University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 1 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORT AT DOWNTOWN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER NEEDS by Bhavini C. Bhakta A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2019 Copyright 2019 Bhavini Bhakta TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My life is filled with systems of support that have helped me succeed. My heartfelt thanks to my parents, my sisters, friends, colleagues and mentors who have supported me in every which way to get where I am today. To my parents, thank you for never letting a day go by without expressing your love and support for anything and everything I have pursued in my life. Thank you for always believing that I can accomplish anything, and for sacrificing all that you have to give my sisters and I the life that we have in this country. To my sisters, whose endless support and cheerleading continuously lead the way, even with the busy lives and long miles that separate us. To my friends and colleagues who have dedicatedly believed in my goals and aspirations, I stand tall because of your commitment to my success. To my dissertation chair, Dr. Kenneth Yates, I cannot thank you enough for the sheer number of hours you put into guiding me through each step of the dissertation writing process. Your expertise, insight and carefully planned minute of each day helped me to do the same as I worked on this project. I do not and will not begin to address a problem at work without thinking about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs before implementing a solution. You made this daunting project easy to understand and to complete, with a touch of humor along the way. I owe my December defense date entirely to you. Dr. John Paramo and Dr. Brianna Hinga, thank you for pushing me to consider all aspects of impact on student learning and achievement throughout this project. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 3 To my dissertation partner, Dr. Matthew Chambers, you made this process fun while simultaneously pushing our progress. We struck the perfect balance in our partnership and I absolutely hope I am lucky enough to work on a project with you again. Lastly, I dedicate this work to every female who wishes to move up into educational administration, particularly my minority sisters: you are capable, you are valued, and you are needed. Now, more than ever. Fight on. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 List of Tables 7 Abstract 9 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 10 Introduction of the Problem of Practice 10 Organizational Context and Mission 11 Organizational Performance Status 12 Related Literature 13 Importance of the Problem to the Organization 13 Organizational Performance Goal 14 Description of the Stakeholders 14 Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 15 Stakeholder Group for the Study 16 Stakeholders of Focus Critical Behaviors 16 Purpose of the Project and Questions 16 Conceptual and Methodological Framework 17 Definitions 17 Organization of the Study 18 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20 Introduction 20 Graduating from High School College Ready 20 Challenges Preventing Students from Graduating College Ready 27 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 5 Intervention Systems to Support Struggling Students 31 Stakeholder Role in MTSS 37 Conceptual Framework 38 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors 39 Summary 52 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 53 Purpose of the Project and Questions 53 Conceptual and Methodological Framework 53 Assessment of Performance Influences 55 Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 73 Instrumentation 74 Data Collection 75 Data Analysis 76 Trustworthiness of Data 77 Role of Investigator 78 Limitations 78 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 79 Participating Stakeholders 80 Data Validation 81 Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 82 Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 91 Results and Findings for Organization Causes 100 Summary of Validated Influences 109 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 6 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION 112 Purpose of the Project and Questions 112 Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences 112 Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Recommendations 123 Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 124 Limitations and Delimitations 137 Recommendations for Future Research 138 Conclusion 138 References 140 Appendix A: Survey & Interview Protocol 149 Appendix B: Immediate Evaluation Tool 158 Appendix C: Delayed Evaluation Tool 160 Appendix D: Digital Dashboard 162 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 7 List of Tables Table 1: Organizational Goal and Mission 15 Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal 43 Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal 47 Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal 51 Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 57 Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 64 Table 7: Summary of Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment 69 Table 8: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of MTSS Strategies 81 Table 9: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of MTSS Strategies 84 Table 10: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Tiered Intervention 85 Table 11: Survey Results for Value in Implementing MTSS Strategies 91 Table 12: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy in Implementing MTSS Strategies 93 Table 13: Survey Results for Emotions Related to MTSS Implementation 96 Table 14: Survey Results for Emotions Related to MTSS Implementation 96 Table 15: Survey Results for Emotions Related to MTSS Implementation 96 Table 16: Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation 98 Table 17: Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation 98 Table 18: Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation 98 Table 19: Survey Results for Resources Related to MTSS Implementation 100 Table 20: Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation 100 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 8 Table 21: Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation 101 Table 22: Survey Results for Policies and Procedures in Implementing MTSS 103 Table 23: Survey Results for Cultural Setting at Westside High School 105 Table 24: Survey Results for Cultural Model at Westside High School 107 Table 25: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences as Assets or Needs 108 Table 26: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences as Assets or Needs 109 Table 27: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences as Assets or Needs 110 Table 28: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 113 Table 29: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 116 Table 30: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 118 Table 31: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 126 Table 32: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 128 Table 33: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 129 Table 34: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 134 Table 35: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 135 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 9 Abstract This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) performance analysis model, which systematically and analytically clarifies organizational goals to identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. The purpose of this study was to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs of teachers to effectively implement a Multi- Tiered System of Support (MTSS) at Westside High School in Downtown Unified School District. Twenty-nine teachers were surveyed, 6 of them were interviewed, and the data was coded and analyzed to identify their assets and needs in effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School. Findings from the study indicate a motivational asset among teachers, whereas knowledge and organizational needs exist in order to effectively implement MTSS at the school site. Teachers feel positive about and find value in implementing MTSS at Westside High School, however, varying knowledge and organizational need must be addressed in order to do so effectively. This study makes recommendations for addressing teachers’ knowledge needs through professional development and instructional coaching while simultaneously addressing site organizational needs in ensuring effective roll-out and implementation of MTSS at Westside High School. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 10 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION (Co-authored by: Bhavini Bhakta and Matthew Chambers) Introduction of the Problem of Practice The California Department of Education 1 defines a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) as an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on Common Core State Standards (CCSS), core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. The components of MTSS include both Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI²), and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Combining academic and social-emotional behavioral supports in an integrated model is more effective and efficient at raising student outcomes than implementing academic and behavior supports independently of one another (Cook, et al., 2012; McIntosh, et al., 2006; McIntosh and Goodman, 2016). Studying the implementation of MTSS within the high school 1 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp 2 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/rtiphilosphydefine.asp TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 11 setting aides in understanding precisely how student social and academic outcomes can be heightened. This particular project represents the larger national problem that at risk students who do not receive effective comprehensive interventions struggle both socially and academically (McIntosh and Goodman, 2016). Organizational Context and Mission The Downtown Unified School District (DUSD, a pseudonym) is a comprehensive local education agency (LEA) offering educational programs from Kindergarten through Adult School. DUSD enrolls more than 32,000 students in one of their twenty-one public school programs. The mission of the Downtown Unified School District is to develop all students to be self-motivated learners and productive, responsible and compassionate members of an ever- changing global society. As part of its vision, DUSD seeks to provide every student with an opportunity to graduate with a 21st Century education that ensures they are college and career ready, globally competitive and citizens of strong character. In the fall of 2017, the Downtown Unified Board of Education voted to align district graduation requirements with California college admission requirements, also known as the A-G requirements. This change would ensure that DUSD are eligible to apply to California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) schools upon graduation. The higher requirements will be implemented in three stages beginning with the graduating class of 2022. The first graduating class required to meet the A-G requirements will be the class of 2026. The Downtown Board of Education is setting the bar very high and should be commended for it. However, it will not be easy to meet their new goal since the district is currently graduating around 42% of students CSU/UC eligible. Therefore, this policy change TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 12 will require a significant increase in academic and social-emotional supports if the districts wants to meet their new goal of graduating more students who are college ready. Organizational Performance Status DUSD desires to examine the implementation of MTSS within its high schools. Currently, DUSD has many effective intervention programs in place to support the academic and behavioral needs of their students. These programs include tier one interventions to support students struggling with academics and the early stages of school wide PBIS. However, DUSD has yet to implement both PBIS and RTI as an integrated whole under the name MTSS. Moreover, not all 9th grade students are on track to meet A-G graduation requirements. Implementing RTI and PBIS as functions of an effective MTSS program are crucial to early identification of learning and behavioral challenges and timely intervention for students at risk for poor learning outcomes. A fully and effectively implemented MTSS program creates opportunities for students to access college and career readiness instruction through tiers of services and supports that vary in intensity. Implementing MTSS cohesively throughout the District impacts DUSD’s goal of developing all students to be self-motivated learners and productive, responsible and compassionate members of an ever-changing global society because not all students who are receiving intervention services are meeting A-G requirements. Related Literature A multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) is a methodical and careful integration of the academic RTI and PBIS systems to support students academically and behaviorally in school (California Department of Education, 2017; Freeman, J., et al., 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Combining RTI and PBIS into an integrated model known as MTSS make sense because of the strong relationship between academic skills and problem behavior, they share so many TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 13 similarities, and integrating both models together leads to an efficient use of resources. (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Three core components of the MTSS framework that guide educators are data-driven decision making, evidence-based practices to support student needs, and support systems in place to ensure continuous improvement (Freeman, J., et al., 2017). Implementing this type of systematic intervention system requires the commitment and expertise of all school professionals, not just a handful of special education teachers and school psychologists. Successful implementation of MTSS centers on the coordination and collaboration of district and school staff to ensure the most effective instructional approaches are used to meet the needs of students. (Duffy, 2007). However, the general background literature about this problem suggests that many teachers do not feel adequately prepared to work within a multi-tiered system of support due to large and varied teaching loads, a lack of resources for professional development, and insufficient training in teacher preparation programs (Lancaster & Hougen, 2017; Prasse et al., 2012). Importance of the Problem to the Organization It is important for DUSD to effectively implement MTSS because this will enhance instructional quality and support for students at risk of poor educational outcomes. Implementing MTSS cohesively at the high school level impacts DUSD’s goal of developing all students to be self-motivated learners and productive, responsible and compassionate members of an ever-changing global society. Furthermore, it is imperative to effectively implement MTSS because the recent policy change to increase graduation requirements will require a comprehensive systematic approach to provide at risk students with academic and social- emotional supports and interventions. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 14 Organizational Performance Goal The goal of the organization is for DUSD’s Westside High School (a pseudonym) to effectively implement MTSS to ensure that all ninth grade students are on track to meet A-G requirements. Description of the Stakeholders The three main stakeholders who are responsible for implementing MTSS and were considered for this analysis are study are teachers, site administrators, and district office leadership. . Each of these stakeholders plays a key role in the process of raising student achievement through a systematic approach to interventions and support services. Teachers have an integral role in the effective implementation of any intervention program, particularly MTSS. This role requires teachers to be trained in the program, work collectively with other education professionals and alter their day to day instructional practices. Site administrators play a key role in leading the implementation of MTSS at their sites by communicating goals, providing resources and training, and fostering a supportive organization environment. District office leadership must stay current on research, make sure implementation is aligned with district goals, provide resources and training for school-based teams and collaborate between departments to ensure fidelity of implementation. Stakeholders’ Performance Goals The goals for the organization and the three primary stakeholders to implement MTSS are shown in Table 1. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 15 Table 1 Organizational Goal and Mission Organizational Mission Downtown Unified School District (DUSD) will develop all students to be self-motivated learners and productive, responsible and compassionate members of an ever-changing global society. As part of its vision, DUSD will provide every student with an opportunity to graduate with a 21st Century education that ensures they are college and career ready, globally competitive and citizens of strong character Organizational Global Goal By June 2020, DUSD’s Westside High School will effectively implement MTSS to ensure that all 9th grade students remain on track to meet A-G graduation requirements. Stakeholder Goal: Teachers By June 2020, all teachers will effectively implement established MTSS intervention strategies with identified students so that all students are achieving A-G graduation requirements. Stakeholder Goal: Site Administrators By June 2020, the administrative team will implement and monitor a systematic MTSS intervention program for identified students so that all students are achieving A-G graduation requirements. Stakeholder Goal: District Office Leadership By June 2020, District Office leaders will put into place the standards and processes that will reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward effective implementation of MTSS at Westside High School so that all students are achieving A-G graduation requirements. Stakeholder Group for the Study The stakeholder of focus for this study is teachers in the DUSD at Westside High School (WHS). Please see the Chambers (2019) dissertation for the counterpart to this study. Chambers’ (2019) study titled The Implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of Support in Downtown Unified School District – An Analysis of Site Administrator Needs, focuses on site administrators as the key stakeholder. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 16 Stakeholders of Focus Critical Behaviors Critical behaviors are the few, specific actions, which, if performed consistently on the job, will have the biggest impact on desired results and achieving organizational success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical behaviors are used to guide the literature review and the application of the Clark & Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization framework. Three preliminary critical behaviors have been identified for teachers to achieve their goal. The review of the literature may reveal other critical behaviors. 1. Identify students as recipients of Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI 2 ) and/or Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) strategies. 2. Implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction to improve social and academic outcomes for identified students. 3. Follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Purpose of the Project and Questions The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of MTSS in Downtown Unified School District (DUSD) high schools in particular from the perspective of teachers. More specifically, the purpose of this project is to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School by June 2020. The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible needs and will then move to examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 17 analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is DUSD teachers. Two questions guide this study. 1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to effectively implement MTSS at Westside High School? 2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational recommendations for meeting the needs of teachers in achieving the DUSD goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School? Conceptual and Methodological Framework This is a collaborative action research project in which we will utilize Clark and Estes’ (2008) performance analysis model, which is a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs will be generated based on district information, personal knowledge and related literature. These needs will be validated and triangulated by data, including knowledge assessments, motivation and organization scales, observational data, and document analysis. Data collection methods include surveys, observations, individual interviews and focus groups, and document analysis. Research-based solutions will be recommended accompanied by an implementation and evaluation plan. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 18 Definitions The California Department of Education 2 defines a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) as an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on CCSS, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. The California Department of Education 2 RtI2 is a systematic, data-driven approach to instruction that benefits every student. RtI2 integrates resources from general education, categorical programs, and special education through a comprehensive system of core instruction and tiered levels of interventions to benefit every student. The CDE work group expanded the notion of RtI to RtI 2 , Instruction and Intervention, to emphasize the full spectrum of instruction, from general to intensive. The A-G requirements are that California high school students must complete the A-G course sequence with a grade of “C” or higher to qualify for direct admission to one of the 23 California State Universities (CSUs) or 10 University of California (UC) campuses across the state (Betts, et al., 2013). The A-G sequence is comprised of 15 courses in the subject areas of (a) History / social science, (b) English, (c) Mathematics, (d) Laboratory Science, (e) Language other than English, (f) Visual and performing arts, and (g) College-preparatory elective (University of California, n.d.). Organization of the Study The study is organized as five chapters. Chapter One is an introduction to the study. Chapter Two will be a review of the literature. Chapter Three will cover the research 2 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp 2 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/rtiphilosphydefine.asp TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 19 methodology. Chapter Four will contain the research findings of the study. Lastly, Chapter Five will include the conclusions, discussions, and suggestions for future research. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 20 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Co-authored by: Bhavini Bhakta and Matthew Chambers 3 Introduction The purpose of this literature review will be to explore what it means for students to graduate college ready, to examine some of the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional challenges preventing students from reaching that goal, and to identify intervention systems supporting struggling students. This review of the literature will also analyze the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors teachers through the lens of the critical behaviors identified in chapter one. Graduating from High School College Ready College Readiness College readiness is most commonly described as the level of preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed in a college program without requiring remediation (Conley, 2007; Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). However, college readiness can also encompass a wide range of domains and contexts including curricular content, academic behaviors, cognitive strategies, high school GPA, high school class rank, or standardized college entrance exam scores such as the SAT or ACT (Tierney & Sablan, 2014). There are many different ways that governments and educational institutions prioritize what makes a student college and/or career ready. For example, an analysis of thirty-seven state definitions of college and career readiness found the most common elements to be academic knowledge, critical thinking, social and emotional learning, grit, resilience or perseverance, and citizenship and/or community involvement (Mishkind, 2014). Furthermore, according to Conley (2007), a college-ready student is able to understand the expectations of 3 This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 21 college courses, is expected in a college course, process the content knowledge that is presented, and synthesize the key intellectual lessons and dispositions the course was designed to convey and develop. A criticism of our education system is that high school hardly prepares students with the skills required of college level courses, which are faster paced and more rigorous (Conley, 2007). College level courses, unlike many high school courses, require students to make inferences, interpret results, analyze conflicting explanations of phenomena, support arguments with evidence, solve complex problems that have no obvious answer, reach conclusions, offer explanations and conduct research (Conley, 2007). This is troubling when you consider that forty percent of new college students need to take remedial courses because they are not adequately prepared for university level work (United States Department of Education, 2010). On the same note, college professors estimate that four out of ten students are not adequately prepared for college (Wyatt, Wiley, Camara & Proestler, 2011). Furthermore, only 28% believe that public high schools adequately prepare students for the challenges of college (Wyatt et al., 2011). Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) suggests that many students are likely falling short of being college ready upon graduation (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). In 2009, 38% of twelfth-grade students performed at or above the proficient level on the NAEP reading assessment, while only 26% percent of test takers were at or above the proficient level in mathematics (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been adopted by forty-two states with the main goal of graduating students who are college and career ready (Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d.). Many states have college readiness indicators embedded in their school accountability systems. Indicators vary from state to state and include such factors as the TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 22 number of students taking AP courses, the number of students enrolled in dual enrollment courses, the percentage of graduates who go to college, college remediation rates, SAT, ACT, and AP scores, and one-year college retention rates (United States Department of Education, n.d.). In 2017, the California Department of Education (CDE) implemented a new accountability system called the California School Dashboard (California Department of Education, 2018). The California School Dashboard includes a College/Career Indicator (CCI), which measures postsecondary preparedness (California Department of Education, 2018). To be considered CCI prepared, students must earn a high school diploma and successfully achieve one of the following: (a) score at least a Level 3 "Standard Met" on both ELA and Mathematics on Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, (b) complete two semesters of Dual Enrollment with a passing grade, (c) earn a passing score on two Advanced Placement (AP) Exams or two International Baccalaureate (IB) Exams or (d) complete the A-G requirements (California Department of Education, 2018). Many states including California measure college readiness as a key indicator of student achievement and school success. College ready students are developed at the secondary level, so how are high school graduation requirements helping student prepare for university level work? High School Graduation Requirements High school graduation requirements have been historically designed to help prepare students for the rigors of college (Plunk, Tate, Bierut & Grucza, 2014; Shaw & Walker, 1981). For instance, the last few decades of the twentieth century brought forth increased high school graduation requirements in response to calls for more cognitively demanding high school coursework to better prepare students for the demands of college and to improve the quality of TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 23 the labor force (Murnane, 2013; Plunk et al., 2014). The origin of high school graduation requirements as we know them today can be traced back to the late nineteenth century. College admission requirements were in place in the United States before high school graduation requirements. Harvard College established admission standards as early as 1642 (Shaw & Walker, 1981). By around 1870, most colleges entrance requirements included algebra, geometry, ancient history, English grammar, and ancient and modern geography for admission (Shaw & Walker, 1981). However, high school courses in music, art, agriculture, commercial education, industrial education, and home science were not recognized by any of the leading colleges at the time (Shaw & Walker, 1981). The late nineteenth century marked a period where high schools and college lacked a reasonable articulation due to major differences in college entrance requirements, time students spent in secondary schools, and the function and scope of high schools (Shaw & Walker, 1981). However, by 1909 a large number of high schools and colleges in the U.S. had officially adopted educational standards recommended by the Carnegie Foundation (Shaw & Walker, 1981). The Carnegie Foundation, which was composed of group of college presidents and prominent bankers of the time, defined the idea of four years of high school and what it meant to separate high school-type courses from college curricula (Shaw & Walker, 1981). The Carnegie Foundation recommended the adoption of a Standard Unit, defined as a year’s study in some major subject in a secondary school. The Standard Unit, or Carnegie Unit as it is often referred to today, assumes that schools are in session at least 36 weeks a year, a subject is studied for four or five periods a week, and a period is 40 to 60 minutes in length (Shaw & Walker, 1981).The Carnegie Foundation also set the standard of 14 units of high school work as the basic minimum for admission to colleges which aligned with the practices of the nation’s top schools at the time (Shaw & Walker, 1981). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 24 Moving ahead to the 21st century, approximately 3 million students graduate from high school in the United States per year (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). As the largest state in the union, California produces more than ten percent of the country’s total graduates with over 400,000 students earning diplomas from the Golden State each year. (California Department of Education DataQuest, 2018). The state of California requires students, while in grades nine to twelve, to complete at minimum thirteen courses in the following subject areas to obtain a high school diploma: three courses in English, two courses in mathematics, two courses in science, three courses in social studies, two courses in physical education, and one course in either visual or performing arts, foreign language, or career technical education (California Department of Education, 2017). In comparison to other states in the nation, California’s graduation requirements lag behind (Gao, Lopes, & Lee, 2017). Over the past decade, 18 states have added at least one year of instruction to their math requirement resulting in California now being one of only three states requiring only two years of math (Gao et al., 2017). In English, California is one of only two states that require three years, instead of four, years of instruction (Gao et al., 2017). Lastly, California also lags behind in science requiring only two years of instruction, while forty-two states in the union require at least three years of science for high school graduation (Gao et al., 2017). Many school districts in the state of California supplement the statewide graduation requirements and raise the bar in their local communities (Gao et al., 2017). A recent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) survey found that during the 2015–16 school year, 63% of unified and high school districts required a third year of math for high school graduation (Gao et al., 2017). Additionally, the PPIC survey showed that about 40% of districts require a third year of science (Gao et al., 2017). Many districts have incorporated the A-G course sequence in their TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 25 graduation requirements (Gao et al., 2017). A 2017 survey of districts shows that 51% aligned their graduation requirements with the A-G requirements for CSU/UC eligibility (Gao et al., 2017). About seven in ten districts with graduation requirements aligned with the A-G requirements require a C or better in each course, while the rest require at least a D mark. Furthermore, these districts have put in place exemptions for students with learning disabilities and/or those on alternative graduation pathways (Gao et al., 2017). In recent years, California has been complacent by not raising their minimum high school graduation requirements, which are far below other states in the union. Although the state of California has a low threshold for graduation requirements, the A-G requirements for CSU/UC eligibility are a much higher standard that many districts, schools, and students are reaching for. A-G Requirements for CSU/UC Eligibility The past decade has seen an increased number of California school districts emphasize A-G completion rates as the primary goal for high school students to attain upon graduation (Betts, Zau & Bachofer, 2013; Gao et al., 2017). This is significant because California high school students must complete the A-G course sequence to qualify for direct admission to one of the 23 California State Universities (CSUs) or 10 University of California (UC) campuses across the state (Betts, et al., 2013). The A-G sequence is comprised of 15 courses in the subject areas of (a) History / social science, (b) English, (c) Mathematics, (d) Laboratory Science, (e) Language other than English, (f) Visual and performing arts, and (g) College-preparatory elective (University of California, n.d.). Schools must get courses A-G approved by submitting coursework to the UCOP office for approval. Once courses are approved, students must complete 30 semesters of A-G coursework with grades of C or higher to be eligible for CSU/UC admission (Betts et al., 2013). There has been a significant increase in the number of high school TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 26 graduates who have met the A-G requirements in the past decade with 43% of graduates meeting the requirement in 2015 compared to 35% ten years earlier in 2005 (Gordon, 2017). Students who do not qualify for CSU/UC eligibility directly out of high school and attend a community college are statistically less likely to earn a Bachelor’s degree than those who go directly to a state university (Finkelstein & Fong, 2008). In recent years, school districts across the state have focused on increasing their A-G completion rate (Betts et al., 2013). This focus may be attributed to the competitive nature of school accountability systems and the outside influence of civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (Betts et al., 2013). For example, the largest school districts in the states including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland have all aligned their high school graduation requirements to include the A-G course sequence (Betts et al., 2013). It is still unclear how these transformational changes to diploma requirements will address three potential side effects of the new policies including a potential decrease in graduation rates, a watering down of A-G course content, and possible academic grade inflation (Betts et al., 2013). The Public Policy Institute of California studied how this graduation requirement change would have affected San Diego Unified School District (SDSU) students who completed their secondary education in 2011 (Betts, et al., 2013). Of this group of SDSU graduates, a whopping 39% of the cohort would not have obtained their diplomas had the A-G course requirements been in place the year they graduated (Betts et al., 2013). As school districts shift their graduation requirements to increase their CSU/UC eligibility rates, it will be interesting to see how they serve their students who cannot meet the rigorous academic requirements of the A-G coursework. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 27 In 2017, the California Department of Education (CDE) implemented a new accountability system called the California School Dashboard (California Department of Education, 2018). The new accountability system is a multiple-measures approach that factors in graduation, suspension, English Learner, and college and career data, while replacing the Academic Performance Index, which accounted for only test scores in its formula (California Department of Education, 2018). The California School Dashboard includes a College/Career Indicator (CCI), which measures college and career readiness factors such as Advanced Placement exam data, Early Assessment Program results, and A-G completion rates (California Department of Education, 2018). As we approach the next decade, California high schools must adapt to the new measurements set forth by the CDE and respond accordingly. This will be the first time that the A-G completion rate is included in how the state measures its schools. Challenges Preventing Students from Graduating College Ready Academic Challenges The College Board, which administers the AP program, reports that only 30 percent of 2011 public high school graduates participated in AP courses and only 18.1 percent succeeded in scoring 3 or higher (“qualified” to receive college credit or placement into advanced courses) on at least one AP exam (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). Other common assessments used to determine college readiness are the ACT and SAT exams, which are typically administered to high school juniors and seniors (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). In 2012, only 25 percent of all ACT-tested high school graduates met the College Readiness Benchmarks in all four subjects, meaning that they earned the minimum score needed to have a 50 percent chance of obtaining a “B” or higher in corresponding first-year college courses (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). Looking at SAT data, among the high school graduating class of 2012, only 43 percent of all SAT takers met the SAT College TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 28 & Career Readiness Benchmark, which indicates a 65 percent likelihood of obtaining a “B-” average or higher during the first year of college (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). Furthermore, although there has been an increase in the number of high school graduates who have met the A- G requirements in the past decade, this increase is not significant enough to keep up with the growing number of school district’s that are aligning high school graduation requirements with A-G requirements (Gordon, 2017). As such, high school students in California face varying academic challenges in meeting graduation requirements and entering college with the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful (Hickman, Bartholomew, Mathwig & Heinrich, 2008). These students often struggle academically in core content areas primarily because of the disparity between their reading level and the required reading in high school (Mastropieri, Scruggs & Graetz, 2003). Content specific textbooks lack good structure, cover a vast amount of material with insufficient specifics and do not include leveled reading content (Mastropieri et al., 2003). Such textbooks are written with density and complexity without accessibility to struggling students (Mastropieri et al., 2003). Additionally, teachers attempt to cover material too quickly for the majority of struggling students in order for them to keep pace with year-long content coverage. Because of this, most teachers move on to the next chapter of the textbook without ensuring students have mastered the current material, forcing them to fall further behind in the next chapter (Mastropieri et al., 2003). Systemically, teachers are not sufficiently trained to make learning accessible for struggling students, thus, do not exhibit the knowledge and expertise required to support these students. Instead, teachers move through covering content in a timely manner, so that their students are prepared for high stakes standardized testing (Mastropieri et al., 2003). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 29 Due to these systemic academic support challenges, students who don’t meet high school graduation requirements fall behind academically even prior to high school, inhibiting their chances to ‘catch up’ in the four years they have in high school (Hickman, Bartholomew, Mathwig & Heinrich, 2008). An abundance of research indicates that by third grade, if appropriate and effective actions are not implemented to correct academic deficits, students can enter an academic downward spiral that eventually puts them on an unnavigable pathway that eventually leads them to drop out of school (Hickman et al., 2008). In addition to these systemic academic challenges that plague both students and schools, social, emotional and behavioral issues must also be considered to understand the struggling student. Social, Emotional & Behavioral Challenges A comprehensive mission for schools is to educate students to be knowledgeable, responsible, socially skilled, healthy, caring, and contributing citizens. However, large numbers of students with mental health problems and deficits in social–emotional competence have difficulty learning or disrupt the educational experiences of their peers (Benson, Scales, Leffert, & Roehlkepartain, 1999). There exist a myriad of factors that contribute to the social, emotional and behavioral challenges a student in schools face today. One such factor is poverty and its impact on overall student success. Students living in poverty are more likely to not meet graduation requirements than their more affluent counterparts because children who grow up in poverty encounter more arduous challenges (Baydu, Kaplan & Bayar, 2013). These challenges lead to having fewer role models, less opportunities for building networks of trust, and more pressure to secure income as soon as possible (Raffo et al., 2009). Because of this fluctuation in adult role models, there generally exists a lack of parental and societal support, which in turn, leads to a higher dropout rate among TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 30 students living in poverty (Baydu et al., 2013). In addition, because minority students have a higher chance of being born into poverty, Hispanic, African American, and Native American minorities exhibit a higher dropout rate than their Caucasian peers (Baydu et al., 2013). Beyond statistics related to the struggles of students born into poverty, a separate cadre of research indicates that negative school experiences, such as behavioral issues within the classroom, truancy, or lack of motivation can be a result of an engagement in high-risk behaviors (Joe, Joe, & Rowley, 2009). High-risk behaviors can include, but are not limited to, substance abuse and cigarette smoking. Students who engage in these high-risk behaviors tend to have an increased number of negative school-related events, which then increases their rate of suspension and failure of classes (Joe et al., 2009). Another increasingly important factor that contributes to the social, emotional and behavioral well-being of students is both their individual and collective mental health. The number of incidents of suicidal behavior amongst students has nearly doubled in Los Angeles Unified School (LAUSD) since they began tracking this data in 2010-11 (Schrobsdorff, 2016). According to data from the 2010-12 National Health Interview Survey about 4% of adolescents aged 12-17 had a serious emotional or behavioral difficulty and received non-medication mental health services in the past six months (Jones, Pastor, Simon & Reuben, 2014). Additionally, approximately seven in ten adolescents with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties received non-medication mental health services in the past six months (Jones et al., 2014). About 20% of adolescents with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties receive school services for mental health (Jones et al., 2014). As the data indicates, mental health issues can be a paramount inhibitor of overall student success. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 31 One last challenge in students’ social, emotional and behavioral well-being is how schools address these problems (Greenberg et al., 2003; Zins, Weissberg, Wang & Walberg, 2004). Frequently, schools address student behavior problems by employing consequences such as detention, suspension, and expulsion (Saeki et al., 2011). A disproportionate amount of time and energy is spent on serving a small number of students with social-emotional and behavior problems (Saeki et al., 2011). The prevalence of social, emotional and behavioral issues among today’s high school students is indicative of the supports individual schools must have in place to ensure students graduate college ready. Implementing schoolwide systems of support at the high school level can ensure that all students are provided with the degree of assistance necessary so that students will graduate with the knowledge and skills to be successful in college. Intervention Systems to Support Struggling Students Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is a systematic and careful integration of the Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI 2 ) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS) systems to support students academically and behaviorally in school (Brown- Chidsey & Bickford, 2016; California Department of Education, 2017; Freeman, Sugai, Simonsen & Everett, 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). In the past few decades, these two approaches to school reform, have been considered a huge success based on academic and behavioral improvements and large-scale implementation (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The goal of an integrated MTSS model is to provide all students with the best opportunities to succeed both academically and behaviorally in school (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 32 MTSS integrates common components found in both RTI 2 and PBIS models including preventive screening, the use of data to drive decisions, a focus on teaming, and a tiered continuum of supports (Freeman et al., 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). MTSS focuses on providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need across domains (e.g. literacy and social-emotional competence) and monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals (Freeman et al., 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). MTSS targets improvement in academic and behavioral outcomes for all students though building leadership capacity and fostering a culture and system of continuous improvement (Freeman et al., 2017). There are three main reasons as to why combining RTI 2 and PBIS into an integrated model known as MTSS make sense: First, there is a strong relationship between academic skills and problem behavior (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Second, it’s efficient because RTI 2 and PBIS share so many similarities (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Third, integrating both RTI 2 and PBIS together may lead to an efficient use of resources and protect against competing initiatives (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). According to McIntosh and Goodman (2016), the origins of integrating academic and behavioral schoolwide intervention models can be traced back to the year 2000 when four districts applied and received grants from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). These successful projects led to further research and exploration on how to implement integrated models. Today many states such as California have included MTSS as one of their model educational programs. The California Department of Education (CDE) (2017) defines MTSS an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on CCSS, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 33 alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. Furthermore, the CDE (2017) describes MTSS as aligning initiatives, supports, and resources, addressing the needs of all students, endorsing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies, integrating a data collection and assessment system, implementing appropriate research-based interventions for improving student learning, using schoolwide and classroom research-based positive behavioral supports for achieving important social and learning outcomes, and implementing a collaborative approach to analyze student data and working together in the intervention process. MTSS addresses the academic as well as social, emotional and behavioral needs of students through multiple levels of support for all learners (struggling through advanced). A major ingredient of MTSS is the academic response to intervention piece, which includes data gathering through universal screening, data-driven decision making, and problem-solving teams. Response to Instruction and Intervention Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI 2 ) is a preventative systems approach to improving individual and schoolwide achievement through high quality universal instruction including needs-based tiered supports (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The system includes collaborative teaming across general and special education (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). According to McIntosh and Goodman (2016), approximately 68% of schools are in some stage of RTI implementation, 24% of those schools claim to implement RTI as a regular, systemic practice, and. 13% of those schools implement RTI in reading/ELA at the secondary level. This data-based approach to decision-making, can influence the nature of instruction, early intervention and learning disability identification (Duffy, 2007). RtI 2 can be applied in schools as a diagnostic approach that shapes instruction and informs decisions about TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 34 intervention, eligibility for special programs, design of individualized education plans (IEPs) and effectiveness of special education programs (Duffy, 2007). Students who arrive in high school performing below grade level in reading, writing or mathematics can benefit from the increased attention to instructional interventions and progress monitoring offered by RtI 2 constructs (Duffy, 2007). More specifically, RtI 2 has been characterized as “the science and practice of assessment and intervention” and is measured by the change in behavior as a byproduct of intervention. RtI 2 is typically comprised of five core components (Saeki et al., 2011): 1. A continuum of evidence-based services available to all students. 2. Ongoing monitoring of student progress. 3. A systematic decision-making process of determining student progress in the academic or behavioral domain. 4. Implementation of increasingly intensive interventions when students do not demonstrate improvements in response to other interventions. 5. Evaluation of special education services for students who do not demonstrate improvements despite implementation of increasingly intensive interventions. The United States Public Health Service delineates three levels of prevention outcomes: primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention seeks to prevent harm and secondary prevention seeks to reverse harm for those students at-risk for school problems. Tertiary prevention also seeks to reduce harm, but is aimed at students with the most severe difficulties (Saeki et al., 2011). The more specific details of the steps are to identify and then define the problem, explore solutions to the problem, implement the solution, and subsequently examine the effects of the application (Saeki et al., 2011). This three-tiered TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 35 framework for academic intervention affords an opportunity to provide additional, meaningful supports for students who are at-risk. In addition to instituting schoolwide academic supports for struggling students, interventions to support the social, emotional and behavioral well-being of students must also be considered. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support An approach to support the social, emotional and behavior well-being of students is school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), in which the school focuses on developing a predictable, efficient, and effective school climate. PBIS is a three-tiered intervention approach for social and emotional behavior that emphasizes an instructional approach to behavior support, prevention through environmental change, adaptation to the local context, and using the science of applied behavior analysis to achieve outcomes that are valued by staff, students and families (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Research has proven that the implementation of PBIS results in reduced disruptive behavior, reduced bullying, increased academic achievement, improved school safety, improved teacher climate, increased social competence, and increased emotional regulation (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). This multi-tiered behavioral framework is used to improve the integration and implementation of behavioral practices, data-driven decision-making systems, professional development opportunities, school leadership, supportive state and local education policies, and evidence-based instructional strategies (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2018). The PBIS framework helps to “improve behavioral and academic outcomes by improving school climate, preventing problem behavior, increasing learning time, promoting positive social skills, and delivering effective behavioral interventions and supports (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2018). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 36 Primary (universal), Secondary (targeted) and Tertiary (intensive) levels of support through the following guiding principles (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2018): 1. Foundation of social and behavior support (Tier I) 2. Implement PBIS across the whole school. 3. Invest in prevention first. 4. Establish a continuum of behavior support tailored to address the needs of ALL students. 5. Select and use evidence-based practices. 6. Build local capacity with high fidelity technical assistance and support. 7. Document high fidelity of practice implementation. 8. Decide with data. 9. Enhance implementation to be culturally relevant. Through the implementation of school-wide PBIS, students are taught expected behaviors and provided support for success on a prevention-oriented basis (Flannery, Fenning, Kato & McIntosh, 2014). Data are used to evaluate outcomes and make decisions regarding student needs and school practices (Flannery et al., 2014). The systematic implementation of PBIS significantly reduces problem behavior for students in high schools, and the degree of reduction is significantly related to the degree to which the critical features of PBIS are implemented (Flannery et al., 2014). It is evident that the strategic implementation of PBIS reduces problem behavior in high schools while promoting the social, emotional and behavioral well-being of all students. In order to examine the most effective intervention supports for students, the teachers’ direct role in the system must be studied. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 37 Stakeholder Role in MTSS Implementing a systematic intervention system requires changes in teacher roles as well as the culture of classrooms and schools. Particularly, teachers have an integral role in the effective implementation of any intervention program, particularly MTSS. This role requires teachers to be trained in the program, work collectively with other education professionals and alter their day to day instructional practices (Duffy, 2007). Teachers, intervention specialists, and other educational professionals must systematically collect and interpret student achievement data to identify and implement interventions that support student progress (Duffy, 2007). This systematic collaborative work can ensure the success of an academic and behavioral intervention system at the high school level. Understanding this required collaboration for an effective intervention program, implementing a team approach to an effective intervention system is key to its own success, so that the workload is distributed evenly and effectively to increase efficiency and reduce burnout of any one individual and avoid abandonment of the program as a whole (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The team approach promotes collaboration through a group of experienced teachers who can utilize their skill sets, experiences and expertise to problem solve programmatically. Many schools who successfully implement MTSS, utilize their school site leadership team to ensure an already existing team oversees the program’s functioning (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Regardless of how the team is formed, its focus should be stem from each individual student, outward toward the system: individual student teams, classroom student teams, grade- level/department teams, school leadership teams, to student support teams and onward as necessary (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 38 One last piece in the effective functioning of MTSS at the high school level is ensuring our teachers are adequately trained to work within a multi-tiered intervention system. Resources for professional development must be allocated ahead of time so that proper preparation for the teaching staff is secured and that support during implementation is readily accessible (Lancaster & Hougen, 2017). As such, effectively implementing MTSS at the secondary level requires teachers to be professionally trained, work collaboratively, and systematically target student needs. This requires the commitment and expertise of all school professionals, not just a handful of special education teachers and school psychologists. Successful implementation of MTSS centers on the coordination and collaboration of district and school staff to ensure the most effective instructional approaches are used to meet the needs of students. (Duffy, 2007). Conceptual Framework This is a collaborative action research project in which we will utilize Clark and Estes’ (2008) performance analysis model, which is a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs will be generated based on district information, personal knowledge and related literature. These needs will be validated and triangulated by data, including knowledge assessments, motivation and organization scales, observational data, and document analysis. Data collection methods include surveys, observations, individual interviews, and content analysis. Research-based solutions will be recommended accompanied by an implementation and evaluation plan. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 39 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors Authored by Bhavini Bhakta Knowledge and Skills According to Clark and Estes (2008), performance gaps are likely the result of three barriers: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational. Knowledge and skills barriers may exist, resulting in stakeholders not knowing how to achieve the goal. In the educational setting, Rueda (2011), has cautioned the use of fragmented tactics, improper implementation, and unrealistic solutions. It will be the goal of this gap analysis to recognize the importance of understanding and validating the causes of the performance gap before developing and implementing a principal-based solution (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, this study will identify and assess the knowledge and skill influences of teachers including declarative factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Clark & Estes, 2008). Declarative factual knowledge influences. Krathwohl (2002) states that factual knowledge contains the basic elements that pupils must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it. This includes terminology or details that one must have knowledge about in order to understand and effectively solve a problem in a given domain (Rueda, 2011). Teachers declarative factual knowledge influences Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them. Lancaster & Hougen (2017) suggest that teachers who work within a school that is implementing MTSS need to have the knowledge and skills to understand precisely what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are. Having knowledge and awareness of specific instructional strategies that fall into these two categories can allow teachers to function within a given school’s MTSS environment. This functioning includes but is not limited to administering and interpreting universal screening TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 40 techniques, enacting high-leverage teaching practices and evidence-based approaches, and monitoring student progress. Once teachers have adequate knowledge and awareness of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, the can discern among RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Duffy (2007) asserts that this will not only enable teachers to more effectively identify students who are in need of these support strategies, but also identify which strategies to implement at which time. Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are. In order for a school site to effectively implement tiered intervention for students, teachers must be able to identify when any given student must be screened to receive support services beyond the universal support strategies that are in place in classrooms through an MTSS program. Teachers should have the knowledge to make such instructional and placement decisions based on multiple sources of data, and must collaborate with families and educational professionals assigned to provide supports that reach beyond the classroom environment. (Lancaster & Hougen, 2017). Conceptual knowledge influences. Conceptual knowledge refers to categories, classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a specific domain (Mayer, 2008). In other words, conceptual knowledge is understanding the interrelationships among the smaller components within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers conceptual knowledge influences Teachers identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs. The range of student needs that exist in any given classroom provides a daunting challenge to all teachers. Teachers, then, must possess the ability to identify individual students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS instructional support strategies. McIntosh and TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 41 Goodman (2016) believe that in a school that is effectively implementing MTSS, teachers can identify students for academic intervention (RTI 2 ) through curriculum-based assessments and for behavior support (PBIS) through systematic behavior documentation. In the same manner that teachers have the knowledge to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS support strategies, teachers should be able to group students of similar needs into working groups within their classroom environment. These students then receive more targeted Tier II intervention to support them in accessing the classroom content (Flannery, Fenning, Kato, and McIntosh, 2014). Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Understanding the tiers of academic and behavioral support are integral to the effective function of an MTSS program. Universal strategies at Tier 1 and intensive one-on-one strategies at Tier III define effective support for at risk students. Lancaster and Hougen (2017) considers high-leverage practices at each of these tiers are considered fundamental to the work of teaching across grade levels, content areas, and instructional settings. They support student learning but are also building blocks for teacher skillfulness. Procedural knowledge influences. According to Krathwohl (2002), procedural knowledge involves having the skills necessary to apply learned concepts. Learning is increased when learners acquire component skills, practice integrating them on a consistent basis, and over time, learn when to apply the skill-set they have acquired (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers procedural knowledge influences Teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students. In an effort to maximize success for all students within a given classroom setting, teachers should implement practices that will most likely help students to rapidly develop TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 42 academic and social-emotional skills (Coyne, Kame’enuie & Carnine, 2007). As teachers utilize differentiated strategies for specific groups of students based on their needs, they are optimizing learning and preventing problems as early as possible (McIntosh and Goodman, 2016). Teachers know how to follow established protocols to process students for screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Teachers need a foundational understanding of the tiered intervention that exists within an MTSS program. Once teachers implement universal, or Tier I, instructional supports within their classroom setting, they should supplement those practices with more targeted supports, or Tier II interventions, such as small group instruction, or modified assignments (Yong & Cheney, 2010). Only after these supports prove that more intensive intervention in needed, should a student be referred to be removed from the classroom environment to be supported. Metacognitive knowledge influences. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition; it is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems and cognitive tasks, which include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self (Krathwohl, 2002). Cognitive processes include remembering relevant information from long-term memory, understanding and building meaning from information, carrying out a procedure or process in a given situation, evaluating and making judgements based on criteria and standards, and forming patterns based on distinct elements from given situations (Mayer, 2008). Teachers metacognitive knowledge influences Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Baker (2006) emphasizes that learners can more readily apply knowledge acquired in one TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 43 context to another context if they have more awareness of themselves as learners, if they monitor their strategies and resources, and if they assess their readiness for performances. If teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the protocols they employ in identifying and referring students for Tier III supports, they likely will be more efficient and effective at identifying and referring accurately, thus, optimizing learning and behavioral outcomes for all students. Table 2 Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature Author, Year; Author, Year. Declarative Factual (terms, facts, concepts) Stakeholder knows… Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them. Lancaster & Hougen, 2017 Duffy, 2007 Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are. Lancaster & Hougen, 2017 Declarative Conceptual (categories, process models, principles, relationships) Stakeholder knows… Teachers identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs. Flannery, Fenning, Kato, and McIntosh, 2014 McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Lancaster & Hougen, 2017 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 44 Procedural Stakeholder knows how to… Teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students. Coyne, Kame’enuie & Carnine, 2007 Stakeholder needs to be able to … Teachers follow established protocols to process students for screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Yong & Cheney, 2010 Metacognitive Stakeholders knows how to reflect on… Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Baker, 2006 Motivation General theory. A learner’s success is heavily reliant on the learner’s motivation. Motivation refers to the personal investment that an individual has in reaching a desired state or outcome (Ambrose et al., 2010). Clark & Estes (2008) assert that active choice, persistence, and mental effort are three indices of a learner’s motivation. Active choice occurs when the learner’s intention to pursue a goal is replaced by action, persistence transpires when the learner continues the action in the face of distractions, and mental effort includes the strategies the learner chooses, to work smarter and develop novel solutions to achieve the initial goal. Value. Value refers to a learned belief about the effectiveness or benefits of a task or goal which can change without self-awareness, (Clark & Estes, 2008). Eccles (2006) suggests that modeling value and interest in a given content can foster positive values within the learner. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 45 Teachers value influences Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Maintaining accurate and high expectations and perceptions helps learners develop realistic expectations for success (Eccles, 2006). Teachers should find value in ensuring students receive appropriate supports based on their respective needs (Clark & Estes, 2008). The benefits of students receiving varying degrees of support based on their individual needs should be valued by teachers who are working within a school with an effective MTSS program. Self-Efficacy. One’s confidence in their ability to complete a task or performance goal is referred to as self-efficacy. This means they believe they have the ability to make a difference in the long term (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers self-efficacy influences Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Bandura (1997) asserts that task-specific confidence is critical for feeling motivated in the work setting. Given teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement the strategies, and follow established protocols to refer students in Tier III interventions have confidence in their ability to provide the appropriates supports for individual students, ultimately, produces better learning and behavioral outcomes for students. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 46 Emotions. Clark and Estes (2008) refer to emotions as they relate to mood as one’s attitude about pursuing and achieving a goal. This means one’s attitude about achieving a goal will affect how they handle a given task. If they feel the task is not possible or do not believe it is worthwhile, they could develop a negative attitude which would have an adverse effect on the given task. Teachers emotion influences Teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Anderman & Anderman (2006) focus on emotions as they relate being prideful and having a stronger sense of self-esteem when an achievement related event is at play. If teachers within a given school setting feel positive about a successfully accomplished task, the outcome of the task will induce teachers’ motivation to continue the task. As such, teachers who feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing the strategies, and following established protocols to refer students in Tier III interventions will continue to do so with a strong sense of motivation, which again, will optimize learning and behavioral outcomes for students. Attributions. According to Anderman & Anderman (2006), Attribution Theory examines individuals' beliefs about why certain events occur and correlates those beliefs to subsequent motivation. Characteristics of a given attribution are classified along three causal dimensions: locus, stability, and controllability. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 47 Teachers attributions influences Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. When teachers can process that the success or failure of any given task is within their locus of control, they attribute that success or failure to an internal or external factor (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Dependent on how effectively a school implements its MTSS program, a teacher can attribute their success, or lack thereof, to the program itself or to their individual work related to the program. Table 3 Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature Author, Year; Author, Year. Value Stakeholder value… Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Eccles, 2006 Clark & Estes, 2008 Self-Efficacy Stakeholder is confident that… Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer Bandura, 1997 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 48 and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Emotions Stakeholder feels positive about… Teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Anderman & Anderman, 2006 Attributions Stakeholders believes that .... Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. Yough & Anderman, 2006 Organization Organizational factors such as culture, structure, resources, policies, and practices are one of the three barriers that performance gaps can be attributed to (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Organizational culture can be described as the group norms, rules of the game, habits of thinking, formal rituals, or philosophies of the company (Rueda, 2011). Resources. Employees need resources such as time, money, or people to meet performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers resource influences There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. Any given school site needs to provide TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 49 ongoing training and resources to ensure proper MTSS implementation (Vekaria, 2017). Ensuring teachers are trained, and optimal support is provided post-training requires resources for instruction, intervention, and data-based decision making and allocate time to learn about the MTSS framework (Vekaria, 2017). Lancaster & Hougen (2017) recognize that the biggest barrier to schools successfully implementing MTSS is that there is a lack of resources for teacher training. There is professional development time planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. Professional development time is integral in effective implementation of any training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). On the same token, some of the biggest challenges in effective implementation of any training are related to time, scheduling, and resources at the site level (Vekaria, 2017). Policies and procedures. Policies refer to rules put in place by an organization, while procedures guide individuals on how to complete a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Performance problems are common when policies and procedures conflict with organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational policies and procedures can influence whether individuals such as site administrators or teachers meet their individual performance goals (Rueda, 2011). Teachers policies and procedures influences Procedures that are in place for teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies. McIntosh & Goodman (2016) emphasize that integrating academic and behavior intervention models is a large-scale change to an organizational structure that shifts responsibilities and staff roles. Teachers must know and be assured that the strategies they are TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 50 implementing and the protocol they are following within MTSS are not only aligned with the school’s mission and vision, but also the organization as whole, from the district and board policy perspective. Cultural setting. Cultural settings are the visible locations where the policies and practices of an organization intersect (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). A cultural setting describes people coming together over time to accomplish a goal (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Teachers cultural setting influences The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. School culture has a large impact on the morale of the staff within it. As such, schools are complex social settings that are in a constant state of change (Rueda, 2011). Because of these dynamics, the systems put in place are often a hindrance to achieving goals or improving performance (Rueda, 2011). School leaders must understand the characteristics that make up their organizations if they wish to have influence on them. Cultural models. Cultural models are the invisible aspects of an organization that might include the behavior, artifacts, rules, values, practices, policies, or reward structures of an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Any organization can be viewed as exhibiting a particular cultural model, which is defined as the shared perception of the organization at large (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 51 Teachers cultural models influences There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Fostering a culture of cooperation and a sense of community among staff members is one of most significant ways that teachers and school leaders can influence student achievement (Marzano, et al., 2005). Developing a shared vision for the school and setting goals as a staff or team are ways that a culture of cooperation are modeled (Marzano, et al, 2005). A culture of cooperation among the teaching staff will more likely lead to the successful implementation of MTSS. Table 4 Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature Author, Year; Author, Year. Resources (time; finances; people) Stakeholder have the resources (time, money, people) to … There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. Vekaria, 2017 Lancaster & Hougen, 2017 There is professional development time planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 52 Policies, Processes, & Procedures Stakeholder needs to have policies that align with … Procedures that are in place for teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies. McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 Culture Stakeholder feels like they are part of an organization that _______ need to be part of a culture that aligns with … The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Rueda, 2011 There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Marzano, Water, and McNulty, 2005 Summary The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences summarized will be examined further in Chapter 3. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 53 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Authored by Bhavini Bhakta Purpose of the Project and Questions The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of MTSS in the Downtown Unified School District (DUSD) high schools in particular from the perspective of teachers and site administrators. More specifically, the purpose of this project is to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School by June 2020. The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible needs and will then move to examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is DUSD teachers. Two questions guide this study: 1. What are the knowledge, and skills, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to effectively implement MTSS at Westside High School? 2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational recommendations for meeting the needs of teachers in achieving the DUSD goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School? Conceptual and Methodological Framework This is a collaborative action research project in which we will utilize Clark and Estes’ (2008) performance analysis model, which is a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. Achieving organizational goals and closing performance gaps is not possible TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 54 without identifying the root cause of the problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). To diagnose the problem, we must understand the human causes and the three critical areas that they might fall under including people’s knowledge and skills, their motivation to achieve the goal, or any organizational factors. (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The Clark & Estes (2008) performance analysis model that will be used in this study is known as an innovation model. The innovation model is used when organizations such as the Downtown Unified School District that strive to do something new such as implement a new program or process. As part of the innovation model, a knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs assessment will be conducted to determine how the organization can reach their performance goal. The cyclical flow model below illustrates the steps of the Gap Analysis Process. Figure 1. Gap analysis adapted from Clark and Estes (2008). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 55 Assessment of Performance Influences The literature review in Chapter Two identified the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that will affect teachers who are implementing tiered academic and behavioral interventions within their classrooms. The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School by June 2020. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model will be utilized to determine the KMO needs to meet the desired performance goal. This section of the study outlines the qualitative methods that will be used to assess the KMO needs including survey and interview questions and document analysis. Once the assessment is concluded, a comprehensive evaluation plan will be created to address the KMO influences that are lacking. Knowledge Assessment The literature review in Chapter Two helped establish a list of assumed knowledge influences that affect teachers as they implement tiered MTSS strategies within their classrooms. These knowledge influences were established based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) four knowledge types of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive as outlined in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. This list is presented in Table 5 along with assessment methods for collecting data specific to the knowledge areas of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge. To perform their critical behaviors, teachers must have knowledge of tiered RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, when to effectively implement specific strategies, and what school-wide protocols are for referring students for intensive intervention. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recommend using inquiry methods that require participants to state, explain, TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 56 discuss, or declare what they know to assess an individual’s factual knowledge. This requires knowledge of basic facts, specific details, and terminology related to MTSS. In order to validate factual knowledge, teachers were asked closed-ended survey questions, open-ended interview questions, and a document analysis was completed to review artifacts for evidence. Table 5 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols and documents that were analyzed. Conceptual knowledge. In order to assess teachers’ conceptual knowledge on MTSS strategies, it is assumed that they are able to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and that they know the differences between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III strategies within the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recommend using inquiry methods that require participants to demonstrate interrelationships among basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together. This requires knowledge of underlying categories, principles, or structures of MTSS. In order to validate conceptual knowledge, teachers were asked both survey and interview questions to discern their applicable operational knowledge of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Table 5 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Procedural knowledge. The procedural knowledge that teachers need to perform their critical behaviors involves teachers appropriately implementing RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer students to intensive intervention, should that be necessary. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recommend using inquiry methods that require participants to demonstrate how to do something. This requires knowledge of skills and procedures involved with a task, including techniques, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, techniques, and methods. In order to validate procedural knowledge, teachers will be TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 57 asked survey and interview questions to discern their level of technical knowledge. Table 5 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Metacognitive knowledge. To perform their critical behaviors, teachers reflect on the effectiveness of their effectiveness in identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recommend using inquiry methods that require participants to demonstrate knowledge of cognition as well as awareness and knowledge of their own strategies for learning and thinking. This requires the knowledge to reflect on and become more aware of one’s own beliefs, knowledge of planning strategies, and knowledge of comprehension-monitoring strategies. In order to validate metacognitive knowledge, teachers were asked survey and interview questions to gauge their level of reflection in implementing these strategies. Table 5 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment Table 5 Assumed Knowledge Influences Survey Item Interview Item Declarative Factual (terms, facts, concepts) Stakeholder knows… Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them. 1. Of the following strategies, indicate which are academic and/or behavioral interventions. Check all that apply: 1. Can you describe some academic and/or behavioral interventions? 2. Can you describe some behavioral interventions? 3. To the best of your knowledge, can you TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 58 a. Focusing on key and critical components* b. Explicitly teaching behavior expectations connected to context* c. Frequently quizzing students on concepts d. Providing guidance through prompting* e. Expecting students to be safe, responsible and respectful* f. Linking current content to prior knowledge and experiences* describe the school’s academic and/or behavioral interventions screening protocols? Declarative Conceptual (categories, process models, principles, relationships) Stakeholder knows… Teachers identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs. 1. Which students should be identified as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? Check all that apply: a. Two girls who are consistently talking during class. b. A girl who struggles to 1. How do you typically identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 59 understand your directions.* c. A boy who harasses other students before class starts.* d. A boy who is unable to complete the independent work in your class after you teach a lesson.* e. A girl who texts during class despite your no cellphone use in class policy. f. Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plan).* Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. 1. Indicate if each of the following scenarios if require strategies or services are Tier 1 (core universal instruction and supports), Tier II (targeted supplemental interventions and supports) or Tier III (intensive individualized instruction and supports) 1. To the best of your knowledge, describe the difference between the three tiers of strategies or services within the MTSS model. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 60 strategies or services are required of the MTSS model: a. Two students who are assigned a different task during class based on their mastery of the lesson’s content. (Tier II) b. Multi-step directions displayed on white board as a visual for students while you orally give instructions for a specific task. (Tier I) c. A student who is pulled out of class once a week to participate in a restorative circle/conversatio n with another student he consistently harasses during lunch and passing periods. (Tier III) d. Small group instruction for four students who are unable to complete the independent work TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 61 in your class after you teach a lesson. (Tier II) e. Posting your cell phone use policy on a bulletin board, in your syllabus and consistently following through with the consequences if the policy is violated. (Tier I) f. Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plan). (Tier III) Procedural Stakeholder knows how to… Teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students. Stakeholder needs to be able to … Teachers follow established protocols to process students for 1. Briefly describe the steps you take to screen, assess and refer students for TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 62 screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Tier II and III specialized services. Metacognitive Stakeholders knows how to reflect on… Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). 1. Describe how you reflect on your effectiveness in identifying and referring students for academic and/or behavioral interventions. Motivation Assessment Motivation is an internal process that initiates and sustains goal-directed behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). The literature review in Chapter Two helped establish a list of assumed motivation influences that affect teachers as they implement tiered MTSS strategies within their classrooms. This list is presented in Table 6 along with assessment methods for collecting data specific to the motivational areas of value, self-efficacy, mood, and attribution. Value. To perform their critical behaviors, teachers need to value the tasks associated with implementing MTSS both within their classrooms and as a school-wide system. The motivational factor of value was validated by asking teachers Likert scale survey questions and also open-ended interview questions to solicit the importance they attach to the tasks related to TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 63 implementing MTSS strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Table 6 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Self-efficacy. Assessing the motivational influence of self-efficacy requires an appraisal of one’s personal capabilities to execute the particular functions they perform in the group (Bandura, 2006). In this study, teachers were assessed to determine their confidence level with regards to the critical tasks of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). In order to validate the motivational factor of self-efficacy, teachers were asked Likert scale survey questions and also open-ended interview questions. Table 6 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Emotions. Likert scale survey questions and open-ended interview questions that focus on emotional reactions and solicit personal experience were used to assess teachers’ emotions as they relate to the implementation of MTSS. This needs assessment attempted to determine how positive teachers feel about performing the critical behaviors required to systematically implement RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Table 6 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Attributions. The last motivational influence that was assessed in this study were attributions or the amount of control an individual or group believes they have on affecting an outcome (Rueda, 2011). If individuals perceive a performance goal to be out of their control, regardless of the effort they put into an activity or task, then they will choose not to work toward that goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This study assessed whether teachers believe that the success or failure of identifying students as recipients MTSS strategies, implementing MTSS TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 64 strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. In order to validate the motivational factor of attributions, teachers were asked Likert scale survey questions and open-ended interview questions. Table 6 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Table 6 Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment Assumed Motivation Influences Survey Item Interview Item Value Stakeholder value… Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). 1. How valuable do you find the following at this moment: a. Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions i. Not at all valuable ii. Slightly valuable iii. Moderately valuable iv. Very valuable v. Extremely valuable b. Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all valuable ii. Slightly valuable 1. Tell me why it is important, or not, to use an integrated, systematic approach to identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 2. Do you find value in using an integrated, systematic approach to implement implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions? Why? 3. Is it important to refer students for specialized Tier III MTSS services? Why? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 65 iii. Moderately valuable iv. Very valuable v. Extremely valuable c. Following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all valuable ii. Slightly valuable iii. Moderately valuable iv. Very valuable v. Extremely valuable Self-Efficacy Stakeholder is confident that… Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). 1. How confident are you that you can do the following right now: a. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all confident ii. Slightly confident iii. Moderately confident iv. Very confident v. Extremely confident b. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. 1. How confident are you in your ability to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 2. How confident are you in your ability to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions? 3. How confident are you about your ability to follow protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 66 i. Not at all confident ii. Slightly confident iii. Moderately confident iv. Very confident v. Extremely confident c. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all confident ii. Slightly confident iii. Moderately confident iv. Very confident v. Extremely confident Emotions Stakeholder feels positive about… Teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). 1. I feel positive about identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 2. I feel positive about implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 67 3. I feel positive about following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree Attributions Stakeholders believes that… Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. 1. The success or failure of identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 2. The success or failure of implementing established academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 3. The success or failure of following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions (e.g Tier II and Tier III) is due to my efforts. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 1. Tell me how being able to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. 2. Tell me how being able to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. 3. Tell me how being able to follow protocols for referring students to specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 68 Organization Assessment The third cause of performance gaps can be attributed to organizational factors such as culture, structure, resources, policies, and practices (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The literature review in Chapter Two helped establish a list of assumed organizational influences that affect teachers as they implement MTSS strategies within their classrooms and as a school-wide program. This list is presented in Table 7 along with assessment methods for collecting data specific to the organizational areas of resources, policies and procedures, and culture. Resources. Teachers need resources in the form of time, money, and people to perform the critical behaviors associated with implementing MTSS at their site. Such resources should be allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. Additionally, professional development time should be strategically planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. In order to validate the assumed organizational influence of resources, teachers were asked Likert scale survey questions and open-ended interview questions. Table 7 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Policies, process, and procedures. This needs assessment was used to determine how teachers perceive their current school-wide policies and procedures, and if they align with the goal of implementing an MTSS within their classrooms and as a school-wide program. In order to validate this, teachers were asked Likert scale survey questions and open-ended interview questions. Table 7 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 69 Culture. It is important to assess how the culture of an organization (e.g. values, beliefs, and attitudes) influences teachers as they implement MTSS strategies within their classroom and as a school-wide program. Likert scale survey questions and open-ended interview questions were utilized to seek teachers’ perceptions regarding the systems that are in place to motivate them and the cooperation level among themselves, site administration, and district leadership. Table 7 provides an overview of the methods that were used, along with the survey and interview protocols. Table 7 Summary of Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment Assumed Organization Influences Survey Item Interview Item Resources (time; finances; people) Stakeholder have the resources (time, money, people) to … There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. There is professional development time planned and allocated 1. My school provides me with the time to learn academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 2. My school provides academic and/or behavioral coaches for instructional support. a. Strongly agree b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree 3. My school provides training for academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies. a. Strongly agree 1. In your opinion, what is the ideal plan for effectively training teachers on MTSS? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 70 for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. b. Slightly agree c. Slightly disagree d. Strongly disagree Policies, Processes, & Procedures Stakeholder needs to have policies that align with … Procedures that are in place to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following of established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies. 1. To what extent do the following align with school and district policies at this moment: a. Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all aligned ii. Slightly aligned iii. Moderately aligned iv. Very aligned v. Extremely aligned b. Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all aligned ii. Slightly aligned iii. Moderately aligned iv. Very aligned v. Extremely aligned c. Following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 2. Do you feel that the procedures in place to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions are aligned with school and district policies? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 71 i. Not at all aligned ii. Slightly aligned iii. Moderately aligned iv. Very aligned v. Extremely aligned Culture Stakeholder feels like they are part of an organization that _______ need to be part of a culture that aligns with … The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. 1. To what degree do you feel that you are a part of a school culture that motivates teachers to do the following: a. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions i. Not at all motivating ii. Slightly motivating iii. Moderately motivating iv. Very motivating v. Extremely motivating b. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all motivating ii. Slightly motivating iii. Moderately motivating iv. Very motivating v. Extremely motivating c. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. 1. Some teachers say that the culture at Westside High School does not support implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. What do you think? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 72 i. Not at all motivating ii. Slightly motivating iii. Moderately motivating iv. Very motivating v. Extremely motivating There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. 1. To what degree do you feel that there is a culture of cooperation among teachers to do the following: a. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all cooperative ii. Slightly cooperative iii. Moderately cooperative iv. Very cooperative v. Extremely cooperative b. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all cooperative ii. Slightly cooperative iii. Moderately cooperative iv. Very cooperative v. Extremely cooperative c. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in 1. Do you feel that there exists a cooperative culture among teachers to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions? Why or why not? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 73 specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. Not at all cooperative ii. Slightly cooperative iii. Moderately cooperative iv. Very cooperative v. Extremely cooperative Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection The stakeholder group of focus for this this study are teachers at Westside High School. Surveys. This study utilized surveys to assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M) and Organizational Factors (O) related to competencies. A 17-question survey was sent to the 150 teachers at Westside High School via email that included multiple choice and rating questions, via Qualtrics. The survey required participants to answer each question in order to move on to the next question. Participants were allowed to submit their survey only once, and their confidentiality is protected through the Qualtrics software. Interviews. In an effort to triangulate data, open-ended interview questions were implemented in one-on-one interviews to further assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M) and Organizational Factors (O) related to competencies. One to three items were developed for each of the three levels of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. Participants were asked 20 open ended questions in a one-on-one format and the average interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Participants volunteered for an interview and they were the best date held in their classroom or in a conference room, based on their preference. Interview responses were kept confidential and used only for analysis. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 74 Recruitment. Teachers were recruited via email. Each participant received an individual invitation that included a link to the survey. In the body of the email, a link to volunteer for an in-person interview was provided. Instrumentation The instrumentation used for this study were surveys, one-on-one interviews, and document analysis. These data collection instruments are described below. Survey Design To develop a survey’s content, the attitude, belief, value and/or idea being measured must be defined (Fink, 2017). The 17-question survey used in this study measured teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and perceived organizational barriers as they relate to implementing MTSS strategies within their classrooms and as a school-wide program. The items were carefully crafted with the intent of measuring teachers’ knowledge, motivational and organizational needs. See Appendix A for the Interview Protocol and Questions used in this study. Interview Protocol Design The interview questions that were developed and implemented in this research study followed Maxwell’s (2013) belief that creativity and insight guide protocols, rather than a direct conversion of your research questions into interview form. A semi-structured interview protocol was utilized in this study, which created a framework for asking predetermined questions, but allowed for flexibility to reword the questions or ask probing questions when necessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 75 The interview protocol consisted of 20 open-ended questions to validate assumed KMO influences and to allow for opportunities for other influences to emerge. See Appendix B for the Interview Protocol and Questions used in this study. Observation Checklist Design No observations were used in this study. Document Analysis Design No documents were analyzed in this study. Data Collection Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants will be solicited via email, which contained a link that allowed teachers to take the survey and indicate if they’d like to participate in an interview. All communications regarding interviews and the document review process will come directly from the investigator or the co- investigator (Chambers, 2018). Surveys An email invitation which included a link to complete the survey, which then provided teachers with directions to volunteer for an interview, were sent out to all 150 teachers at Westside High School by a specific site administrator, who was provided with this text and information by the researcher. The email was sent out by the site administrator, and after two weeks, a second reminder to complete the survey was sent out by a different site administrator. In the survey instructions, participants were notified that, for the purpose of reporting findings, respondents’ identities remained anonymous. The target for participation in the survey was thirty percent, or roughly 40 teachers. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 76 Interviews Interviews were scheduled with teachers who responded to the survey email, indicating that they would like to participate in an interview. They were asked to print out the email and submit it to a specific site administrator. The site administrator then provided the investigator with the names and emails of the volunteer interview participants. Six teachers were interviewed, four of which volunteered, and two of the teachers were asked by the site administrator if they would be interested in interviewing with the investigator, to which they said yes. These one-on-one, in-person interviews were conducted either in the teacher’s classroom, or in a main office conference room, based on the participant’s preference. Each interview lasted between 25-30 minutes, and main questions from the interview protocol as well as probing questions were used. With the permission of each participant, the interview was recorded by the investigator, then transcribed and stored on the investigator’s password locked computer. Observations No observations for this study. Document Analysis No document analysis was conducted for this study. Data Analysis Survey The survey completion rate was roughly 20% and yielded data to the point of saturation. Survey data allowed for an analysis of teachers’ knowledge and skills as they relate to MTSS strategies, teachers’ motivation in implementing a school-wide MTSS program, and their overall TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 77 organizational needs in order to implement MTSS. Results will be graphically presented to identify areas of need, and these data will be used to begin to identify teachers’ needs. Interviews For interviews, the first step in the data analysis process was to read and carefully code the transcripts from the six interviews. Utilizing Merriam and Tisdell’s (2009) process for coding, I examined the codes for emergent patterns and themes through the categories of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization. The researcher was able to capture relevant information for analysis in Chapter Four of this study. The process of open coding was utilized to examine raw data and categorize based on emerging, relevant and significant themes (Maxwell, 2013). Coding categories using an excel spreadsheet will allow the researcher to sort data based on items that are in the descriptive data set (Maxwell, 2013). The results of the data collected and analyzed are presented in the findings section, Chapter Four. Trustworthiness of Data Multiple precautions were taken to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of this study. First, the data was triangulated since multiple sources of data and data collection methods were used (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Twenty-eight survey results were examined, six interviews were conducted, and multiple documents were analyzed. The collection of survey data, hosting interviews and the document review process were a result of adequate engagement in the field, which led to possible data saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the process, the researcher’s design, and methods went through a peer review with fellow classmates (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, interviews were professionally transcribed to ensure validation and accuracy of data collection (Maxwell, 2013). Lastly, the nature of this study’s TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 78 process led to an audit trail, or detailed account of the methods and procedures used to carry out the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Role of Investigator The investigator in this study is not an employee of the Downtown Unified School District. The investigator worked in partnership on this study with Matthew Chambers (2018). Both investigators shared the responsibilities of picking the sample for the study, recruiting participants, collecting consent forms, administering interviews, distributing surveys, and conducting document analysis. The investigator obtained permission from the IRB at the University of Southern California in order to obtain data and conduct the study. The investigator responded to all requests for information or materials solicited by the IRB and conduct the study in strict accordance with IRB-approved research protocol. The investigator will also report the findings and discussion in Chapter Four and Chapter Five. Limitations Limits of this study are limited generalizability due to the size of the study, and the short time frame of the study (Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Twenty-eight teachers responded to the survey which makes the survey completion rate just short of 20%. Six teachers were interviewed for this study, through which, saturation was reached, but only represents 4% of Westside High School’s teaching staff. Additionally, the study was conducted within a month’s time frame, which does not allow for assessing teachers’ KMO needs throughout the school year, as it relates to the implementation of MTSS. Chambers (2018) studied site administrators, but neither of the co-investigators in this study were able to interview district office leaders. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 79 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS Authored by Bhavini Bhakta Findings from data collection will be reported in this chapter as they relate to the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that impact Westside High School (WHS) teachers as they implement MTSS within their classrooms and as a school-wide program. The gap analysis approach (Clark & Estes, 2008: Rueda, 2011) will assist in the analysis of the challenges and barriers in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture. This approach will also determine the causes of these challenges, and identify and implement solutions that WHS teachers and school site administrators can use to effectively implement MTSS as a systematic school-wide program. Based upon a review of the literature, specifically, Kirkpatricks’ (2016) Evaluation Training New World Model, a list of possible influences was generated for effectively implementing MTSS at the high school level. A total of sixteen possible influences were developed and were categorized into the categories of knowledge, motivation, and organization. Multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the assumed causes. Specifically, survey, interview and document data were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges teachers’ experience in implementing MTSS strategies. A survey was emailed to teachers at WHS first, interviews were conducted second, and document analysis occurred last. The rationale was that the survey data would inform the interview protocol and probing questions within each interview, and based on interview data, documents pertaining to each of the conversations could be requested to analyze. Participating Stakeholders The stakeholders involved in this study were 29 high school teachers for the quantitative survey, out of which, 6 were interviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the perceived TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 80 knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Because the survey was anonymous, demographic details for the teachers who completed the survey were not recorded. 150 surveys were distributed, 29 were completed, representing a 19.3% completion rate. Of the six teachers that were interviewed, four were male (66%) and two were female (33%) with all of them serving in a leadership role at WHS. Two of the interviewees were Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA), another two were Department Chairs, and the last two were teachers leading a school program or committee. The average age is 39 years, the youngest respondents were aged 30 years, and the oldest was aged 50 years. The average years of experience working in education was 14.2, the shortest was 3 years, and the longest was 26 years. Data Validation This study utilized two sources of data: surveys and interviews. In order to validate, or determine whether the assumed causes are assets or needs, quantitative data were collected using a survey. Chapter Three contains a discussion of assumed causes and a description of the survey. The survey results provided data to validate the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. The criteria used for validation of survey data on assumed causes on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for the effective implementation of MTSS at Westside High School were as follows: results with less than 70% agreement indicated a need at WHS. Interview data was used to confirm or challenge survey results, with reaching saturation at six interviews, at which point, no new data was being revealed. Responses with less than 83% agreement indicated a need at Westside High School. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 81 Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes Factual Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them. Survey results. Teachers were asked to identify RTI 2 and PBIS strategies out of a list of six strategies. The accuracy in identifying the strategies ranged from 65.5% for one item to 75.8% for one item. Westside High School teachers came close to the 70% threshold for three of the five RTI 2 and PBIS strategies that were correct and actually met the threshold for two of the five RTI 2 and PBIS strategies that were correct. See table 8. Table 8 Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of MTSS Strategies # Factual Knowledge Item Percentage Count Of the following strategies, indicate which are academic and/or behavioral interventions. 1 Focusing on key and critical components* 65.5% 19 2 Explicitly teaching behavior expectations to students* 75.5% 22 3 Frequently quizzing students on concepts 41.3% 12 4 Providing guidance through prompting* 65.5% 19 5 Expecting students to be safe, responsible and respectful* 68.9% 21 6 Linking current content to prior knowledge and experiences* 72.4% 21 *MTSS ((RTI 2 and PBIS) strategies Interview findings. It was evident that all six participants knew and were able to speak to RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. As for academic strategies, Participant 1 asserted “I check the entire class to make sure everyone is getting it...then I vary the group and individual work. I also give TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 82 verbal assessments and monitor instruction accordingly." Participant 6, who teaches in a specialized environment, agreed and stated "I accommodate for my students - create visuals, chunk reading, let them hear the content, see videos, relate it to their lives, front-load information - anything so they can access the material.” Even more, participant 5 went on to indicate that RTI 2 strategies included “Very specific afterschool tutoring services like Saturday School, after school tutoring, ADA Academy for athletes, on campus NCAA programs and AVID." To describe behavioral strategies, all six participants had awareness of how to address behavioral issues within their classrooms. Both participants 1 and 4 indicated that PBIS strategies include ‘starting with a positive culture in your classroom,” which includes building strong and trusting relationships with students so that behavior issues can be mitigated. Participants 2 and 3 indicated that they ‘set expectations at the beginning of school year and maintain progressive discipline” so that high instances of behavior issues do not occur in their classrooms. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them, was not validated and determined to be a need in the survey results, however, the influence was validated and determined to be an asset in the interview responses. 69.6% of surveyed teachers were able to accurately identify RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, which is 0.4% below the 70% threshold. Conversely, 100% of interview participants knew and gave examples of multiple ways to assess and address students’ academic and behavioral needs through RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Influence 2. Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are. Survey results. Surveys were not conducted for this influence. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 83 Interview findings. When speaking with each of the six participants regarding RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols, 100% of them knew and were able to speak to the processes that are followed to ensure students receive appropriate academic and behavioral interventions. Participant 5 explicitly said, "We have a list of protocols that we follow for behavioral issues, we try to handle it in the classroom and then refer out to our Deans, if we aren’t able to resolve the issue." Participant 3 noted that the school counselors are “very helpful” in the process to ensure students receive academic or behavioral interventions that meet their needs. All six participants were in clear agreement that Westside High School’s (WHS) after school and Saturday School tutoring sessions were an effective part of the process to support their students’ learning. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are, was validated and determined to be an asset, given all six interview respondents had knowledge of and were able to speak to these screen protocols. Conceptual Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs. Survey results. Teachers were asked to identify from a list of six scenarios, who should receive RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. The accuracy in identifying the scenarios ranged from 72.4% for one item to 89.6% for one item. Westside High School teachers met the 70% threshold for each of the scenarios that were correct, indicating that teachers can definitely identify students who are in need of academic and/or behavioral interventions. See table 9. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 84 Table 9 Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of MTSS Strategies # Conceptual Knowledge Item Percentage Count Which students should be identified as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 1 Two girls who are consistently talking during class 13.7% 4 2 A girl who struggles to understand your directions* 75.8% 22 3 A boy who harasses other students before class starts* 89.6% 26 4 A boy who is unable to complete the independent work in your class after you teach a lesson* 79.3% 23 5 A girl who texts during class despite your no cellphone use in class policy 17.2% 5 6 Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plans)* 72.4% 21 *Students who should receive targeted MTSS (RTI 2 and PBIS) interventions Interview findings. Five out of six, or 83.3% of participants confidently identified students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Each of those five participants confirmed that individual teachers identify students who are needing academic and/or behavioral interventions based on their own benchmarks. Participant 5 confirmed, “Students are identified by individual teachers. We see that a student is struggling, and we refer them, with an actual referral form, to an afterschool or Saturday school referral to catch up on or be retaught material that they may be behind on in class." Participants also acknowledged that while teachers can officially refer students for an academic intervention, students can also refer themselves. As Participant 1 noted, "Any student can go to any of our after school tutoring sessions - by invite or recommendation from the teacher, or individually just walking in to a session." Given these accounts, WHS teachers can confidently identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 85 Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers can identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs was validated and determined to be an asset in both survey results and interview responses, with both instrument results passing the 70% threshold to show this influence is an asset at Westside High School. Influence 2. Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Survey results. Teachers were asked to indicate Tier I, II and III interventions from a list of six scenarios. The accuracy in identifying the scenarios ranged from 51.7% for one scenario to 89.6% for another scenario. Westside High School teachers met the 70% threshold for identifying with accuracy the Tier I interventions, but did not meet the threshold for identifying Tier II and Tier III interventions with accuracy. While the majority of surveyed teachers were able indicate the appropriate intervention tier, there exists a lack of conceptual knowledge in deciphering between the three tiers of interventions, given the 70% threshold was only met for identifying Tier I interventions. See table 10. Table 10 Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Tiered Intervention # Conceptual Knowledge Item Percentage Count Indicate which of the following scenarios if Tier I (core universal instruction and supports), Tier II (targeted supplemental interventions and supports) or Tier III (intensive individualized instruction and supports) strategies or services are required. 1 Two students who are assigned a different task during class based on their mastery of the lesson’s content (Tier II) 51.7% 15 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 86 2 Multi-step directions displayed on white board as a visual for students while you orally give instructions for a specific task (Tier I) 86.2% 25 3 A student who is pulled out of class once a week to participate in a restorative circle/conversation with another student he consistently harasses during lunch and passing periods (Tier III) 68.9% 20 4 Small group instruction for four students who are unable to complete the independent work in your class after you teach a lesson (Tier II) 82.7% 24 5 Posting your cell phone use policy on a bulletin board, in your syllabus and consistently following through with the consequences if the policy is violated (Tier I) 89.6% 26 6 Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) (Tier III) 62.1% 18 Interview findings. Interestingly, 50% or half of the six participants were able to accurately identify the three tiers of interventions within the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Of the three participants that were able to speak to the difference between the three tiers within each of the models, zero were able to decipher between the three tiers of services between both the RTI 2 and PBIS models. However, when the participants could decipher the three tiers of services, they were accurate. Participant 3 stated, "General Tier I techniques I'm doing all day long as part of my instruction. Tier II strategies I do things like move students’ seats, give students differently scaffolded assignments or readings, and for Tier III I typically follow IEP or 504 plans for those students." One participant was able to give an overview of all three tiers within both models. Participant 2 explained the following examples: "Tier I for behavior is establishing rules, tier II would be contacting their parents and counselors for more support, and tier III would be to follow the referral system for targeted support. For academic support, tier I is teacher directed in the classroom, tier II would be referring students out to tutoring, and tier III would be to have them tested." TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 87 Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models was not validated. While teachers were able to identify Tier I interventions in the survey results with an accuracy that was above the 70% threshold, they did not perform the same with Tier II and III interventions, nor were interview respondents able to decipher the difference between the tiered interventions. These results in both the survey results and interview responses make this influence a need at WHS. Procedural Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students. Survey results. Surveys were not conducted for this influence. Interview findings. All six participants spoke of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and how they teach specific strategies. As for academic strategies, Participant 1 asserted “I check the entire class to make sure everyone is getting it...then I vary the group and individual work. I also give verbal assessments and monitor instruction accordingly." Participant 6, who teaches in a specialized environment, agreed and stated, "I accommodate for my students - create visuals, chunk reading, let them hear the content, see videos, relate it to their lives, front-load information - anything so they can access the material.” Even more, participant 5 went on to indicate that RTI 2 strategies included “Very specific afterschool tutoring services like Saturday School, after school tutoring, ADA Academy for athletes, on campus NCAA programs and AVID." To describe behavioral strategies, all six participants had awareness of how to address behavioral issues within their classrooms. Both Participants 1 and 4 indicated that PBIS strategies include TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 88 ‘starting with a positive culture in your classroom,” which includes building strong and trusting relationships with students so that behavior issues can be mitigated. Participants 2 and 3 indicated that they ‘set expectations at the beginning of school year and maintain progressive discipline” so that high instances of behavior issues do not occur in their classrooms. In summary, 100% of participants gave examples of multiple ways to assess and address students’ academic and behavioral needs through RTI 2 and PBIS strategies. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students was validated, and determined to be an asset through interview responses. Influence 2. Teachers know how to follow established protocols to process students for screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Survey results. Surveys were not conducted for this influence. Interview findings. Similar to the data gathered from asking teachers what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are, teachers were widely consistent on how they follow these protocols. Participant 1 noted, "Teachers identify students based on their performance on quarter benchmarks, they invite those students to attend academic Saturday School. There they have the opportunity to be retaught the content and reassess on the exam. Any student can go to any of our after-school tutoring sessions - by invite or recommendation from the teacher, or individually just walking in to a session." This suggests that teachers know at which point to refer a student to tutoring, and for what purpose. Teachers also utilize a universal form to refer these students to TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 89 these special services, as Participant 5 conveyed, "Students are identified by individual teachers. We see that a student is struggling, and we refer them, with an actual referral form, to an afterschool or Saturday school study session to catch up on or be retaught material that they may be behind on in class." All six participants knew and were able to describe protocol to refer students to specialized services Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know how to follow established protocols to process students for screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services was validated and determined to be an asset in the interview responses, passing the 70% threshold with 100% of respondents being able to speak to these protocols. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1. Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Survey results. Surveys were not conducted for this influence. Interview findings. In assessing teachers’ ability to reflect on their effectiveness in both identifying and referring students for targeted strategies and services, 50% of teachers believe that all teachers reflect on their effectiveness in their instructional practices. Participant 3 confidently stated, "I reflect as much as I possibly can. I think most teachers I encounter are trying to be the best teacher that they can. They're always thinking about how they can do a better job of teaching, that they're reflective about reaching all of their students. I talk to many teachers about what strategies they use to reach students and see if they work for some of my TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 90 struggling students. It's very helpful and we work together on these issues." 16.6% of teachers indicated that some teachers reflect on the effectiveness of their practices and some teachers do not, with Participant 2 noting that a specific department of teachers is more reflective, "Some teachers have no self-reflection, and some do. English teachers tend to be more sensitive and more self-reflective. We take a look at our class averages and see if we should continue, reteach or refer specific students out to tutoring." The last 33.3% of teachers were not able to speak to their ability to reflect on their instructional practices nor other teachers’ practices of reflection. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services was not validated. Interview respondents were not able to speak to their own reflections or other teachers’ reflections on their effectiveness in this process. This indicates a need for this influence at Westside High School. Results and Findings for Motivation Causes Value Influence 1. Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Survey results. When asked how valuable do you find identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions, 100% of teachers’ responses indicated that they find it a valuable practice. As shown in Table 11, 68.96% of teachers answered either “very TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 91 valuable” or “extremely valuable”, 24.14% of respondents answered “moderately valuable” and 6.9% answered “slightly valuable.” Similarly, when asked how valuable do you find implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions, 100% of teachers responded that they find it to be valuable. The results showed that 44.83% of teachers found implementing interventions to be “extremely valuable,” 34.48% “very valuable,” and 20.69% “moderately valuable.” Lastly, teachers were asked how valuable do you find following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. According to the survey results, 100% of teachers find value in following protocols to refer students to interventions with 34.48% answering “extremely valuable,” 41.38% “very valuable,” and 24.14% “moderately valuable.” See table 11. Table 11 Survey Results for Value in Implementing MTSS Strategies # Value Item How valuable do you find the following at this moment: Not at all valuable Slightly valuable Moderately valuable Very valuable Extremely valuable 1 Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 0.0% 6.9% 24.1% 34.4% 34.4% 2 Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. 0.0% 0.0% 20.6%% 34.4% 44.8% 3 Follow established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 41.3% 34.4% TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 92 behavioral interventions. Interview findings. There was clear agreement among all six interviewed participants in the value they find in an integrated, systematic tiered intervention program. 100% of participants feel it is important to have this type of system in place at Westside High School. Participant 1 noted that beyond him, even other teachers see the value in systematic intervention, stating “"I think teachers value having a systematic approach to supporting students both academically and social emotionally with their behaviors." However, teachers were able to note that their current system of afterschool interventions and tutoring isn’t the ideal model. Participant 3 indicated, "I think teachers value supporting struggling students but it can't just be afterschool like we have now - we need to be able to do this within school hours. There may be a way to pull them out of class during the day if necessary, or work with other teachers to support students during the day. I know teachers appreciate having the flexibility to support students in a way that works best for them, but to reach all kids, we need to do this in the day." While there is agreement among teachers that a systematic approach to support students academically and behaviorally is important at WHS, they also recognize more needs to be done to fit this type of program into the student’s school day. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services was validated and TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 93 determined to be an asset with 100% of survey results and interview responses, indicating that this is a valuable practice at Westside High School. Self-Efficacy Influence 1. Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Survey results. When asked how confident are you that you can identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions, 86.21% of teachers’ responses ranged from moderately to extremely confident. The results indicated that 44.83% of teachers are “very confident” and 34.48% are “moderately confident.” Comparably, when asked how confident are you that you can implement academic and/or behavioral interventions, 86.21% of teachers’ responses ranged from moderately to extremely confident. Lastly, teachers were asked how confident are you that you can following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. According to the survey results, 75.86% of teachers are at least moderately confident that they can follow established protocols to refer students to interventions. See table 12. Table 12 Survey Results for Self-Efficacy in Implementing MTSS Strategies # Self-Efficacy Item How confident are you Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 94 that you can do the following? confident confident confident confident confident 1 Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 3.4% 10.3% 34.4% 44.8% 6.9% 2 Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 6.9% 34.4% 34.4% 17.2% 3 Follow established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 0.0% 24.1% 27.5% 31.1% 17.2% Interview findings. It is evident that all six interviewed teachers feel confident about identifying students, implementing strategies, and referring students for specialized instruction at WHS. Each participant indicated their level of confidence in their ability to support struggling students, however, 33.3% of the participants indicated that something was lacking in their current structure. "I think teachers are confident in being able to identify struggling students, but we are missing the structure to ensure these students get served within the school day," stated Participant 1. Participant 3 shared similar thoughts on serving students when asked a related question, stating “it can't just be afterschool like we have now - we need to be able to do this within school hours.” Participants were not only able to answer this question, but apply it to improvements that can be made school-wide. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 95 Summary. The assumed influence that teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services was validated in both the survey results and the interview responses. Both instruments indicated that this influence is an asset at WHS. Emotions Influence 1. Teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Survey results. Teachers at Westside High School feel a high degree of positivity toward identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. The range in feeling positive about this MTSS process varied from 89.5% to 96.4% agreement in feeling positive about servicing students with this process in mind. This passes the 70% threshold, thus making teachers’ positive feelings toward the MTSS process an asset at WHS. Only 3.4% of surveyed teachers, or one of twenty-nine survey participants disagreed with feeling positive about this process. This indicates a clear and strong agreement among teachers’ positivity toward services students with academic and behavior interventions in mind. See Tables 13 - 15. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 96 Table 13 Survey Results for Emotions Related to MTSS Implementation # Emotions Item Percentage Count I feel positive about identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 1 Strongly Agree 62.1% 18 2 Slightly Agree 34.4% 10 3 Slightly Disagree 3.4% 1 4 Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0 Table 14 # Emotions Item Percentage Count I feel positive about implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. 1 Strongly Agree 62.1% 18 2 Slightly Agree 31.1% 9 3 Slightly Disagree 6.9% 2 4 Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0 Table 15 # Emotions Item Percentage Count I feel positive about following established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 1 Strongly Agree 48.2% 14 2 Slightly Agree 41.3% 12 3 Slightly Disagree 6.9% 2 4 Strongly Disagree 3.4% 1 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 97 Interview findings. Interviews were not conducted for this influence. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services was validated through survey results. The 70% threshold was passed, making this emotion an asset at WHS. Attributions Influence 1. Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. Survey results. Teachers at Westside High School feel that the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services is in their control. The range in teachers’ feeling in control of this MTSS process varied from 72.3% to 79.2%. This range passes the 70% threshold, thus making teachers’ feelings of control in their success or failure of implementing the MTSS process an asset at WHS. Only 6.9% to 10.3% of surveyed teachers, disagreed with feeling in control of their success or failure in implementing this process. This indicates a clear and strong agreement among WHS teachers’ attributions to success in servicing students’ academic and behavioral needs. See Tables 16 - 18. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 98 Table 16 Survey Results for Attributions Related to MTSS Implementation # Attributions Item Percentage Count The success or failure of identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. 1 Strongly Agree 31..1% 9 2 Slightly Agree 48.2% 14 3 Slightly Disagree 13.7% 4 4 Strongly Disagree 6.9% 2 Table 17 # Attributions Item Percentage Count The success or failure of implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. 1 Strongly Agree 27.5% 8 2 Slightly Agree 48.2% 14 3 Slightly Disagree 13.7% 4 4 Strongly Disagree 10.3% 3 Table 18 # Attributions Item Percentage Count The success or failure of following established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. 1 Strongly Agree 27.5% 8 2 Slightly Agree 44.8% 13 3 Slightly Disagree 17.2% 5 4 Strongly Disagree 10.3% 3 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 99 Interview findings. Interviews were not conducted for this influence. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services is in their control was validated. The survey results passed the 70% threshold making this attribution an asset at Westside High School. Results and Findings for Organization Causes Resources Influence 1. There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. Survey results. Of the 29 teachers surveyed, 51.6% of WHS teachers slightly or strongly agree with the statement, “My school provides training for academic and/or behavior intervention strategies.” Conversely, 48.1% of teachers slightly or strongly disagreed with this same statement. Teachers were also asked assess whether or not their school provides them with academic or behavioral coaches for instructional support and 55.1% of teachers slightly or strongly agreed that their school provides this support, while 43.3% of teachers responded that their school does not provide this type of support. See Tables 19 - 20. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 100 Table 19 Survey Results for Resources Related to MTSS Implementation # Resources Item Percentage Count My school provides training for academic and/or behavior intervention strategies. 1 Strongly Agree 13.7% 4 2 Slightly Agree 37.9% 11 3 Slightly Disagree 34.4% 10 4 Strongly Disagree 13.7% 4 Table 20 # Resources Item Percentage Count My school provides academic and/or behavioral coaches for instructional support. 1 Strongly Agree 20.6% 6 2 Slightly Agree 34.4% 10 3 Slightly Disagree 37.9% 11 4 Strongly Disagree 6.9% 2 Interview findings. Interviews were not conducted for this influence. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that there is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies was not validated through survey results. The 70% threshold was not met, indicating that this training and support is a need at WHS. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 101 Influence 2. There is professional development time planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. Survey results. Teachers at WHS were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement, “My school provides me with the time to learn academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies.” The majority of teachers agreed with the statement (62.7%) with 17.2% strongly agreeing and 44.8% slightly agree. However, a large percentage disagreed (39.9%) with 27.5% slightly disagreeing and 10.3% strongly disagreeing. See Table 21. Table 21 Survey Results for Resources Related to MTSS Implementation # Attributions Item Percentage Count My school provides me with the time to learn academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies. 1 Strongly Agree 17.4% 5 2 Slightly Agree 44.8% 13 3 Slightly Disagree 27.5% 8 4 Strongly Disagree 10.3% 3 Interview findings. When asked to describe their ideal training model for a systematic intervention system, WHS teachers had varying ideas. 33.3% of teachers confidently said that they must see what they are being asked to do within the classroom. For example, Participant 6 said, "I'm a visual learner, so I need to see what we have to learn. If a teacher or a school or a district is doing the thing we need to learn, successfully, then show us. This way, I can take it directly to my classroom and apply it in a way that fits my population of students." Participant 3 felt similarly, and expressed that being in classrooms and seeing the strategies in real life help him learn and apply much more quickly. The other 4 interviewees had varying ideas of an ideal TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 102 training for MTSS, ranging from showing videos, having an outside trainer, or letting the administration figure it out. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that there is professional development time planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation, was not validated through the survey results and interview responses. While the majority of survey respondents indicated that they did have time planned and allocated for this type of training, they did not meet the 70% threshold, making this a need at Westside High School. Policies and Procedures Influence 1. Procedures that are in place for teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies. Survey results. When asked to what extent do identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions align with school and district policies, 93.1% of teachers’ responses ranged from slightly aligned to extremely aligned. The results indicated that only 6.9% of respondents found policies to be “not at all” aligned with identifying students as recipients of interventions. Similarly, when asked to what extent do implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions align with school and district policies, 89.6% of teacher answers ranged from slightly aligned to extremely aligned. Finally, teachers were asked to what extent do following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 103 and/or behavioral interventions align with school and district policies. According to the survey results, 93.1% of teacher responses ranged from slightly to extremely aligned. See Table 22. Table 22 Survey Results for Policies and Procedures in Implementing MTSS # Policies and Procedures Item To what extent do the following align with school and district policies at this moment: Not at all aligned Slightly aligned Moderately aligned Very aligned Extremely aligned 1 Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 24.4% 20.6% 34.4% 13.7% 2 Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. 10.3% 17.2% 24.4% 37.9% 10.3% 3 Following established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 13.7% 20.6% 44.8% 13.7% Interview findings. Each of the six interviewed participants confirmed that WHS plans are aligned with the vision and goals of Downtown Unified. Participant 3 claimed that their starting point in any endeavor is to understand the district vision, and plan accordingly, stating, "When we plan for our school, we always talk about district goals and how our plans align with that. We see the district plan says to provide college and career readiness for all students, and we look at ourselves and figure out how we are contributing to those goals. We work pretty closely with the other high school in the district as well." Both Participant 2 and Participant 5 believe TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 104 that the school’s administrative team is very aligned with the district vision and goals, and plans professional development and other initiatives accordingly. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that the procedures that are in place for teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies was validated. The 70% threshold was passed in both survey results and interview responses, indicating that this school to district alignment is an asset at Westside High School. Cultural Setting Influence 1. The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Survey results. When asked “To what degree do you feel you are a part of a school culture that motivates teachers to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral intervention,” 44.7% of teachers’ responses ranged from very motivating to extremely motivating. The results indicated that 3.4%% of respondents found the school to be “not at all” motivating in identifying students as recipients of interventions. Similarly, when asked to what degree do you feel you are a part of a school culture that motivates teachers to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions, 51.6% of teacher TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 105 answers ranged from very motivating to extremely motivating, with 3.4% indicating that the school was not at all motivating for teachers in implementing these interventions. Finally, teachers were asked to what degree do you feel you are a part of a school culture that motivates teachers in following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services, and 48.2% indicated that the school was very motivating or extremely motivating with 6.9% of teachers indicating that the school culture was not at all motivating to follow such protocols. See Table 23. Table 23 Survey Results for Cultural Setting at Westside High School # Cultural Setting Item To what degree do you feel that you are part of a school culture that motivates teachers to do the following: Not at all motivating Slightly motivating Moderately motivating Very motivating Extremely motivating 1 Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 3.4% 20.6% 31.0% 34.4% 10.3% 2 Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. 3.4% 13.7% 31.0% 41.3% 10.3% 3 Following established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 20.6% 24.1% 37.9% 10.3% Interview findings. Interviews were not conducted for this influence. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 106 Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that the school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services was not validated. The survey results did not meet the 70% threshold, indicating that creating a culture that supports motivation is a need at WHS. Cultural Models Influence 1. There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Survey results. Teachers at WHS were asked to what degree do you feel that there is a culture of cooperation among teachers to do the following: 1) Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral intervention, 2) Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions, and 3) Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. The results were very similar for all three critical behaviors with most teachers answering “moderately cooperative” (34.48 - 41.38%) followed by “very cooperative” (24.14 -27.59%) and “slightly cooperative” (17.24 - 20.69%). See Table 24. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 107 Table 24 Survey Results for Cultural Model at Westside High School # Cultural Model Item To what degree do you feel that there is a culture of cooperation among teachers to do the following: Not at all cooperative Slightly cooperative Moderately cooperative Very cooperative Extremely cooperative 1 Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 20.6% 37.9% 24.1% 10.3% 2 Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. 6.9% 17.4% 41.3% 27.5% 6.9% 3 Following established protocol to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. 10.3% 20.6% 34.4% 24.1% 10.3% Interview findings. 83% of the interviewed participants agreed that the majority of the teachers at Westside High School work cooperatively with each other and with administration. Participant 5 supported this notion, "I'd say 75% of the teachers here are cooperative and work together. We understand change is inevitable, we work together to best support our students at all times. Teachers are here for genuine desires to have these students succeed in their classrooms and go to college, and at the end of the day, just help them be better people." Four other participants agreed and attributed this cooperative culture to their principal of 5 years, noting that TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 108 she has been instrumental in shifting attitudes of teachers over the years that now she has buy in for almost anything she brings to the table. One participant felt precisely the opposite of the other five interviewees, noting that the staff actually needs to get on the same page, because right now, they are not there. Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence. Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Summary. The assumed influence that there is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services was not validated. While interview responses passed the 70% threshold, the survey results did not pass this threshold, indicating that creating a culture of cooperation among teachers is a need at WHS. Summary of Validated Influences Knowledge As shown in Table 25, five out of seven assumed knowledge influences were validated and determined to be assets through survey results and interview responses. Recommendations to improve the knowledge influences that were not validated will be discussed in Chapter Five. Table 25 Assumed Knowledge Influences Validated (Asset) or Not Validated (Need) Declarative Factual Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS strategies are and when to teach them. Validated (Asset) Teachers know what RTI 2 and PBIS screening protocols are. Validated (Asset) Declarative Conceptual Validated (Asset) TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 109 Teachers identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and group students by needs. Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Not Validated (Need) Procedural Teachers teach/implement appropriate RTI 2 and PBIS strategies to identified groups of students. Validated (Asset) Teachers know how to follow established protocols to process students for screening, assessing, and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Validated (Asset) Metacognitive Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Not Validated (Need) Motivation As shown in Table 26, four out of four assumed motivation influences were validated and determined to be assets through interviews and document analysis. Table 26 Assumed Motivation Influences Validated (Asset) or Not Validated (Need) Value Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols Validated (Asset) TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 110 to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Self-Efficacy Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established Validated (Asset) Emotions Teachers feel positive about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Validated (Asset) Attributions Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. Validated (Asset) Organization As shown in Table 27, one out of six assumed organization influences were validated and determined to be assets through survey results and interview responses. Recommendations to improve the organization influences that were not validated will be discussed in Chapter Five. Table 27 Assumed Organization Influences Validated (Asset) or Not Validated (Need) Resources There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS Not Validated (Need) TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 111 implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. There is professional development time planned and allocated for teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. Not Validated (Need) Policies and Procedures Procedures that are in place for teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services are aligned with school and district policies. Validated (Asset) Cultural Settings The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Not Validated (Need) Cultural Models There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Not Validated (Need) Chapter Five will include recommendations for how to improve the assumed influences that were not validated, thus determined to be needs, in the findings of this study. Proposed solutions and recommendations will be shared with site administrators in Downtown Unified School District. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 112 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION Authored by Bhavini Bhakta Purpose of the Project and Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of MTSS in Downtown Unified School District (DUSD) high schools in particular from the perspective of teachers and site administrators. More specifically, the purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School by September 2019. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to examining the needs systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs analysis would have focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder focused on in this analysis were DUSD teachers. Two questions guide this study. 1. What are the knowledge, and skills, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to effectively implement MTSS at Westside High School? 2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational recommendations for meeting the needs of teachers in achieving the DUSD goal of effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School? Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences in the following tables were determined to be needs during data collection. Each one of these KMO influences has been given a high priority for achieving the organization's goal. Additionally, an evidence-based principle has been identified to guide context-based recommendations for TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 113 improving performance in these areas. Following the tables, a detailed discussion is provided for each influence including solutions based in the literature. Knowledge Recommendations Introduction. Five out of seven assumed knowledge influences were determined to be assets through survey results and interview responses. All factual and procedural influences were determined to be assets while one conceptual and one metacognitive influence were determined to be needs. As indicated in Table 28, both influences that were found to be needs were given high priority for addressing teachers’ knowledge gaps at Westside High School (WHS). Additionally, context-specific recommendations for addressing these knowledge gaps are indicated in the table along with research-based principles to support the indicated recommendations. Table 28 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations Assumed Knowledge Influence Priority High Low Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation Factual There were no deficiencies found in this area of influence. Conceptual Teachers know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. High Connect prior knowledge with meaningful learning to store information more quickly and remember more accurately (Schraw & Teachers are provided with a visual diagram that displays the differences between the three tiers within the RTI 2 and PBIS models. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 114 McCrudden, 2006). Procedural There were no deficiencies found in this area of influence. Metacognitive Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). High Set personal goals and monitor personal performance to increase learning (Baker, 2006). Teachers are provided with opportunities to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment with their department chair and/or respective overseeing administrator. Factual knowledge solutions. No declarative knowledge influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Conceptual knowledge solutions. Teachers do not know the difference between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III services in the RTI 2 and PBIS models. Schraw & McCrudden (2006) suggest when prior knowledge is connected with meaningful learning, information can be stored more quickly and remembered more accurately. Based on this principle, providing learners with a visual diagram that connects their prior knowledge to current concepts may allow for meaningful learning. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers be provided with a visual diagram that displays the differences between and shows examples of the three tiers within the RTI 2 and PBIS models to enhance their learning of the concepts. The information processing theory suggests information moves through three parts of one’s memory: sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Providing visual representation helps learners organize new concepts and information, so that they can retain it in their working memory (Ambrose, 2010). Additionally, TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 115 according to Mayer (2011), information is transferred from a learner’s working memory to long- term memory when activated prior knowledge affects one’s performance on a new task. Procedural knowledge solutions. No procedural knowledge influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Teachers do not reflect on the effectiveness of the process of identifying students as recipients of RTI2 and PBIS strategies and referring students to specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Baker (2006) suggests that providing opportunities for learners to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment increases their learning. Based on this principle, providing learners with opportunities to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment can increase metacognition. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers engage in goal-setting, self-monitoring, and self-assessment with their department chair and/or respective overseeing administrator. When considering metacognition as it relates to the information processing theory, the basic premise suggests that knowledge and control of one’s cognition supports a learner’s knowledge of themselves as a learner and supports one’s evaluation of progress as a task is completed (Baker, 2006). Providing opportunities to engage in guided self-monitoring and self- assessment helps learners identify how they think about what they are learning (Mayer, 2011). Additionally, learners can more readily apply knowledge acquired in one context to another context if they have more awareness of themselves as learners, if they monitor their strategies and resources, and if they assess their readiness for tasks and other performances (Baker, 2006). Motivation Recommendations Introduction. Four of the four assumed knowledge influences were determined to be assets through survey results and interview responses. All value, self-efficacy, emotions and TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 116 attributions influences were determined to be assets. Because all influences were determined to be assets, suggestions for maintaining motivation among teachers at WHS are indicated in Table 29. Additionally, context-specific recommendations for maintaining motivation of teachers are indicated in the table along with research-based principles to support the indicated recommendations. Table 29 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations Assumed Motivation Influence Priority High Low Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation Value Teachers value identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). Low Enhance learning and motivation through teachers’ current values of the task (Eccles, 2006). Values, enthusiasm and interest in the task are modeled by site leaders. Self-Efficacy Teachers are confident about identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established Low Exhibiting high self-efficacy positively influences motivation (Pajares, 2006). Link rewards and recognition of teachers on their progress. Emotions Teachers feel positive about identifying Low Positive emotional environments Support teachers’ needs for autonomy and choice. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 117 students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). support motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Attributions Teachers believe the success or failure of identifying students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implementing established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies, and following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III) is in their control. Low Learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success or failures to effort rather than ability. (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Department chairs and/or respective overseeing administrator should provide accurate feedback that identifies the skills or knowledge the individual lacks, along with communication that skills and knowledge can be learned, followed with the teaching of these skills and knowledge. Value solutions. No value influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Self-Efficacy solutions. No self-efficacy influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Emotions solutions. No emotions influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Attributions solutions. No attributions influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 118 Organization Recommendations Introduction. Four out of five assumed organization influences were determined to be needs through survey results and interview responses. The policies and procedures influence was determined to be an asset at WHS. As indicated in Table 30, the influences that were found to be needs were given high priority for addressing the organization gaps at Westside High School. Additionally, context-specific recommendations for addressing these organization gaps are indicated in the table along with research-based principles to support the indicated recommendations. Table 30 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations Assumed Organization Influence Priority High Low Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation Resources There is money allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, to hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. High Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (materials, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark and Estes, 2008). Teachers are provided with needs-based support through instructional coaching/mentorship or training. There is professional development time planned and allocated for High Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has Teachers are provided with structured planning time to TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 119 teachers to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. the resources (materials, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark and Estes, 2008). implement MTSS effectively. Policies and Procedures There were no deficiencies found in this area of influence. Cultural Settings The school has systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. High Organizational performance increases when individuals communicate constantly and candidly to those involved about plans and process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers receive supportive information regarding the MTSS process through staff meetings, department meetings, PLC meetings, email, and personal conversations with their overseeing administrator. Cultural Models There is a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RTI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RTI 2 and High Effective change efforts insure that all key stakeholders’ perspectives inform the design and Teachers are provided with formal and informal avenues of feedback regarding the MTSS implementation process (anonymous surveys, conversations with department chairs, etc.). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 120 PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. decision-making process leading to the change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Resources solutions. Money is not allocated to train the teaching staff on MTSS, hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, nor to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. According to Clark & Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (materials, personnel, time, etc) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities. This suggests that learners must have the benefits of appropriate training and coaching by having money specifically allocated for this. Therefore, the recommendation is for the school site to allocate money to train the teaching staff on MTSS, hire educational specialists needed to support effective MTSS implementation, and to hire instructional coaches to support teachers with instructional strategies. Teachers need ongoing training and coaching to ensure proper MTSS implementation (Vekaria, 2017). Lancaster & Hougen (2017) found that the biggest barrier to schools successfully implementing MTSS is that there is a lack of resources for teacher training. Pan et. al’s (2003) study on resource allocation in education discovered that effective resource allocation starts with the alignment of goals, priorities, and activities of education decision makers. Additionally, the Pan et al. (2003) study recommended that school leaders take steps to understand what resources they have available (e.g. money, time, staff) that can be used more efficiently or pooled for greater effectiveness. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 121 Teachers do not have professional development time planned and allocated to be trained on effective MTSS implementation. According to Clark & Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (materials, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities. This suggests that site leadership must learn more effective ways to implement trainings for teachers so that they are working toward achieving organizational goals. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers are provided with structured planning time to effectively implement MTSS. Some of the biggest challenges in effective implementation of any training are related to time, scheduling, and resources at the site level (Vekaria, 2017). Ensuring teachers are trained, and optimal support is provided post-training requires resources and time allocation to ensure a given program is implemented effectively (Vekaria, 2017). Additionally, Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016), suggest that professional development planning time is integral in the effective implementation of any program. Policies and procedures solutions. No policies and procedures influences were validated, therefore there are no gaps in this area. Cultural settings solutions. The school does not have systems in place to motivate teachers to identify students as recipients of RtI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RtI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and to follow established RtI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. According to Clark & Estes (2008), organizational performance increases when individuals communicate constantly and candidly with those involved about plans and process. This suggests that site leadership must communicate with and involve teachers in their planning process as it relates to MTSS TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 122 implementation. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers receive supportive information regarding the MTSS process through staff meetings, department meetings, PLC meetings, email, and personal conversations with their overseeing administrator. Rueda (2011) asserts that schools are complex social settings that are in a constant state of change. Because of these dynamics, the systems put in place are often a hindrance to achieving goals or improving performance (Rueda, 2011). As such, school culture has a large impact on the morale of the staff within it. School leaders must understand the characteristics that make up their organizations if they wish to have influence on them, and this can be accomplished through clear communication between site leadership and teachers. Cultural models solutions. There is not a culture of cooperation among teachers who identify students as recipients of RtI 2 and/or PBIS strategies, implement established RtI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction, and follow established RtI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. Effective change efforts insure that all key stakeholders’ perspectives inform the design and decision-making process leading to the change (Clark & Estes, 2008). This principle suggests that teachers must feel involved in and work collaboratively with site leadership to design and implement an effective MTSS program. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers are provided with formal and informal avenues of feedback regarding the MTSS implementation process through anonymous surveys, conversations with department chairs, or conversations with their overseeing administrator. Fostering a culture of cooperation and a sense of community among staff members is one of most significant ways that teachers and school leaders can influence student achievement (Marzano, et al., 2005). Developing a shared vision for the school and setting goals as a staff or TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 123 team are ways that a culture of cooperation are modeled (Marzano, et al, 2005). A culture of cooperation among the teaching staff will more likely lead to the successful implementation of MTSS. Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Recommendations The following recommendations were guided by evidence-based principles and chosen to address the outstanding knowledge and motivation needs identified in this study. It is recommended that teachers are provided information that organizes teacher and district office leader roles in the RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) process. It is also recommended that teachers are provided a visual diagram that labels the different stages of MTSS implementation and that teachers receive training from an MTSS specialist/coach in which they see a demonstration and have opportunities for practice and feedback. Another recommendation is to give site administrators opportunities to practice completing portions of the full MTSS implementation tasks, while providing them with feedback about their performance. In addition, to provide them with models of successful administrators who have achieved similar goals. Lastly, it is recommended that district office leaders encourage site administrators to share policies that they would eliminate or modify to increase their work enjoyment. The following recommendations were chosen to address the outstanding organizational needs identified in this study. It is recommended that site administrators complete a budget analysis where they are forced to prioritize expenditures by their alignment with organizational goals. It is also recommended that site administrators attend a time management training (e.g. Breakthrough Coach). Additionally, a policy review committee consisting of district office leaders, site administrators, and teachers will conduct a comprehensive policy review that will focus on the implementation of MTSS has been recommended. It is also recommended that site TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 124 administrators partner with district office leaders and teachers to develop a communication plan for providing ongoing information to all stakeholders about the implementation of MTSS. And lastly, a recommendation is to create an MTSS implementation team that includes district office leaders, site administrators, and teachers to monitor the change process by collecting feedback and adjusting as necessary. Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations The mission of the Downtown Unified School District is to provide every student with an opportunity to graduate with a 21st Century education that ensures they are college and career ready, globally competitive, and citizens of strong character. In the fall of 2017, the Downtown Unified Board of Education voted to align their graduation requirements with the California A-G requirements, so that all DUSD graduates are eligible to apply to a California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) school upon graduation. Achieving this goal will be a challenge since the district is currently graduating around 42% of students CSU/UC eligible. Therefore, this policy change will require a significant increase in academic and social-emotional supports if the district wants to meet their new goal of graduating more students who are college ready. The organizational goal to support the new graduation requirements is for DUSD’s Westside High School (WHS) to effectively implement a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) program to ensure that all ninth grade students are on track to meet their A-G requirements. To support this organizational goal, teachers at WHS will be trained on and implement a comprehensive and systematic MTSS intervention program, so that all students ninth grade students are on track to meet A-G graduation requirements by September 2019. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 125 The desired outcome for this project is to develop a training program to equip teachers at WHS with the necessary knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational tools to successfully achieve their performance goal of implementing an MTSS program to keep students on track to meet their A-G requirements. Implementation and Evaluation Framework The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be utilized to design an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for the training program recommended in this study (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The goal of the model is to measure the effectiveness of a training program, maximize transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent organization results, and demonstrate value of training to the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model is an evaluation framework consisting of four levels: Level 1: Reaction, Level 2: Learning, Level 3: Behavior, and Level 4: Results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick 2016). Clark & Estes (2008) support the four-level model developed by Kirkpatrick and recognize it as the best and almost universally used performance evaluation system since its design in the 1950s. The New World Kirkpatrick Model is an updated version of the old Kirkpatrick Model and differs significantly in how instruction for training is designed and planned (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the updated model, the four levels are planned in reverse order with Level 4: Results coming first and Level 1: Reaction coming last (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Planning from the beginning with an emphasis on what will be accomplished through improved on-the-job performance of training graduates keeps the focus on what’s really important (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 126 Level 4: Results and Leading Indicator Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe Level 4: Results as the main reason why trainings are performed, and without connecting the contributions of training to outcomes they can become essentially meaningless. Leading indicators are measurable and short-term personalized targets that suggest whether critical behaviors are on track to reach desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As shown in Table 31 below, leading indicators (internal and external) are listed below along with the metrics and methods for how they will be measured and/or observed. These lead indicators will inform site administrators as to whether their teachers are reaching the goal of implementing MTSS systematically at Westside High School. Table 31 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes Outcome Metric(s) Method(s) External Outcomes Increase in A-G completion rate. Number of graduates who met their A-G requirements. Reported annually to the state and posted publicly on the California School Dashboard. Reduction in annual suspension rate. Number of suspensions for the school year. Reported annually to the state and posted publicly on the California School Dashboard. Internal Outcomes Increase in the number of 9th grade students who are on track to meet their A-G requirements. Number of students who complete their 9th grade year on track to meet their A-G requirements. Annual review of 9th grade transcripts by counselors and site administrators. Decrease in number of students with at least one “D” or “F” grade at the semester. Number of students with at least one “D” or “F” grade at the end of the semester. Bi-annual report ran from Student Information System (SIS). Reduction in office referrals for behavior issues. Number of student referrals sent by teachers to the office for behavior issues. Monthly review of report ran by the Discipline Office from the SIS. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 127 Increase in the number of students being referred to counselors for social-emotional support. Number of students being referred by teachers to counselors for social- emotional support. Monthly review of report ran by the Counseling Office from the SIS. Increase in the number of students receiving Tier 2 academic support. Number of students assigned to a Tier 2 academic support period. Quarterly review of report ran by the Intervention Office from the SIS. Increase the number of teachers implementing MTSS Number of teachers successfully implementing MTSS Monthly informal observations by site administrators Level 3: Behavior Critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe Level 3: Behaviors as the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job. Critical behaviors are the few, specific actions, which, if performed consistently on the job, will have the biggest impact on desired results and achieving organizational success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). As seen in Table 32, three critical behaviors were identified that teachers must be able to demonstrate in order to achieve their performance goals. First, teachers must identify students as recipients of Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI 2 ) and/or Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) strategies. Secondly, teachers must implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction to improve social and academic outcomes for identified students. Lastly, teachers follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for these critical behaviors can be found in Table 32 below. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 128 Table 32 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing Teachers identify students as recipients of Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI 2 ) and/or Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) strategies. Teachers’ lists of students who are recipients of varying MTSS support strategies Cross reference with counselors’ lists of students not on track to meet A-G requirements; and with dean’s list of discipline issues; site administrators to monitor By grading periods - every 5 weeks Teachers implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction to improve social and academic outcomes for identified students. Number of teachers utilizing appropriate MTSS strategies in their classroom and the number of times individual teachers are utilizing appropriate MTSS strategies Observations in teachers’ classrooms to see strategy implementation; grade checks; referral checks Monthly Teachers follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g Tier II and Tier III). Number of documents completed compared to number of students identified Compare documentation academic and behavioral referrals between dean’s office and counseling office; monitored by site administrators By grading periods - every 5 weeks Required drivers. Required drivers are the processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is important for organizations to identify required drivers, so that trainees are provided necessary support and held accountable for expectations after training is conducted (Kirkpatrick TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 129 & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 33 lists the recommended drivers that support critical behaviors of teachers as they work to effectively implement a systematic MTSS program at their school. Table 33 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported 1, 2, 3 Etc. Reinforcing Provide a refresher training for teachers that reviews RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) strategies and reviews the standards for identifying students who are in need of RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) strategies. Bi-annually - prior to the start of each semester 1, 2 Provide a job aid/graphic organizer that visually denotes the referral process for specialized RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) services. Annually (also posted on website, physical copies available as needed) 3 Encouraging Provide teachers with in- classroom support through instructional coaches to implement RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) strategies. Ongoing 1, 2, 3 Partner novice teachers with effective veteran teachers who can serve as mentors to help newer teachers in effectively implementing RTI 2 and PBIS (MTSS) strategies. Ongoing 1, 2, 3 Rewarding Recognize individual teachers who are effectively Monthly 1, 2, 3 TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 130 identifying students as recipients of MTSS strategies, implementing MTSS strategies and following MTSS referral protocols, at school-wide staff meetings. Share list of recognized teachers with district office leadership. Monthly 1, 2, 3 Monitoring Site administrators will observe each of their teachers monthly and provide constructive feedback to each teacher. Monthly 1, 2, 3 Counselors will provide a report to department chairs of the D and F rate for each teacher within the department; Dean’s office will provide a report to department chairs of the number of referrals from each teacher within the department. Each grading period - every 5 weeks 1, 2, 3 Organizational support. Site administrators will be integral in reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding and monitoring teachers’ critical behaviors in implementing MTSS effectively at Westside High School. Site administrators will need to be actively engaged in teachers’ classrooms, in PLC and staff meetings to not only support, but hold all staff accountable for the effective implementation of MTSS school wide. In order for teachers to successfully support their students through the MTSS process, site administrators will need to provide time for teachers to be trained, time for teachers to collaborate and plan, and in- TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 131 classroom support through instructional coaches. All of these endeavors require funding, and site administrators will have to work strategically with district office leadership and their community for acquiring the monetary support needed to effectively implement MTSS at WHS. Level 2: Learning Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe Level 2: Learning as the degree to which participants acquire the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participating in training. Knowledge can be characterized by the phrase, “I can do it,” skills by the phrase, “I can do it right now,” attitude by the phrase “I believe it will be worthwhile,” confidence by the phrase, “I think I can do it on the job,” and commitment by the phrase, “I will do it on the job.” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Learning goals. The following learning objectives are recommended solutions based on the KMO needs identified at the end of Chapter Four. Upon completion of the recommended solutions teachers at WHS will be able to do the following: 1. Explain the three tiers of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within the MTSS model. (Conceptual Knowledge) 2. Apply the three tiers of RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within the MTSS model. (Procedural Knowledge) 3. Self-monitor, self-assess and reflect on their effectiveness in implementing RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within the MTSS model. (Metacognitive Knowledge) TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 132 4. Attribute identifying students as recipients of MTSS strategies, implementing MTSS strategies and following MTSS referral protocols to their own efforts. (Attributions) Program. The following program is recommended to achieve the four learning objectives listed above that address knowledge and motivation needs and the organizational improvements identified in Chapter Four. It is recommended that Westside High School administration, partnered with the district office, hire instructional coaches who will work directly with WHS teachers and also work with site administration to effectively implement a comprehensive and systematic MTSS program at WHS. These instructional coaches will take part in a planning session with site administration over the summer, where their roles in supporting WHS teachers will be delineated and their overall goals to effectively implement MTSS will be set. These instructional coaches, along with site administration will be responsible for conducting a training for teachers when they return to work, prior to the school year commencing. This training is crucial to the long-term success of program implementation, which will begin with a disaggregating of academic and behavioral data so that teachers understand the achievement gaps among their students. This training will also include robust RTI 2 and PBIS strategy training that address the three tiers within the MTSS model. Teachers will receive materials that support them in identifying students as recipients of MTSS strategies, effectively implementing MTSS strategies and in following MTSS referral protocols. These materials will also be made accessible on the school website post-training. Teachers will also be made aware that they will be working with an instructional coach and also their administrator from whom they will receive constructive feedback to support their implementation of MTSS strategies. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 133 The second part of this recommendation is that site administrators observe each teacher at least once a month and provide constructive feedback, while working with an instructional coach to ensure each specific teacher receives both feedback and support to enhance their implementation of MTSS strategies. Additionally, novice teachers will be provided with supplementary support by partnering them with an effective veteran teacher who can guide them through implementing MTSS strategies. The last recommendation includes revisiting the data presented at the initial training prior to the start of school. In conjunction with the dean’s office and the counseling team, site administrators will distribute updated academic and behavioral data so teachers can review and reflect on their implementation of MTSS strategies within their respective classrooms. Ideally, the data should show growth in relation to fewer behavioral referrals and a lower D and F rate for their students, which ultimately keeps students on track to meet A-G requirements, the overall organizational goal. The instructional coaches and department chairs will guide individual teachers in this self-reflection and self-assessment so that they can monitor their own effectiveness in implementing MTSS strategies. Through this self-monitoring and self-reflection, the hope is that teachers will attribute their student successes to their own efforts in implementing MTSS strategies. Evaluation of the components of learning. The following Table 34 lists the methods and activities that will be used to evaluate the declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment of teachers in participating in this training and mentorship program. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 134 Table 34 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing Declarative Knowledge “I know it.” Knowledge check using multiple choice During and after training Partner work and group share out During training Pre and post assessment Before and after training Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.” Role play of MTSS strategies within departments During training In-classroom observation checklist created by teachers for site administrators to utilize to identify MTSS strategies During training Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.” Likert scale survey completed by teachers After training Department discussion about value of program During and after training Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.” Coaching and mentoring by instructional coaches and mentor teachers During and after training Likert scale survey completed by teachers During training Commitment “I will do it on the job.” Likert scale survey completed by teachers During and after training Self-assessments guided by instructional coaches During and post training Level 1: Reaction Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe Level 1: Reaction as the degree to which participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their job. The goal of the Level 1 is to quickly and efficiently determine whether the training program and instructor were effective (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 35 below lists the methods that will be used TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 135 to determine whether teachers find their training and associated program for implementation favorable, engaging, and relevant. Table 35 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing Engagement Active listening in presentations During training Active participation in partner and group work During training Asking meaningful questions During and after training Relevance Pulse check via group discussion During training Anonymous survey After training Customer Satisfaction Pulse check via group discussion During training Anonymous survey After training Evaluation Tools Immediately following the program implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend using a blended evaluation methodology to gather valuable data about the effectiveness of a training program. This blended approach includes using immediate and delayed evaluation tools to assess program effectiveness (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The purpose of immediate evaluation tools is to assess Levels 1 and 2 and measure anticipated application and outcomes. On the other hand, the purpose of delayed evaluation tools is to focus on the behaviors and results that training graduates are experiencing on the job, while also revisiting the reaction and learning levels. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 136 Delayed for a period after the program implementation. For the recommended training program in this study, an immediate evaluation tool has been created to assess Level 1 (engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction) and Level 2 (declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, commitment) based on teachers experiences from the training. The immediate evaluation tool will utilize survey questions with rating scales items and open-ended questions (see Appendix X). Data Analysis and Reporting The organizational goal for Westside High School is to increase the A-G completion rate and decrease the suspension rate by means of effectively supporting WHS students. In order to meet this organizational goal, specific data must be shared with all stakeholders, particularly teachers. It is recommended that specific and selective data must be utilized to communicate progress toward program goals (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). That said, the A-G completion rate, including D and F rate data, along with behavioral referral data is shared at the initial training, and again at the end of the semester, so all stakeholders are able to discern if MTSS program implementation has been successful. Additionally, the data gathered from classroom observations will be transparently shared to target further support for teachers from the instructional coaches. This data will be distributed to department chairs and reported out at respective department meetings so that each department can monitor their own progress toward the organizational goal. Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation In order to plan, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an MTSS training program for teachers at Westside High School, the New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized so that TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 137 teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational tools necessary to achieve performance goals. The New World Kirkpatrick Model was specifically utilized to plan MTSS program implementation for teachers from a large organizational goal to targeted learning goals so that organizational outcomes were identified from the beginning. The four levels of training evaluation were used to maximize transfer of learning to behavior, and subsequently lead to organizational results. Furthermore, each level in the four-level model was embedded with measurements to determine if the training was doing what it was intended to do. In other words, were teachers finding the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their work (Level 1), were they acquiring the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training (Level 2), were teachers applying what they learned on the job (Level 3), and were targeted outcomes occurring as a result of the training (Level 4). Limitations and Delimitations The focus of this study was to understand the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps that may impact the effective implementation of MTSS at Westside High School. Limits of this study are related to the constrained generalizability of the results due to a small and voluntary sampling of teachers (Creswell, 2014). This also makes it difficult to control for variables such as representation of teachers from each academic department and from varying years of teaching experience. This study focused on teachers at WHS who elected to participate in a MTSS survey via email, and subsequently, if they volunteered, to participate in a one-on-one interview with the researcher. While the survey participation rate was 20.8%, it was not controlled for in terms of demographics related to teachers’ years of experience, subject taught or their years teaching at TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 138 WHS, which could have impacted the study results. Beyond that, only 4% of teachers participated in the in the interview process, which in turn, limits the generalizability of the results to plan for the effective implementation of the MTSS program. This study also did not account for the impacts of age, race/ethnicity, and gender on the effective implementation of MTSS at Westside High School. While collecting this data was not a focus of this study, this demographic data could have a significant impact on the results, which can inform the MTSS planning process for site and district level administrators. Recommendations for Future Research Recommendations for future research should include a larger sampling of teachers to increase generalizability of the results at Westside High School. Data gathered from a wider scope of teachers can better inform the MTSS implementation plan and can more accurately address assets and needs at WHS. Additionally, it is recommended that participants’ demographic data be collected to account for years of teaching experience, and subject area taught to better inform the MTSS implementation plan. Lastly, given teachers were examined in this study and the co-investigator in this study examined site administrators (Chambers, 2019), it is recommended that district office leaders be examined to provide a wide-angle and strategic perspective on MTSS implementation in DUSD. Conclusion In 2018, the Downtown Unified School District developed a goal for Westside High School to effectively implement a comprehensive and systematic MTSS program to ensure that all ninth grade students are on track to meet A-G requirements. This requires WHS to take into account and address at risk students with academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports, so that they can meet DUSD’s organizational goal. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 139 This study examined the knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational gaps that impact WHS teachers in implementing a comprehensive and systematic MTSS program. Survey and interview data guided the research in this study in relation to knowledge, motivation and organizational assets and needs at Westside High School. Recommendations focused on each need were identified and addressed, based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model, so that teachers can effectively and systematically implement MTSS strategies at WHS. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 140 References Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. American Association of School Administrators (2002). Using data to improve schools: What’s working. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/UsingDataToImproveSch ools.pdf Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education. com/reference/article/attribution-theory/ Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/ Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Baydu, M. M., Kaplan, O., & Bayar, A. (2013). Facing the influence of poverty on graduation rates in public high schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,84, 233-237. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.541 Betts, J. Zau, A. & Bachofer, K.V. (2013). College readiness as a graduation requirement: An assessment of San Diego’s challenges. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from https://sandera.ucsd.edu/_files/college-readiness-final.pdf Bono, J., Foldes, H., Vinson, G. & P Muros, J. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. The Journal of applied psychology. 92. 1357-67. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 141 Bower, G. (1995). Emotion and cognition. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of Psychology, Vol. 1., edited by X. Gallegos and L. Hernandez. Mexico City: Trillas Co. Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York: Guilford. California Department of Education (2017). Multi-Tiered System of Supports. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/. California Department of Education (2017). Definition of MTSS: The California Department of Education's definition of multi-tiered system of support and a comparison between it and response to instruction and intervention. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp. California Department of Education (2017). State minimum course requirements. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrmin.asp California Department of Education (2018). California accountability model & school dashboard. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/index.asp California Department of Education (2018). College/Career indicator. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/cci.asp California Department of Education DataQuest. (2018). Enrollment, graduates, and dropout in California public school, 1974-75 through 2013-14. Retrieved from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrGradDrop.asp Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Chambers, M. (2019). The Implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 142 Unified School District: An analysis of site administrator needs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Common Core State Standards Initiative (n.d.) About the Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/ Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from http://aypf.org/documents/RedefiningCollegeReadiness.pdf Cook, C. R., Dart, E., Collins, T., Restori, A., Daikos, C., & Delport, J. (2012). Preliminary study of the confined collateral, and combined effects of reading and behavioral interventions: Evidence for a transactional relationship. Behavioral Disorders, 38, 38-56. Cottrell, D. (2002). Monday morning leadership. Dallas, TX: Cornerstone Leadership Institute. Coyne, Michael D. Kameenui, Edward J. Carnine, Douglas W. (2018). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Place of publication not identified: PEARSON. Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Washington, DC: National High School Center at American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://buildingrti.utexas.org/sites/default/files/booklets/Better_High_Schools_HDuffy.pdf Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/ Finkelstein, N. D., & Fong, A. B. (Eds.) (2008). Course-taking patterns and preparation for postsecondary education in California’s public university systems among minority youth. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–No. 035). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 143 Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west/pdf/REL_2008035_sum.pdf Flannery, B. K., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem behavior in high schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 111-124. Forman, S., & Crystal, C. (2015). Systems Consultation for Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS): Implementation Issues. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 1-10. Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B. & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS Coaching: Bridging Knowing to Doing, Theory Into Practice, 56:1, 29-37, DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1241946 Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56. Gao, N., Lopes, L. & Lee, G. (2017). Just the facts: California’s high school graduation requirements. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/hs-graduation-requirements.pdf Goldring, R., Taie, W., & Owens, C. (2014). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-13 Principal follow-up survey. National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.): Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014064rev.pdf Gordon, L. (2017). California’s public universities grapple with uncertain future student enrollments. Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.dailynews.com/social- TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 144 affairs/20170204/californias-public-universities-grapple-with-uncertain-future-student- enrollments Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466-474. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence From Observations of Principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13510020 Hickman, G. P., Bartholomew, M., Mathwig, J., & Heinrich, R. S. (2008). Differential developmental pathways of high school dropouts and graduates.The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 3-14. Joe, S., Joe, E., & Rowley, L. L. (2009). Consequences of physical health and mental illness risks for academic achievement in grades K-12. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 283-309. Johnson, L. (2005). Why principals quit. Principal, 84(3), 21 – 23. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2005/J-Fp21.pdf Jones, L.I., Pastor, P.N., Simon A.E. & Reuben C.A. (2014). Use of selected nonmedication mental health services by adolescent boys and girls with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties: United States, 2010–2012. NCHS data brief, no 163. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db163.pdf Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 145 Alexandria, VA: ATD Press. Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/ Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. Lancaster, P. & Hougen, M. (2017. Preparing educators to work in an MTSS model: Making a case for partnerships. Perspectives on languages and literacy, 43 (4), 41-46. Marzano, R, Water, T. & McNulty B.(2005). School Leadership That Works. Alexandria, Virginia; ASCD. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103-116. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3 rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. McIntosh, K., Chard, D.J., Boland, J.B., & Horner, R.H., (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146-154. McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: blending RTI and PBIS. New York: The Guilford Press. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4 th Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 146 Mishkind, A. (2014). Overview: State definitions of college and career readiness. College & Career Readiness & Success Center at American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/CCRS%20Defintions%20Brief_REV_1.pdf Murnane, R. J. (2013). U.S. high school graduation rates: Patterns and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(2), 370-422. O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–310. doi:10.1002/pits.21598. Osterman, K. & Sullivan, S. (1996). New principals in an urban bureaucracy: A sense of efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 661-690. Pan, D., Rudo, Z. H., Schneider, C. L., Smith Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource allocation in education: Connecting spending to student performance. Research Report. Southwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, TX. Institute of Education Sciences (ED), Washington, DC. Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/ Plunk, A., Tate, W., Bierut, L., & Grucza, R. (2014). Intended and unintended effects of state- mandated high school science and mathematics course graduation requirements on educational attainment. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 230-241. Positive Behavioral Supports and Interventions (2018). Implementation blueprint. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/blueprintguidestools/blueprint/implementation-blueprint Prasse, D. P., Breunlin, R. J., Giroux, D., Hunt, J., Morrison, D., & Thier, K. (2012). Embedding TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 147 multi-tiered system of supports/response to intervention into teacher preparation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 75-93. Raffo, C., Dyson, A., Gunter, H., Hall, D., Jones, L., & Kalambouka, A. (2009). Educationand poverty: Mapping the terrain and making the links to educational poverty. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 341-358. Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers College Press. Saeki, E., Jimerson, S. R., Earhart, J., Hart, S. R., Renshaw, T., Singh, R. D., & Stewart, K. (2011). Response to intervention (RtI) in the social, emotional, and behavioral domains: Current challenges and emerging possibilities.Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 43- 52. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http:// www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/. Schrobsdorff, S. (2016). There’s a startling increase in major depression among teens in the U.S. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4572593/increase-depression-teens-teenagemental-health/ Shaw, R., & Walker, W. (1981). High school graduation requirements—From whence did they come? NASSP Bulletin, 65(447), 96-102. Tierney, W., & Sablan, J. (2014). Examining college readiness. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 943-946. United States Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 148 the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf United States Department of Education (n.d.). College and career ready students. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/college-career-ready.pdf University of California (n.d.). A-G Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/ Vekaria, H. (2017). Ask the Administrators: Interviews Provide Guidance for MTSS Implementation. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(4), 37-39 Venezia, A., & Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. The Future of Children, 23(1), 117-136. Wyatt, J.N., Wiley, A., Camara, W.J. & Proestler, N. (2011). The development of an index of academic rigor for college readiness. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport- 2011-11-development-index-academic-rigor-college-success.pdf Yong, M., & Cheney, D. A. (2013). Essential features of tier 2 social-behavioral interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 50(8), 844-861. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1002/pits.21710 Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www. education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/ Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Wang, M.C., & Walberg. H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: what does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 149 Appendix A: Survey & Interview Protocol Responses designed with an asterisk (‘*’) represents the correct response. Declarative Factual: 1. Of the following strategies, indicate which are academic and/or behavioral interventions. Check all that apply: 1. Focusing on key and critical components* 2. Explicitly teaching behavior expectations connected to context* 3. Frequently quizzing students on concepts 4. Providing guidance through prompting* 5. Expecting students to be safe, responsible and respectful* 6. Linking current content to prior knowledge and experiences* Declarative Conceptual: 1. Which students should be identified as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? Check all that apply: 1. Two girls who are consistently talking during class. 2. A girl who struggles to understand your directions.* 3. A boy who harasses other students before class starts.* 4. A boy who is unable to complete the independent work in your class after you teach a lesson.* 5. A girl who texts during class despite your no cellphone use in class policy. 6. Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plan).* 2. Indicate in the following scenarios if Tier 1 (core universal instruction and supports), Tier II (targeted supplemental interventions and supports) or Tier III (intensive individualized instruction and supports) strategies or services are required: 1. Two students who are assigned a different task during class based on their mastery of the lesson’s content. (Tier II) 2. Multi-step directions displayed on white board as a visual for students while you orally give instructions for a specific task. * (Tier I) TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 150 3. A student who is pulled out of class once a week to participate in a restorative circle/conversation with another student he consistently harasses during lunch and passing periods..* (Tier III) 4. Small group instruction for four students who are unable to complete the independent work in your class after you teach a lesson.* (Tier II) 5. Posting your cell phone use policy on a bulletin board, in your syllabus and consistently following through with the consequences if the policy is violated. * (Tier I) 6. Three students who have accommodations through their respective IEPs (Individualized Education Plan).* (Tier III) Value: 1. How valuable do you find the following at this moment: a. Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions i. 1 – not at all valuable ii. 2 – slightly valuable iii. 3 – moderately valuable iv. 4 – very valuable v. 5 – extremely valuable b. Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – not at all valuable ii. 2 – slightly valuable iii. 3 – moderately valuable iv. 4 – very valuable v. 5 – extremely valuable c. Following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – not at all valuable ii. 2 – slightly valuable iii. 3 – moderately valuable iv. 4 – very valuable TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 151 1. 5 – extremely valuable Self-Efficacy 1. How confident are you that you can do the following right now: a. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – not at all confident ii. 2 – slightly confident iii. 3 – moderately confident iv. 4 – very confident v. 5 – extremely confident b. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – not at all confident ii. 2 – slightly confident iii. 3 – moderately confident iv. 4 – very confident v. 5 – extremely confident c. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – not at all confident ii. 2 – slightly confident iii. 3 – moderately confident iv. 4 – very confident v. 5 – extremely confident Emotions: 1. I feel positive about identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 2. I feel positive about implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 152 i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 3. I feel positive about following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree Attributions: 1. The success or failure of identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 2. The success or failure of implementing established academic and/or behavioral interventions is due to my efforts. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 3. The success or failure of following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions (e.g Tier II and Tier III) is due to my efforts. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 153 iv. 4 – strongly agree Resources: 1. My school provides me with the time to learn academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 2. My school provides academic and/or behavioral coaches for instructional support. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 3. My school provides training for academic and/or behavioral intervention strategies. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree Policies, Processes, and Procedures: 1. To what extent do the following align with school and district policies at this moment: a. Identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree b. Implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 154 iv. 4 – strongly agree c. Following established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree Culture: 1. To what degree do you feel that you are a part of a school culture that motivates teachers to do the following: a. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree b. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree c. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 1. To what degree do you feel that there is a culture of cooperation among teachers to do the following: 1. Identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 155 iv. 4 – strongly agree 2. Implement academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree 3. Follow established protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions. i. 1 – strongly disagree ii. 2 – slightly disagree iii. 3 – slightly agree iv. 4 – strongly agree Teacher Interview Protocol Introduction: Thank you for volunteering to talk with me about MTSS as it exists at Warren High School. I am is Bhavini Bhakta and I am an Educational Doctorate student at USC’s Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a study that will examine teachers’ implementation of academic and/or behavioral strategies within their classroom. The majority of research indicates that multi- tiered academic and behavioral support strategies lead to better outcomes for students. That said, because you have indicated that you would be willing to be interviewed in the initial survey sent out on MTSS implementation, I want to learn and understand how you implement these strategies and gain your perspective from a knowledge, motivation and organizational standpoint. Please know that our conversation is confidential, your name will be replaced by a pseudonym, and your evaluator/administrator will not know the content of our conversation. Please also know that you do not have to answer any question that you do not feel comfortable answering, I respect your opinions and want to ensure you feel comfortable during our conversation. After today’s conversation, which will range from 30-45 minutes, we may potentially have a follow up conversation based on what information is shared today. I appreciate you being committed to this process. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 156 Because I want to do my best to listen to you and be present during our conversation, I would like to record this conversation for the sole purpose of being able to reference your exact comments as I conduct this study. The recording will not be shared with anyone, and I am happy to send the recording to you if you would like that. Do I have permission to record this conversation? <press record> Thank you for giving me permission to record this conversation. This is Bhavini Bhakta and I am an Educational Doctorate student at USC’s Rossier School of Education. This is an interview for my dissertation study on the implementation of MTSS at Warren High School in the Downey Unified School District. I am sitting here with <insert participant name> on <date.> Let us begin with the first question. Teachers Interview Protocol Declarative Factual: 1. Can you describe some academic interventions? 2. Can you describe some behavioral interventions? 3. To the best of your knowledge, can you describe the school’s academic and/or behavioral interventions screening protocols? Declarative Conceptual: 4. How do you typically identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 5. To the best of your knowledge, describe the difference between the three tiers of strategies or services within the MTSS model. Procedural: 6. Briefly describe the steps you take to screen, assess and refer students for Tier II and III specialized services. Metacognitive: 7. Describe how you reflect on your effectiveness in identifying and referring students for academic and/or behavioral interventions. Value: TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 157 8. Tell me why it is important, or not, to use an integrated, systematic approach to identifying students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 9. Do you find value in using an integrated, systematic approach to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions? Why? 10. Is it important to refer students for specialized Tier III services? Why? Self-Efficacy: 11. How confident are you in your ability to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions? 12. How confident are you in your ability to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions? 13. How confident are you about your ability to follow protocols to refer and place students in specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions? Attributions: 14. Tell me how being able to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. 15. Tell me how being able to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. 16. Tell me how being able to follow protocols for referring students to specialized services for academic and/or behavioral interventions is in your control. Resources: 17. In your opinion, what is the ideal plan for effectively training teachers on MTSS? Policies, Processes, and Procedures: 18. Tell me about the procedures in place to identify students as recipients of academic and/or behavioral interventions. How do they align with district policies? Culture: 19. Some teachers say that the culture at Warren High School does not support implementing academic and/or behavioral interventions. What do you think? 20. Do you feel that there exists a cooperative culture among teachers to implement academic and/or behavioral interventions? Why or why not? TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 158 Appendix B: Immediate Evaluation Tool Immediate Evaluation Tool (Levels 1 and 2) Please use the following rating scale to circle the number that best correlates with how you feel about each statement. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree The training was interactive, engaging and interesting. 1 2 3 4 5 I learned how to apply the MTSS strategies learned during the training. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall, I was satisfied with the training. 1 2 3 4 5 The MTSS strategies learned in this training are worth implementing in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 I am confident in my ability to implement the MTSS strategies I learned to my classroom instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 I am committed to applying the MTSS strategies I learned to my classroom instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 Mark an X next to the statements that best describe teacher roles in the MTSS process. ____ Know what MTSS strategies are and when to teach them.* ____ Identify students as recipients of academic, behavioral, or social emotional support (MTSS strategies).* ____ Implement MTSS strategies during instructional time.* ____ Follow established protocols to refer students for specialized services when their needs are not met through the implementation of MTSS strategies in the classroom.* Please provide your explanations for the following questions: TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 159 1) Explain the difference in the three tiers of the RTI (academic) strategies within the MTSS model. 2) Explain the difference in the three tiers of the PBIS (behavioral, social emotional) strategies within the MTSS model. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 160 Appendix C: Delayed Evaluation Tool Delayed Evaluation Tool (Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4) Please use the following rating scale to circle the number that best correlates with how you feel about each statement regarding the MTSS training held prior to the start of school. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree The MTSS training was worthwhile. 1 2 3 4 5 I have implemented MTSS strategies during instructional time. 1 2 3 4 5 I continue to be confident in my ability to implement MTSS strategies within my instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 I continue to be committed to implementing MTSS strategies within my instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 Implementing MTSS strategies has positively impacted my instruction and my students’ success in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 Mark an X next to the statements that best describe teacher roles in the MTSS process. ____ Know what MTSS strategies are and when to teach them.* ____ Identify students as recipients of academic, behavioral, or social emotional support (MTSS strategies).* ____ Implement MTSS strategies during instructional time.* ____ Follow established protocols to refer students for specialized services when their needs are not met through the implementation of MTSS strategies in the classroom.* Please provide your explanations for the following questions: 1. Explain the difference in the three tiers of the RTI (academic) strategies within the MTSS model. TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 161 2. Explain the difference in the three tiers of the PBIS (behavioral, social emotional) strategies within the MTSS model. The following observation checklist will be completed to evaluate the training program: Critical Behavior Observed Not Observed Comment Teachers identify students as recipients of Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI 2 ) and/or Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) strategies. Teachers implement established RTI 2 and PBIS strategies within their daily instruction to improve social and academic outcomes for identified students. Teachers follow established RTI 2 and PBIS protocols to refer and place students in specialized services (e.g. Tier II and Tier III). TEACHERS AND MTSS IMPLEMENTATION 162 Appendix D: Digital Dashboard Digital Dashboard to Communicate Progress of Goals Progress Tool #1 Progress Tool #2 Progress Tool #3 Number of students on teachers’ lists who are recipients of varying MTSS support strategies Number of teachers utilizing appropriate MTSS strategies in their classroom and the number of times individual teachers are utilizing appropriate MTSS strategies Number of documents completed compared to number of students identified

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) performance analysis model, which systematically and analytically clarifies organizational goals to identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. The purpose of this study was to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs of teachers to effectively implement a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) at Westside High School in Downtown Unified School District. Twenty-nine teachers were surveyed, 6 of them were interviewed, and the data was coded and analyzed to identify their assets and needs in effectively implementing MTSS at Westside High School. Findings from the study indicate a motivational asset among teachers, whereas knowledge and organizational needs exist in order to effectively implement MTSS at the school site. Teachers feel positive about and find value in implementing MTSS at Westside High School, however, varying knowledge and organizational need must be addressed in order to do so effectively. This study makes recommendations for addressing teachers’ knowledge needs through professional development and instructional coaching while simultaneously addressing site organizational needs in ensuring effective roll-out and implementation of MTSS at Westside High School.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

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

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Implementation of the Social Justice Anchor Standards in the West Coast Unified School District: a gap analysis

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework

PDF

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

PDF

A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports

PDF

Improving foundational reading skills growth in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Promoting a positive school culture from three perspectives: a promising practices study from the administrator perspective

PDF

PBIS and equity for African American students with and without disabilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

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

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Bhakta, Bhavini C. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/08/2019

Defense Date 12/21/2018

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

Tag gap analysis,implementation,knowledge gap,motivation gap,MTSS,multi-tiered systems of support,needs analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational gap,PBIS,positive behavior intervention supports,response to Intervention,RTI,secondary level,systematic intervention,teacher

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Hinga, Brianna (committee member), Paramo, John (committee member)

Creator Email bbhakta@ausd.net,bhavinib@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-129829

Unique identifier UC11675793

Identifier etd-BhaktaBhav-7135.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-129829 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BhaktaBhav-7135.pdf

Dmrecord 129829

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bhakta, Bhavini C.

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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