of campus size, data collection,
repeated measurements, and documentation should be automated to sustain fidelity.
Formative and summative data include observational, curriculum-based measurement,
standardized tests, attendance history, enrollment history, grades, parental involvement, medical
or developmental history, disciplinary records, and universal screenings. Leaders and educational
teams must engage in reflective practices when analyzing micro- and macrolevel trends,
evaluating system challenges, and modifying practices accordingly based on student outcomes.
As previously indicated, helpful protocols include those of Fisher et al. (2020), which aid teams
in reviewing their instructional practices through an equity-centered lens. While engaging in
31

reflective processes, educators must be aware of their own implicit bias. Educators evaluate their
instructional practices and then shift to more impactful practices based on data for the benefit of
students; however, despite one’s being the most well-meaning educator, implicit bias may hinder
students’ access and participation in vital services needed to reach equitable outcomes (Staats et
al., 2016).
Implicit Bias
Implicit bias, according to Staats (2016), is held by all and “no one is immune” (p. 30).
Unaddressed implicit biases can influence how people perceive other races and are frequently in
direct conflict with their explicit intentions. Through a dual systems theory, Staats explained that
“System 1 handles cognition outside the conscious awareness,” also known as implicit biases (p.
29). System 2 analyzes beliefs about people and concepts that individuals voluntarily disclose.
Staats et al. (2016) provided this working definition of implicit bias: “The attitudes or
stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.
Activated involuntarily, without awareness or intentional control. Can be either positive or
negative. Everyone is susceptible” (p. 14). They are pervasive and frequently put even the most
well-intentioned and egalitarian individuals to the test.
Implicit biases are best described as a System 1 process. According to research, people
tend to rely on their unconscious System 1 association the most in situations that “involve
ambiguous or incomplete information; the presence of time constraints; and circumstances in
which our cognitive control may be compromised, such as fatigue or having a lot on our minds”
(Staats, 2016, p. 31). As a result, even well-meaning people can make decisions that result in
inequitable outcomes for different groups, which can have dire effects. These consequences are
32

especially harmful in education because educators are subjected to many, if not all, of these
conditions during the school day.
Impact of Implicit Bias
Suspension predicts negative life outcomes such as dropout, arrest, and incarceration
(Darensbourg et al., 2010; Skiba et al., 2014), yet everyday disproportionate amounts of
exclusionary discipline are administered in schools. For the past two decades, students of color
and students with disabilities have been at a higher risk of being suspended from school (Losen
& Martin, 2018; Losen & Skiba, 2010). Suspension deprives a student of instruction by
removing the opportunity to attend school. Missing school perpetuates issues of poor academic
performance (Noltemeyer et al., 2019) and absenteeism (Balfanz et al., 2014). Part of suspension
disproportionality may be attributed to implicit bias (Beachum & Gullo, 2020) and puts
marginalized learners attending urban schools in a particularly vulnerable position given that the
majority of teachers are White (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). According to
researchers, White teachers are more likely to report problem behaviors among Black and
Hispanic students than among White students (Anyon et al., 2014; Huang, 2016; Welch & Payne,
2018).
According to Staats et al. (2016), many students remain the focus of implicit bias
throughout their educational journey, based on the color of their skin, their name, and their
behavior, because they do not meet the educator’s norms. Jussim et al. (1996) indicated that
implicit bias is a self-fulfilling prophecy in which people look for evidence to support their
implicit bias and ignore contrary evidence (e.g., Bonefeld & Dickhäuser, 2018), a phenomenon
known as confirmation bias. If a person expects more or less from a particular group of people,
they are more likely to see evidence of that bias, reinforcing the original bias. As educators
33

expect marginalized learners to misbehave or perform less academically, they look for and find
confirmation for these behaviors. This creates a vicious cycle in which educators act in ways that
reinforce and perpetuate the bias (Scott, 2021). Because of an educator’s implicit bias, a student
may face additional barriers to accessing and participating in the services required to advance to
the next level of their educational pursuit, potentially placing them on an unfavorable life
trajectory.
According to research, many educators work in highly stressful and cognitively
demanding environments, which can amplify the negative impact of implicit biases (Warikoo et
al., 2016). This happens even more so in an urban school setting where the cognitive demands
and potential for high-stress situations are exponentially increased. District and site leaders
attempting to facilitate transformation in urban school settings face additional challenges.
Urban Schools
The socioeconomic and educational context of urban schools makes defining them
challenging (Milner, 2012; Schaffer et al., 2017). However, they are often characterized by their
large bureaucratic administrations, poor facilities, outdated textbooks and technology, location in
segregated neighborhoods in physical decline, less-qualified teaching staff with high turnover
rates, and students with fragile family structures (Schaffer et al., 2017). Milner (2012), a leading
expert in urban education (Schaffer et al., 2017), offered a more in-depth analysis of urban
schools, providing clarity to the field and categorizing them into urban-intensive, urban-
emergent, and urban-characteristic. His classifications of urban schools, although primarily based
on population, also consider the social, economic, and academic factors that impact a school
(Milner, 2012).
34

Urban-intensive describes schools in large metropolitan cities with more than 1 million
inhabitants. Because of the sheer number of people in the city and the schools, these
environments would be considered intensive (Milner, 2012). The strained infrastructure and high
population density in these cities can make providing necessary and adequate resources to their
communities difficult. External factors, such as housing, poverty, and transportation, are directly
related to what happens inside the school. The term urban-emergent refers to schools that are in
large cities but have fewer than 1 million people. They face the same resource constraints as
urban-intensive schools but on a smaller scale. Finally, urban-characteristic refers to schools that
are not located in a large city but may face some of the challenges described in urban-intensive
or urban-emergent schools (Milner, 2012).
Leaders in Urban Schools
The socioeconomic, linguistic, and racial diversity of urban schools adds to the
complexity of leadership. School leaders face an array of perspectives, instructional needs,
resource demands, prejudices, and intersecting histories of oppression in such settings, where the
student and family demographics represent high concentrations of poverty, speakers of languages
other than English, communities of color, and often varying citizenship statuses (Crow &
Scribner, 2013). Families and students are blamed for the urban problems of the school or
district (Milner, 2012). Educators approach students with a deficit mindset, focusing on fixing
children’s deficiencies (Zhao, 2016) rather than coming from an asset-based mindset. According
to Crow and Scribner (2013), urban school leaders must find ways to bring community-based
organizations, connect them to school activities, and increase staff cultural competency practices.
However, leaders in urban districts face disproportionately high turnover rates of teachers. Urban
districts are more likely to have as many as 70% of their teachers leave within the first 5 years of
35

teaching (Papay et al., 2017), negatively impacting school stability, instructional program,
teacher collaboration, relational trust, and overall school improvement. A leader in an urban
district is tasked with being an effective instructional leader and must remember the role of
values, beliefs, and morality to bring about the transformation required to achieve equitable
outcomes for all students (Fullan, 2020a).
Leader Strategies for Combating Implicit Bias
Combating implicit bias in a complex environment like an urban school is difficult.
However, Beachum and Gullo (2020) have provided school leaders with a conceptual framework
that embodies social justice with a transformative lens coupled with evidence-based practices.
The transformative social justice lens encourages leaders to use relationships, flexibility, and
morality to effect the positive change necessary for school equity and inclusivity. Schools are
organizations that house complex networks of relationships that connect students, teachers,
administrators, staff, families, and communities. Leaders must cultivate positive relationships
with all educational partners and promote mutually beneficial connections between all groups.
Flexibility refers to a leader’s ability to use multiple viewpoints to make inclusive decisions.
Fullan (2020a) defined moral purpose as both an end and means:
In education, an important end is to make a difference in the lives of students. But the
means of getting to the end are also crucial. If you don’t treat others (e.g., teachers) well
and fairly, you will be a leader without followers. (p. 20)
A leader must be driven by justice, equity, and inclusiveness without becoming distracted by
needless debate or becoming a victim themselves (Beachum & Gullo, 2020). Motivated by a
moral purpose, leaders go beyond their own ideology, recognizing the strength of the
antioppression perspective and fostering an environment where hope and individual agency
36

thrive (Beachum & Gullo, 2020). When relationships, flexibility, and morality are combined with
decision-making supports, information building, intergroup contact, and mindfulness, they form
a practical framework for informed practice for school leaders who wish to implement
transformative practices to reduce the impact of implicit bias.
Decision-Making Supports
As previously stated, vulnerable decision points present educators with situations where
implicit bias is likely to influence decisions. As a result, providing decision-making support
helps to reduce the likelihood of implicit bias interfering with decisions. This may be done with
the support of a decision tree or a flow chart coupled with the additional practices of culturally
responsive positive behavior support (Bal, 2018) and restorative practices (Kervick et al., 2019).
Beachum and Gullo (2020) referred to this as shared decision making, which aids in removing
bias from decisions made on one’s own. When restorative conferences are implemented, shared
decision making also helps to build relationships and support systems. Shared decision making
offers a unique opportunity for leaders to participate alongside staff through this process as they
design a system of care for students while cultivating relationships with a strong emotional
component (Fullan, 2020a).
Information Building
To reduce the effects of implicit bias in schools, it is critical to increasing knowledge and
awareness of bias, inequities, and bias remediation strategies (Beachum & Gullo, 2020).
Educators can assess their level of implicit bias using measures such as Harvard’s Implicit
Association Test on various indicators ranging from race to ability. This test is beneficial for
measuring bias and helps individuals become aware of their level of implicit bias, which is
associated with less bias in decision making (Capers et al., 2017). Knowledge can be built by
37

educators disaggregating data to examine the disparities in their schools and using the
information as a baseline when implementing implicit bias strategies. Using data in this manner
allows schools to identify inequities and work toward addressing them (Beachum & Gullo,
2020). When taking the Implicit Association Test and looking at data, it is essential for the leader
to encourage reflective discourse that highlights problem solving and resolutions. This is done by
cultivating a safe and inclusive learning environment for all staff (Shields, 2019).
Intergroup Contact
Beachum and Gullo (2020) stated that “intergroup contact can be as simple as visiting the
local community or as complicated as developing a system of exposure to counter stereotypical
exemplars but is highly effective in reducing implicit biases” (p. 440). Through intergroup
interactions and identity discussions, Dovidio et al. (2000) found that both implicit and explicit
biases were reduced. This is even possible with imaged intergroup contact. Stathi et al. (2011)
discovered that imagining intergroup contact prepared people to engage with outgroups with an
open mind, and they strongly recommended it for educational settings. Intergroup contact can be
facilitated and modeled by leaders who positively interact with all members of the community,
establishing strong partnerships with multiple cultural organizations that support the school’s
mission and vision and providing opportunities for families to share their cultural wealth with the
school community.
Mindfulness
Mindfulness, or thoughtful awareness during decision making and daily actions, is one of
the most effective ways to counteract the effects of implicit bias (Beachum & Gullo, 2020).
Individuals can practice mindfulness through mindfulness meditation, which uses meditation to
develop a stronger focus on present-moment presence and thought awareness (Burgess et al.,
38

2017; Stell & Farsides, 2015). Writing out reasons for decisions and taking time before deciding
are effective strategies for reducing the effects of implicit bias because they reduce the potential
for emotional influences on decision making (Smolkowski et al., 2016). Simply being aware of
one’s own implicit bias can serve as a mindfulness tool by assisting individuals in becoming
aware of their initial reaction to a situation (Beachum & Gullo, 2020). Although thinking about
decisions may appear straightforward, mindfulness is both the simplest and most difficult
strategy to implement when working toward implicit bias remediation in schools (Beachum &
Gullo, 2020). Learning to be mindful in decision making with staff will take time; it requires
colleagues to support one another in a nonjudgmental manner that allows for vulnerability to be
expressed. All of this necessitates building relational trust (Fullan, 2020a). Relational trust is
essential when dealing with the complexities of unpacking implicit bias. This relates to the belief
that the school culture promotes the continual development of technical and emotional skills
(Fullan, 2020a) by engaging in authentic partnerships with educators during the learning process
and modeling the vision of transformation (Schwartz, 2021).
Transformative Leader Theory
Shields (2020) stated that “transformative leadership is informed by critical theorists who
decry the inequities in the status quo and seek ways of redressing them” (p. 3). First described as
an educational leadership theory by Foster (1986), this critical leadership theory notes that a deep
understanding of the organization’s context, the identity of the leader, the identities of those
within the organizational community, and the broader community are necessary to disrupt the
status quo and create deep, revolutionary change within an institution or organization.
Transformative leadership theory is applicable in situations in which leaders must focus on
making school environments more equitable and inclusive for all students (Shields, 2020).
39

Rather than blaming students for aspects of their education, such as low-test scores and
underachievement, transformative leadership theory emphasizes the “systemic and structural
forces related to identity markers such as race and class that perpetuate inequity” (Shields, 2020,
p. 3).
Foster (1986), one of the first to write about transformative education, urged
transformative leaders to be critically educative, which entails examining and altering the
environment in which they live. Bennis (1986) recognized three factors of transformative
leadership: the leader, the intent, and the organization. Bennis asked leaders to influence people
in a manner that elevates human consciousness, creates meaning, and returns power to the
person. Emerging theories of transformative leadership increasingly support and define this
recognition of individual power (Shields, 2010). Transformative leadership incorporates traits
from other leadership theories, such as equity, justice, and inclusion, often associated with
leading for social justice and culturally responsive practices (Hammond, 2014; Shields &
Hesbol, 2019; Theoharis, 2007). It begins with the aim of fairness and democracy, critiques
inequitable practices, and promotes more individual achievement and a better life (Shields,
2013). Transformative leaders bravely raise attention to oppressive practices and structures
(Boske, 2011). Transformative leadership continues to challenge the status quo and necessitates
critical thinking, analysis, and action against injustices. It begins with an awareness of society’s
and school systems’ challenges, weaknesses, and strengths as well as a call for critical reflection
on who the system works for and who it fails (Shields, 2018). Furthermore, transformative
leadership contends that to promote equity and solve problems, a critical examination of beliefs,
values, practices, and policies is required.
40

In her teachings and writings, Shields (2019) spoke of Paulo Freire (1970), a Brazilian
educator and philosopher. In addition to his classic work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which
investigated and criticized the oppressor-oppressed relationship, he is best known for his
contributions to critical pedagogy. When certain conditions are met in education, Freire used the
terms transform, transformation, and transformational to characterize the possible outcomes.
Dialogue was a term that Freire frequently used in his educational writings to describe a method
of bringing about social change through education and collective social action (Shields, 2010).
For a conversation to be effective, there needs to be more than just a simple exchange of words
between two people or between a leader and their team. According to Freire (1970), dialogue
“cannot exist in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people ... it is not possible if
it is not infused with love” (p. 89). The leader must be coming from a place of respect and love
for the other individual. Freire stressed that this type of dialogue leads to communion, which
elicits cooperation, bringing leaders and people to fusion and ultimately to unity. This fusion and
solidarity occur when good leaders base their relationships on love, trust, and humility. Freire
stated, “Solidarity is born only when the leader witness to it by their humble, loving, and
courageous encounter with the people” (p. 129). True leadership is seen in the growth of this
relationship, which is based on love and trust.
Weiner (2003), building on the work of Freire, stated that “transformative leadership is
an exercise of power and authority that begins with issues of justice, democracy, and the
dialectic of individual accountability and social responsibility” (p. 89). Weiner entrusted the
transformative leader with making structural changes, reorganizing the political arena, and
understanding the dialectic interaction between leaders and followers. He stated that
transformative leaders must perform this transformative work in education with “one foot in the
41

dominant institutions of power and authority and the other foot in the transformation” (p. 91). In
doing this, however, the leader must not cave to the philosophies of the dominant culture.
Shields’s (2020) most up-to-date framework of transformative leadership theory contains
eight tenants, as displayed in Figure 2. The eight tenets are as follows:
1. Mandate for equitable change
2. New knowledge frameworks and mindsets
3. Democracy, emancipation, and equity
4. Redistribute power
5. Public and private good
6. Critique and promise
7. Interdependence, interconnectedness, and global awareness
8. Moral courage
As indicated by Figure 2, the beginning point is the inequitable organization. A
transformative leader then works through the tenets to make the environment, policies,
structures, and curriculum more inclusive and equitable. Educational leadership that is genuinely
beneficial to all students may gain from abandoning traditional leadership practices and fighting
for change that criticizes the status quo (Shields, 2020). Transformative leadership offers district
and school leaders the opportunity to successfully lead organizations to implement and sustain an
equity-based MTSS, thereby fostering learning environments that marginalized students can
access and participate in the educational supports necessary to thrive.

42

Figure 2
Model of Transformative Leadership

Note. Model of Transformative Leadership. From Becoming a Transformative Leader: A Guide
to Creating Equitable Schools (p. 1), by C. M. Shields, 2020, Taylor and Francis Group LLC.
Copyright 2020 by Taylor and Francis Group LLC. Reprinted with permission.

Mandate for Equitable Change
The first tenet of transformative leadership requires “determining what kind of change is
necessary to create schools that are equitable and excellent, inclusive and socially just” (Shields,
2018, p. 29). The transformative leader is responsible for eradicating marginalization on their
campus by ensuring the organization is inclusive for all diverse student groups. When mandating
equitable change, transformative leaders must “ensure that practices and policies demonstrate
respect and caring (regardless of individual beliefs)” (Shields, 2018, p. 29). Students are
marginalized by race, religion, ethnicity, social class, economic condition, citizenship and
immigration status, language, and ability (Losen & Skiba, 2010; Reyes & Garcia, 2013; Shields,
43

2018; Skiba et al., 2014). For transformative leaders, addressing the needs of all students by
embracing the tenet of deep and equitable change requires purposefully acknowledging these
inequities.
New Knowledge Frameworks and Mindsets
The next tenet in Shields’s (2020) framework requires modifying mental models and
mindsets. According to Shields and Mohan (2008), this process can be initiated in two ways: by
challenging and eradicating deficit thinking and by engaging in difficult conversations. When an
organization has a prevalent culture of deficit thinking, differences are perceived as deficiencies
and educational procedures and policies lay the burden of responsibility of change on the
students rather than the educators (Beachum & Gullo, 2020; Shields, 2018). Marginalized
learners are given the impression that they are less capable and have less potential than their
peers (Warikoo et al., 2016). Shields (2018) indicated that deficit thinkers defend their ideologies
by “citing standardized test scores, failing to acknowledge the importance of teacher attitudes
and expectations, of pedagogy and indeed the critical role of school leadership, in offering a just,
equitable, and democratic education to all children” (p. 8). Transformative leaders must provide
safe spaces and opportunities for staff to engage in democratic discourse and challenging
conversations that explore complicated topics, such as personal and institutional deficit beliefs
connected to marginalized learners, to reflect and develop effective strategies that address root
causes (Shields, 2018).
Redistribute Power
Within all organizations exists a culture of power, and the educational system is no
different (Shields, 2018). Frequently, cultures of power are maintained by implicit norms and
reflect cultural rules established by those in places of power (Staats et al., 2016). In schools,
44

unwritten rules, customs, and preconceptions regarding what is best reinforce power relations.
Norms that preserve inequitable power disparities are sometimes explained as “the way things
have always been” (Shields, 2018, p. 50), thereby serving as an example of how things should
be. Transformative leaders implementing an equity-based MTSS must reflect on how they
consciously and unconsciously promote curriculum, pedagogy, and disciplinary practices that
may continue to perpetuate disparities for marginalized learners through structures of power and
privilege. As leaders engage in discourse with others to call attention to the unequal distribution
of power and to request that the dominant group relinquish power for the greater good, they must
be prepared to face opposition (Bieneman, 2011; Shields, 2018). Despite the conflict,
transformative leaders must be resilient and able to thrive.
Public and Private Good
The next tenet contains two propositions. First, students are more focused on academics
and achieve at higher rates when the learning environment is inclusive, respectful, and equitable
(Capper & Young, 2014). Second, democratic societies are strengthened when educational
institutions call attention to issues affecting the public good such as democracy, citizenship, and
civic life (Shields & Hesbol, 2019). Shields (2018) proposed, “The selection of which goals
education should pursue is not a rational or empirical question, but rather, one grounded in
different (and usually competing) ideological stances and questions of what we, as a society,
either value or should value” (p. 64). Transformative leaders promote societal good,
collaborating with the community to establish goals and values that drive the school’s vision and
foster an inclusive civic society (Shields, 2018). Leaders establish and maintain communication
structures that solicit feedback from parents of marginalized students and the students,
emphasizing their voice, choice, and influence in school decisions.
45

Interdependence, Interconnectedness, and Global Awareness
Because of the rapidly changing, chaotic, and interconnected global world of the 21st
century, Shields (2018) asserted that it is crucial for today’s students to foster global
understanding, curiosity, and responsibility. Transformative leaders establish equitable learning
environments for all students by increasing their knowledge of their individual identities to place
themselves in a global context and comprehend how global issues affect them and those around
them (Shields & Hesbol, 2019). This knowledge enables all students to examine the world
through the lens of social justice, preparing them to critique injustices in the future (Shields,
2018).
Emancipation, Democracy, and Equity
The concept of constructing emancipatory and democratic frameworks leads to an
educational experience that affords all students equal learning opportunities (Shields, 2018). A
student who feels respected, valued, and acknowledged as a result of their lived and community
experiences generates social capital that can be used to navigate school structures and learning
(Shields, 2010). Shields (2018) suggested that transformative leaders engage in difficult
conversations with staff that provide opportunities for deep learning and dialogue about
pedological practices to foster the development of new democratic frameworks which promote
inclusive and equitable learning environments. She went on to postulate that curriculum should
be used as a conversation rather than simply telling the students the content and saving the
conversation for the end if there is time. The curriculum is the starting point to engage individual
students in conversation so that they may share their unique experiences about their cultural,
historical, and family perspective. Students then draw on their own prior knowledge to better
understand the course material. Transformative leaders implementing an equity-based MTSS
46

enable the development of innovative pedagogical strategies that stimulate learning through
democratic discourse leading to equitable and just learning environments.
Critique and Promise and Moral Courage
The next two tenets—balancing critique with promise and demonstrating moral
courage—are a natural progression for educational leaders who have embraced the preceding
tenets and are prepared to begin the transformation to achieve a better, more equitable education
for all students (Shields, 2018). To move forward, leaders develop understanding and focus in
more liberated and optimistic ways by recognizing the need for comprehensive discourse on
contentious matters. Transformative leaders face challenges, such as confronting implicit bias,
disrupting the status quo, and challenging the traditional structures of educational norms.
Courageous action and engagement are needed to tackle problems of this magnitude. A
transformative leader is one who actively engages in questioning assumptions and beliefs.
Dialogue, feedback, and reflective writing during staff meetings can be used to foster
conservation. During these activities, the leader aims to increase clarity regarding the
organization’s shared vision of equitable and inclusive practices and foster empathetic
understanding (Shields, 2018).
Conceptual Framework
Figure 3 demonstrates how a transformative leader can support the implementation of an
equity-based MTSS, which provides students with access to and participation in the educational
supports and services they need when they need them to achieve their greatest potential. A
transformative leader goes through the process of transforming their organization using the eight
tenets as indicated by Shields (2020): the mandate for equitable change, new knowledge
frameworks, and mindsets; democracy, emancipation, equity, and redistribution of power; moral
47

courage; critique and promise; public and private good; and interdependence,
interconnectedness, and global awareness. This process leads to equitable student outcomes.
However, a leader must be aware of the political and social constructs within and beyond their
school community as well as the detrimental influence implicit bias has on the life trajectory of
students.

Figure 3
Transformative Leaders Cultivating Equitable Student Outcomes

48

Conclusion
Considering the long history of educational inequities that have plagued schools, the
recent school closures prompted by COVID-19, and the social unrest of our time, schools require
a transformation that is equity-focused and a comprehensive framework centered on meeting the
academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs of students. Although PBIS and RTI have
shown effectiveness, neither addresses the needs of the whole child or the root causes of
academic and discipline disparities among marginalized learners (Smolkowski et al., 2016;
Sugai, 2015; Sugai & Horner, 2019; Wells, 2019). Choi et al.’s (2020) quantitative analysis was
comprehensive and covered multiple factors; however, it did not capture the voices and unique
perspectives of district and site leaders implementing an equity-based MTSS. Crockett (2022)
investigated leadership strategies to promote the implementation of MTSS in a rural school
district. Based on the findings of the study, Crockett recommended that additional research be
conducted in larger school districts. Wells (2019) conducted an investigation on the fidelity of
MTSS implementation at the secondary level and suggested that future studies take a more
methodical approach, such as conducting interviews with the principals of elementary and
middle schools. Interviewing district and site leaders of a large urban school district will expand
the current field of knowledge and provide critical information to assist in implementing and
sustaining an equity-based MTSS.
In the literature, Shields’s (2010) transformative leadership theory has been cited to assist
educators in creating educational institutions where all students learn (Bieneman, 2011; de Klerk
& Smith, 2021; DeMartino, 2016; Jun, 2011; Morgan & Bush, 2014; Wilson, 2015). The
technical aspect of MTSS, the LIQUID model (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019), and Beachum and
Gullo’s (2020) evidence-based practices for reducing implicit biases were reviewed. Leaders can
49

use these practices to foster inclusive, equitable, and socially just learning environments for all
students. In the next chapter, I describe the methods I employed to conduct my research.

50

Chapter Three: Methodology
Eleven million instructional school days were lost in the 2016-2017 school year because
of out-of-school suspensions (Losen & Martin, 2018). Disparities in student outcomes persist
despite policymakers’ mandates to implement initiatives to achieve educational equity (Javius,
2017). A student from a marginalized subgroup, such as a Black, Latinx, or student with a
disability, is 2 to 3 times more likely to be suspended (Losen & Martin, 2018). When students are
removed from their learning environment, they are unable to access and participate in the needed
educational support, which places them at a considerable disadvantage in achieving positive
academic and social outcomes (Gregory et al., 2018). MTSS is a preventive systemic approach
addressing students’ social-emotional, behavioral, and academic needs to support all students
learning (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019). Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of
MTSS implementation fidelity in terms of data collection, the need for professional learning, and
scheduling (Braun et al., 2020; Dulaney et al., 2013). However, little research has been
conducted to assist district and site leaders in implementing MTSS with a full understanding of
how implicit bias may affect students’ access to and participation in educational supports and
what leader strategies are required to address these challenges and support MTSS
implementation. Identifying and acknowledging barriers to student access and participation are
critical steps in ensuring the full implementation of an equity-based MTSS framework.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences and perspectives of
district and site leaders on the challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based
MTSS in a large urban school district. Furthermore, this study inquired into the leadership
strategies implemented by district and site leaders to ensure MTSS implementation and student
51

access and participation in educational supports and services. Interviews and surveys assisted in
identifying resources that district and site leaders perceived are needed to implement and sustain
an equity-based MTSS.
Research Questions
Three questions guided this study:
1. What do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation perceive
as challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban school district?
2. What leadership strategies are implemented by district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students have access to and participate
in educational supports to achieve equitable student outcomes?
3. What resources do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS
implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-
based MTSS in a large urban school district?
Sample and Population
This study was conducted with participants employed in a large urban school district in
California. Participants were chosen through purposeful sampling and interviewed or surveyed.
According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), purposeful sampling “is when a researcher selects
individuals or sites on the basis of specific criteria” (p. 141). The sample population was district
and site leaders involved in the early stages of MTSS implementation in a large California urban
school district. I was purposeful in my sampling because these individuals have the unique
experiences and attributes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) needed to complete the interview regarding
implementing an equity-based MTSS and leader strategies used to accomplish it. In addition, a
52

survey was administered to school principals to determine the resources they believe are
necessary to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS at their site and the leadership
strategies they have learned through professional learning. Table 1 displays the survey and
interview criteria for district and site leaders.
I conducted 10 semistructured interviews with six district leaders and four school
principals supporting the early implementation of an equity-based MTSS. In addition, an
anonymous survey was sent to 99 principals within the district to determine what district
resources they believe are required to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS at their site
and inquire what leadership strategies they have been trained in.
Design Summary
There are many commonalities between quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Coy
(2019) stated, “The selection of an appropriate research design depends upon the research
question, the goal of the research, and the way in which the research will be carried out” (p. 72).
Qualitative research explores individuals and phenomena in their natural environments, focusing
on understanding and learning how people make sense of and experience the world they live in
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Quantitative research tries to make sense of numerical data
representing people’s experiences. To make inferences, they analyze numeric data to understand
the relationship between data points (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). In this study, I needed to
interact with district and site leaders in their natural environment to obtain relevant details to
study the participants’ perceptions of the challenges of implementing MTSS in its early stages
while sequentially gathering survey data across multiple leaders to capture additional evidence.
Therefore, a mixed methods approach was used to provide results and support evidence to verify
the research questions, which included semistructured interviews and a survey (Coy, 2019).
53

Table 1
Interview and Survey Selection Criteria for District and Site Leaders
Interviews Surveys
Instructional superintendent Elementary site principal
Department administrator Secondary site principal
Department executive
Elementary site principal
Secondary site principal

This study is based on Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017) steps for conducting a research
study. In Chapter 1, the study focused on the research problem and purpose of the study; in
Chapter 2, a review of the literature was conducted; and in Chapter 3, the study’s methodology is
discussed. The fourth and fifth chapters focus on the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the
data.
Methodology
The methodology of this study included quantitative data from surveys of school
principals and qualitative data from semistructured interview questions obtained from district
and site leaders. A semistructured interview protocol was developed to use questions with
flexibility depending on how the participant responded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because of
the complexities of system-wide MTSS implementation, gaining multiple leaders’ perspectives
on the challenges, opportunities, and resources needed at the district and site levels was essential.
In addition to understanding district and site leader perspectives, it was necessary to survey
principals to understand their beliefs about what resources are needed to implement and sustain
an equity-based MTSS. Leadership strategies were also explored to determine how leaders
support students’ access and participation in educational services to ensure equitable outcomes
54

and support MTSS implementation. All three research questions were addressed during the
interview with participants, and the survey addressed Research Questions 2 and 3. Table 2
outlines the method of data collection used to explore each research question.
A convergent parallel mixed method approach was used for this study (Creswell, 2012).
I triangulated the data to check for consistency between interview data, survey data, and the
literature review to support the internal validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Transformative
leadership theory (Shields, 2010) was also used to connect the findings within these larger
concepts.

Table 2
Research Question and Data Collection Method
Research question Data collection method
RQ1: What do district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation perceive as
challenges and opportunities of implementing an
equity-based MTSS in a large urban school district?
Interview N/A
RQ2: What leadership strategies are implemented by
district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS
implementation to ensure that students have access to
and participate in educational supports to achieve
equitable student outcomes?
Interview Survey
RQ3: What resources do district and site leaders in the
early stages of MTSS implementation believe are
needed to effectively implement and sustain an
equity-based MTSS in a large urban school district?
Interview Survey

55

Instrumentation
Qualitative Instrument
Semistructured interviews were used to collect qualitative data. The interview questions
were written to gather information on the three research questions. I used Patton’s (2002) matrix
of question options: behaviors/experiences, opinions/values, feelings/emotions, knowledge,
sensory, and background to support the development of questions. The interview protocol
consisted of nine questions (see Appendix A). Additional probing questions were included in
Interview Questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. When clarification was needed, follow-up questions
were included in the interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol was
field-tested with two district leaders and one site leader to support content validity.
Quantitative Instrument
The quantitative data for this study were gathered through a nine-question survey (see
Appendix B). The survey questions were designed to elicit information from elementary and
secondary school leaders to answer Research Questions 2 and 3. All questions were closed-
ended, used standard language, and avoided the use of biased words or phrases (Robinson &
Leonard, 2018). For Survey Questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, a 5-point Likert-like scale was used,
and possible responses ranged from extremely clear to not clear or strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Survey Questions 3 and 4 were nominal with dichotomous choice responses of yes or
no. The survey was field-tested and reviewed by a content expert to support content validity. The
survey was designed to provide a numerical description of site leaders’ beliefs (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017) about resources needed to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS,
professional learning received in leader strategies to promote equitable student outcomes, and
strategies to support MTSS implementation.
56

Data Collection
Semistructured interviews and survey responses were used to collect research data. As
stated in the previous section, purposeful sampling was used to select participants who could best
answer the research questions and address the purpose of the study. Interview participants were
contacted several weeks in advance to determine what day and time would be convenient.
Informed consent (see Appendix C) was obtained before interviews because participants needed
to know their responses were confidential (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interviews were
conducted via video conferencing or in-person, which allowed me to build rapport with
participants, gather information, and have “an opportunity to interpret nonverbal cues through
observation of body language, facial expression, and eye contact and thus may be seen to
enhance the interviewers understanding of what is being said” (Ryan et al., 2009, p. 310). At the
beginning of each interview, the nature of the study and the confidentiality of the information
disclosed was explained. With permission from the participants, I asked whether I could record
the interview to ensure their perspective was captured appropriately. I also took field notes to
record additional observations during interviews. Throughout the interview, I actively listened
and ensured that participants did most of the talking (R. B. Johnson & Christensen, 2017). The
interviews took approximately 45 min. Participants were asked whether I could contact them for
clarification or information about direct quotes to ensure their perspective was accurately
represented. They were also encouraged to contact me if they had questions or required
additional information regarding the interview topics. Upon completion of each interview, I then
transcribed and reviewed the transcription. Recordings were deleted, and transcriptions were
stored on a password-protected device.
57

Surveys were sent to 99 principals to collect quantitative data. The survey was created,
stored, and analyzed using Qualtrics data software. Site leaders received an email containing a
link to the anonymous survey with an introduction (see Appendix D) and the stated purpose of
the study with the researcher’s contact information if they had any questions. Eighteen principals
completed the survey, which may indicate that the study’s findings may not be generalized to all
Central Valley School District (CVSD) principals.
Data Analysis
This study used a mixed method approach, with qualitative data from interviews and
quantitative data from surveys. The survey questions were related to Research Questions 2 and 3,
and the interview questions were related to all three research questions. The research questions
guided the data analysis for the study.
The transcripts were read through multiple times to become familiar with the general
information and identify salient features of the data and how they related to the research
questions. The information gleaned from the interviews was coded, analyzed, and saved using
MAXQDA computer software. The analysis was guided by Creswell’s (2012) six steps to
analyzing quantitative data. These steps included
preparing and organizing the data for analysis, engaging in an initial exploration of the
data through the process of coding it; using the codes to develop a more general picture
of the data—descriptions, and themes; representing the findings through narratives and
visuals; make an interpretation of the meaning of the results by reflecting personally on
the impact of the findings and on the literature that might inform the findings; and finally,
conducting strategies to validate the accuracy of the findings. (Creswell, 2012, p. 237)
58

The interview data were synthesized and separated into emerging themes using open coding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I looked for recurring themes in the data to align with the research
questions. Categories and subcategories were created and coded. Subcategories were then
connected to the literature review where similar findings have been made in research studies.
Once the data were coded, analysis was conducted to create the findings for the study that were
directly tied to the research questions. In a convergent parallel design (Creswell, 2012), survey
data were analyzed and compared to themes extracted from qualitative data and triangulated with
the literature review. In addition, I compared the data to transformative leadership theory as a
method of linking the findings within this theoretical framework.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
To increase credibility and trustworthiness, I prioritized the following actions, as
recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016): member checks, critical self-reflection, and rich,
thick descriptions. As suggested by Merriam and Tisdell, a research journal was used to reflect
on the interview process and how I may have been impacting others and to provide detailed
accounts of the procedures and decision points during my study. It was imperative to maintain
transparency with participants throughout the collection data process. This was done by
collecting rich data, as outlined by Maxwell (2013), who recommended that interviews be
recorded verbatim and notes highly descriptive. Tentative interpretations were reported to some
participants for member checks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and verification. I also sought
maximum variation in my sample population regarding site leaders with varying levels of
experience and the types of schools they led to ensure a greater range of application of findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
59

Reliability and Validity
To improve reliability, the survey was field-tested before administration. I was also
transparent about the purpose of the survey and methodology with participants, as indicated by
Lincoln and Guba (1985), to promote external reliability. To support content validity, I sought
feedback from a content expert in the field (Salkind, 2017).
Researcher Positionality
While conducting my research, I needed to maintain awareness of my positionality. I hold
the position of vice principal on special assignment, supporting the implementation of MTSS in
the district where the study took place. Throughout the research process, I understood how my
role and knowledge of MTSS may have impacted my research. Rather than attempting to
eliminate bias, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended identifying and monitoring it. Maxwell
(2013) suggested that biases be monitored by engaging in reflexivity. I reviewed my observation
notes to check for biases that may have influenced my reflections and acknowledged how my
experiences might have shaped my perspective. When using direct quotes, I conducted member
checks, allowing participants to review and revise, ensuring that the quotes accurately conveyed
the participants’ experiences.
Summary
This study used a convergent parallel mix method approach with quantitative data from a
survey and qualitative data from interviews. Interviews were conducted with district and site-
level leaders to address all three research questions:
1. What are the challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS?
2. What leadership strategies are required to ensure student access and participation?
60

3. What resources are required at the site level to implement and sustain an equity-based
MTSS?
The survey data were collected from elementary and secondary principals regarding
Research Questions 2 and 3. These findings are presented in Chapter 4, followed by a discussion
in Chapter 5.

61

Chapter Four: Results
This study aimed to understand district and site leaders’ perceived challenges and
opportunities during the early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large urban
school district and identify leader strategies to support MTSS implementation and equitable
student access and participation in educational supports. Furthermore, this study gathered what
resources leaders believe are needed to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS.
Participants
The participants in the study were district leaders and school principals in Central Valley
School District (CVSD). CVSD currently serves approximately 72,000 students and their
families. It operates 66 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 10 high schools, six alternative
schools, one adult school, and three special education schools. CVSD has a diverse student
population of 69% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 8% African American, 8% White, 2.5% two or more
races, .04% Pacific Islander, and .03% Filipino. In addition, 11.3% are students with disabilities,
17.5% are multilingual, 1% are foster youth, and 83% are socioeconomically disadvantaged (see
Appendix E). This study used a semistructured interview approach to collect data from
participants. Two secondary principals, two elementary principals, four instructional
superintendents, one administrator, and one executive were interviewed (see Table 3).
This study also used an anonymous survey sent to all site principals in CVSD (N = 99).
The purpose of the survey was to triangulate the research findings and to better understand site
leaders’ perceptions of resources needed and what leadership strategies leaders have been trained
in to support the implementation of an equity-based MTSS and ensure equitable student
outcomes. The survey had an 18% response rate.

62

Table 3
Interview Participants
Pseudonym Position in the district
Leader A Secondary principal
Leader B Secondary principal
Leader C Elementary principal
Leader D Elementary principal
Leader E Administrator
Leader F Executive
Leader G Instructional superintendent
Leader H Instructional superintendent
Leader I Instructional superintendent
Leader J Instructional superintendent

Results
The results are presented and organized by research question. For each question, the
results are presented in two to three themes that emerged related to each question. A summary of
results related to each research question is presented, and a summary is presented at the end of
the chapter. The research questions guiding and organizing this chapter are as follows:
1. What do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation perceive
as challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban school district?
2. What leadership strategies are implemented by district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students have access to and participate
in educational support to achieve equitable student outcomes?
3. What resources do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS
implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-
based MTSS in a large urban school district?
63

Results: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 for this study was “What do district and site leaders, in the early
stages of MTSS implementation, perceive as challenges and opportunities of implementing an
equity-based MTSS?” Braun et al. (2020) stated that large urban school districts confront
challenges when implementing MTSS. These challenges include leadership bearing the
responsibility of appropriately training less experienced staff because of the high turnover rate, a
student population with more frequent academic and behavioral demands, and inadequate
structural and administrative needs. Lesh et al. (2021) also posited that large urban districts often
lack authentic collaboration, hindering MTSS implementation. The interview responses provided
greater insight into the challenges and opportunities that district and site leaders face in the early
stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large urban school district. There were
common responses from both district and site leaders regarding challenges, such as high staff
turnover and the lack of departmental cohesiveness, which negatively impact school sites and
systematic planning. Site leaders expressed additional challenges, such as the lack of confidential
space for personnel, the additional supervision and oversight of staff required to implement
MTSS, and the operational inefficiency of district infrastructure negatively impacting their day-
to-day operations. Interview responses regarding the opportunity of implementing an equity-
based MTSS surfaced more intentional and self-reflective conversations about equity and
meeting the needs of a diverse student population.
Challenge: High Staff Turnover Results in a Lack of Understanding of Roles and
Responsibilities Within the MTSS Framework
When implementing an equity-based MTSS, it is vital that all educators understand their
roles and responsibilities (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). MTSS is a comprehensive, integrated
64

approach grounded in data-informed, student-center decisions made by teams of educators.
Teams must be self-reflective and cognizant of the impact of their decisions, follow team
protocols, and know how to access additional support for students when needed. However, this
can be challenging because urban schools often face high staff turnover (Braun et al., 2020),
which negatively impacts the continuity of student support and team processes. CVSD being a
large urban district deals with this predicament. Leader F stated, “There’s the turnover of leaders,
staff, whatnot. So really, I think it is a challenge. You have to plan for it, and we’re just not there
yet.” Leader G shared, “We have 700 new teachers in our district this school year.” Leader I
commented, “We still have 210 paraprofessional openings that need to be filled.” This results in
a lack of understanding of MTSS and the roles and responsibilities within the system to meet the
needs of students. Leader H stated,
I don’t believe that anybody wants to come to work and be mediocre. I think it really is
about capacity, and people have the capacity, but also, we are not nurturing that either.
So, as we are thinking of a system that has strong support, just strong support all around,
we also have to think about our adults, and do they have the tools that are needed?
McCart and Miller (2020) stressed the importance of creating a solid educator support
system within an equity-based MTSS. A robust educator support system includes a positive
school and organizational culture, instructional support that maximize educators’ abilities, and
building strong relational trust. Part of building strong relational trust is having clear
expectations and guidance (Fullan, 2020a). When asked about challenges, Leader E stated, “I
think part of the challenge is a lack of clarity and expectations.” Survey data revealed that less
than half of respondents felt that the district’s vision for implementing an equity-based MTSS
65

had been clearly messaged to principals. Thirty-nine percent of principals felt the district
message had been somewhat unclear or extremely unclear (see Figure 4).
Challenge: Lack of System-Wide Collaboration and Operational Efficiency
Principals expressed frustration over the lack of collaboration regarding too many
district-level initiatives and system-level operational inefficiency. For instance, Leader A stated,
“Educational leaders get bogged down with systems and structures, from district level, which
prevents us from keeping our focus on the main thing, which is instruction.” Regarding district-
level infrastructure, they stated,
For instance, hiring people and with the hiring tool that freezes. It takes hiring twice as
long or putting in a PO. I have to click 20 different things to get it through, just having
structures that slow us down as a system.

Figure 4
District Messaging Regarding MTSS Implementation

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Extremely Clear Somewhat Clear Neither Clear or
Unclear
Somewhat Unlear Extremely Unclear
Percentage of Responses
Principal Responses
66

When asked about challenges, Leader C expressed, “Facilities and operations,
curriculum, instruction, supervision, evaluation, logistics, and operations, all these things need to
be taken into consideration. They can create barriers, or they can create access points.” Leader D
concurred, stating,
My biggest roadblock is space. We are totally impacted, and we get these resources
coming in. Then managing the moving pieces and time regarding being a part of all the
meetings and then also coaching and supervising all the additional resources as well.
Leader G, a district leader, acknowledged site leaders’ feelings by stating, “Site leaders,
quite frankly, are overwhelmed.” This was a common theme among most participants because
they recognized the significant barriers of operational system-wide inefficiency and its negative
impact on implementing an equity-based MTSS.
Interview participants expressed the opinion that departments work in silos, negatively
impacting sites, staff, students, and families. Leader F stated, “I think a challenge is some of this
work is still siloed across departments which contributes to the lack of cohesiveness and system
development.” Leader E stated, “This is one of the challenges we are dealing with, are enough
departments talking with each other?” Leader E continued, “I hear from site leaders, ‘I’m getting
this from SPED; I’m getting this from DPI; I’m getting this from CCR; I’m getting this from
Curriculum and Instruction.’ We’ve done that to them. We’ve created that in our system.”
Leaders spoke to the need for greater collaboration between departments and site leaders to build
cohesiveness across the system. According to Lesh et al. (2021), authentic collaboration is one of
the barriers hindering MTSS implementation in a large urban school district.
67

Opportunity: Intentional Conversations Raised About Equity and Self-Reflection
Interview participants expressed that implementing an equity-based MTSS and acquiring
additional resources to meet the needs of the diverse student population has increased
conversations about equity. When asked to define educational equity, Leader C stated,
Educational equity is ensuring that barriers are removed for students to be successful
while also ensuring that there are services or practices that are implemented, so that not
only is the barrier removed, but something else is added that is necessary in order for that
student or groups of students to be successful at a Tier I level or through Tier II, Tier III
services.
Leader E also indicated, “Educational equity for me is ensuring that we as a system ensure that
every student has what they need to be successful. So that means some students may need
different or more than others.” Some leaders expressed that talking about equity has allowed
more self-reflection in instructional practices, positionality, and identity. Leader J expressed the
following:
Just really sort of putting these concepts in the space gives everybody an opportunity to
think about what are my identities and positionalities as they relate to what we’re talking
about and where am I with this? How is this sitting with me? And then, if I’m a person
who’s self-aware, how is that impacting the way that I am delivering my services.
Leader C also spoke about reflective conversations, stating,
Educational equity is hard because it requires you to have reflective practices of yourself.
Being able to identify your blind spots, identifying factors that contribute to you being in
a position of privilege or having the power to make changes. But it also requires you to
have the fortitude to have very hard conversations.
68

Raising the topic of equity for all students speaks to the first tenet of transformative
leadership theory (Shields, 2010), which is the mandate for equitable change. The leaders
interviewed were taking steps to address the needs of all learners by acknowledging that
inequities were happening in the system and that change needed to occur.
Discussion: Research Question 1
Interview data indicated that CVSD is tasked with a high turnover of staff which leads to
a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities within MTSS. District and site leaders felt
the lack of collaboration between departments negatively impacted sites. Site leaders also
believed that a lack of departmental collaboration and operational efficiency hinders their ability
to focus on instruction and effectively implement MTSS. Participants believed implementing an
equity-based MTSS has provided opportunities for intentional conversations on the issue of
equity and created more self-reflective educators. Research has indicated that implementing
MTSS in large urban districts is challenging because of a lack of authentic collaboration (Lesh et
al., 2021), significant staff turnover, and inadequate structural needs (Braun et al., 2020). Despite
these challenges, interviewees felt that implementing an equity-based MTSS has raised
intentional conversations about educational equity and how better to serve the needs of a diverse
student population, and established more reflective practices within the district. By creating
space for challenging conversations, transformative leaders provide opportunities for deep
learning and dialogue about pedological practices to foster the development of new democratic
frameworks that promote inclusive and equitable learning environments (Shields, 2018).
Results: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 for this study asked, “What leadership strategies are implemented
by district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students
69

have access to and participate in educational supports to achieve equitable student outcomes?”
Choi et al. (2018) suggested that leaders are the backbone of MTSS. According to Clark and
Dockweiler (2019), leaders must understand the relationship between the tiers and how to
maximize them in the service of students while managing school resources to sustain each tier.
This is accomplished partly by supporting the MTSS teaming structures (McIntosh & Goodman,
2016). Highly effective leaders also challenge low expectations, providing supportive
instructional guidance built on relations of trust and care (Krasnoff, 2015). Research suggests
that student access and participation may be hindered by implicit bias (Beachum & Gullo, 2020).
Leaders must work on shifting mindsets and combating implicit bias to ensure students can
access and participate in the educational support and services they need. Urban schools are often
filled with educators focused on fixing students’ deficiencies; this is known as deficit thinking
(Zhao, 2016), which can lead to implicit bias (Beachum & Gullo, 2020). Research Question 2
explored district and site leader strategies to ensure students have access to and participate in
educational support to achieve equitable student outcomes during the early stages of MTSS
implementation. Both survey and interview data were used to answer Research Question 2.
District and site leaders referred to maximizing teaming structures and using data-informed
decisions to ensure fluid access to needed supports. Leaders also spoke to shifting mindsets and
eliminating deficit thinking. Last, leaders believed that it was their responsibility to have
structures and resources in place to equip staff who would lead to equitable student outcomes.
Leader Strategy: Maximizing Teams to Make Data-Informed Decisions
Leaders who were interviewed believed that maximizing CVSD MTSS teaming
structures was fundamental to ensure students have access to the support needed to succeed.
Leader C indicated,
70

One of the greatest leadership strategies that should be utilized when working through the
MTSS framework is knowing the teaming structures, roles, responsibilities, and functions
of every team, identifying explicitly for the school site, how those teams live within
MTSS, who are the staff members or teams that provide Tier I instruction, who are the
staff members or teams that provide Tier II and then Tier III.
Identifying student needs is the next step in supporting teams through that process. For
instance, Leader C stated, “Analysis at the grade levels or in the teaming structures to identify
gaps or inequitable practices, whether it be disciplinary practices that highlight a specific group,
who is also potentially struggling academically.” Leader B also commented on teams looking at
data:
Continuing to look at data, look at the information to see, all right, are these things that
exist, are they having the effect that we want? If not, why not? Is it something we need to
change in our practice? Just keeping the staff working in those areas, able to pull up and
look around and say, does this need adjustment or this need adjustment?
Leader A shared an example of how their climate culture team (CCT) examined
discipline data during a challenging month after schools returned following COVID-19-related
school closures and created a plan to meet students’ and staff’s needs:
The CCT looked at data, and we framed a couple of days of school and did class
meetings and class circles and unpacked how to handle conflict and really delving into
having class circles, where kids had the opportunity to talk.
Leaders also believed that it was their role to ensure those teams ran effectively, using
common data indicators, team problem-solving protocols, and progress monitoring tools. Leader
F confirmed the following:
71

We put in place criteria for student services. We have specific tools for progress
monitoring; we do shared learning together. And we consistently review student data. We
have clear indicators within our system that identify students who are at higher risk of
suspension, expulsion, and marginalized that requires frequent monitoring.
Clark and Dockweiler (2019) suggested that data-informed decision making protects the
MTSS pillars of access and participation, ensuring that students receive the appropriate support
and interventions. The CVSD leaders interviewed leverage MTSS teaming structures and use
data to facilitate student access and participation.
Leader Strategy: Shifting Mindsets
The second tenant in the transformative leadership theory requires leaders to create new
knowledge frameworks and mindsets. According to Shields and Mohan (2008), this process can
be initiated in two ways: by challenging and eradicating deficit thinking and by engaging in
difficult conversations. Leader C stated,
The greatest barrier is deficit thinking mindsets in staff. That barrier can prevent students
from accessing resources or services or from even having a different perspective of what
the root cause can be for students that are not achieving at the same level as other groups
or other students.
Leader J agreed: “A barrier, I think, is adult mindset often. Just thinking about what kids
are capable of, thinking about how we speak about our parents and how we sort of view their
contribution to this education enterprise.” Researchers Beachum and Gullo (2020) believed that a
deficit mindset might also result in implicit bias in the delivery of instruction, grading, and
allocation of rewards and punishments. Payne and Hannay (2020) further argued that implicit
bias reflects systemic racism, which Leader G mentioned in the interview as a barrier:
72

What do we value, and which people do we value? We have to ask ourselves those
questions, and there’s a lot of conversation that has to be had. And the only way to
unpack systemic racism because really that is a result of this. I mean, nobody wants to
talk about that, but it is a result of systemic racism, and we have to disrupt the status quo.
Leaders must implement strategies that shift mindsets to combat implicit bias’s effects.
Question 4 of the survey asked principals whether they had received professional learning related
to combating implicit bias in strategies suggested by Beachum and Gullo (2020). Principals were
to respond yes or no to each strategy. The results suggested that site leaders have been trained to
combat implicit bias in shared decision making, showing the highest percentage of yes responses
at 67%. Thoughtful awareness was next at 44%, information building received 17%, and only
6% of site leaders surveyed have been trained in intergroup contact (see Figure 5).

Figure 5
Leaders Trained in Strategies to Combat Implicit Bias

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Shared Decision Making Information Building Intergroup Contact Thoughtful Awareness
Percentage of Responses
Yes No
73

Leaders understood that shifting mindsets is a challenge and looks different for everyone.
Leader H commented, “We all have a different journey. And there has to be support through
that.” Leader A said, “First of all, build the relationships; secondly, make sure we put systems in
place.” Leader D spoke about supporting teachers through the process:
It’s a big shift in mindset for some teachers. Because we have really opened those doors
this year to make sure kids are getting what they need. I meet with the teacher who wants
to mainstream a student. We go over the IEP and the data. Then we put a plan in place,
and then we set up a meeting with the teacher so they know what to expect or what
accommodations are needed, and we go over the IEP goals. And then third, meet with the
parent, and discuss our plan.
This strategy safeguards that all educational partners feel valued in the planning process.
Leader H said that shifting mindset is a process that requires time:
You can help shape behaviors, and eventually, mindsets start to change when they see
results. When they see the outcome, they are like, oh my gosh, this actually does work,
but it takes a lot of time, and it takes a lot of error analysis.
Some leaders said when other strategies do not work, having difficult conversations is the
best approach. Leader D stated, “Face it head on, bring it out in the open.” Leader C also stated,
“Direct conversations, with staff or groups of staff members, either to utilize questioning to kind
of elicit what could be the motivating factor behind that practice.” Furthermore, Leader H
commented, “Just really being able to have the conversation that has to happen so that kids are
not missing those opportunities.” Leaders interviewed understood the significance of shifting
mindsets to ensure students receive the necessary support and services. However, they are also
aware that it will take time and the provision of resources to assist staff on their journey, even if
74

that means transparent and direct conversations. Shields (2018) stated that transformative leaders
promote equity and problem solve by critically examining beliefs, values, practices, and policies.
Leader Strategy: Creating Equitable Educational Environments
The first tenet of transformative leadership requires “determining what kind of change is
necessary to create schools that are equitable and excellent, inclusive and socially just” (Shields,
2018, p. 29). The transformative leader is responsible for eradicating marginalization on their
campus by ensuring the organization is inclusive for all diverse student groups. Leader J
indicated that one of their primary strategies is guiding leaders in creating more equitable
educational environments by ensuring resources are available to support the leader’s vision. They
stated, “Work with principals to envision a just and equitable world for their kids within the
context of their school.” They stated that sometimes this means determining what staff needs, for
instance, skill vs. will. If it is skill, then bring in appropriate learning to build capacities, such as
scope and sequence and best teaching practices; however, if it is will, they stated, “Now let’s talk
about race and racism. Let’s talk about privilege and let’s talk about why kids are historically and
persistently unserved. Let’s talk about the ways in which our institutions contribute to that.”
Leader E spoke about providing the right tools and resources for the right situation:
If there’s a willingness, and it’s just a lack of awareness, helping them see, and then
providing the tools is different from someone who just doesn’t believe that, say, these
kids of poverty can’t do as well, or kids who are learning English as a second language
are not going to do as well, instead of seeing it as an asset. That the student is on their
way to being biliterate, bilingual.
For transformative leaders, addressing the needs of all students by embracing the tenet of
deep and equitable change requires purposefully acknowledging these inequities.
75

Leader C felt that their primary role was to ensure that all staff members took
responsibility for all students on campus. Staff accepting responsibility for all students
contributes to creating an equitable environment because students are not handed off to other
educators. Leader C stated,
The primary role for a leader is to build capacity in all the staff members, understanding
how to identify and diagnose needs, understanding the different resources, services, at the
different tier levels within your school site, even outside your school site and the district
level. Building capacity of staff members on what is my responsibility as a classroom
teacher or as a paraprofessional, or as a leader to provide services directly to the student
to ensure that we can manage it at the school site. It is about reducing that need or desire,
or that want for a staff member to say, well, this is above me. I cannot do this. I’m going
to bucket to the next person.
Some leaders spoke about putting structures in place to support equitable practices. For
instance, Leader F said, “So we’ve designed our practices around equitable, universal practices
that are not just based on wishing and hoping, but its actual strategies that we consistently
implement because we have systems and structures in place.” Leader B spoke about lifting
student voices as a way to create more equitable educational environments: “How do we have a
student voice in that equation telling us what the barriers to participation are, so we can design
differently?” Leader G felt that it was their role to empower the leader of the school, who then
leads the teachers in learning. They stated, “Identify the pieces that we need to build, bring in the
teachers, provide the professional learning cycles of feedback with the leaders and teachers.”
This process is similar to Clark and Dockweiler’s (2019) recommendation of implementation and
76

feedback looping and Fullan’s (2014) suggestion of leaders being the lead learner alongside their
teachers.
Discussion: Research Question 2
Interview data revealed that leaders leveraged their MTSS teaming structures, which use
data-informed decision-making processes to ensure that students receive the support and services
they require. Leaders guide their teams by establishing structures, protocols, and progress-
monitoring tools. Having these processes in place ensures quality control, as Clark and
Dockweiler (2019) suggested, which supports the fidelity and integrity of the MTSS framework.
CVSD leaders spoke to shifting mindsets and combating deficit thinking, which may lead to
implicit bias (Beachum & Gullo, 2020) and hinder students’ access to and participation in needed
support. Sixty-seven percent of site leaders who responded to the survey have been trained in
shared decision making; however, only 6% have been trained in intergroup contact. Both
strategies are suggested by Beachum and Gullo (2020) to combat implicit bias. Other leader
strategies included acknowledging where individuals are on their journey, building relationships,
providing protocols and support, and, if needed, having transparent and direct conversations.
Last, leaders spoke about creating more equitable learning environments for students;
creating more equitable environments required identifying the necessary resources and support
for the leader or staff based on their needs and obtaining feedback. Shields (2018) indicated that
transformative leaders help establish new knowledge frameworks and mindsets by challenging
deficit thinking and engaging in difficult conversations. Instead of laying the burden on the
responsibility of students to change, transformative leaders work to change the organizational
structures and policies to equitable practices that provide student access and opportunities for all.
77

Results: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 for this study asked, “What resources do district and site leaders in
the early stages of MTSS implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and
sustain an equity-based MTSS in a large urban district?” MTSS is defined as “an integrated,
comprehensive framework that focuses on instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered
learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’
academic, behavioral, and social success” (Orange County Department of Education, n.d., p. 4).
The CDE (n.d.-b) recommended four components to the MTSS framework; high-quality,
differentiated classroom instruction, systematic and sustainable change, an integrated data
system, and positive behavioral supports. To implement MTSS, district and site leaders need
resources. Research has suggested, however, that large urban schools face various challenges,
including resource demands (Crow & Scribner, 2013; Schaffer et al., 2017). Implementing an
equity-based MTSS requires leaders with access to resources to provide staff with the support
needed to cultivate the equitable and just learning environments students deserve. Without the
required resources, leaders are faced with the challenge of implementing fragments of the
framework rather than a systematic approach to meet the needs of their students and staff.
Interview and survey data were used to answer this question. Two themes emerged: the need for
an integrated data system and high-quality professional learning with job-embedded coaching.
Integrated Data System
An integrated data system is a centralized platform that collects, manages, and analyzes
student data (e.g., academic, behavior, intervention implementation fidelity) from various
sources within the school district (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). A system such as this can help
school district administrators, teachers, and other staff members to make data-informed
78

decisions, track student progress, and improve overall educational outcomes. The data system
may include features such as data visualization tools and dashboards, which can help users to
understand complex data sets quickly and easily. Overall, an integrated data system may help a
school district to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability by providing a
comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date view of the district’s data (McIntosh & Goodman,
2016).
All leaders interviewed spoke about the importance of teams reviewing data to make
decisions about how to serve students best. For instance, Leader A said, “Data would be the first
strategy, really looking at data as a team.” Leader C commented, “Then question what the data
really represents or how we interpret the data in order for us to take action to meet needs.”
Leader B spoke about teams reviewing data; however, it was challenging because of the sheer
amount of it. “Our culture climate team will look at data, but again, there’s just so much data,
and there’s so much work to do. It’s a challenge.” Leader I commented that leaders and teams
need to have data that are readily available that provide more than a summary: “A system where
you can drill down and see who we are talking about. Not just that, we have 15 kids. Well, who
are those 15 kids? I need to get to them.”
Leader D spoke about how professional learning communities (PLCs) use data:
Teams are doing a cycle of data. They have it calendared out. Their common formative
assessments that they do together. And then they have calendared all their agendas on
what they’re meeting on, what data to bring. And then I collect it all. I have like a master
spreadsheet that they enter all the data in, so I can watch the progress.
79

This practice is labor intensive for the leader and may not be sustained if the leader were
to leave the site, nor would the student data be available if the student were to transfer to another
school.
Survey Question 9 asked site leaders to rate the importance of an integrated data system
to inform decisions about student needs. The results indicated that 89% felt that an integrated
data system was extremely important to very important, and 11% felt it was moderately
important (see Figure 6). The CDE (n.d.-b) recommends an integrated data system to inform
decisions about tiered supports to meet students. The system should contain universal screeners,
diagnostics, progress monitoring, and teacher observations. Parent and student surveys could also
be included in the data system to support teams in the continuous cycle of improvement.

Figure 6
Resource Needed: Integrated Data System

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely
Important
Very Important Moderately
Important
Slightly Important Not at all
Important
Precentage of Responses
Principal Responses
80

Professional Learning
Adequate training for staff is known to be a barrier to MTSS implementation (Mason et
al., 2019). According to interview and survey data, district and site leaders felt professional
learning was needed to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS in CVSD.
For instance, Leader B stated,
We are asked to do a lot of services for kids that, honestly, we were not prepared to do.
It’s basically, if we are trying to get to that framework where most of our kids are served,
one thing that means everybody needs to know how to do those things.
Leader E also commented, “I don’t know if leaders would say they feel totally equipped,
capacity-wise.” When asked what was needed to ensure MTSS implementation, Leader G stated,
“Well, one is knowledge, building knowledge, and communicating.” Leader E went further by
stating,
So for this to be successful, it’s almost got to be a site-by-site support roll-out, you
communicate out, you roll out expectations, tools, and resources. But then there must be a
willingness to say, if something is not going well, we have to own that as a system and
get side by side and say, okay, so what is preventing this from going well?
Leader H also referred to this by stating, “It’s about awareness; it’s really setting
expectations and practicing and being able to fail forward.” Interview participants shared that
professional learning is needed across the system but emphasized that it should be collaborative,
supportive, and focused on the site’s specific needs. According to Freeman et al. (2016), a key
component of MTSS implementation is providing educators with the appropriate level of critical
coaching to bridge the gap between implementation and sustainability.
81

Several of the survey questions inquired about professional learning. Three questions
asked what professional learning site leaders have already received whereas four survey
questions inquired what professional learning is needed. Question 2 of the survey asked site
leaders whether they had received professional learning on the essential components of an
equity-based MTSS. Results indicated 22% strongly agree, 39% somewhat agree, 17%
somewhat disagree, and 11% strongly disagree. Eleven percent of survey respondents neither
agreed nor disagreed (see Figure 7). Survey results correlate with interview data indicating that
more professional learning is needed about the essential components of MTSS.
Question 3 of the survey inquired whether principals had been trained in various
leadership strategies that may support the implementation of an equity-based MTSS. Sixty–seven
percent of principals received professional learning in Understanding Change (Fullan, 2020a).
Seventy-two percent reported training in building collective efficacy (Donohoo et al., 2018).
Sixty-one percent reported being trained in Fullan’s (2014) being the lead learner as well as 56%
in creating coherence (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). Only 33% of principals surveyed had been trained
in Shields’s (2010) transformative leadership (see Figure 8). Survey results suggest that
principals need more professional learning in being the lead learner, creating coherence, and
transformative leadership.
Question 5 of the survey referred to staff professional learning on the technical aspects of
MTSS (i.e., roles and responsibilities, data-informed decision making, evidence-based practices,
continuous cycle of inquiry, and scheduling). Results showed that 61% of the principals surveyed
felt that professional learning on the technical aspects of MTSS was extremely important, 33%
felt it was very important, and only 6% believed it was moderately important (see Figure 9).

82

Figure 7
Principals Trained on Essential Components of Equity-Based MTSS

Figure 8
Leader Strategies to Support MTSS Implementation

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither agree or
disgree
Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
Percentage of Responses
Principal Responses
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Understanding
Change
Building Collective
Efficacy
Being the Lead
Learner
Transformative
Leadership
Creating Coherence
Percentage of Responses
Yes No
83

Figure 9
Resource Needed: Staff Professional Learning

Question 6 of the survey asked principals to rate the importance of staff professional
learning on equitable and inclusive instructional practices. The results indicated that 78% of
principals felt it was extremely important, 17% responded very important, and 6% said
moderately important. Survey Question 7 asked principals to rate the importance of
differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. The results were that 78% of
respondents felt it was extremely important, and 22% indicated it was very important that their
staff receive professional learning in differentiated instruction.
Survey Question 8 asked principals to rate the importance of staff learning Tier I
practices in academics and social-emotional learning. Results indicated that 67% believed it was
extremely important, 22% believed it was very important, and 11% felt it was moderately
important (see Figure 9). The survey responses correlated with the interview data that staff
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Extremely
Important
Very Important Moderately
Important
Slightly Important Not at all Important
Percentage of Responses
Technical Aspects of MTSS Equitable and Inclusive Practices
Differentiating Instruction Tier I Academic and Social Emotional
84

professional learning is needed in several areas related to implementing and sustaining an equity-
based MTSS.
Discussion: Research Question 3
Interview and survey data indicated that district and site leaders believe an integrated data
system would be beneficial in supporting educators to make data-informed decisions about
students’ needs. CVSD leaders indicated that data are regularly used to make decisions; however,
leaders usually have to pull from multiple sources and organize the data themselves. Often, data
are not centralized and cannot be transferred when a student leaves the site. As recommended by
CDE, an integrated data system is one of the MTSS core components. An integrated data system
allows teams to efficiently and effectively triangulate data while looking at academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral data without pulling from multiple sources.
Interview and survey data indicated that professional learning was needed as a resource
to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS in CVSD. Many leaders felt that educators do
not yet have the capacity to implement all the components of MTSS. Interviewed participants
said that professional learning should be combined with side-by-side coaching and that it must be
safe for leaders and teams to make mistakes. Survey results indicated that of those who
participated, 72% had been trained in building collective efficacy, with only 33% trained in
transformative leadership. The survey results were consistent, and most principals believed that
professional learning is needed on the technical aspects of MTSS, differentiated instruction, Tier
I academic and social-emotional instructional practices, and equitable and inclusive instructional
practices. High-quality, differentiated instruction is a core component of MTSS, recommended
by CDE. The CDE indicates that all students should receive high-quality, standards-based (with a
focus on Common Core State Standards [CCSS]), culturally and linguistically relevant
85

instruction in their general education classrooms from highly qualified teachers with high
academic and behavioral expectations, using differentiated learning instructional strategies
(CDE, n.d.-b).
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on the perceived challenges and opportunities of district and
site leaders implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large California urban school district. The
findings indicated that the challenge for district and site leaders is high staff turnover, resulting in
a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities within the MTSS framework. Another
challenge that surfaced was the lack of collaboration between departments, which negatively
impacts sites and operational inefficacy. Site leaders voiced additional challenges, such as a lack
of confidential space and needing to supervise additional personnel. These challenges are
consistent with existing literature on implementing MTSS in large urban districts (Braun et al.,
2020; Lesh et al., 2021). Interview data also revealed that district and site leaders believed that
implementing an equity-based MTSS has increased intentional conversations about equity and
helped to create more reflective educators.
Research Question 2 inquired what leadership strategies district and site leaders use to
ensure students can access and participate in needed supports and services while implementing
MTSS. Findings suggest that district and site leaders rely heavily on MTSS teaming structures to
make data-informed decisions about students’ needs. These findings are consistent with the
literature review (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Shifting mindsets from deficit thinking, which
can result in implicit bias, also emerged as an important theme. Last, leaders voiced that their
role is to create equitable educational environments for all students. Leaders understood they are
86

responsible for supporting individuals on their journey and empowering staff with the
appropriate resources and structures to produce equitable student outcomes.
Research Question 3 focused on the resources that district and site leaders believe are
needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS in a large urban school
district. Findings suggest that an integrated data system is needed to support leaders and teams in
making decisions to better serve students’ needs. Professional learning also emerged as an
important theme. Areas of professional learning included technical aspects of MTSS, academic
and social-emotional Tier I instructional practices, differentiated instruction, and equitable and
inclusive instructional practices. Leaders believed that professional learning needed to be paired
with coaching, expectations, clarity, and a culture of care for the adults in the system. The next
chapter provides implications for practice and recommendations for future research.

87

Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter 5 reviews findings related to implications for implementing an equity-based
multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) in a large urban school district in California. Key
research findings are discussed to inform current and future educational leaders of the challenges
and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS. Leadership strategies that enable
students access and participation in educational supports necessary for producing equitable
student outcomes are also reviewed, along with a summary of resources required to implement
an equity-based MTSS. Additionally, future research recommendations are made within the
study’s context.
This study focused on the challenges and opportunities district and site leaders faced
during the early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large California urban school
district. MTSS is a preventive systemic approach addressing students’ academic, social,
emotional, and behavioral needs to support all students learning (Clark & Dockweiler, 2019),
and it was incorporated into ESSA in 2015. However, despite policymakers’ mandates to
implement programs to achieve educational equity, disparities in student outcomes persist
(Javius, 2017). District and site leaders implementing MTSS need to be aware of the potential
barriers to implementation and the leadership strategies required to overcome those barriers. This
study aimed to understand the perceived challenges and opportunities of district and site leaders
during the early stages of MTSS implementation and to gain insight into the current leader
strategies to ensure all students have access to and participate in the educational support and
services they require. The following research questions guided this research:
88

1. What do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation perceive
as challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban school district?
2. What leadership strategies are implemented by district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students have access to and participate
in educational support to achieve equitable student outcomes?
3. What resources do district and site leaders in the early stages of MTSS
implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-
based MTSS in a large urban school district?
This study implemented a convergent parallel mixed methods research design (Creswell,
2012), which involved interviewing four site principals and six district leaders in a large
California urban school district. In addition, survey data were collected from principals to
determine what resources they believe are needed to implement an equity-based MTSS,
understand leader strategies they have learned to strengthen student access and participation, and
support MTSS implementation. This method allowed strategic analysis of the qualitative and
quantitative data to check for consistency and support internal validity (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Findings
Study findings suggest that high staff turnover and lack of system-wide collaboration
hinder MTSS implementation; however, reflective and intentional conversations about equity
have been perceived as an opportunity to implement an equity-based MTSS. Central Valley
School District (CVSD) leaders use leader strategies, such as maximizing teaming structures,
shifting mindsets, and creating equitable educational environments, to ensure that students have
89

access to and participate in educational support and services. Additionally, district and site
leaders identified an integrated data system and professional learning with job-embedded
coaching as resources to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS. Eight themes emerged
related to the study’s three research questions. This section summarizes and discusses the study’s
findings concerning the literature and current practice.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What do district and site leaders, in the early stages of
MTSS implementation, perceive as challenges and opportunities of implementing an equity-
based MTSS?” Interview data related to Research Question 1 produced three findings. The first
two findings were associated with the challenges of implementing MTSS whereas the third
finding was associated with the opportunity that has surfaced because of implementing MTSS.
The first finding confirmed that high staff turnover, which frequently occurs in large
urban districts (Braun et al., 2020) and the context of this study, leads to a lack of understanding
of staff roles and responsibilities within the MTSS framework. MTSS requires significant time
and resources to effectively train staff on roles and responsibilities to implement the necessary
systems, protocols, supports, and interventions. When staff turnover is high, it can be difficult for
schools to maintain the necessary level of expertise and capacity to implement MTSS effectively.
This can result in delays in implementation and a lack of consistent support for students.
Teaming structures are an essential component of MTSS. MTSS teaming structures rely on
developing strong relationships and trust between educators. When staff turnover is high, it can
be challenging for teams to create this fundamental level of trust, which can hinder the efficacy
of MTSS implementation. High staff turnover can also lead to confusion and inconsistency in
how students are supported, which can be detrimental to their academic and social-emotional
90

well-being. Interview participants spoke about the need to create onboarding protocols, clear
staff expectations, and the ability to build capacity, create psychologically safe spaces, and
nurture staff to support retention.
The second finding concerning Research Question 1 was the lack of system-wide
collaboration, which negatively impacts leaders’ abilities to implement MTSS. Interview
participants indicated that departments work in silos, adversely affecting sites and systematic
cohesiveness. Lack of system-wide collaboration between departments leads to confusion at the
site level and operational inefficacy, impeding MTSS implementation. This finding was
consistent with that of Lesh et al. (2021), who identified the absence of collaboration as a critical
factor in the lack of MTSS implementation in large urban school districts. Implementing MTSS
in a large urban school district is complex and challenging. MTSS involves providing a range of
evidence-based interventions and support services to students to improve academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Different departments, such as special education, English
language services, student services, and curriculum and instruction typically deliver interventions
and support services. When there is a lack of collaboration between departments, goals and
priorities are not aligned, causing confusion and a lack of coordinated efforts. This results in
fragmented and disconnected services to sites and students, impeding the overall implementation
and effectiveness of MTSS. According to the interview responses of district leaders and
principals, sites were overburdened with nonintegrated initiatives from various departments,
resulting in confusion and exhaustion.
The third finding concerning Research Question 1 pertained to the opportunity that has
risen from implementing an equity-based MTSS. Respondents felt that implementing MTSS has
increased self-reflective dialogue among educators and intentional conversations regarding
91

equity. Engaging in reflective conversations prompts one to reflect more heavily on one’s
assumptions and beliefs regarding instructional practices. Educators are more likely to make
shifts in their practices and engage in new ones. Shields (2018) argued that transformative
leaders begin with an awareness and critical reflection on who the system works for and who it
does not. Fallon et al. (2021) indicated that creating space for reflective dialogue on personal
biases and educational practices in conjunction with high-quality professional development is
vital to the success of MTSS implementation. District and site leaders further recognized that an
equity-based MTSS offered CVSD an opportunity to improve outcomes for all students and
working conditions for staff. Leaders hoped, eventually, all CVSD would feel a greater sense of
belonging and community.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What leadership strategies are implemented by district and
site leaders in the early stages of MTSS implementation to ensure that students have access to
and participate in educational supports to achieve equitable student outcomes?” Qualitative and
quantitative data supported three findings for Research Question 2. The initial finding related to
Research Question 2 was that district and site leaders maximize their teams to ensure equitable
student outcomes. Specifically, leaders support and guide teams to make data-informed decisions
to ensure students have access to and participate in the educational support needed. This finding
is related to the work of McIntosh and Goodman (2016) and Clark and Dockweiler (2019).
McIntosh and Goodman (2016) indicated that within each tier, educational teams guide
instruction, review data, and implement evidence-based practices to support positive outcomes.
Clark and Dockweiler (2019) stressed that leaders must understand the functionality of each tier
while understanding the system as a whole, carefully monitoring the fidelity of evidence-based
92

practices. Leaders interviewed emphasized the importance of understanding the function of each
team within the MTSS framework and ensuring that each team was assessing student data,
monitoring progress, analyzing their instructional practices, and measuring the impact of their
instructional practices on student outcomes. Respondents were cognizant that their responsibility
as leaders was to facilitate and cultivate environments so that teams could fulfill their work to
impact students positively.
The second finding in relation to Research Question 2 was that leaders had to strategize
ways to shift mindsets. Leaders were aware of the barriers posed by deficit thinking and implicit
bias. Zhao (2016) indicated that educators in urban schools often approach students with deficit
mindsets, focusing on fixing them. Staats et al. (2016) posited that many students remain the
focus of implicit bias throughout their educational career based on their skin color, behavior, or
simply their name. A student may face additional barriers to accessing and participating in
educational supports required to advance to the next level of their educational journey,
potentially placing them on an unfavorable life trajectory. Survey data revealed that more than
half of the principals who responded had professional learning in shared decision making, an
evidence-based practice recommended by Beachum and Gullo (2020) to combat implicit bias.
However, less than half had received training in thoughtful awareness, information building, or
intergroup contact—all evidence-based practices for reducing implicit bias.
Leaders in urban school districts must not only be competent instructional leaders but
also serve as role models who embody the values, beliefs, and morals necessary to combat
implicit bias. Respondents interviewed realized that the process for shifting mindsets differed for
every individual and that appropriate support and guidance varied depending on need. Shields
(2018) indicated that it is up to transformative leaders to help establish new knowledge
93

frameworks and mindsets and engage in difficult conversations when appropriate. The burden to
change is not on the students but the educational organization, and the leader’s responsibility is
to lead that change.
The third finding related to Research Question 2 was that leaders strategized how to
create equitable educational environments to ensure students can access and participate in the
educational support needed. Similar to the previous finding, this depends on the needs of the
staff and the situation. Leaders knew they needed to tailor their approach to each situation and
provide the appropriate resources. This finding is like that of Shields (2018), who indicated that
transformative leaders determine what kind of change is needed to create an equitable, inclusive,
and excellent school for all students. During the decision-making process of moving toward
change, leaders understood the importance of getting feedback from students and teachers. This
finding is in keeping with Clark and Dockweiler’s (2019) work, which recommended
implementation and feedback looping. Feedback looping focuses on the emergence of cause-and-
effect processes, and the observation of outcomes lead to the implementation of additional
variables to positively influence student outcomes.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “What resources do district and site leaders in the early
stages of MTSS implementation believe are needed to effectively implement and sustain an
equity-based MTSS in a large urban district?” Triangulation of survey and interview data were
used to produce two findings for Research Question 3. The first finding of Research Question 3
was that district and site leaders believed an integrated data system is needed to implement and
sustain an equity-based MTSS effectively. An integrated data system is a centralized platform
that collects, manages, and analyzes student data (e.g., academic, behavior, social-emotional,
94

intervention implementation fidelity) from various sources within the school district. This
finding is consistent with the work of McIntosh and Goodman (2016), who emphasized the
necessity for an integrated data system so that educational teams may properly review student
data at the site level to make data-informed decisions more effectively and efficiently. They also
stressed that district leaders must have an integrated system view of all schools’ data to establish
action plans to support district-wide MTSS implementation and sustainability. The CDE (n.d.-b)
stated that an integrated data system is a core component of MTSS, indicating that it should
include universal screening, diagnostics, progress monitoring, teacher observations, and
parent/student/staff surveys. Several leaders noted that they must access multiple data sources to
retrieve the required student information and synthesize the data themselves to prepare for teams.
An integrated data system was also identified as a needed resource by the majority of survey
respondents.
The second finding related to Research Question 3 was that district and site leaders
believed professional learning was needed to implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS. This
finding is related to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), who indicated that professional learning for
educators was vital in promoting pedological practices and improving student outcomes. Little
research has been conducted on professional learning directly related to implementing MTSS;
however, Mason et al. (2019) demonstrated that schools could address barriers to MTSS
implementation, such as content knowledge, by providing high-quality professional learning and
job-embedded coaching. Research Question 3 was answered by both interview and survey data.
Interview data indicated that leaders believed staff had not yet been adequately trained in the
skills needed to meet the needs of all students. Survey data also indicated this finding, and
principals highlighted the need for more staff professional learning.
95

Principals surveyed believed that staff needed professional learning on the technical
aspects of MTSS, such as understanding the roles and responsibilities within the MTSS
framework, making data-informed decisions, using evidence-based practices, and knowing how
to use a continuous cycle of inquiry and scheduling. These are core components of MTSS
implementation and sustainability according to McIntosh and Goodman (2016). Principals
surveyed also believed that staff needed professional learning on equitable and inclusive
instructional practices and differentiated instruction. Principals recognized the importance of
introducing staff to antibias instruction and culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy to build
meaningful relationships with students, provide an equitable learning environment, and create a
sense of belonging for all students. This finding connects to the work of Shields (2018), who
indicates that learning environments must be safe, welcoming, respectful, and engaging,
resulting in higher academic achievement. The principals surveyed also indicated that staff
needed professional learning in Tier I academic and social-emotional instructional practices. Tier
I practices consist of fundamental, universal, school-wide, high-quality classroom instruction and
support with an emphasis on optimizing learning and preventing difficulties early on (Clark &
Dockweiler, 2019). Leaders understood the significant impact of staff implementing Tier I
practices with fidelity. According to McCart and Miller (2020), if every student were to get
quality instruction of developmentally appropriate academic, social-emotional, and behavioral
curriculum, the majority of the students would respond positively most of the time, preventing
adverse outcomes. Tier I is the most important tier in MTSS, affecting every student on campus
(NASP, 2016).
Findings from the survey also revealed that additional professional learning is needed for
principals. Approximately half of the principals surveyed had not received training in the
96

essential components of an equity-based MTSS, indicating that additional training is needed.
Understanding the essential components of an equity-based MTSS enables leaders to effectively
implement the framework through high-leverage action, ensuring MTSS implementation and
sustainability. High-leverage actions include providing appropriate professional learning,
creating a shared understanding and common language of equitable and inclusive instructional
practices among staff, building collaborative relationships, monitoring student data to identify
inequities and patterns of disproportionately, developing and sustaining culturally responsive
instructional practices, and establishing agency and engagement with the community. Survey
results also found that additional professional learning is needed to build capacity in principals in
creating coherence, understanding change, being the lead learner, and transformative leadership.
Principals needing professional learning is related to the work of W. Johnson et al.
(2016), who found in a national study that a majority of principals have only 1 day of
professional learning a year. This study also found that principals value their professional
learning when the emphasis is tied to their role as instructional leaders. Scholars have stressed
the importance of developing instructional leadership skills among school leaders to ensure
positive student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2021; Krasnoff, 2015; Leithwood & Levin, 2010).
Within the educational system, schools are in a perpetual state of transformation. Schools require
leaders who comprehend the change process and can adapt to ongoing change while promoting
coherence, creating space for reflective discourse, questioning the status quo, and building
capacity in others. Leaders need to be given the opportunity to engage in professional learning
that cultivates these competencies.
97

Implications for Practice
This study examined the challenges and opportunities identified by district and site
leaders throughout the early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS while exploring
leader strategies that support MTSS implementation and ensure students’ access to and
participation in educational supports. Furthermore, this study aimed to gain insight into the
resources needed to effectively implement and sustain an equity-based MTSS in a large
California urban school district. Study findings established themes that informed educational
practitioners at the site and district level and provided valuable information for implementing
and sustaining an equity-based MTSS in a large urban school district. In particular, regarding the
scope of the study and the themes discovered, the implication for leadership practices and MTSS
implementation and sustainability were found.
The first implication for practice is that district leaders work cross-departmentally to
establish system-wide collaboration to support MTSS implementation. Triangulated data
indicated that messaging regarding MTSS expectations and implementation had not been clearly
established and that principals were receiving competing, nonintegrated initiatives from different
departments causing confusion and exhaustion. District-wide alignment of MTSS goals,
procedures, documentation, and evaluation should be clearly communicated and monitored for
fidelity. Successful implementation requires a collaborative culture and strong leadership that
cultivates psychological safety across settings. In psychologically safe environments, staff
believe they will not be penalized or judged negatively if they make a mistake. They also believe
others will not resent or ridicule them if they need assistance (Edmondson, 2012). An equity-
based MTSS takes an invested team of district leaders, site leaders, and other interdisciplinary
professionals to lend their expertise in the service of students and the school community. A lack
98

of collaboration across the system negatively impacts students, school staff, and MTSS
implementation. District and department leaders must foster a cohesive relationship to meet
school site needs by aligning district initiatives and collaboratively supporting MTSS
implementation.
The second implication for practice is to provide high-quality professional learning and
job-embedded coaching to staff and principals regarding an equity-based MTSS. Effective
implementation of MTSS depends on the personnel responsible for implementing the appropriate
instructional practices and having the necessary competencies to successfully implement,
improve, and sustain those practices. Interview data indicated that leaders believed that staff had
not yet gained the skills needed to implement an equity-based MTSS effectively. Survey data
indicated a high need for staff to be trained in equitable, inclusive, and differentiated
instructional practices as well as Tier I practices in academics and social-emotional learning.
Staff would benefit from training in an instructional framework such as Universal Design for
Learning (UDL). CDE recommends UDL as an instructional framework and a core component
of MTSS (CDE, n.d.-b). UDL is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for
all learners and assists in developing a flexible learning environment (CAST, n.d.). To support
implementation and sustainability, staff need more than one-time workshops. Research indicates
that one-time workshops do not lead to sustainable practices (Pierce & Mueller, 2018). However,
ongoing support through coaching and consultation strategies is an approach to strengthening
MTSS implementation (Freeman et al., 2016).
To support MTSS implementation, district leadership may want to consider shifting
current resources to provide job-embedded coaching. For instance, teachers and administrators
on special assignment could be assigned to support sites with Tier I practices (i.e., UDL,
99

academic and social-emotional integration, inclusive and equitable teaching practices) and
MTSS implementation (i.e., scheduling, support teams with continuous cycle of inquiry process,
utilizing problem-solving protocol, etc.). These individuals could be assigned by regions and
work collaboratively with regional leadership teams and site leaders to develop differentiated
professional learning to meet school sites where they are in their MTSS implementation.
Coaches would have the opportunity to provide a greater focus and intensity of Tier I practices
and instructional strategies to instill high-quality implementation with teachers and leaders. Not
only would coaches be able to provide technical support to teachers and leaders but also foster a
positive and supportive environment, increasing staff retention. Shifting resources would also
support system-wide collaboration as more synergy is created across the system and all sites and
departments share a common vision of implementing and sustaining an equity-based MTSS.
The third implication for practice is building an integrated data system. An integrated
data system is used to track, evaluate, and assess the efficacy of evidence-based interventions
implemented to track student outcomes and is one of the most crucial and core components of
MTSS. An integrated data system should be designed to analyze processes and outcomes so that
educators can make timely decisions to ensure appropriate instructional practices are used to
meet student needs. Data needs must be reliable, frequently gathered, embedded into team
meetings for review, and used to make data-informed decisions (Easterling & Metz, 2016).
Triangulated data indicated an integrated data system was needed to implement and sustain an
equity-based MTSS. Leaders are currently developing their own methods for tracking student
data or attempting to aggregate academic, social-emotional, and behavioral data from various
sources to provide their teams with a more holistic perspective to make better instructional
decisions. This type of data collection is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Teams may also
100

look at one domain rather than a whole-child approach. Again, this is problematic because
educators have a fragmented view of their students’ needs. An integrated data system is required
for educational teams to properly review student data at the site level and make data-informed
decisions more effectively and efficiently. District leaders would also have access to a holistic
view of all school data through an integrated system, enabling them to create action plans to
support sites appropriately and to implement an equity-based MTSS.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study provided insight into district and site leaders’ perspectives on
improving the implementation of an equity-based MTSS in a large urban district, additional
research is recommended to address three areas related to this study. The first recommendation
for future research is to strengthen the generalizability of this study’s findings. The current study
focused on one large urban school district in California. Therefore, future research should be
conducted in other large urban school districts implementing an equity-based MTSS to better
understand the challenges, opportunities, and resources needed to strengthen implementation and
sustainability.
The second recommendation is to expand the sample size. The current study included
10 interviewees and 18 survey respondents. Increasing the number of participants would allow
additional perspectives to compare to the current study. The future study could be conducted to
include teachers, vice-principals, and other practitioners to help broaden the perspectives of the
challenges, opportunities, and resources needed to implement an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban school district. Adding more perspectives from other stakeholders could provide additional
insight into communication gaps that may exist between district leaders, site leaders, and
practitioners during the implementation of MTSS. Increasing the sample size and adding
101

additional perspectives could bring valuable insight into the complexities of implementing an
equity-based MTSS in a large urban district.
The third recommendation for future research is to study a large urban district that has
delivered high-quality professional learning with job-embedded coaching and worked cross-
departmentally to implement an equity-based MTSS. Potential focus areas could be looking at
staff retention as a result of professional learning with job-embedded coaching, the fidelity of
MTSS implementation, and the perspective of site leaders on district goals and alignment of
MTSS implementation. Because an equity-based MTSS was already implemented, researchers
could investigate whether its implementation contributed to equitable student outcomes.
Conclusion
This study identified the challenges and opportunities perceived by district and site
leaders during the early stages of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large California
urban district as well as leadership strategies used to support MTSS implementation and ensure
students have access to and participate in the educational support and services they need. The
study further explored what resources are needed to implement and sustain an equity-based
MTSS. Challenges to implementation included high staff turnover, resulting in a lack of
understanding of roles and responsibilities, as well as the delivery of support to students within
the MTSS framework. Lack of system-wide collaboration was identified as a second challenge.
It was discovered that a lack of departmental collaboration significantly impacted the systematic
development of an equity-based MTSS at the site level because principals were frequently
presented with competing initiatives from different departments, resulting in a lack of clarity
regarding expectations. Study findings suggest that implementing an equity-based MTSS has
102

presented opportunities to increase intentional conversations about equity and produced more
reflective dialogue and practices among educators.
Leader strategies were found to be thoughtful, intentional, and perceptive. Findings
indicate that leaders knew they had to cultivate environments for their teams to be productive
and data-informed so that they could make student-centered decisions. Leaders also understood
they were charged with shifting mindsets and combating implicit bias and deficit thinking. This
was done by providing appropriate support and guidance and, when needed, having direct
conversations. Leaders also understood that their responsibility was to create equitable
educational environments for all students by putting appropriate structures and resources in
place. Resources identified in this study included high-quality professional learning with job-
embedded coaching for teachers and leaders and an integrated data system to support the
implementation and sustainability of an equity-based MTSS. This study offers practitioners a
deeper understanding of the implications of implementing an equity-based MTSS in a large
urban district.
103

References
Anand, D., & Hsu, L. (2021). COVID-19 and Black lives matter: Examining anti-Asian racism
and anti-Blackness in U.S. education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 190–199.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2656
Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., &
Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to
suspension in school discipline outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 379–
386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025
Anyon, Y., Nicotera, N., & Veeh, C. A. (2016). Contextual influences on the implementation of
a schoolwide intervention to promote students’ social, emotional, and academic learning.
Children & Schools, 38(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw008
Bal, A. (2018). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports: A process–
oriented framework for systemic transformation. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies, 40(2), 144–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2017.1417579
Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2014). Sent home and put off track: The antecedents,
disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the ninth grade. Journal of
Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 13.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Beachum, F. D., & Gullo, G. L. (2020). School leadership: Implicit bias and social justice. In R.
Papa (Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education (pp. 429–454). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_66
104

Bennis, W. (1986). Transformative power and leadership. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally
(Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative
theory and practice (Reprint ed., pp. 36–63). University of Illinois Press.
Bieneman, P. D. (2011). Transformative leadership: The exercise of agency in educational
leadership. Counterpoints, 409, 221–237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42981307
Black, D. W. (2017). Abandoning the federal role in education: The Every Student Succeeds
Act. California Law Review, 105(5), 1309–1374.
https://doi.org/https://10.15779/Z38Z31NN9K
Blase, K. A., Fixen, D. L., Sims, B. J., & Ward, C. S. (2015). Implementation science: Changing
hearts, minds, behavior, and systems to improve educational outcomes. The Wing
Institute. https://fpg.unc.edu/publications/implementation-science-changing-hearts-
minds-behavior-and-systems-improve-educational
Bohanon, H., Gilman, C., Parker, B., Amell, C., & Sortino, G. (2016). Using school
improvement and implementation science to integrate multi-tiered systems of support in
secondary schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 99–116.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.8
Bonefeld, M., & Dickhäuser, O. (2018). (Biased) grading of students’ performance: Students’
names, performance level, and implicit attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00481
Boske, C. (2011). Educating leaders for social justice. In C. M. Shields (Ed.), Transformative
leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain and complex world (pp. 362–
382). Routledge.
105

Braun, G., Kumm, S., Brown, C., Walte, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Maggin, D. (2020). Living in
Tier 2: Educators’ perceptions of MTSS in urban schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 24(10), 1114–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1511758
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-
1955/347us483
Burgess, D. J., Beach, M., & Saha, S. (2017). Mindfulness practice: A promising approach to
reducing the effects of clinician implicit bias on patients. Patient Education and
Counseling, 100(2), 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.005
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). MTSS components.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomponents.asp
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Multi-tiered system of supports.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/
Capers, Q., Clinchot, D., McDougle, L., & Greenwald, A. G. (2017). Implicit racial bias in
medical school admissions. Academic Medicine, 92(3), 365–369.
https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001388
Capper, C. A., & Young, M. D. (2014). Ironies and limitations of educational leadership for
social justice: A call to social justice educators. Theory Into Practice, 53(2), 158–164.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43893926
Casalaspi, D. (2017). The making of a “legislative miracle”: The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. History of Education Quarterly, 57(2), 247–277.
https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2017.4
106

CAST. (n.d.). About universal design for learning https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-
for-learning-udl
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. (n.d.). Getting started with PBIS.
https://www.pbis.org/pbis/getting-started
Choi, J., McCart, A. B., Hicks, T. A., & Sailor, W. (2018). An analysis of mediating effects of
school leadership on MTSS implementation. Journal of Special Education, 53(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918804815
Choi, J. H., McCart, A. B., & Sailor, W. (2020). Achievement of students with IEP and
associated relationships with an inclusive MTSS framework. Journal of Special
Education, 54(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919897408
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
Clark, A. G., & Dockweiler, K. A. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support in secondary schools:
The definitive guide to effective implementation and quality control. Routledge.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). US Constitution: 14th Amendment. Legal information institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Coy, M. (2019). Research methodologies: Increasing understanding of the world. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 9(1), 71–77.
https://doi.org/10.29322/ijsrp.9.01.2019.p8511
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
107

Crockett, T. S. (2022). Leadership for effective implementation of multi-tiered system of supports
(Publication No. 28971268) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Crow, G., & Scribner, A. (2013). Professional identities of urban school principals. In H. R.
Milner IV, & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 325–342).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203094280-31
Darensbourg, A., Perez, E., & Blake, J. J. (2010). Overrepresentation of African American males
in exclusionary discipline: The role of school-based mental health professionals in
dismantling the school to prison pipeline. Journal of African American Males in
Education, 1(3), 196–207. https://bit.ly/40mwCWX
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual brown lecture in education research—the flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.
Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07308253
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Learning Policy Institute.
Daugherity, B. J., & Bolton, C. C. (2008). With all deliberate speed: Implementing Brown v.
Board of Education. University Of Arkansas Press.
Debnam, K. J., Johnson, S., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Equity, connection, and
engagement in the school context to promote positive youth development. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12083
de Klerk, E. D., & Smith, N. (2021). Transformative intervention strategies for teacher leaders
during the pandemic and beyond. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 20(9), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.9.4
108

DeMartino, L. A. (2016). Transformative leadership in practice: Leading with the modern
school community (Publication No. 10247354) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Dennis, D. V. (2016). Learning from the past: What ESSA has the chance to get right. The
Reading Teacher, 70(4), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1538
DeWitt, P. M. (2016). Collaborative leadership: Six influences that matter most. Corwin.
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Elles, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational
Leadership, 75(6), 40–44.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice:
Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp
(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 137–163). Psychology Press.
Dulaney, S. K., Hallam, P. R., & Wall, G. (2013). Superintendent perceptions of multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS): Obstacles and opportunities for school system reform. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 10(2), 30–45. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1010587
Easterling, D., & Metz, A. (2016). Getting real with strategy: Insights from implementation
science. The Foundation Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1301
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming. Wiley.
Egalite, A. J., Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational
inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5),
757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x17735869
Every Student Succeeds Act, 1802 U.S.C. § 129 (2015). https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
109

Fallon, L. M., Veiga, M., & Sugai, G. (2021). Strengthening MTSS for behavior (MTSS-B) to
promote racial equity. School Psychology Review, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2021.1972333
Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary
discipline the role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907305039
Ferguson, J. L. (2021). Strategies of equity minded leaders to promote the academic achievement
of African American students (Publication No. 28322602) [Doctoral dissertation, Regent
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., Almarode, J., Flories, K., & Nagel, D. (2020). PLC+ Better decisions and
greater impact by design. Corwin.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Prometheus Books.
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Everett, S. (2016). MTSS coaching: Bridging knowing
to doing. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241946
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.41.1.4
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. Wiley Professional Development (P&T).
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Wiley Professional
Development (P&T).
Fullan, M. (2020a). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
110

Fullan, M. (2020b). System change in education. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 653–
663. https://doi.org/10.1086/709975
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. SAGE Publications.
Gaddis, S., & Lauen, D. (2014). School accountability and the Black–White test score gap.
Social Science Research, 44, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.008
Great Schools Partnership. (2013, October 14). Student outcomes. In The glossary of education
reform. https://www.edglossary.org/student-outcomes/
Great Schools Partnership. (2014, March 10). Access. In The glossary of education reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/access/
Gregory, A., Huang, F. L., Anyon, Y., Greer, E., & Downing, B. (2018). An examination of
restorative interventions and racial equity in out-of-school suspensions. School
Psychology Review, 47(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0073.v47-2
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
Hammond, Z. L. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Solidarity with solidity. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1),
20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718797116
Heise, M. (2017). From no child left behind to every student succeeds: Back to a future for
education federalism. Columbia Law Review, 117(7), 1859–1896.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425412
111

Henry, D. A., Betancur Cortés, L., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2020). Black–White achievement gaps
differ by family socioeconomic status from early childhood through early adolescence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(8), 1471–1489.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000439
Hillstrom, L. (2013). Plessy v. Ferguson. Omnigraphics.
Huang, F. L. (2016). Do Black students misbehave more? Investigating the differential
involvement hypothesis and out-of-school suspensions. Journal of Educational Research,
111(3), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1253538
Itkonen, T. (2007). PL 94-142: Policy, evolution, and landscape shift. Issues in Teacher
Education, 16(2), 7–17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ796232.pdf
Jackson, D. (2021). Leveraging MTSS to ensure equitable outcomes. Center on Multi-Tiered
System of Supports at the American Institute for Research.
https://mtss4success.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/MTSS_Equity_Brief.pdf
Javius, E. L. (2017). Educational equity is about more than closing the gap. Leadership, 45(5),
18–21.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Johnson, S. (2017, April 20). The 14th amendment protects the right to a public education.
Concord Law School Purdue University.
https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14th-amendment-protects-
rights-education/
112

Johnson, W., Kaufman, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Support for instructional leaders:
Supervision, mentoring and professional development for U.S. school leaders: Findings
from the American school leader panel. RAND Corporation.
https://doi.org/https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1580-1.html
Jun, I. (2011). Transformative leader in diverse settings. Counterpoints, 409, 238–253.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42981308
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher
expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-
2601(08)60240-3
Kervick, C. T., Moore, M., Ballysingh, T., Garnett, B., & Smith, L. C. (2019). The emerging
promise of restorative practices to reduce discipline disparities affecting youth with
disabilities and youth of color: Addressing access and equity. Harvard Educational
Review, 89(4), 588–610. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.588
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3–
13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x034008003
Krasnoff, B. (2015). Leadership qualities of effective principals. Northwest Comprehensive
Center at Education Northwest.
Krieg, J. M. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left
Behind Act. Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 654–664.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.004
113

Lanear, J., & Frattura, E. (2007). Getting the stories straight: Allowing different voices to tell an
‘effective history’ of special education law in the United States. Education and the Law,
19(2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09539960701547750
Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2010). Understanding how leadership influences student learning.
In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education
(3rd ed., pp. 45–50). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00439-5
Lesh, J. J., Roberts, C., Cavitt, D., & Morales, D. L. (2021). Urban secondary school
administrators and faculty perceptions of multitiered system of supports/response to
intervention. NASSP Bulletin, 105(4), 225–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211060798
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lindsey, R. B., Nuri-Robins, K., Terrell, R. D., & Lindsey, D. B. (2019). Cultural proficiency: A
manual for school leaders (4th ed.). Corwin.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE Publications.
Losen, D. J. (2015). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive
exclusion (disability, culture, and equity series). Teachers College Press.
Losen, D. J., & Martin, K. (2018). The unequal impact of suspension on the opportunity to learn
in California: What the 2016–2017 rates tell us about progress. The Center for Civil
Rights Remedies, The Civil Rights Project.
Losen, D. J., & Martinez, P. (2020). Lost opportunities: How disparate school discipline
continues to drive differences in the opportunity to learn. The Center for Civil Rights
Remedies and Learning Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608537.pdf
114

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis. Los
Angeles: University of California, The Civil Rights Project.
Mason, E. N., Benz, S. A., Lembke, E. S., Burns, M. K., & Powell, S. R. (2019). From
professional development to implementation: A district’s experience implementing
mathematics tiered systems of support. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(4),
207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12206
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
McCart, A., & Miller, D. D. (2020). Leading equity-based MTSS for all students. Corwin.
McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the U.S. Department of
Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–
94. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.3.04
McGuinn, P. (2019). Assessing state ESEA plans: Innovation or retreat? Phi Delta Kappan,
101(2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719879146
McIntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G. (2009). Principles of sustainable
prevention: Designing scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote
durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20448
McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., Fairbanks Falcon, S., McDaniel, S. C., Smolkowski, K., Bastable,
E., Santiago-Rosario, M., Izzard, S., Austin, S. C., Nese, R. T., & Baldy, T. S. (2021).
Equity-focused PBIS approach reduces racial inequities in school discipline: A
randomized controlled trial. School Psychology, 36(6), 433–444.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000466
115

McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI
and PBIS. The Guilford Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/348/866/2010674/
Milner, H. R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516
Morgan, H. J., & Bush, A. J. (2014). Sports coach as a transformative leader: Arresting school
disengagement through community sport-based initiatives. Sport, Education and Society,
21(5), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.935319
National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Engaging school psychologists to improve
multitiered systems of support.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, August). Race and ethnicity of public school
teachers and their students. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp
Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2019). Relationship between school
suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2),
224–240. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0008.1
Orange County Department of Education. (n.d.). Guide to understanding California MTSS.
https://ocde.us/MTSS/Documents/CA%20MTSS%20Guide.pdf
116

Papay, J. P., Bacher-Hicks, A., Page, L. C., & Marinell, W. H. (2017). The challenge of teacher
retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational
Researcher, 46(8), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17735812
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Payne, B. K., & Hannay, J. W. (2020). Implicit bias reflects systemic racism. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 25(11), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.08.001
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F.
Supp. 279 (1972). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/FSupp/343/279/1691591/
Pierce, C. D., & Mueller, T. (2018). Easy as a-b-c: Data-based guidelines for implementing a
multitiered system of supports into rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
37(3), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518777850
Reed, D. S. (2016). ESEA at fifty: Education as state-building. History of Education Quarterly,
56(2), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/hoeq.12188
Reyes, A., & Garcia, A. (2013). Turnaround policy and practice: A case study of turning around
a failing school with English-language learners. The Urban Review, 46(3), 349–371.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0261-6
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Ross, L. (2018). ESSA and school improvement: Promise to practice. Collaborative for Student
Success. https://checkstateplans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Promise-to-
Practice_HCM-CSS_Report-Nov2018.pdf
117

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651.n5
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-
one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309–314.
https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42433
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (4th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Sanders, C. R. (2016). “Money talks”: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
and the African American freedom struggle in Mississippi. History of Education
Quarterly, 56(2), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/hoeq.12187
Schaffer, C. L., White, M., & Brown, C. M. (2017). A tale of three cities: Defining urban schools
within the context of varied geographic areas. Education and Urban Society, 50(6), 507–
523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713605
Schwartz, S. (2021, February 17). Taking an unapologetic approach to curriculum overhaul.
EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/leaders/2021/taking-an-unapologetic-approach-to-
curriculum-overhaul
Scott, T. M. (2021). Implicit bias, disproportionate discipline, and teacher responsibility for
instruction as prevention. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 65(4), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2021.1937021
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x10375609
118

Shields, C. M. (2013). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain
and complex world. Routledge.
Shields, C. M. (2018). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable and socially just
change in an uncertain and complex world (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Shields, C. (2019). Challenging racism in our schools: Good intentions are not enough.
International Studies in Educational Administration, 47(3), 3–17.
Shields, C. M. (2020). Becoming a transformative leader: A guide to creating equitable schools.
Routledge.
Shields, C. M., & Hesbol, K. A. (2019). Transformative leadership approaches to inclusion,
equity, and social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 30(1), 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619873343
Shields, C. M., & Mohan, E. J. (2008). High‐quality education for all students: Putting social
justice at its heart. Teacher Development, 12(4), 289–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530802579843
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success: 2013
edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The
contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–564.
Smolkowski, K., Girvan, E., McIntosh, K., Nese, R., & Horner, R. (2016). Vulnerable decision
points for disproportionate office discipline referrals: Comparisons of discipline for
African American and White elementary school students. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2753698
119

Staats, C. (2016). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. Education Digest,
82, 29–38. https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2015-2016/staats
Staats, C., Capatosto, K., Wright, R. A., & Jackson, V. W. (2016). State of the science: Implicit
bias review 2016. Kirwan Institute.
https://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2016-07//implicit-bias-2016.pdf
Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-
group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 275–284.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023752
Stell, A. J., & Farsides, T. (2015). Brief loving-kindness meditation reduces racial bias, mediated
by positive other-regarding emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 140–147.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9514-x
Sugai, G. (2015). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Application of an analytical
behavior theory of action. University of Connecticut, Storris.
https://winginstitute.org/uploads/docs/2014WingSummitGS.pdf
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2019). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral interventions and
supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional Children,
86(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919855331
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social
justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x06293717
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). Chapter 3: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
at 40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x029001051
120

Unterhalter, E. (2009). What is equity in education? Reflections from the capability approach.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(5), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-
009-9125-7
Warikoo, N., Sinclair, S., Fei, J., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. (2016). Examining racial bias in
education. Educational Researcher, 45(9), 508–514.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16683408
Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., & Kurth, J. (2020). The state of inclusion with students with
intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 18(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12332
Weiner, E. J. (2003). Secretary Paulo Freire and the democratization of power: Toward a theory
of transformative leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 89–106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-5812.00007
Welch, K., & Payne, A. (2018). Latino/a student threat and school disciplinary policies and
practices. Sociology of Education, 91(2), 91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040718757720
Wells, L. M. (2019). Perceptions of high school principals of the role of multi-tiered systems of
support-formally RTI-in bringing about social justice and equity for Black boys
(Publication No. 13807817) [Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Williams, J. (2008). The “war on education”: The negative impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act on inner-city public schools, students, and teachers. Journal of Gender, Race &
Justice, 11(3), 573.
121

Wilson, B. R. (2015). Education for all: Hearing minority parent voice about public education in
India. The Qualitative Report, 20(7), 1062–1082. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2015.2200
Wrightslaw. (2016, August 25). Schools cannot deny equal opportunity for participation in
extracurricular activities. The Wrightslaw way: Special education law and advocacy.
https://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/schools-cannot-deny-equal-participation-in-
extracurricular-activities/
Zettel, J. J., & Ballard, J. (1979). The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 PL
94-142: Its history, origins, and concepts. Journal of Education, 161(3), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205747916100303
Zhao, Y. (2016). From deficiency to strength: Shifting the mindset about education inequality.
Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 720–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12191
122

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
I want to thank you for being with me and taking the time to participate in my study. I
know how valuable your time is as an educator, and I appreciate your willingness to answer my
questions. As mentioned, the interview will take about 45 minutes. I hope that will still work for
you.
Before we begin, just a reminder about the study and take this opportunity to answer any
questions you may have about participating in this study. As indicated in the Study Information
Sheet, I am a USC doctoral student conducting a study about the implementation of an equity-
based MTSS. My particular interest is in the challenges leaders face when implementing equity-
based MTSS and resources needed. I am interviewing multiple leaders to gain insight. I want to
assure you that I am strictly a researcher today. I will not share your responses with any person
in the district. My goal is to learn more about your experience and perspective. This interview is
strictly confidential, as indicated in the Study Information Sheet. You may choose to skip a
question if you wish not to respond or to end the interview at any time. Your identity will not be
disclosed to anyone outside of the research team. The data for this study will be compiled into a
report, and while some of what you say may be used as direct quotes, which I will verify before
use, none of this data will be tied directly to you. To protect your confidentiality, I will use a
code, such as Participant A, Participant B, Participant C, and will do my best to de-identify any
data I collect from you. If interested, I am happy to send you a copy of my final paper. With your
permission, I would like to record our interview today. It is a way to ensure your perspective is
correctly conveyed. The recording is solely for my use and will not be shared with anyone
outside of the research team. The recording will be destroyed once transcribed, and the
transcription will be stored on a secure server and destroyed after 3 years. Do I have your
123

permission to record our conversation? Thank you. Do you have any questions about the study
before we begin?
Interview
Question 1: Please tell me about your background in education.

Possible probing questions:
• How did you become interested in education?
• How long have you been an educator?
• What positions have you held in the field of education? (If leader does not state
current role or describe, inquire about current role)
Question 2: Please describe your definition of MTSS.

Possible probing questions:
• What is the function of Tier I in MTSS?
• What is the function of Tier II in MTSS?
• What is the function of Tier III in MTSS?
• What teaming structures or educational teams, if any, engage in the MTSS
framework?
Question 3: What is your operational definition of educational equity?

Possible probing questions:
• What does educational inequity look like?
• What strategies do you as a leader use to address inequities?
Question 4: (for site leader): Suppose I am a parent of a student at your site who needs IEP
accommodations in the general education setting. What leader strategies would you
implement to support your teacher(s) in ensuring that my child has access to the
instructional support as indicated on their IEP?

Question 4: (for district leader) Suppose I am a site leader who comes to you asking for
support around student access. The site leader indicates that teachers are struggling
with providing appropriate instructional support for all students (that is, SWD, EL,
and learners from diverse backgrounds). What leader strategies would you utilize to
support the site leader?

Question 5: What barriers would you remove to ensure that all students could access the
services and support they need to achieve positive outcomes?

124

Question 6: How would you describe your role in helping to ensure all students participate in
the services they need to be successful?

Possible probing question:
• What barriers would you remove so that all students could participate in the
services and supports needed to produce positive outcomes?
Question 7: (for site leader) Please describe what an equity-based MTSS looks like at your
site currently.

Possible probing questions:
• What teaming structures or educational teams engage in the MTSS framework at
your site?
• How much time do teams have to disaggregate data to understand how different
groups are responding to instruction?
• What leadership strategies do you implement to support your teams in ensuring
positive student outcomes?

Question 7: (for district leader) Please describe what an equity-based MTSS looks like
within the district currently.

Possible probing questions:
• What educational teams are you involved in to support the implementation of an
equity-based MTSS?
• What leadership strategies do you implement to support your teams in ensuring
positive student outcomes?

Question 8: What do you foresee as challenging, if any, about implementing an equity-
based MTSS?

Possible probing questions:
• In your opinion, what would assist you in overcoming those challenges?
• What opportunities, if any, have developed out of implementing an equity-based
MTSS?

Question 9: What impact, if any, do you expect the implementation of an equity-based
MTSS will have on student outcomes?
Closing Question: Before closing, what other information would you like to share with me
about your experience with educational equity or implementing an equity-based
MTSS?

125

Appendix B: Survey
1. The district’s vision for implementing an equity-based MTSS has been clearly
messaged to site leaders (extremely clear to not clear).
2. I have received professional learning on the essential components of an equity-based
MTSS framework (strongly agree to strongly disagree).
3. Have you received professional learning on the following leadership strategies?
Please indicate yes or no:

• understanding change
• building collective efficacy
• being the lead learner
• creating coherence
• transformative leadership

4. Have you received professional learning in the following areas related to combating
implicit bias? Please indicate Yes or No.

• shared decision making
• information building
• intergroup contact
• thoughtfulness awareness (mindfulness)

Looking at the items below, please rate the importance of resources needed to implement an
equity-based MTSS at your site.
5. Staff professional learning on the technical aspects of MTSS (i.e., roles &
responsibilities, data-informed decision-making, evidence-based practices, continuous
cycle of inquiry, scheduling). The answers can be varied from extremely important to
not at all important
6. Staff professional learning on equitable and inclusive instructional practices
(extremely important to not at all important)
7. Staff professional learning on differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse
learners (extremely important to not at all important).
8. Staff professional learning on Tier I practices in the area of academics and social-
emotional learning (extremely important to not at all important).
9. Integrated data system to inform decisions about student needs (extremely important
to not at all important).

126

Appendix C: Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Implementing an Equity-based Multi-Tiered System of Support in a Large Urban District: The
Grows and Glows
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the unique experiences of district and site leaders as they
implement an equity-based multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) in a large urban school
district. This study aims to uncover MTSS implementation challenges as well as positive aspects
to maximize future implementation. I will also examine what leader strategies and resources are
needed to implement an equity-based MTSS. You are invited to participate because you are a
district or site leader currently involved in the stages of MTSS implementation.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-minute semi-
structured one-on-one interview. Interviews will be conducted via video conferencing or in
person. Participants will be able to verify direct quotes for accuracy and representation. You do
not have to answer any questions you do not want to during the interview. Interviews will be
recorded and transcribed. Once transcribed and verified, audio/video recordings will be deleted.
The participant can choose not to be recorded and still participate in the study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

127

CONFIDENTIALITY
Sarah Scheidt will be the Principal Investigator of this study. Any identifiable information
obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your interview responses will be
given a code (i.e., Participant A, B, C, etc.) and maintained separately. You will have the right to
review and edit transcripts of the one-on-one interviews. All recordings related to this study will
be destroyed once transcribed. The transcripts will be stored on a password-protected computer,
which only the Principal Investigator can access.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Research
Protection Program (HRPP) may access the data. The HRPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please contact the following individuals:

Principal Investigator
Sarah Scheidt
xxxx@xxx.xxx

Faculty Advisor
David Cash, EdD
xxxx@xxx.xxx

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

128

Appendix D: Recruitment Email for Survey Participants
Dear Site Leader,
My name is Sarah Scheidt, and I am a doctoral student at USC Rossier School of Education
conducting research on the implementation of an equity-based MTSS. As part of my research, I
am surveying elementary and secondary leaders to gather data on resources needed to implement
an equity-based MTSS at the site level. Your participation is voluntary, and you are under no
obligation to complete the survey. The survey is being sent to multiple site leaders to gain a
range of perspectives. The survey will take 3-5 minutes to complete, and your responses are
completely anonymous and cannot be traced back to you. If you have any questions about the
survey, please contact me at xxxx@xxx.xxx. I appreciate your time and value your input.
Sincerely,
Sarah Scheidt
To complete the survey, click here:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0N70I0ddT53EHc2
Or scan the QR code:

129

Appendix E: Central Valley Unified District Overview
Table E1
School Sites by Type
School type Number
1

Elementary schools 66
Middle schools 14
High schools 10
Special education schools 3
Alternative education & adult schools 6
Total 99

Table E2
Student Demographics
Student race/ethnicity Percentage
2

African American 8.0
American Indian .6
Asian 10.8
Hispanic 69.1
Two or more races 2.5
Pacific Islander .4
White (Not Hispanic) 8.3

Table E3
Student Enrollment by Program
Program Percentage
3

English learner 17.5
Foster youth 1.2
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 82.9
Students with disabilities 11.3

1
Citation not included to protect the confidentiality of the research site.
2
See Footnote 1.
3
See Footnote 1.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

Why can’t I see myself in my school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in middle schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Compassionate accountability: understanding the capacity of county offices of education to propel the school counseling profession forward

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

An examination into leadership strategies that stop perpetuating the equity gap of historically marginalized students in high schools

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

“Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

PDF

School-based support for students with ADHD in general education classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Scheidt, Sarah Yuki (author)

Core Title Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/24/2023

Defense Date 03/01/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag educational equity,large urban districts,leadership strategies,multi-tiered system of support,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Ermeling, Bradley (committee member), Franklin, Gregory (committee member)

Creator Email sarahyuki74@gmail.com,sscheidt@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113077787

Unique identifier UC113077787

Identifier etd-ScheidtSar-11695.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ScheidtSar-11695

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Scheidt, Sarah Yuki

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230424-usctheses-batch-1029 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu