University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Multi-Tiered System of Supports to Address Significant Disproportionality in Special
Education
by
Valerie Ortiz

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

December 2022

© Copyright by Valerie Ortiz 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Valerie Ortiz certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Maria Ott
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Decades of research have illuminated racial and ethnic disproportionality in special education as
a significant problem in K–12 education. Although legislation and state initiatives increased
accountability measures, educational agencies struggle to create long-term systemic change to
address social inequities. Once a school district is found to have disproportional representation
for any racial or ethnic group, it is subject to state accountability and required to participate in
the compliance and improvement monitoring process. This study conducted an evaluation of one
district’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) as part of its plan to
address significant disproportionality. Research has found that school-wide MTSS can improve
social-emotional, behavioral, and academic achievement by addressing students’ needs from a
whole-child perspective. In addition, MTSS might reduce referrals to special education. This
evaluation was guided by a logic model as described by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. This
study used qualitative methods to learn more about the barriers and facilitators during the first
year of MTSS implementation. Implementation facilitators were training and technical support,
attitudes and beliefs, leadership, systems, and resources. Key findings related to challenges were
paradigm shift and resistance, issues related to the pandemic and well-being, communication,
knowledge gaps, resources, and organizational change. Additional findings indicated an
emerging impact on the rate of significant disproportionality in the district using MTSS. In
addition, further positive outcomes were uncovered: social-emotional learning, school climate,
and academic outcomes. These findings are significant as they support using MTSS to drive
systemic change and creating more equitable educational opportunities for historically
marginalized student populations.

v
Acknowledgements
These past few years, completing one of the highlights of my academic career, have had
peaks and valleys, starting with applying to a school that I once thought was totally out of my
league to this moment now as I am about to step over the finish line. As I reflect on these
moments, I am filled with sincere gratitude for those who cheered me on through this endeavor.
I am extremely grateful to the person who told me, “You’re not done yet; your doctorate
is next” when I finished my second master’s. Thank you for always encouraging me, motivating
me, and believing me even when I doubted myself. I am deeply appreciative of you and our
friendship throughout the years. To those very few people I first shared I was applying to this
program, thank you for being excited with me even when I was so nervous to tell anyone. I so
appreciate those who celebrated with me when I first found out I was accepted; thank you for
some truly amazing memories that I will always look back on with such joy. To those who were
there when I just needed a break from school, thank you for always giving me an outlet to vent
and have a little fun. To those who continually hyped me up during this doctoral program, thank
you for being in my corner, especially during these brutal last few months. To those who were
understanding of my absence and continued to check in even when I disappeared into the abyss
writing this dissertation, I appreciate it and it meant so much to me. To all those mentioned, I am
so thankful for each of you and immensely grateful to have you all in my life.
To my dissertation committee and chair, I would like to express gratitude to each of you
for your support and guidance throughout this process. Your positive feedback at my dissertation
defense was so rewarding and means more to me than words can express. To my chair, thank you
for validating my belonging in this doctoral program and for reminding me to be proud of my
accomplishments. It has been a journey, and I thank you for illuminating the path.

vi
Last, but not least, I want to thank me. I want to thank me for making it through countless
sleepless nights, having no days off, for all the sacrifices over the last few years, for continuing
to believe in the end goal, and for never allowing quitting to be an option through all this hard
work. To my younger self who always dreamt of being a Trojan but was not sure she really
believed USC would ever be a reality, against all odds, I did it!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Overview of the MTSS Framework at ASD ........................................................................3
District Demographics .........................................................................................................4
Evaluation Questions ...........................................................................................................5
Importance of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................5
Evaluation Approach ...........................................................................................................8
Definitions..........................................................................................................................13
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................16
Background and Context of the Problem of Practice.........................................................16
Defining MTSS ..................................................................................................................20
MTSS Implementation .......................................................................................................35
Summary ............................................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................42
Evaluation Questions .........................................................................................................42
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................42
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................48
Ethics..................................................................................................................................49
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................50
Participants .........................................................................................................................50

viii
Evaluation Question 1: To What Extent Was the MTSS Initiative Implemented During
the 2021–2022 School Year? .............................................................................................51
Evaluation Question 2: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Factors That
Facilitated Implementation of MTSS? ...............................................................................61
Evaluation Question 3: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Challenges
to the Implementation of MTSS? .......................................................................................70
Additional Observations ....................................................................................................85
Summary ............................................................................................................................91
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................92
Discussion of Evaluation Findings ....................................................................................92
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................97
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................103
Recommendations for Future Research and Evaluation ..................................................104
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................105
References ....................................................................................................................................107
Appendix: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................................128

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Multi-Tiered System of Supports Logic Model 9
Table 2: Data Sources 43
Table A1: Interview Protocol 129

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD, 2020) reported that racial and
ethnic disproportionality in special education is a significant problem, as documented by years of
research. In an education setting, significant disproportionality refers to pervasive trends of
inequities related to “students of certain racial and ethnic groups being identified for special
education, placed in more restrictive educational settings, and disciplined at markedly higher
rates than their peers” (NCLD, 2020, p. 1). Significant disproportionality in education can also
affect school discipline in terms of suspension and expulsion rates. However, this study
examined an intervention focused on addressing disproportionality related to the identification of
Latinx students in special education. Overall, trends in inequalities among students of color have
led to legislation and state initiatives requiring disproportionate representation to be addressed.
A local education agency can be identified as significantly disproportionate when it
overidentifies students of a specific race and/or ethnicity in one or more of the following special
education categories: discipline (e.g., suspension and expulsion); placement, Indicator 9
(disproportionality overall), and Indicator 10 (disproportionality by disability). Once a school
district is found to have disproportional representation for any racial or ethnic group, it is subject
to state accountability and required to participate in the compliance and improvement monitoring
process. One K–12 district in California, herein assigned the pseudonym Applied School District
(ASD), was initially identified as experiencing significant disproportionality during fiscal year
2020. In the 2021–2022 academic term, the district was again identified as such because its
Hispanic students were overidentified under the special education eligibility category of specific
learning disability (SLD; California Department of Education [CDE], 2021). This dissertation
focused on evaluating the ASD’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) as
2

part of its plan to address significant disproportionality. This included allocation of resources
toward intervention efforts that directly supported ASD’s Latinx and English language learner
students.
The ASD is “required to take mandatory actions including, but not limited to, reserving
15 percent of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds to develop and
implement a Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS) plan and provide
CCEIS services” (CDE, 2022, para. 1). These resources are aimed at addressing root causes to
reduce disproportionality and overall special education referrals. The CCEIS plan includes
various focus areas (e.g., stakeholder input, root cause analysis, plan for improvement, and
budget allocation) intended to address implementation, evaluation, and sustaining of action plan
items. The district’s CCEIS plan gathered relevant qualitative and quantitative data to determine
the root cause of disproportionality. Its findings determined that inconsistencies in MTSS
implementation and bilingual and culture-free assessment methods contributed to district-wide
disproportionality. The district used these findings to guide decision making and allocated
resources to implement a district-wide MTSS as part of the CCEIS action plan.
Research has found that implementing a school-wide MTSS can enhance social-
emotional, behavioral, and academic achievement as its aim is to address students’ needs from a
whole-child perspective (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Sailor et al., 2021). In addition, since
MTSS is rooted in proactive and preventative instructional practices, it might reduce special
education referrals. This reduction would be achieved by focusing on evidence-based early
intervention practices in the general education setting (Sailor, 2012). Researcher supports these
claims by providing empirical evidence for positive increases of 20% to 40% in benchmark
testing scores and formative assessments, a decrease in special education referrals by 50%, and
3

an increase in appropriate special education referrals (Algozzine et al., 2008; Burns et al., 2005;
Foorman et al., 1998; Harlacher et al., 2014; Marchand-Martell et al., 2007; Sailor et al., 2012;
VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). Implementing an integrated MTSS has become increasingly
popular due to evidence supporting positive student outcomes and California’s Scaling Up
MTSS Statewide Initiative. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASD’s integrated
MTSS framework to learn more about barriers and facilitators during the first year of
implementation. In addition, this study highlighted additional observations related to MTSS
implementation and its emerging impact on the rate of Latinx special education
disproportionality in the ASD.
Overview of the MTSS Framework at ASD
According to the CDE (2020), MTSS is defined as “a comprehensive framework that
focuses on Common Core State Standards, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-
centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all
students’ academic, behavioral, and social success” (para. 2). The MTSS is intended to align
various initiatives and school-wide supports under one framework to address academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral needs. The California MTSS goal is to ensure equitable opportunities
for all students and increase students’ access while serving them in their least restrictive
environment (CDE, 2020). Overall, MTSS has a broad scope and aligns various initiatives and
school-wide supports. The ASD uses this framework to align initiatives and create a system that
proactively supports students.
Other ASD initiatives, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and creating a more
systematic district-wide student study team (SST) process, support the MTSS rollout. In
addition, the ASD hired additional school counselors and intervention teachers. These activities
4

and action plans were introduced through various professional development opportunities to
address the significant disproportionality of Latinx students identified for special education.
During the 2021–2022 school year, ASD is focusing its professional development on a
few major areas to address evidence-based instructional practices under the MTSS framework.
These best practices include increasing school counselors to one at each school to address social-
emotional learning, a UDL committee working with an external consultant, and a district-wide
SST process that will be followed at each school. The UDL external consultant met with the
UDL committee throughout the 2021–2022 school year to follow a trainer-of-trainers model. The
external consultant was also a keynote speaker during the first district-wide professional
development day. Redesigning the SST process will include a leadership retreat with site
principals, site-level and district-wide professional development, and the rollout of the SST. The
district also hired additional intervention teachers, including an English learners’ teacher on
special assignment. The district’s demographics and organizational mission are provided for
additional context and background.
District Demographics
The ASD provides public education to students from kindergarten through 12th grade,
including students with disabilities. Student demographics at ASD are such that 51.4% of
students are Asian, 38.2% are of Hispanic background, 3.5% are White, 2.2% are two or more
races, 2% are Filipino, 0.9% are African American, 0.2% are Pacific Islander, and 0.1% are
American Indian. In addition, 56.6% of students are identified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged, 23.3% are identified as English learners, 10.4% are students with disabilities,
0.6% are homeless, and 0.3% of students are foster youth. The ASD’s educational settings
include general education, general education with specialized academic instruction, mild-
5

moderate special day class, moderate-severe special day class, and an autism-focused special day
class. The district’s organizational mission, in partnership with the community, is to prepare
students for their future as productive citizens and lifelong learners. In addition, the organization
shares a commitment to a balanced curriculum, supportive programs and practices, and an
environment that encourages students to reach their maximum potential.
Evaluation Questions
The following evaluation questions were explored in this formative evaluation to improve
program outcomes and reach ASD’s intended objectives:
1. To what extent was the MTSS initiative implemented during the 2021–2022 school
year?
2. What were stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the factors that facilitated the
implementation of MTSS?
3. What were stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the challenges to the implementation
of MTSS?
This study used qualitative methods to answer the evaluation questions. This
methodology included gathering information from staff interviews and existing data, such as
training exit surveys and artifacts.
Importance of the Evaluation
Evaluation of the MTSS rollout is important as improved outcomes could have a long-
term impact on the significant disproportionality rates among ASD’s special education
population, especially for historically marginalized populations. The consequences of not
effectively addressing this issue could be that other student populations could be inappropriately
referred to and qualified for special education, denying them their right to service in their least
6

restrictive environment. In addition, Skiba et al. (2016) described “group misrepresentation,
stigmatization, and potential heightening of racial segregation” as consequences for historically
unserved populations who also face systemic injustices regarding educational opportunities (p.
221). The literature further highlights the need for future researchers to look beyond blaming
students and schools and focus on educational inequities (Artiles, 2001; Skiba et al., 2016).
Currently, ASD is on the threshold of reaching significant disproportionality in the area of
Hispanic students under the special eligibility category of other health impairment, meaning
there may be even more at stake for future Latinx populations in this district. Addressing special
education disproportionality for Latinx students is also significant from a historical context.
Latinx students have historically been over-represented in both special education
eligibility categories and school discipline (Moreno & Segura-Herra, 2014). Trends among
Latinx students show they are more likely to be identified for special education under the
eligibility category of an SLD (Elder et al., 2019). In addition, the National Center for
Educational Statistics (2021) found that Latinx students account for 77.6% of the total English
learner population in U.S. public schools. This finding warrants special attention when
considering disproportionality in special education. Implications can include some of these
students appearing to have a disability when deficit areas may actually be related to their English
abilities (Abedi, 2006). The data and research findings are meaningful to the application of
special education assessment practices from a cultural lens.
Latinx students have also been subject to culturally insensitive practices, including biased
referrals for special education services and mislabeled identification of special education
eligibility (Moreno & Segura-Herra, 2014). These negative school experiences may affect
students’ ability to see a future for themselves, which can hinder their high school performance
7

and higher education opportunities (Moreno & Segura-Herra, 2014; NCLD, 2017). In addition,
there can be harmful social-emotional consequences due to cultural perceptions surrounding
disabilities and mental health as embarrassing or shameful, resulting in delays in assistance
(Bernstein et al., 2020; NCLD, 2017; Pavri & Luftig, 2001). The NCLD (2017) also cautioned
that disproportionality in subjective disability categories could be susceptible to biased
assessment practices due to being determined by professional opinion. Students who are
misidentified for special education are at risk of decreased academic exposure, less access to
academic rigor, being held to lower academic standards and expectations, and fewer
postsecondary education opportunities (National Education Association, 2007). In addition, they
might experience social-emotional consequences related to lower self-esteem, stigma, and
negative perceptions (Pavri & Luftig, 2001). Evidence also suggests misidentified students are
unlikely to be dismissed from special education services once they have been found eligible
(National Education Association, 2008). These risks can be further exacerbated by complex
issues related to intersectionality, as includes students of color identified for special education
might also identify with multiple historically oppressed social identities.
It is imperative that the aforementioned social inequalities be addressed to create more
equitable educational opportunities for historically marginalized student populations.
Implementing the fundamental principles and components of MTSS with fidelity is a possible
solution to ASD’s organizational problem. The district’s long-term objectives and intended
organizational impact are to reduce the disproportionate rate of Latinx students who are
identified for special education with an SLD. This program evaluation can be beneficial in
helping ASD reach short and long-term goal objectives to address significant disproportionality.

8

Evaluation Approach
A program theory approach guides the evaluation of ASD’s MTSS. Although there are
many terms utilized interchangeably in evaluation science, Donaldson (2007) noted that a
“typical application involves using program theory to define and prioritize evaluation questions,
and uses scientific methods to answer those questions” (p. 10). The intention of theory-based
evaluation is to explain and uncover the principal assumptions behind how a program expects to
produce intended results or outcomes (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). Program theory’s priorities are
rooted in a problem-solving approach intended to “develop and improve programs” (Donaldson,
2007, p. 10). Therefore, evaluation questions are intended to answer questions that might apply
to a program’s potential stakeholders (Alkin & Vo, 2018). Data collected during evaluation can
be used to shape decision making and future directions, professional development, stakeholder
engagement, and accountability efforts (Donaldson, 2007).
The evaluation conducted in this study was guided by a logic model as described by the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). A logic model illustrates the organizational resources and
inputs allocated to a program, the activities the organization plans to implement, and the
expected results. This depiction helps explicitly state a program’s theory of change and how each
component is expected to work towards accomplishing the program’s mission or intended
outcomes (Mertens & Wilson, 2012). A logic model is appropriate for this study because it
helped create a shared understanding of the MTSS process, actions, and results at ASD. This
study may ultimately benefit the organization’s mission by helping to engage stakeholders and
facilitate decision making to create long-term and meaningful change. In addition, since the
district’s MTSS will be ongoing, with both short-term and long-term goals, this evaluation can
help identify future directions to ensure short-term objectives are also met. The resources,
9

activities, outputs, short- and long-term outcomes, and impact are depicted in the logic model
(Table 1).

Table 1
Multi-Tiered System of Supports Logic Model
Resources+ Activities Outputs Short- &
long-term
outcomes
Impact
To accomplish
our set of
activities, we
will need the
following:
To address our
problem or
asset, we will
conduct the
following
activities:
We expect that
once
completed or
underway,
these activities
will produce
the following
evidence of
service
delivery:

We expect that if
completed or
ongoing, these
activities will
lead to the
following
changes in 1–
3, then 4–6
years:
We expect that
if completed,
these
activities will
lead to the
following
changes in 7–
10 years:
District staff
(e.g.,
educational
services staff)

Teachers

Intervention
teachers (e.g.,
English
language arts,
math, English
learner
teachers on
special
assignment)

Coordinator of
English
Activities during
first year of
MTSS:

Leadership
retreat

Leadership
MTSS training
(training of
trainers)

Train teachers
and
administrators
to understand
how to
disaggregate
data
Number of
district-wide
training
opportunities
(e.g., district
staff
development,
principal’s
meetings, site-
specific
training
monthly, UDL
training)

Attendance at
training
(attendance
logs)

Short-term
outcomes:

Increased
teacher and
administrator
knowledge
regarding
MTSS, tiered
continuum of
intervention
and support,
data-based
decision
making, and
problem
solving using
evidence-
based
interventions

Improvement in
ASD’s rate of
significant
disproportion
ality in
special
education
eligibility and
decrease in
special
education
referrals.
10

Resources+ Activities Outputs Short- &
long-term
outcomes
Impact
Learner
supports

Service
providers

District funds to
support the
initiative

External
consultants

Support staff
(e.g.,
counselors,
psychologists,
district social
workers,
board-certified
behavior
analysts)
Develop SST
referral guide
and train
stakeholders

Train teachers
and
administrators
on UDL and
MTSS

Train special
education
assessors in
the area of
bilingual
assessments

Train all district
staff in the
area of
implicit bias
and cultural
awareness.

Universal
screening
across school
sites using the
Behavior and
Emotional
Screening
System
(BESS)
Stakeholder
satisfaction
with training
(exit surveys)

Training
materials and
resources
Increased staff
self-efficacy
regarding data
use,
assessment,
and support
strategies

Increased
motivation and
commitment
to teach
students in the
least
restrictive
environment

Teachers,
administrators
and support
staff will
increase their
use of student
data as an
objective
measure to
determine
students’
ongoing needs,
response to
intervention,
and progress
toward
measurable
goals

Implementation
of the district-
wide SST
process with
fidelity
11

Resources+ Activities Outputs Short- &
long-term
outcomes
Impact
Long-term
outcomes
Decreased
number of
students
referred for
special
education
assessment

Improvements in
academic
performance

Decreased
number of
office
discipline
referrals

Improvements in
student
belonging and
social-
emotional
well-being

Decreased
number of
SST referrals

Table 1 illustrates the key components of ASD’s rollout of MTSS. The logic model
depicts the resources that might be needed, activities that will be conducted, the expected
evidence of service delivery, short- and long-term outcomes, and organizational impact. This
evaluation focused on ASD’s first year of MTSS and the implementation, specifically, which is
12

most closely associated with resources, activities, and outputs. To accomplish the activities
planned during the first year, the district allocated educational services staff, teachers and
additional intervention teachers, and an English learner coordinator. It also contracted with
service providers like learning center teachers and speech and language pathologists. In addition,
it allocated district funds to support the initiative, including professional development
opportunities and external consultants, support staff such as school psychologists and a board-
certified behavior analyst (BCBA), and additional school counselors.
Activities during the first year include a leadership retreat planned before the 2021–2022
school year. This retreat included various members of upper management, site principals, school
psychologists and the district’s BCBA. The intention of the leadership retreat was to introduce
the district’s focus on MTSS for the upcoming school year, along with some of the planned
activities and timelines. These activities included site-level training conducted by each school’s
principal to introduce various components of the initiative, with the intention of site principals’
being able to tailor professional development to their specific staff and site needs. Additional
activities proposed by ASD, as depicted in Table 1, included training staff to disaggregate data;
Tier I intervention training, including UDL committee with an external consultant; professional
development on the principles of MTSS; bilingual assessment training, including implicit bias
and cultural awareness; development of SST referral guide to be used district-wide; and district-
wide universal screening assessments. The activities proposed by ASD were intended to produce
specific outputs and to achieve short- and long-term outcomes.
Once proposed activities illustrated in Table 1 were underway, they were expected to
produce the following evidence of service delivery: district-wide professional development days
and monthly site training, gathering of stakeholders’ satisfaction with training via exit surveys,
13

and attendance at training noted in attendance logs and training materials and resources. These
outputs will lead to short-term outcomes over the next 1 to 3 years. Short-term outcomes include
increased teacher and administrator knowledge regarding tiered intervention, data-based decision
making, and problem solving using evidence-based interventions. There will also be increased
staff self-efficacy regarding data use, assessment, and support strategies. Also, motivation and
commitment to teach students in the least restrictive environment will increase. Teachers,
administrators and support staff members’ use of student data as an objective measure of
students’ ongoing needs, response to intervention, and progress toward measurable goals will
also increase. Lastly, implementation of the district-wide SST process will occur with fidelity.
Long-term outcomes are expected to occur in 4 to 6 years and include improved student
academic performance, fewer office discipline referrals, and improved social-emotional well-
being among students. If completed, these activities will imrpve the ASD’s rate of significant
disproportionality in and referrals to special education. Although the logic model in Table 1
provides an overview of the theory of change associated with ASD’s MTSS implementation, the
evaluation in this dissertation only focused on the first year of implementation and the resources,
activities, and outputs associated with the first year.
Definitions
The key concepts presented are significant disproportionality, least restrictive
environment, historically underserved groups, and risk ratio. These key concepts help provide a
foundation and integral understanding of the problem of practice.
Significant disproportionality: Significant disproportionality was previously defined as
pervasive trends of inequities related to “students of certain racial and ethnic groups being
14

identified for special education, placed in more restrictive educational settings, and disciplined at
markedly higher rates than their peers” (NCLD, 2020, p. 1).
Least restrictive environment: refers to the least restrictive environment. Heumann and
Hehir (19940 stated,
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must educate students with
disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and supports, referred to as
“supplementary aids and services,” along with their nondisabled peers in the school they
would attend if not disabled. (p. 18)
Historically underserved groups: can be used “to describe students from diverse racial,
cultural, linguistic, and economically disadvantaged backgrounds who have experienced
sustained school failure over time” (Artiles et al., 2010, p. 279).
Risk ratio: “compares a racial/ethnic group’s risk of receiving special education and
related services to the risk for a comparison group” (Bollmer et al., 2007, p. 187).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters: introduction to the study, literature review,
methodology, findings, and recommendations. Chapter One introduces the problem of practice,
an overview of MTSS at ASD, and the study’s purpose. In addition, it states the study’s
evaluation questions and the evaluation approach, including the logic model and importance of
the evaluation, are described. Chapter Two provides a synthesis of literature related to the
problem of practice and MTSS, including the background and context of disproportionality in
special education and current strategies to address the problem. Chapter Two defines MTSS and
describes the principles of tiered intervention. The five core components of MTSS, along with
factors that lead to successful implementation, are also presented in the literature review. Chapter
15

Two concludes with a discussion of challenges to MTSS implementation and a summary of the
chapter. Chapter Three describes the methodology, including an overview of the design, data
sources, and data analysis. Chapter Four reviews the study’s findings, and Chapter Five suggests
recommendations for future practice and research based on those findings.
16

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASD’s integrated MTSS framework to
learn more about barriers and facilitators during the first year of implementation. This literature
review will provide an overview of the background and context related to significant
disproportionality in special education. This includes history related to disproportionality and
legislative changes that increase accountability and monitoring of school districts. This chapter
will also include an overview of MTSS, including its core components. The chapter will
conclude with a review of factors that lead to successful MTSS implementation and potential
challenges to this implementation.
Background and Context of the Problem of Practice
The problem of practice is significant disproportionality in special education in K–12
public education. Dunn (1968) is credited with being the first to formally present the problem of
disproportionality in special education literature (Sullivan & Bal, 2013; Sullivan & Osher, 2019;
Connor et al., 2019). Since Dunn’s initial spotlight on the issue, the literature and federal policies
and laws demonstrate that significant disproportionality in special education remains a problem
(Connor et al., 2019).
Over recent decades, the U.S. Congress made various attempts to rectify racial
disparities. In 1997, the IDEA was amended to require data gathering and monitoring of
disproportionality in special education (Albrecht et al., 2021). The data and monitoring included
student identification categories, discipline, and placement to determine disproportionality rates
based on race and ethnicity (IDEA, 2019). In 2004, Congress reauthorized IDEA and provisions
were made due to biased practices related to qualifying students for special education,
particularly in the area of specific learning disabilities (Gresham, 2007; McIntosh & Steve,
17

2016). The revisions to federal legislation allowed states to make special education eligibility
decisions about identifying students with learning disabilities based on students’ responses to
evidence-based interventions (Golloher et al., 2018; IDEA, 2004; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016;
Wexler, 2018; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010).
Prior to these revisions, schools used a wait-to-fail approach that compared cognitive
ability to academic achievement (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; McIntosh et al., 2008). This approach
often prevented students from receiving necessary support and, instead, allowed learning gaps to
widen prior to interventions. The ability-achievement discrepancy model delayed assessment and
services for specific learning disabilities until students’ significant delays were observed, which
often resulted in further challenges for them (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Wexler, 2018).
Along with the revisions to legislation in 2004 came response to intervention (RtI), positive
behavior interventions and supports (PBIS), and ultimately MTSS. All three of these frameworks
support utilizing an early intervention approach to addressing student needs in an education
setting. In addition, all three frameworks utilize a tiered approach to intervention.
Tiered interventions emerged in the literature through two primary subjects of research
(Sailor et al., 2018; Sailor et al., 2021). The primary areas focused on behaviors that impede
learning and academic challenges related to reading competency (Horner et al., 1990; Deno,
2005; Fuchs et al., 2007). Behavior instruction research, funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, originated at the University of Oregon in the 1980s and eventually evolved into what
is now known as PBIS (Horner et al., 1990). The Office of Special Education Programs supports
PBIS, which is used nationally and internationally as an evidence-based practice to address
student behavior and social-emotional needs in an education setting (Horner & McIntosh, 2016;
Sugai et al., 2000). On the other hand, a tiered academic approach to intervention was developed
18

from research conducted at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas Center for
Research on Learning and later became a primary factor in establishing a learning disability
eligibility (Sailor et al., 2018, Deno, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2007). This research is known as RtI and
emerged from a need to have a more stringent process for determining the eligibility of specific
learning disabilities for special education (Sailor et al., 2018; Sailor et al., 2021). Both PBIS and
RtI will be further discussed later in this chapter.
The combining of tiered interventions under the framework of MTSS was first
documented in 2008 by the Kansas State Department of Education (Sailor et al., 2018; Sailor et
al., 2021). This initiative integrated academic, behavior and social-emotional interventions under
one framework to address student needs from a whole-child approach. A whole-child approach
to intervention may improve proportionality in education in a number of ways. However, the
research highlights a need to further examine strategies that can improve proportionality in
special education specifically.
Existing Strategies to Address Disproportionality
Disproportionality issues can affect schools and districts in terms of academic
achievement, discipline and suspension rates, and special education eligibility. However, there is
a need for additional research on special education disproportionality. Literature
recommendations for viable means to address the problem of disproportionality of students with
disabilities were further examined as part of this literature review. However, much of the
research on this topic offered potential recommendations and suggestions for practice rather than
empirical evidence related to effective solutions. This lack of evidence highlights a significant
gap in the literature that is important to address. Future research is needed to examine the
effectiveness of the proposed solutions.
19

Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al. (2017) highlighted the need for further research on
disproportionality that considers culture and specific environmental contexts due to the complex
nature of the problem. In addition, they suggested that systemic issues cannot be solved with
individualized strategies alone without considering culture and context. Additional researchers
echoed the importance of culturally responsive teaching and assessing schools’ culturally
responsive practices (Fiedler et al., 2008; Griner & Stewart, 2013; Kramarczuk Voulgarides et
al., 2017; Shealey et al., 2011). It is also suggested that culturally responsive teaching practices
be embedded throughout all tiers of RtI (Harris-Murri, 2006). The literature suggests using
universal screening data as another beneficial tool in addressing disproportionality.
Loftus-Rattan et al. (2021) recommended using universal screening data to identify
potential inequalities related to disproportionality. This can be accomplished by evaluating
existing data trends by “subpopulations (e.g., racially minoritized students, bilingual or
multilingual learners, students with various disabilities, economically vulnerable students, etc.)”
(Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021, p. 6). Analyzing and monitoring data trends can be a proactive
approach to addressing systemic issues related to inequitable practices within educational
settings. Once concerns with inequitable instruction, practices, or policies are uncovered,
leadership teams can initiate a problem-solving process to address potential areas of
disproportionality. This may include problem solving that strategically addresses a specific area
of disproportionality, such as special education or school discipline.
Gregory et al. (2010) proposed that academic and behavioral disproportionality are likely
correlated. Thus, an increased achievement gap may result in increased challenging behavior
motivated by escape or avoidance of academic demands (McIntosh et al., 2008). An integrated
MTSS framework and PBIS have been found to decrease discipline and achievement disparities
20

(McIntosh & Steve, 2016; Vincent et al., 2011). In addition, MTSS paired with UDL has been
shown to increase special education inclusion and decrease inappropriate student referrals for
special education (Sailor, 2012; Sailor et al., 2021). UDL is an educational framework that
incorporates various instructional strategies and flexible ways for students to show what they
have learned to accommodate their unique learning needs within the classroom setting. This
evidence-based practice will be reviewed in further detail later in this chapter. This study will
focus on MTSS as a potential initiative to decrease disproportionality in special education.
Therefore, MTSS will be explored further as part of this literature review. This chapter will
include an overview of MTSS and its key components.
Defining MTSS
The MTSS framework provides a foundation to strategically support equitable learning
opportunities for all students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Sailor et al., 2021; Stoiber, 2014).
The goal of MTSS is to meet individual students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional
needs, ultimately improving outcomes for all students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016, Sailor et al.,
2021; Wexler, 2018). With a focus on prevention, MTSS relies on data to ensure students receive
quality instruction across all learning domains (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Wexler, 2018).
Since MTSS was introduced, many states have adopted this initiative to improve educational
practices within their school systems and guide reform (Sailor et al., 2021; Wexler, 2018).
The MTSS framework also actively aims to meet students’ needs while focusing on
inclusive practices to create equitable opportunities for culturally, racially, and linguistically
diverse populations (Kozleski & Waitoller, 2010; Choi et al., 2019). Due to its focus on equity
and inclusion, MTSS has also served as a viable solution to state accountability measures
requiring schools to allocate 15% of their special education funds to address early intervention
21

practices. This shift in educational policy focuses on preventative instructional practices. The
roots of MTSS are based on key principal assumptions and essential components. Although there
is evidence to support the implementation of MTSS in school settings, this framework is not
without criticism.
A criticism regarding policy and procedure, found in the literature, highlights the lack of
guidance on recommended MTSS process and guidelines for implementation (Arden &
Pentimonti, 2017; Balu et al., 2015; Hauerwas et al., 2013; VanDerHeyden et al., 2016). In
addition, models across states and districts can vary in approach and service delivery (Carta &
Miller Young, 2019). Although the literature varies regarding key principles and components,
similarities were also noted. One significant area of agreement is the concept of a continuum of
supports or tiered interventions. In addition, agreements were found in regard to MTSS
components. The following sections will review tiered interventions and the most commonly
recognized core components that drive the MTSS framework.
Tiered Interventions
Rooted in the delivery of evidence-based practices, MTSS is an integrative framework
that addresses student educational needs using tiered interventions. These interventions
encompass academic, behavior and social-emotional practices addressing educational needs from
a whole-child approach using data-driven decision making and problem solving (Sailor et al.,
2021). Academic support strategies are generally aligned with RtI, while behavior and social-
emotional supports are typically aligned with PBIS (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Stoiber, 2014;
Wexler, 2018). MTSS includes three tiers of intervention that systematically increase student
support based on student progress or lack thereof. Tier I interventions and supports are universal
support strategies intended to address all students (Sailor et al., 2021). However, some students
22

may require additional Tier II supports, which are targeted interventions intended to
systematically address students’ needs strategically and meaningfully (Sailor et al., 2021). Tier
III interventions are reserved for students who need more intensive intervention and/or are not
responding to Tier I and II interventions (Sailor et al., 2021). As student needs are systematically
targeted, additional interventions are meant to supplement support, not replace it (Carta & Miller
Young, 2019; Fletcher & Vaugn, 2009; Witzel & Clarke, 2015).
With MTSS, evidence-based interventions are meant to be more intensive as students
move through the tiers, but they should continue to receive Tier I supports as additional
strategies are implemented (Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Tiers are not
locations or meant to remove support as tiered intervention increases. Furthermore, appropriate
evidence-based practices should be selected to address each student’s needs. These evidence-
based practices should be based on the fundamental principles of UDL, differentiated instruction,
and culturally responsive teaching (Sailor et al., 2021). The structure and principal assumptions
underlying each intervention tier will be reviewed in further detail.
Tier I Interventions
Tier I strategies should include universal screening and progress monitoring as well as
differentiated instruction, which should be included at all levels (Coffee et al., 2013; Witzel &
Clarke, 2015). Universal screening and progress monitoring help ensure that all students receive
high-quality instruction using evidence-based supports and strategies (Sailor et al., 2021). Tier I
should also include an evidence-based, comprehensive, and standards-based curriculum (Burns
& VanDerHeyden, 2016; Coffee et al., 2013; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Universal screening is
used to identify students who may be struggling as well as those who are making acceptable
grade-level progress (Coffee et al., 2013). The literature on MTSS maintains that, when
23

evidence-based strategies are implemented with fidelity, Tier I instructional practices should
adequately address 80% of students’ needs (Coffee et al., 2013; Harlacher et al., 2014, Loftus-
Rattan, 2021; Torgesen, 2000; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). As such, Tier I is considered the most
important component of the MTSS framework in some of the literature, as its aim should be to
address the majority of students’ needs (Riccomini & Witzel, 2010; Wanzek et al., 2014).
Witzel and Clarke (2015) suggested instructional practices be evaluated and revised if
less than 80% of students are not making progress without the need for more intensive
interventions. In addition, it is recommended that revisions to Tier I practices be considered prior
to implementing more intensive Tier II and Tier III interventions. Loftus-Rattan et al. (2021)
noted that it is particularly important to implement “high-quality and evidence-based Tier I
practices” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that inequities and school-based
struggles have only increased during this time (p. 4). If data and progress monitoring provide
evidence that a student is not making progress from Tier I instructional supports, then Tier II
interventions and instructional strategies should be considered.
Tier II Interventions
Tier II interventions should not replace Tier I supports; instead, they should supplement
instructional strategies by systematically targeting areas of need. These decisions to increase
tiered support are made by monitoring student progress using data-based decision making and
problem solving. Tier II instructional interventions should also include more intensive support
strategies. These may include delivering additional support in the general education setting to
small groups of students who have been identified as at risk (Coffee et al., 2013; Loftus-Rattan,
2021). Small-group intervention should be strategically delivered based on the individual
student’s needs. For example, the student may participate in small-group intervention targeting
24

reading, math, or social skills (Loftus-Rattan, 2021). In addition, students receiving Tier II
interventions should receive more frequent progress monitoring, at least once a month in most
cases, and school staff should work collaboratively with students’ families (Coffee et al., 2013).
When schools implement MTSS interventions consistently and with fidelity, approximately 15 %
of students may continue to need Tier II instructional supports (Coffee et al., 2013; Harlacher et
al., 2014; Loftus-Rattan, 2021; Torgesen, 2000; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). If data and progress
monitoring provide evidence that a student is not making progress from Tier I and Tier II
supports, then Tier III interventions and instructional strategies should be considered.
Tier III Interventions
Tier III interventions are delivered along with Tier I and Tier II interventions. Tier III
supports may be delivered in small groups or one-on-one (Coffee, 2013; Loftus-Rattan, 2021).
These interventions may also include increasing the duration and frequency of interventions
implemented as Tier II supports to intensify the instructional interventions (Witzel & Clarke,
2015). Furthermore, Tier III interventions will continue to focus on individual needs and may
target academic, behavioral, and/or social-emotional concerns (Loftus-Rattan, 2021). When
implementing an effective MTSS program, schools should expect that less than 5 % of students
would continue to need more intensive supports in the form of Tier III interventions (Coffee et
al., 2013; Harlacher et al., 2014; Loftus-Rattan, 2021; Sailor et al., 2021, Torgesen, 2000; Witzel
& Clarke, 2015). When a student needs this level of intervention, a comprehensive educational
evaluation may be conducted to determine if the needs are a result of a disability or if the student
requires more specific educational supports and/or services; however, receiving Tier III supports
does not always result in a student being found eligible for special education (Coffee et al.,
2013). Embedded in each of the tiered interventions is the use of common MTSS components
25

guided by fundamental principles. The following MTSS components are foundational and most
commonly recognized as basic tenets across the literature.
Core Components of MTSS
The foundation of MTSS is based on fundamental principles, guiding assumptions, and
beliefs regarding student achievement and intervention practices. Although the literature does not
specify a uniform way to implement MTSS, there is some agreement surrounding core
components and themes. The following core components were among those that were
consistently found across the literature: universal screening, progress monitoring, use of
evidence-based strategies and interventions, data-driven decision making and problem solving,
and intervention fidelity (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Choi et al., 2019; Coffee et al., 2013;
Cook et al., 2010; Eagle et al., 2015; Freeman et al., 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Wexler,
2018). These essential elements should be incorporated throughout all tiers of support (McIntosh
& Goodman, 2016; Sailor et al., 2021, Wexler, 2018). Some literature noted the tiers of support,
which utilize a continuum of evidence-based interventions, as additional core components (Choi
et al., 2019; Wexler, 2018). The following sections describe the five main components of MTSS,
their significance, and their essential functions will be in further detail.
Universal Screening
Universal screening is an essential feature of MTSS, and using it as a tool throughout all
tiers of support is suggested as a best practice (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Universal
screening measures should also be utilized across learning domains to address each component
of the whole child. To accomplish this, specific screening tools designed to gather information
about each learning domain should be employed. Although not an exhaustive list of examples,
the following are common universal screening practices of MTSS. Academic universal screening
26

typically involves using curriculum-based measurements (Albers & Kettler, 2014; Harlacher et
al., 2014; Hixson et al., 2014; Shinn, 2008), whereas screening methods for social-emotional and
behavior may include monitoring office discipline referrals or having teachers complete a brief
screener (Albers & Kettler, 2014; Harlacher et al., 2014; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007;
McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Wexler, 2018). However, Wexler (2018) suggested that universal
social-emotional and behavior screening methods are not as advanced as universal academic
screening tools. Universal screeners provide valuable data benchmarks which provide a
foundation for the other major components of MTSS, and screeners are used to identify specific
student needs and supports (Wexler, 2018).
All forms of universal screening tools serve as a way to help with the early identification
of at-risk students, provide important information regarding student performance, and help
determine if they are meeting academic, behavioral, and social-emotional expectations (Choi et
al., 2019; Wexler, 2018). Loftus-Rattan et al. (2021) further suggested that leadership teams can
use universal screening data to identify Tier I issues related to inequity and disproportionality.
This can be accomplished by analyzing data “by various subpopulations (e.g., racially
minoritized students, bilingual or multilingual learners, students with various disabilities,
economically vulnerable students, etc.)” (p. 6). Universal screening measures should be
conducted multiple times in a school year as a proactive and preventative strategy (Carta &
Miller Young, 2019; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Harlacher et al. (2014) recommended
screening all students “at least three times a year using reliable and valid measures that are
efficient, yet predictive of general outcomes” (p. 30).
Universal screening should be conducted for all students to determine areas of concern
for at-risk students (Eagle et al., 2015; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Screening should also be targeted
27

across domains such as academics, behavior, and social-emotional areas of need (McIntosh &
Goodman, 2016). The data gathered during these screenings are used to identify students who
may need additional assistance and those who may be at academic, behavioral, and/or social-
emotional risk (Harlacher, 2014). Another important use of the screening process is to ensure
that appropriate evidence-based instructional practices are being implemented (Sailor et al.,
2021). Universal screening also helps determine if most students are responding to core
instructional practices and is a beneficial tool for progress monitoring (Carta & Miller Young,
2019; Harlacher et al., 2014; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The importance of progress
monitoring in MTSS will be discussed further.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is an important component of MTSS that guides the decision-
making process and is integrated across all tiers of intervention and support (Freeman et al.,
2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Similar to universal screening, progress monitoring should
be continuously used throughout the school year (Freeman et al., 2017). In addition, students
should receive more frequent progress monitoring as their level of risk increases and if they
receive more intensive tiered interventions and supports (Harlacher et al., 2014, Loftus-Rattan et
al., 2021). Research suggests weekly or bi-weekly progress monitoring, in the form of data
collection, for students receiving Tier II and Tier III supports be utilized in MTSS (Hixson et al.,
2014; Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021; Wexler, 2018). However, monthly progress monitoring may be
sufficient for students identified as solely at risk or receiving Tier I supports with some less
intensive supplemental Tier II interventions (Citation).
To determine whether students are making progress, data collected during progress
monitoring will be examined after 6 weeks or longer to determine effectiveness (Christ et al.,
28

2013; Hixson et al., 2014; Shapiro, 2013; Shapiro & Guard, 2014). Progress monitoring is
essential when determining if a student is making adequate growth compared to their universal
screening benchmarks, baseline data, and/or progress on goals, especially if supplemental
supports and interventions are being implemented (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Shapiro &
Guard, 2014). Progress monitoring can help evaluate whether evidence-based supports and
interventions adequately address students’ needs (Sailor et al., 2021; Shapiro & Guard, 2014). If
it is determined that the strategies and interventions are not addressing students’ areas of growth,
then additional problem solving and instructional modifications will need to be incorporated to
support progress toward benchmark goals (Harlacher, 2014; Wexler, 2018). This may also
include analyzing whether the intensity of interventions is effective or whether additional
services need to be introduced (Coffee et al., 2013; Wexler, 2018).
In the literature, progress monitoring was occasionally paired with either universal
screening or data-based decision making as one component (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Choi
et al., 2019; Coffee et al., 2013; Eagle et al., 2015; Sailor et al., 2021). These processes are often
intertwined, complementary or even dependent on each other in the broader picture and function
of MTSS as a whole. Data-based decision making and problem solving will be explored further
in the next section of this literature review.
Data-Driven Decision Making and Problem Solving
Data-based decision making and problem solving are other core components intertwined
throughout all tiers of support and intervention (Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021; McIntosh &
Goodman, 2016). These are essential features of MTSS since student data should guide
educational decision making and problem-solving strategies to increase student outcomes.
Harlacher et al. (2014) and Wexler (2018) expanded on the importance of data, emphasizing it
29

should be should also be used to align curriculum and instruction to assessment, guide
instructional practices, allocate resources, increase prevention efforts and school-wide programs,
drive professional development decisions, and determine the effectiveness of practices in
schools. Data sources in MTSS may include student universal screening data, progress
monitoring data and implementation fidelity data (Arden & Pentimonti, 2017; Eagle et al., 2015;
Freeman et al., 2017, Loftus-Rattan, 2021). The data can help identify struggling students, guide
intervention plan decisions, and determine which evidence-based practices would best meet a
student’s particular needs (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Freeman et al., 2017, Loftus-Rattan et
al., 2021). Identifying these students might require team-based decisions on the types of tiered
supports and services that would benefit the student.
Simply using data collection for accountability is inadequate; under the premise of
MTSS, data should provide evidence that student learning is occurring (DuFour, 2004).
However, even with the availability of various data sources, a significant area that continues to
need attention is the development of skills to interpret the data (Arden & Pentimonti, 2017).
Carta and Miller Young (2019) also suggested having policies and procedures to guide the
process of modifying interventions. Furthermore, systems should outline how adjustments will
be considered based on students’ RtIs that are in place at the time of progress monitoring. Data
use within an MTSS framework is also based on a problem-solving model (Coffee et al., 2013).
Problem solving using various types of data can be used to meet individual, classroom, school-
wide, and district-wide needs (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021; Pluymert,
2014; Wexler, 2018).
Erchul and Martens (2012) defined problem solving as a “systematic process, wherein an
issue of concern is identified, clarified, and analyzed to the point an appropriate strategy is
30

selected or devised and then implemented to address the problem” (p. 21). In an educational
setting, problem-solving typically occurs with an instructional team, such as an SST (Wexler,
2018). The problem-solving model originates from a behavioral consultation model, and its
essential components are also features of RtI and school-based behavior problem solving (Erchul
& Martens, 2012). The four stages of a problem-solving process are identifying and defining the
problem, problem analysis, intervention plan development and intervention plan implementation,
and problem evaluation or evaluation of RtI (Bergan, 1977; Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990; Carta
& Miller Young, 2019; Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021). Based on the evaluation of student progress
and RtI, further decisions can be made regarding program modifications using progress
monitoring data (Carta & Miller Young, 2019). The instructional team might then “modify,
continue or terminate” the student’s current intervention plan (Carta & Miller Young, 2019, p.
7). Within an MTSS, decision making and problem solving should incorporate evidence-based
interventions into student intervention plans. Evidence-based intervention frameworks
commonly incorporated into MTSS are UDL, RtI, PBIS, and social-emotional learning (SEL).
These interventions will be elaborated on further within the evidence-based interventions section
of this chapter.
Evidence-Based Interventions
Evidence-based strategies and interventions should also include instructional practices
that address inclusion and equitable practices, such as UDL, culturally responsive teaching,
inclusive assessment practices and differentiated instruction (Sailor et al., 2021). Evidence-based
practices, including other frameworks such as PBIS, can be utilized under the umbrella of
MTSS. An important component of MTSS is its focus on a continuum of evidence-based
instructional supports and practices integrated throughout all tiered interventions (Carta & Miller
31

Young, 2019; Choi et al., 2019; Cook et al., 2010; Eagle et al., 2015; Freeman et al., 2017;
Harlacher et al., 2014; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Sailor et al., 2021;
Sugai et al., 2000). Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are “instructional techniques that meet
prescribed criteria related to the research design, quality, quantity, and effect size of supporting
research, which have the potential to help bridge the research-to-practice gap and improve
student outcomes” (Cook & Cook, 2011, p. 73). At the root of MTSS is its emphasis on utilizing
research-based practices to improve student outcomes (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Sailor et al.,
2021; Wexler, 2018). Carta and Miller Young (2019) noted the literature on empirically
validated educational strategies intended to address the needs of “early education settings” (p. 4).
is limited. Harlacher et al. (2014) also highlighted a gap in the literature when it comes to the
application of EBPs in schools. However, a priority of MTSS is to ensure that EBPs are
integrated throughout all frameworks of support and tiered interventions. One important caveat
regarding the use of EBPs and their effectiveness towards positive student outcomes is that they
greatly depend on both quality and fidelity of implementation (Carta & Miller Young, 2019).
As part of best practices when implementing EBPs, fidelity data should be tracked to
ensure interventions and programs are implemented as intended. Implementation fidelity will be
explored in further detail in a later section of this literature review. A few main evidence-based
interventions are common staples within MTSS: UDL, RtI, PBIS, and SEL. These common
evidence-based interventions will be elaborated on in the next sections.
Universal Design for Learning. The MTSS framework supports the utilization of UDL
as part of best practices for delivering classroom instruction. Universal Design for Learning is an
equity-based inclusion practice that recommends differentiating instructional strategies to meet
students’ diverse needs (Choi et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2019; Nelson, 2014; Novak, 2014, Rose &
32

Meyer, 2002, Sailor & McCart, 2014). It is also a learning framework that consists of three core
principles. These learning guidelines are to provide students with multiple means of engagement,
multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression (Cast, 2018;
Levey, 2021). Multiple means of engagement refer to the various ways students can be engaged
in learning materials and motivated to learn. Multiple means of representation refer to various
ways students take in and understand information. Multiple means of action and expression refer
to the various ways students can show what they have learned and understood. Two peer-
reviewed meta-analyses provide empirical evidence for UDL practices effectively reducing
learning barriers and student stress, increasing student positive attitudes, increasing confidence
and engagement, and improving teacher and student relationships (Al-Azawei et al., 2016; Capp,
2017).
Response to Intervention. Throughout some of the literature, RtI and MTSS are used
interchangeably (Pullen & Kennedy, 2018). However, much of the current literature recognizes
MTSS as the umbrella term for an integrated framework of supports. In this literature review, RtI
will be reviewed as its own unique framework. The core components of RtI are its focus on how
students respond to intervention, progress monitoring, multiple tiers of instruction, and problem-
solving (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Its two primary functions, according to the literature, are to
assist in identifying learning disabilities and serve as a primary academic intervention and
framework (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). RtI benefits include improved literacy outcomes and
prevention resulting in less need for special education services and referrals (Fletcher & Vaughn,
2009).
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Similar to RtI and the overarching
MTSS framework, PBIS also uses a tiered approach to behavior intervention and student
33

supports (Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al., 2017). It is a framework that targets students’ social-
emotional and behavioral needs that emerged from federal policies enforcing more
accountability in how schools, districts, and states address disproportionate and inequitable
practices related to student discipline (Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al., 2017). The PBIS
framework has had positive effects on school culture, decreased challenging student behaviors
and bullying, reduced suspensions and expulsions, and increased positive academic outcomes
(Fairbanks et al., 2007; Leddy et al., 2004; Ingram et al., 2005; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016;
Nelson et al., 1996).
Social-Emotional Learning. Social-emotional learning is often included with PBIS and
behavior interventions. Over recent years there has been increasing empirical evidence showing
the positive effects of SEL programs on academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011; Sailor et al.,
2021). These findings include positive outcomes in positive social-emotional competencies and
attitudes about self, others and school; increased prosocial behaviors; reduced misconduct and
internalizing behaviors; and improved academic performance on achievement tests and grades.
Aligning SEL into a fully integrated MTSS is also essential to addressing student needs from a
whole-child approach (CDE, 2016; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Sailor, 2021).
Intervention Implementation Fidelity
Intervention implementation fidelity, also referred to as treatment integrity, is a
fundamental component incorporated throughout all tiers of support and a part of best practice
recommendations for instructional and behavioral practices (Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021; McIntosh
& Goodman, 2016). To determine whether educational practices are effective, it is important to
ensure that they are implemented with fidelity (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; Freeman et al.,
2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Fidelity measures whether an intervention or strategy is
34

consistently implemented as intended and the extent to which it is (Coffee et al., 2013; Gresham,
1989, Freeman et al., 2017). In educational settings, intervention implementation integrity is
typically low and often neglected (Carta & Miller Young, 2019; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
However, implementation fidelity is a significant consideration to accurately evaluate
intervention effectiveness. In addition, research suggests that it is important to avoid assumptions
regarding teachers’ ability to implement curriculum or instructional practices without providing
ongoing support and training (Fixen et al., 2005, Joyce & Showers, 2002; McIntosh & Goodman,
2016). Therefore, systems should be in place to help maximize implementation integrity, such as
team-based coordination and action planning, professional development, and data-based decision
making (Freeman et al., 2017).
Implementation fidelity data provides valuable assessment information and can be
instrumental in excluding inadequate practices as a cause for the lack of student progress or
performance (Freeman et al., 2017; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). In addition, fidelity data can
help identify and assess students’ RtI and guide program modifications to improve outcomes.
Research also suggests that tracking fidelity may also increase the sustainment of MTSS
practices. This occurs when educators observe positive student changes, thereby reinforcing their
intervention integrity (Andreou et al., 2015; Baker et al., 2004; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
McIntosh and Goodman (2016) explained there are two main types of fidelity assessment
measures: self-assessment conducted by the individual, team or whole school staff, and external
evaluations conducted by a coach or district team. It is recommended that fidelity assessments
begin with data collection prior to implementing interventions to establish a baseline and then
occur intermittently throughout implementation to measure progress (McIntosh & Goodman,
2016). Various tools for measuring treatment integrity can be found and utilized, but they
35

typically measure behavior and literacy separately rather than as an integrated MTSS framework
(McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The literature also highlights a gap in research when specifically
looking at the evidence base for the advantages of assessing fidelity of integrated frameworks of
support, such as MTSS; therefore, support for fidelity assessment may be more commonly found
in the areas of assessing RtI and PBIS individually (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
The validity and effectiveness of MTSS, as a whole, rely on the integrity of each core
feature being implemented as intended (Freeman et al., 2017; Sugai & Horner, 2009).
Overlooking implementation fidelity may make students less likely to have successful outcomes.
The core components of MTSS play an important role, working together, in a complimentary
manner to support a continuum of instructional support. In addition, they were most commonly
recognized throughout the literature as essential features of MTSS. The literature also recognizes
that there can be some variation in MTSS implementation from state to state and even district to
district. Furthermore, research suggests that there are factors that lead to successful MTSS as
well as potential challenges to implementation.
MTSS Implementation
The literature highlights a need for specific MTSS implementation strategies (Forman &
Crystal, 2015). Research also suggests a lack of procedural guidance from state departments
across the U.S. (Briesch et al., 2020). Some of the literature has explored MTSS implementation
through the lens of implementation science to provide a systematic process for moving the
initiative forward; however, the literature appears to be limited (Bohanon et al., 2016; Ward et
al.. 2021). Implementation science has approximately 80 theories, models and frameworks, and
exploring implementation science in its entirety is beyond the scope of this dissertation (Rabin et
al., 2018; Sanetti & Luh, 2019). Some frameworks discussed in the literature are implementation
36

stages, implementation drivers, policy-practice feedback loops, and organized, expert
implementation support. These frameworks can be used to structure the implementation process
and sustain change over time (Metz & Bartley, 2012; Fixsen et al., 2013). Literature related to
implementation science and MTSS specifically lacks clarity around which framework they use to
guide the discussions. For this dissertation, implementation stages will be further reviewed.
Implementation science frameworks, such as implementation stages, can be used to
structure the implementation process. Research suggests progressing through the distinct
implementation stages can be beneficial in sustaining long-term change (Fixsen et al., 2013).
Implementation consists of four stages: exploration, installation, initial implementation and full
implementation (Fixsen et al., 2013; Metz & Bartley, 2012). The activities expanded on in the
following section are not exhaustive but provide examples of activities that may be prioritized
within each stage of implementation.
Activities in the exploration stage may consist of developing a relationship with
stakeholders; determining team, staff and organizational readiness; developing a communication
process; and identifying potential root causes (National Implementation Research Network
[NIRN], 2020). Installation activities consist of defining the practice or program; reviewing
fidelity, process, or outcome data as part of regular team meetings; and developing a training
plan. Activities in the initial implementation include gathering data and stakeholder feedback,
developing improvement strategies, and continuing with regular team meetings and training
plans (NIRN, 2020). Full implementation activities include monitoring progress, using data for
improvement, continuing to gather stakeholder feedback and communicating progress and
improvement strategies to stakeholders. These guidelines and best practices, through the lens of
implementation science, may help establish a structure for organizational change and moving
37

MTSS forward. The literature also highlights factors that lead to successful MTSS
implementation and challenges to MTSS implementation.
Factors that Lead to Successful MTSS Implementation
When establishing an MTSS, certain considerations should be made to increase the
probability of successful and sustainable outcomes. The literature highlights some overlap with
components of MTSS and factors that lead to a successful MTSS. The following core
components were mentioned contributing to a successful MTSS: implementation of EBPs, data-
driven decision making, problem solving, and fidelity (Arden & Pentimonti, 2017; Burns &
VanDerHeyden, 2016; Choi et al., 2019; Eagle et al., 2015; Loftus-Rattan et al., 2021). Arden
and Pentimonti (2017) cautioned that MTSS frameworks without educators who can make data-
based decisions would face ongoing implementation challenges. Research also suggests
establishing leadership, school-wide intervention teams, school psychologist collaboration and
consultation, coaching and professional development, and educator attitudes and beliefs as
additional factors that promote MTSS success.
Establishing leadership should begin with creating a school-wide intervention team. It is
recommended that the intervention team include the following members: an administrator, math
team leader, literacy team leader, school psychologist, and interventionist (Witzel & Clarke,
2015). The goal of this team should be developing MTSS as a systemic process. This can include
delegating responsibilities such as scheduling meetings, documentation, reviewing student data
and maintaining communication. Including school psychologists as part of the leadership team,
and leaning on their expertise, is vital for effective MTSS implementation (Eagle et al., 2015).
Their training emphasizes consultation, collaboration, and facilitating team-based problem
solving, all of which can be an asset to a school intervention team.
38

Establishing leadership also includes site-based school principal leadership. Principals
play a role in their ability to influence equitable learning environments, systemic change, and
inclusive practices for all students’ diverse learning needs (Choi et al., 2019; Eagle et al., 2015;
Kozleski & Huber, 2012). Administrators also facilitate organizational support by allocating
resources, building collaborative environments, collecting stakeholder feedback and creating a
culture of shared vision (Eagle et al., 2015; Furney et al., 2005). Eagle et al. (2015) suggested
graduate programs embed MTSS-related content into administration training programs to
increase knowledge on effective implementation and sustainability best practices. This would
allow them to be better equipped to make leadership decisions regarding the direction of MTSS
and site-based problem solving.
Professional development and coaching are also essential in establishing and maintaining
a successful MTSS. Both schools and districts should ensure resources are allocated to providing
professional development opportunities to ensure that educators continuously build their skills
and knowledge (Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Empirical evidence has indicated that incorporating
coaching along with professional development will result in more successful outcomes related to
implementing EBPs (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Research also suggests educators’ attitudes and
beliefs directly correlate with their use of EBPs (Aarons & Palinkas, 2007; Cook et al., 2015;
Haney et al., 1996; Sailor et al., 2021). Professional development and educator buy-in may also
be interrelated. Harlacher et al. (2014) suggested that when educators fully understand the
rationale behind MTSS principles, they are more likely to support and buy into the development
of MTSS and its process.

39

Challenges to MTSS Implementation
It is worth mentioning that the lack of the aforementioned factors to successful MTSS
frameworks can lead to challenges if missing from MTSS implementation. There are also
additional factors that can lead to unsuccessful outcomes. One major challenge to implementing
a successful MTSS framework is the lack of guidance on how it should be done (Arden &
Pentimonti, 2017; Balu et al., 2015; Hauerwas et al., 2013; VanDerHeyden et al., 2016). This
may be part of the reason for variation in school, district, and state implementation. Without
outlining how to implement MTSS successfully, one may assume it would likely lead to
variation in results and unpredictable outcomes. Another area that leads to challenges to
implementation is the lack of training on MTSS and its core components.
Cook and Odom (2013) described the lack of training opportunities for educators as a
challenge to MTSS implementation. Educators lack skills and opportunities to develop data-
based decision making. Lack of adequate skills in data collection has a domino effect that may
carry over to other areas of MTSS implementation, such as delivering instruction, monitoring
progress collecting and analyzing data and modifying intervention plans (Arden & Pentimonti,
2017; Braun et al., 2020; Greenfield et al. 2010). The development of data-based decision
making skills is a worthy investment of resources and training efforts, as both general education
and special education teachers report challenges in demonstrating this skill (Arden & Pentimonti,
2017; Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012; Young & Kim, 2010). Research also suggests teacher preparation
programs have not adequately prepared educators to work within an MTSS (Lancaster &
Hougen, 2017; Prasse et al., 2012; Sugai & Horner, 2009). In addition, the literature highlights
educators’ lack of knowledge and experience with the implementation of MTSS with diverse
student populations, including students with disabilities (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Braun et al.,
40

2020; Joshi et al., 2009; Lancaster & Hougen, 2017; Moats, 2017; Sugai & Horner 2009).
Educator buy-in was also found to impact MTSS implementation.
Research indicates educator buy-in and staff morale are two important factors influencing
MTSS success (Braun et al., 2020; Meyer & Beha-Horenstein, 2015; Orosco & Klinger, 2010).
Braun et al. (2020) noted that a lack of communication regarding changes to school-wide MTSS
frameworks could result in educators feeling left out of the process, which may cause
inconsistencies with implementation fidelity. Unsupportive leadership, competing initiatives,
lack of resources, and insufficient professional development and coaching can also be barriers to
MTSS sustainability (Aarons, 2006; Freeman et al., 2017).
Summary
The MTSS is an integrated framework that has been shown to have a positive effect on
students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. In addition, evidence suggests
schools with an integrated MTSS may observe decreases in overall special education referrals.
The framework is intended to be a proactive and preventative approach with an emphasis on
early intervention. Its core components include universal screening, progress monitoring, data-
based decision making and problem solving, evidence-based interventions and implementation
fidelity. The literature provides possible factors for successful implementation as well as
challenges to implementation. In addition, the literature highlights a gap in research regarding
empirical evidence related to effective solutions to address disproportionality in special
education. Instead, most of the literature offers potential recommendations and suggestions for
practice. The literature also highlights a lack of guidance on recommended MTSS process and
guidelines for implementation. The lack of consistency in practice may lead to less predictable
41

outcomes. Once a consistent method is found, future research may provide further empirical
evidence to support its implementation and effectiveness.
42

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to evaluate ASD’s first year of implementing an MTSS
framework to address significant disproportionality. This chapter will provide the methodology
guiding this study, including its design, data sources, participants, instrumentation, data
collection procedures, and data analysis. In addition, the researcher’s positionality will be
discussed as it relates to the organizational setting and participants. This will also include a
review of the researcher’s potential biases, assumptions and their potential influence on this
study. To conclude, considerations associated with validity, reliability and ethics aligned with
this study will be reviewed.
Evaluation Questions
The following evaluation questions were explored in this formative evaluation to improve
program outcomes and reach ASD’s intended objectives:
1. To what extent was the MTSS initiative implemented during the 2021–2022 school
year?
2. What were stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the factors that facilitated the
implementation of MTSS?
3. What were stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the challenges to the implementation
of MTSS?
Overview of Design
The evaluation design for this study was rooted in a qualitative research methodology.
Qualitative research consists of four key components: “focus is on process, understanding and
meaning; the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; the process is
inductive; and the product is richly descriptive” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). The research
43

design includes interview, document, and artifact data (Table 2). Interviews were conducted to
understand the participants’ perspectives, experiences, opinions and feelings as they relate
specifically to the organization’s natural setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2006). This type of data has
advantages as “feelings, thoughts and intentions” can not be directly observed (Patton, 2002, p.
341). Secondary data sources include documents and artifacts that are part of the natural research
setting, “both physical setting and an online setting” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2006, p. 162).
Documents and artifacts provide insight into the background, change over time, can produce
descriptive anecdotal data, and confirm or advance potential hypotheses (Merriam & Tisdell,
2006). In addition, secondary data sources were important to examine as part of the study’s
approach to validity.

Table 2
Data Sources
Evaluation questions Data sources/ indicators
To what extent was the MTSS initiative
implemented during the 2021–2022
school year?

Interviews
Professional development agendas
Attendance logs
Training materials
What were stakeholders’ perceptions
regarding the factors that facilitated the
implementation of MTSS?

Interviews
Existing data (exit surveys from training)
What were stakeholders’ perceptions
regarding the challenges to the
implementation of MTSS?
Interviews
Existing data (exit surveys from training)

44

The Researcher
My positionality and the lens through which I view this problem of practice is that of a
Mexican American, first-generation college graduate who grew up in a lower-income
community. My identities inform my understanding of the problem and may influence potential
biases in data analysis. For example, I may have inadvertently favored other oppressed groups
with which I identify due to my positionality. While exploring my positionality, I realize I may
be only validating the perspective of students with disabilities when considering my problem of
practice. In addition, I may have blind spots and implicit biases when working with teachers I
perceive as resisting the implementation of student supports or lacking understanding of
students’ needs and experiences. Lastly, there may have been power imbalances. Although I am
not any participants’ direct supervisor, I hold a management position in the organization. These
are ways my positionality influenced how I viewed and investigated my problem of practice.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested acknowledging a researcher’s position or
reflexivity can help mitigate issues related to potential biases. A researcher’s position is a
description of their potential biases, assumptions and worldview. Ultimately, a researcher’s
positionality is how they are affected by the research and the lens through which they view and
interpret the problem of study. When a researcher provides their position, it helps provide
transparency by describing “how values and expectations influence the conduct and conclusions
of the study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). An audit trail was utilized to “detail methods,
procedures and decision points” throughout the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259). Lastly,
I ensured that participants were aware of informed consent, how the results of the study would be
used, and the protection of their confidentiality (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

45

Data Sources
Data sources in this study were interviews, documents and artifacts. All interviews were
conducted in June 2022 once the traditional school year had ended. Secondary data sources were
physical and online materials provided by the district across the 2021–2022 school year. These
data sources were gathered in June of the 2021–2022 school year once all MTSS activities were
completed. In the subsequent section, an overview of each method will be provided, including
participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis.
Qualitative Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders who were responsible
for implementing MTSS at various levels. This interview structure “allows the researcher to
respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas
on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). The evaluation questions guided each interview
and focused on gaining participants’ perspectives, experiences, and opinions regarding MTSS
and its first year of implementation.
Participants
The target population for the interviews consisted of key stakeholders who were
responsible for implementing MTSS at various levels. This was accomplished using purposeful
sampling. This sampling method is recommended when a researcher’s primary objective is to
create the best opportunity for learning and gaining insight into the area of study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This results in strategically selecting participants, so there is a greater possibility
of discovery and understanding of the problem being researched. This study’s sample included
educators in various roles throughout the district. This selection process and decision making
around participant recruitment were based on considering participants from whom the most
46

could be learned. The participants and the rationale for inclusion are as follows: district-level
administrators responsible for MTSS rollout and professional development; school site
administrators responsible for school-wide accountability; school psychologists responsible for
recommending and implementing tiered strategies; and teachers responsible for implementing
tiered strategies. The following methods were used to recruit participants for interviews to gain
insight into the evaluation questions proposed.
To recruit participants, I sent an email describing the study to potential respondents. I
also used network sampling with the participants I recruited. Network sampling entailed asking
interviewees to refer other participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The sample consisted of 14
participants; however, saturation was also considered while conducting interviews. Saturation
refers to the idea that a researcher no longer needs to collect data when the qualitative data being
gathered provides no new information, concepts or themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Instrumentation
An interview protocol, as recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018), was utilized to
gather data. The interview protocol included an introduction with an overview of the study,
approximately 25 questions with potential probes, and an interview conclusion. These protocol
components follow best practices as suggested by Creswell and Creswell. A semi-structured
interview approach was used to conduct all interviews. This approach included “structured
interview questions” yet allowed flexibility while conducting the interview (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 110). All respondents were asked the same 25 interview questions but were also asked a
variety of probes or additional interview questions based on their responses. The interview
questions were designed to gather data about the proposed evaluation questions while using the
conceptual framework as a guide. The program evaluation focused on resources, program
47

activities, and intended results using the logic model depicted in Table 1. All information
gathered will inform the formative evaluation and help identify possible areas of improvement.
Data Collection Procedures
Interview data collection procedures included typing field notes, using Zoom recording,
Zoom transcription of the interview, and a prepared interview protocol. Interview data were
collected over approximately 2 weeks after the traditional 2021–2022 school year had concluded.
The length of each interview ranged from approximately 50 to 90 minutes to ensure participants
had adequate time to respond. Participants were allowed flexibility in location, as the interviews
were conducted via Zoom. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended transcribing recorded
interviews verbatim, which creates an optimal data source for analysis. The interviews were
conducted via Zoom due to its capability of transcribing the recording. I also took notes during
the interviews.
Data Analysis
As a first step, I assessed interview transcripts for accuracy by watching the recording
and correcting any transcript errors. Once I assessed interview transcripts for accuracy, I coded
them using the Nvivo software program. I used a combination of open and axial coding to code
interview transcripts. Open coding consists of starting with a blank code book and reflectively
identifying codes while reading the text (Gibbs, 2018). Axial coding involves developing the
codes into “related and interconnected” categories (Gibbs, 2018, p. 72). I then finalized the
themes and supported them with evidence from interview transcripts.
Secondary Data Sources: Documents and Artifacts
Documents were collected to assist with triangulation as part of the study’s validity
procedures. Documents are a natural part of the setting where the research is conducted and can
48

exist in digital or physical formats (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, document data
sources are easily accessible in the environment and are considered a stable source of
information since they are less likely to be subject to participant reactivity (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study includes the following documents: PowerPoint presentations from professional
development sessions, UDL committee digital resources, sign-in sheets from training sessions,
exit surveys from training sessions, and email correspondence. These documents assist in the
data collection process by adding descriptive information and a way to verify participant
interview data. In addition, documents help provide insight into the history of events during the
first year of MTSS implementation and a deeper understanding of its course of development and
any adjustments made (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Qualitative validity describes the procedures the researcher uses to assess the integrity of
the study’s findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). It is recommended that multiple validity
procedures be utilized to ensure trustworthy data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
study’s validity strategies were triangulation, clarifying researcher bias, reporting contradictory
evidence, adequate engagement in data collection, and utilizing rich descriptive data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation of data, including secondary data, was
used to examine and build themes by comparing data sources to the participants’ perspectives
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A researcher positionality statement clarified possible researcher
bias. Reporting contradictory evidence may occur if alternative explanations to themes are found
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), such as through evidence that
contradicts a theme found in participants’ perspectives. Adequate engagement in data collection
was used to ensure saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, rich descriptive data provided a
49

detailed picture of the setting and multiple interpretations of themes (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Ethics
Several ethical considerations were made during this study. I ensured the participants
were aware of informed consent, how the study’s results would be used, and how their
confidentiality would be protected (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To maintain confidentiality,
each participant was assigned an identification number, and the key was stored in a passcode-
protected system. I also considered the potential power imbalances. These were kept at the
forefront of my decision making, and I continually checked in and self-reflected regarding
potential biases. The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board reviewed the
research to determine potential participation risks.
Underlying ethical considerations also included reflecting on my positionality and
personal assumptions associated with the lens through which I viewed this problem of practice. I
assume that this study serves the interests of and benefits students who come from historically
marginalized populations. However, I also recognize that school districts may benefit as they
could avoid punitive measures from the state. Another consideration was the possibility of harm
to teachers if perceptions and fidelity data reflected poor instruction. This reflection can lead to
risk if individuals outside of teaching make negative assumptions about their educational
practices or the field of teaching in general. Therefore, the following information was shared
with each participant: the purpose of the study, how evaluation data would be used, and informed
consent. In addition, participants were not coerced and were informed that they did not have to
sign consent forms (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I also informed them of their right to withdraw
at any time. Results will be disseminated to all participants upon the study’s completion.
50

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASD’s integrated MTSS framework to
learn more about the barriers and facilitators during the first year of implementation. The
evaluation design for this study was rooted in qualitative research methodology, and data were
collected via semi-structured interviews. This chapter will begin with an overview of the
participants and present a review of findings organized by the evaluation questions. This chapter
will conclude with a summary of the findings.
The following evaluation questions were explored in this formative evaluation to improve
program outcomes and reach ASD’s intended objectives.
1. To what extent was the MTSS initiative implemented during the 2021–2022 school
year?
2. What were stakeholder perceptions regarding the factors that facilitated the
implementation of MTSS?
3. What were stakeholder perceptions regarding the challenges to the implementation of
MTSS?
Participants
This study included interviews with key stakeholders responsible for implementing
MTSS at ASD. This study’s sample included educators in various roles. The participants and the
rationale for inclusion are as follows: educational services personnel responsible for MTSS
rollout and professional development; school site administrators responsible for school-wide
accountability; school psychologists and district social workers responsible for recommending
and implementing tiered strategies; and teachers responsible for implementing tiered strategies.
The sample consisted of 14 participants: two or three participants per role. To protect
51

participants’ confidentiality, they will only be referred to by participant number. Their roles and
responsibilities will be withheld. The interviewee’s number is omitted, and they are referred to
generically as “participant” if their role is important to the information presented. Decisions to
omit participant numbers were made to protect confidentiality. The following sections present
the results of qualitative data analysis to answer this study’s evaluation questions.
Evaluation Question 1: To What Extent Was the MTSS Initiative Implemented During the
2021–2022 School Year?
Interviewees shared several activities that supported the implementation of the MTSS
initiative. Some activities also coincided with activities in the logic model and are organized into
the themes of professional development, academic interventions, behavior interventions, social-
emotional interventions, district and school-wide culture/climate, and family engagement.
Professional Development
Participants shared that ASD’s MTSS implementation included professional
development, which aligns with activities depicted in the logic model. Some professional
development opportunities also focused on capacity building utilizing a training-of-trainers
model. District professional development consisted of district-wide and site-level professional
development, MTSS training for administrators, and optional UDL training.
Leadership Retreat
Participants noted that district-wide training sessions began with a leadership retreat a
few weeks before the official start of the 2021–2022 school year. The leadership retreat included
senior district leadership, site administrators, school psychologists and a BCBA. The leadership
retreat included guest speakers and introduced MTSS.
52

Interviewees provided additional details and perspectives on the leadership retreat
training and activities. Participant 1 shared, “At the start of the school year, our leadership retreat
was focused on MTSS with our site leaders and to really get them to hone in on their role in
rolling out the implementation.” Participants 1 and 7 shared that the retreat helped build
background knowledge and was a good refresher. The leadership retreat was intended to prime
the management team for expectations in the MTSS rollout and help build capacity at the site
level. It set the foundation for the district-wide PD day and site-level PD during the site
principal’s meetings with staff.
District-Level Principals ’ Meetings
Participants shared PD was also a part of district-level principals’ meetings, which
included district management, similar to the leadership retreat. The school psychologist and
BCBA were invited to two district principals’ meetings at the beginning of the 2021–2022
academic year. The school psychologist and BCBA were included to help facilitate the first
district-wide professional development day with site and district administrators. One participant
explained,
At the leadership meetings and principals’ meetings, some of the things that they want us
to work on with our staff, they model with us, so there’s strategies and practices and tools
they kind of lead us through, which we can then turn around and do something similar
with our own staff.
These types of training followed a training-of-trainers model to help build leadership capacity
and ultimately facilitate training at their school sites.

53

District-Wide Professional Development
The district-wide PD day included keynote speakers and site engagement activities.
Keynote speakers video conferenced in webinar format due to COVID-19 precautions. Keynote
speakers were followed by a short presentation facilitated by district and site administrators and a
school psychologist at each site.
Interviewees provided keynote speaker details and discussed a rationale for their
inclusion in the district-wide PD. Participant 13 shared that Michele Borba was a keynote
speaker and wrote a book titled Thrivers. Participant 9 added that, as part of this event, a copy of
the book was offered, and staff members were invited to participate in a book club. Michele
Borba was brought in to specifically speak to students’ social-emotional and mental health needs,
as referenced by one participant. Participant 3 mentioned a second keynote speaker, Mirko
Chardin, co-author of the book Equity by Design. Participant 9 spoke of the district-wide MTSS
PD and described it as “really intense.” They added, “I really liked it. We had an author come in
and all of that. That’s why I remember the richness of it.”
Interviewees also discussed engagement activities. These included brainstorming
strategies that could be used to create a positive school climate, identifying strategies to
implement across campus and in classrooms (e.g., school-wide, grade-level teams and
department teams), and a poster walk for staff collaboration and engagement. Participant 7
shared the insight that “everyone benefits from tier one.” Participant 9 commented on
noteworthy elements as
[Being] able to ask questions not only of our site people but of district-level people that
were there at our site and being able to just get up and walk around and talk to different
people that were learning it for the first time, like me.
54

The district-wide MTSS PD focused on laying a foundation, which led to some principals
continuing to build on that knowledge through site-level meetings.
Site-Level Principal ’s Meetings
Participants shared activities related to site-level training conducted as part of principals’
meetings with staff across the 2021–2022 school year. These meetings were held at each school
and led by the site principal. Training activities consisted of presenting MTSS information in
small increments and staff collaboration opportunities.
Site-level resources provided additional support during training. Participants 9 and 13
discussed how their school counselor and teachers on special assignments (TOSAs) facilitated
site-level training. They shared how the TOSAs and counselor helped connect strategies and
concepts and explained how they relate to MTSS (e.g., academic, social-emotional, and portrait
of graduate). In addition, they helped model some lessons for teachers that could be implemented
in the classroom. Participant 9 added,
Then, towards the end of the school year, our PDs, they [TOSAs, counselors,
administrator] turned it around, and they were like, “How do you think it ties in?” So, it
gave us that opportunity to think about it and reflect on how it ties into it.
Time constraints during the principals’ meetings led one participant to think of creative
ways to incorporate additional site-level training. One participant offered voluntary 30-minute
workshops throughout the school year while being mindful of contract time. In addition, this
interviewee invited all staff on campus to join, and about 30 to 40 staff members typically
attended. As a follow-up, they shared a Google Doc with editing permissions for staff members
who did not attend, creating an opportunity for further dialogue. In addition to training, the
district offered an opportunity to participate in a UDL committee.
55

Universal Design for Learning Committee
Staff had an opportunity to volunteer on the UDL committee, a small learning cohort
utilizing a training-of-trainers model every other month to learn more about the principles of
UDL. Mirko Chardin, the co-author of the book Equity by Design, led this committee. The
interviewees provided additional details regarding future directions for UDL in ASD and
Mirko’s role in leading these efforts. Participant 1 reported, “We had an instructional leadership
group who partook in a year-long study with Mirko Chardin to really wrap their heads around the
implementation of UDL and to prepare our district for the rollout of UDL.” Participants 3 and 12
explained Mirko’s role included leading UDL implementation and teaching equity mindset and
anti-bias practices. At the end of the 2021–2022 school year, the UDL committee presented core
UDL concepts at principals’ meetings.
At the time of this evaluation, the district had plans to continue with UDL
implementation and intended to add a second cohort in the 2022–2023 school year. As part of all
the aforementioned training, the participants highlighted common themes as opportunities for
collaboration, learning from colleagues and their expertise, modeling strategies, capacity
building, and resource sharing. In addition to PD activities, systems and practices related to
MTSS were implemented during the 2021–2022 school year.
Academic Interventions
Resources, depicted in the logic model, allocated towards accomplishing district activities
included hiring intervention teachers. These resources were instrumental in providing targeted
academic interventions to support student outcomes. Interviewees reported all schools received
intervention support in reading, language arts, and math. In addition, English learner TOSAs
were added to support English learners at all levels.
56

Participant 6 noted that the intervention teachers are highly involved: “They do their
assessments as they’re working with students, and they share that in SST meetings if it comes to
that. I’ve seen that being implemented pretty good.” Participant 9 elaborated by sharing their
experience with TOSAs: “I would see a TOSA walking the campus with a group of kids, our
math one, and playing a math game while they’re walking around campus. I thought that was so
cool.” They highlighted the significance of having the TOSA visible and being able to see
intervention in action, especially since teachers do not typically see into each other’s classrooms.
Participants also specified how their awareness of the MTSS rollout contributed to
implementation on campus and in the classroom.
The MTSS implementation contributed to participants’ lesson planning and academic
strategies to improve student outcomes in addition to the targeted academic interventions the
TOSAs provided. Participant 6 shared their experience with teachers implementing strategies
across campus: “They’re not pushing assessment right away. They want to try their hardest
before they’re sending them over.” Participant 12 also explained they did not want to
recommend students to the intervention teachers just because they were not responding in class.
They clarified, “I want to make sure that I’m giving them strategies or giving different ways or
I’m teaching it in a different way that hopefully will help them be successful.”
Participants also shared how MTSS contributed to their academic lessons. Examples
shared by Participants 9, 10, 11 and 14 were slowing their lesson pace to ensure student
understanding, encouraging a growth mindset, small-group instruction, student pairing, and
creative planning (e.g., writing Olympics or student-created anchor charts). Interviewees also
provided evidence for behavior intervention activities implemented throughout the district, one
being PBIS.
57

Behavior Interventions
Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) is a framework that helps schools
create systems and practices focused on positive social-emotional and behavioral student
outcomes. It is aligned under the umbrella of the MTSS initiative. Seven participants reported
how PBIS activities were implemented as part of the MTSS initiative, such as setting student
behavior expectations and positive reinforcement. Participant 8 added interventions like “check-
in check-out, universal supports, and school-wide reinforcement” were also implemented as part
of PBIS activities. Participant 4 explained that a training-of-trainers model was included as part
of PBIS through the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Participant 4 explained the district
provides financial resources to secure training and release time for staff to attend, including
substitute coverage for teachers. Participant 5 highlighted how using the PBIS framework helped
their SST process by addressing students’ behavior needs while considering skills regression due
to COVID-19 and trauma-informed care.
At the time of this evaluation, half the schools in ASD implemented PBIS and planned to
expand it across the district in the 2022-2023 school year. Also, additional MTSS activities
focused on students’ social-emotional needs and well-being, especially considering their return
to school after the COVID-19 school closures.
Social-Emotional Interventions
The 2021–2022 academic term was the first full term back in person after school closures
due to COVID-19. As a result, SEL-focused MTSS activities were noted across the district.
These activities included universal screening, SEL classroom lessons, and targeted social-
emotional interventions and support (e.g., individual and small-group counseling). Interviewees
provided qualitative data regarding SEL interventions conducted during the first year of MTSS
58

implementation. Participants 7 and 10 reported stated the district conducted the Behavior and
Emotional Screening System (BESS), a universal screening tool, with all students. Participants 6,
7, and 8 noted school counselors conducted social-emotional interventions, such as classroom
SEL lessons. Similarly, participants reported some schools included the Second Step curriculum.
Small-group and individual counseling were also mentioned. Participants detailed SEL being
implemented by classroom teachers as well.
Teachers implemented activities such as SEL lessons and social-emotional check-ins at
the classroom door or in the classroom. Some had small groups of students share how they felt
that day or incorporated technology in check-ins for the upper-grade students (e.g., selecting
smiley faces online) when asking how they felt and why. Some teachers let volunteers share their
feelings in front of the class. Participant 6 shared additional SEL activities: “doing projects that
included recognizing your support system and keeping that in your desk with coping strategies
that work for you, and so that way, if there’s an issue or students are upset, they have that ready
to go in their desk. So that’s kind of more Tier 1 level.”
The interviewees also shared successful outcomes with implementing social-emotional
interventions. Participant 5 highlighted their success with morning check-ins: “We were able to
extinguish a lot of the problems before they started and really find the kids that need that support
in the morning.” Activities such as morning check-ins likely also contributed to building a
positive school-wide climate. In addition, intentional activities were directed at cultivating
district- and school-wide positive culture and climate.
District and School-Wide Culture/Climate Activities
The MTSS implementation included activities focused on building a positive culture and
climate. These were both district- and school-driven. They included welcoming students back to
59

campus by focusing on building a positive environment. In addition, school sites implemented
various strategies reviewed during the district PD day as part of their daily practices.
Week of Welcome
The ASD encouraged all schools to have a week of welcome (WOW) during the first
week of the 2021–2022 school year. The objective was to create a positive school environment
as it was the first year starting in person after the COVID-19 school closures. Participant 3
described the district’s message to educators as “don’t worry about test scores right now just
worry about making them [students] smile and about wanting to come back to school.” School
leaders had flexibility in WOW-related activities. They were encouraged to focus on positive
school culture and climate while acclimating to academic structure and routine again.
Participants provided details about the WOW activities. Participant 13 explained WOW
as a “branded way of welcoming students back to campus.” They explained,
We had different activities to kind of welcome [students] back to school in a less stressful
way, so there [were] supposed to be more getting-to-know-you activities [and]
community building as opposed to jumping into the textbooks on Day 1 or Day 2.
Participant 13 also reported,
We got feedback from the kids, and a lot of them said it was a great way to come back.
“It made me feel like my teachers were interested in who I am and getting to know me”
and that sort of thing.”
School leaders also implemented activities that cultivated a positive campus environment.
Participant 10 shared, “I think what you see good teachers doing is they’re still maintaining
academics, but there’s a level of relational capacity.” They added, “I would love to have more
60

enforcement of that. It’s not what I do in my classroom in my world. It’s what we do together as
a school community I think would be really important.”
Family and Student Engagement Activities
As a result of the district-wide PD day, grade-level and department teams chose strategies
to implement for the school year, such as greeting students by name at the door, family
engagement/student engagement, and morning check-ins. District- and school-wide positive
climate activities appeared to have also increased parent and student engagement. One
participant discussed using PBIS to facilitate student engagement. Participant 5 detailed school-
wide events “used to engage kids to want to earn these tickets [school-wide reinforcement]: pie
in principal’s face, chalk painting, dance parties, and water balloon fight.” Participant 5 also
shared how they used peer mentoring:
We kind of looked at just the behavior as a whole. We used students that we were seeing
[as] the frequent flyers in the office, and we used them as mentors to other students that
were struggling, and that was working out really well.
The interviewees also shared school-wide strategies to increase parent engagement.
Participant 13 reported,
I did the postcards, and I thought it went really well because I would get feedback from
parents that it was really well received, and kids would come to school and be like, “Oh,
we got your postcard over the weekend. You know, that was super nice. Thank you.”
Participant 13 continued, “So, I think it really made a difference with a lot of the kids because
they know that there’s communication happening between the school, their teacher and their
families at home.” Participant 13 selected this strategy to target community outreach and
increase “intentional contact with families throughout the year.” Participant 5 described PBIS
61

parent information nights and having their PBIS team’s parent representative speak at one of
them.
Family engagement was also part of the MTSS activities. Participant 6 discussed
collaboration between the school counselor and families of students with significant behavioral
issues. They also highlighted cultural considerations:
It’s something that we implement every day in all of our assessments just being
considerate of the students’ language, their cultural background, their families’ needs,
like differences even outside of school and what they bring to the plate here, and
respecting them as a person and how we can educate them while not taking that away
from them. So, I think as a team, we’ve been pretty good at pushing that.
Evaluation Question 2: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Factors That
Facilitated Implementation of MTSS?
Interviewees shared several factors that supported MTSS implementation: training and
technical support, attitudes and beliefs, leadership, systems, and resources.
Training and Technical Support
Nine interviewees discussed training and technical support. Specifically, the types of
training and technical support were field experts, modeling strategies, making connections to the
MTSS initiative, and collaboration.
Field Experts
Having PD guided by professionals with experience and expertise in specialized topics
was important to interviewees. Hearing varied perspectives, including research-based ones, from
individuals outside of ASD was also helpful. Participants shared that an important aspect of their
PD was hearing how people do things in other organizations.
62

Interviewees shared various perspectives and experiences with the training provided by
professionals with expertise in their fields. Participant 3 reported an external trainer led
discussions about the structure of intervention and supports: “I felt that was really helpful
because then I could visualize it at the secondary level a little bit more.” Similarly, Participant 5
explained that having experts in the field available to provide meaningful training was important
and a powerful way to create understanding. Participant 3 provided an example: “I might know
what UDL is, but it’s much more powerful to be hearing from others what UDL is.” Interviewees
also highlighted the modeling of strategies as a factor that facilitated MTSS implementation.
Modeling Strategies
Interviewees described various modeling strategies to facilitate learning as part of PD and
technical support. Modeling strategies included materials and resources, hands-on activities, and
collaboration time to brainstorm strategies. Participants provided examples of district-available
supports and resources used to model strategies.
The TOSAs used modeling strategies during staff meetings, and some strategies were
specifically targeted to support English learners. Participant 13 elaborated, “We have a TOSA
who, at a few of our recent staff meetings, would give us specific strategies that we could use to
help our language learners in class and even provided some handouts.” Participant 13 explained
that the TOSA also “did modeling to walk us through the lesson, having us teachers do what the
students would be doing. That kind of continual support, I think, is helpful.” Participant 3
explained, “I feel like we need to be seeing it in action as the best form of PD.”
The participants found the trainer-of-trainers model helpful. The model involves training
individuals to increase their capacity to then train others. Participant 4 described “modeling
MTSS strategies with school leaders that could then be done with teachers” as facilitating MTSS
63

implementation. Another participant described how management had a slide deck and provided
training by explaining how it was to be used. One participant provided feedback on this
approach:
That made it a lot easier because, usually for PDs, we have to prep everything. … It’s
nice that they were able to help us. They created those for us, and then we kind of made it
our own because I don’t think we could have done it without them. There’s no way.
Support and resources also helped to model SEL strategies for staff. Interviewees
described pairing counselors or counseling interns with teachers who were uncomfortable with
SEL lessons as a way to model these lessons and provide additional technical support. This
support was intended as a temporary strategy to help build educators’ capacity. However, it is
unclear if there were explicit plans or systems for phasing out this support. The participants also
identified facilitating factors as making connections and simplifying concepts by scaffolding
core components during staff meetings.
Making Connections to MTSS Initiative
Interviewees highlighted support provided to them to connect to the MTSS initiative and
keep it at the forefront of daily educational practices as facilitating the initiative’s
implementation. This support included reminding staff of the rationale and importance of the
initiative and its principles. Providing communication and explaining how MTSS integrates
existing initiatives were also helpful to the interviewees.
Participant 6 highlighted, “Communicating about it since the beginning and stressing the
importance in the process and why we’re doing it really explained how inclusive we were
being.” Participant 6 explained,
64

I know that there were some emails that were sent out that kind of just kept that fresh in
people’s memories in the beginning of the year. They stopped towards the middle, I
would say, but I think those things were really helpful in making sure that it was always
on people’s minds that it’s something that’s going to happen, and it’s important, and it’s
the right thing to do.”
Participant 4 explained other necessary connections included “helping people understand that it’s
not something new. It’s really just an umbrella” encompassing other school-wide initiatives.
Continuing MTSS professional development during staff meetings also facilitated
additional connections to the MTSS initiative and moving it forward. One participant explained,
I want to make sure that we continue it, so I would pull stuff off websites and whatever
was just kind of trained and then pick a topic and hit on that as well in my own staff
meetings. So, I think that was helpful.
Participant 9 confirmed this notion, reporting,
Our site admin making those connections for us. … [Being] just that side character, like
in a movie, that just pops in their head and says look what we’re doing. They would just
pop in their head [to] tell us how the connection was made and then pop out. I found it
helpful, but I would have appreciated more of that.”
In addition to making connections with MTSS concepts and maintaining awareness of the
initiative, collaboration time was also a facilitator.
Collaboration
Participants reported support in the form of collaboration with colleagues aided with
MTSS implementation. They described collaboration as weekly check-ins and problem-solving
65

opportunities with support providers. Also important were safe environments for those who
experienced resistance to discuss how they felt.
The interviewees reported that collaboration time was a benefit to committee work on
assessing and strategically targeting students’ needs. Participant 10 discussed the benefits of
having time to collaborate, recognize campus trends, and “how the school climate was feeling”
to strategically target SEL lessons. In addition, a space for difficult conversations was important.
Participant 10 communicated,
I think being available to talk has helped, actually, so we have two or three teachers that
are very vocal about not liking these things, and … making that time actually doing a
little informal restorative circle definitely has helped.
Participants highlighted time to collaborate and engage in problem solving to support
students. Participant 8 described weekly check-ins as helpful in giving a “chance to kind of talk
through specific cases and then talk about what we need to do.” They also reported collaboration
time with support providers and colleagues with more knowledge on specific topics as helpful.
Participant 14 explained,
I think, just talking to people who know stuff like [BCBA], the learning center teacher,
[and] school counselor who are trained in behavior on what to do, what works, what I can
try differently to me that was the most effective...I think being able to talk to peers about
it, like peers with knowledge.
Attitudes and Beliefs
Six interviewees identified a shift in stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs as factors that
helped support the implementation of the MTSS initiative. This shift included recognizing a need
to modify and introduce systems to better support students’ needs. Societal changes were also
66

reported as influencing the shift. These societal changes included influences related to politics,
inequities, and COVID-19. Participant 1 expanded,
I think the biggest thing was that everyone saw and had a sense of urgency to do this
work right, whether it was a teacher who acknowledged we needed more consistency
with our interventions to the site leaders who said yes, we really do need to revamp SST.
Participant 1 added, “I think teachers recognize the need for building a more cohesive system
and to really work together for the betterment of our students to make sure that all children are
achieving these portrait-of-a-graduate competencies.” Similarly, Participant 9 reported,
As far as my school site, I’m going to say that the amount of adults that were invested …
helped a lot because it helped me as a person that was trying to get other people involved
kind of say, “See, like you’re not the only one. You’re not the only one who’s trying.”
In addition, connecting specific student success examples directly to MTSS implementation
helped get staff on board and shift attitudes and beliefs.
Societal changes related to politics, inequities, and COVID-19 also noted helped move
the MTSS framework forward. This movement included a focus on equitable practices and
increased access to technology as facilitators. Participant 3 explained, “The shift in society and
even COVID. I can’t say it was a benefit, but it definitely highlighted things that allowed us to
kind of move leaps and bounds forward.” Participant 3 expanded, “ED tech took a huge leap
forward. That being said, what we really needed to have move forward, as well, was the whole
empathy and social-emotional learning. I think the district has leaped forward with that.”
Similarly, Participant 13 explained, “The focus towards establishing equitable teaching practices
has also been a big plus in moving the MTSS framework forward.”

67

Leadership Support
Eight participants stated the district’s mission and leadership support helped with MTSS
implementation. The types of leadership support highlighted were district- and site-level leaders.
Leaders’ support included selling senior leadership on the why, implementing MTSS as a district
initiative, and allowing flexibility in academic routines to support the implementation of MTSS
strategies.
Senior district leaders supporting and understanding the rationale for MTSS was
important. This understanding includes having MTSS implementation be a district-wide mission.
Participant 3 highlighted district senior leaders’ understanding and being sold on the why,
including having a passion for equity work. Participant 8 discussed the importance of having
MTSS “be more of a district mission.” They noted that initiatives are often viewed as “just
another initiative. Is it going to stay or go? But we’re actually behind on a lot [of initiatives] like
PBIS.” Similarly, Participant 6 shared, “I think from the very beginning, some of the things that
really helped facilitate were the discussions about this isn’t an idea of when/if this will happen. It
is going to happen. It is an expectation where teachers were waiting for it.” Overall, standing by
the initiative and ensuring that all were on the same page, including site administrators, were
beneficial. In addition, Participant 8 noted that directives from the state and county referring to
significant disproportionality were also important.
Interviewees identified leaders’ understanding and allowing for flexibility as helpful in
MTSS implementation at the site level. Participant 13 shared,
Flexibility has been key, and just the general understanding that we’re navigating a lot of
different things right now, and we have a lot of stuff in place already, so we need to take
the time to make sure everybody can figure this out together.
68

Participant 10 specified, “Having the ability as a teacher to not have to be on a certain
page on a certain day gives me the time and flexibility and ability to be able to incorporate all
these things into my room.” Participant 10 added, “I’m not worried about my principal walking
in being mad: ‘You’re not on this page.’ I can stop and if something’s going really well, you
know, expand on that, and academics always seems to follow.”
MTSS Systems and Practices
Four participants noted beneficial systems and practices like creating a district-wide SST
process. Leaning on SST as a concrete next step also allows for a systematic way to encourage
data-based decision making and problem solving to support student outcomes. Participant 1
shared, “I feel like that was a big plus, and we are holding people accountable by using data and
having that data really drive next steps. So, those are things that I think went pretty well.”
Similarly Participant 4 highlighted,
I would say that’s been an improvement for this year, the SST frameworks and those
conversations. Once we kind of clarified that and it just became the common language
and framework that we operated under, then that helped people grasp it.”
Participant 6 explained, “Teachers were waiting for [SST and MTSS] and actually wanted it
because it gave them a process for helping kids that they saw were having concerns.” Even
though SST was not fully rolled out as anticipated and as described in the logic model,
awareness and knowing that there is a plan for it to continue during the 2022–2023 year allowed
some staff to lean into it. Interview data showed that some school sites continued to use what
they had previously in place.

69

Resources
Six participants identified resources facilitating MTSS implementation during the 2021–
2022 school year: personnel, financial and material resources. Participant 4 noted “a significant
emphasis in resources and staffing behind interventions, which has been hugely important.”
These resources helped secure supports such as TOSAs and interventionists, who implemented
targeted interventions and supports. Resources also included technology, learning resources, and
release time to participate in PD.
Teachers on special assignments, school counselors and special committees were
important in implementing Tier I and II interventions and supports. Participant 12 shared, “I
would say our TOSAs and our interventionist helped. They were the ones that really helped
support those kids that were really behind because they would come in and pull out those kids.”
Participant 12 elaborated, “If I did not have the TOSAs or the counselors helping me, it would be
very difficult to implement any aspect of it.” Participant 10 shared that having the SEL
committee prepare lessons ahead of time was helpful. Participant 10 added, “Teachers didn’t
have to spend hours diving into it. I think having it set and ready to go helped it to be pushed out,
and having more student-driven activities helped reach a broader crowd of teachers.”
Material resources also helped with MTSS implementation. These included technology
like Zoom, which, per the interviewees, made collaboration easier. Participant 8 stated,
Wherever people are, they can kind of just jump in to have a meeting. Even just with
parents as well, just having some of those quick meetings, so we can talk about and figure
out what we are going to do.
Similarly, Participant 7 highlighted another form of material resources helpful to MTSS
implementation. Participant 7 explained, “Resources that I could look at or newsletters and
70

articles … just knowing that I have them in my little file if I needed it” as important to their
success.
Evaluation Question 3: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Challenges to
the Implementation of MTSS?
Interviewees shared several challenges in implementing the MTSS initiative: paradigm
shift and resistance, pandemic and well-being, communication, knowledge gaps, resources, time,
and organizational change.
Paradigm Shift and Resistance
Challenges included resistance to implementing new practices and professional
development. As a result, ASD paused some activities initially planned for the 2021–2022 school
year, such as PD and a district-wide SST process. It is inferred that resistance was integrated
with the challenges of returning to in-person learning after COVID-19 school closures.
Resistance was also related to self-efficacy and misconceptions of the initiative. A need for
paradigm shifts also presented challenges, including educational practices and resistance to
implementing new strategies or interventions.
Resistance
One participant shared the rollout of the district-wide SST process was intentionally
paused. They explained,
We could have rolled it out, but it was really important that we think about the timing of
it because if we didn’t get the buy-in for it, it was not going to be successful, so we
needed to pause and ensure that the timing would be right.
Participant 6 noted,
71

The primary challenge is not actually having it rolled out … because there are some
teachers, very little, but there are some that will take advantage of that not being in place
and kind of placing blame on their lack of implementation, collaboration, applying
appropriate supports.
Another participant shared that coming off the pandemic, there was much pushback regarding
PD, and when it was time to shift toward the SST rollout, there was “some pushback in terms of
all the district-led PD.”
Interviewees also reported that some resistance appeared to be associated with self-
efficacy. One participant shared that they did not have buy-in on their campus due to self-
efficacy. They explained,
[Teachers] don’t have a lot of confidence, so to do things to take that step is difficult for
them, and once they can take that step or get support in taking that step, they’re great. It’s
just really getting them to see, like, you’re okay. Try it. If it doesn’t work, try something
else.
Participant 9 had a similar perception:
A couple teachers shared they’re just not comfortable. They feel they’re not trained, so
then it’s not that they don’t want to. It’s they felt they’re worried: “What if a kid says
something? I don’t want to say something wrong.”
Misconceptions around MTSS practices might have also led to some staff resistance.
Participant 13 shared, “I think that it was hard for some people to get behind it initially. I think
people see this kind of a framework and assume it means no discipline.” Participant 3 added,
72

Our biggest problem is we could sit here and talk about the why all we want. We’re
always going to have a percentage of teachers that the why is not enough to shift and
change, and the hope is that the majority do.
Participant 9 contributed by discussing stakeholders being invested in the initiative:
The difficult part was to get others because you can do everything. You can work so hard,
we can work so hard, but because MTSS is just all-inclusive and it takes everything, that
gets everything. All the pieces need to be there, and it’s impossible for me as one person
to do it.
Interviewees also provided suggestions for improvement that could help address staff
buy-in and self-efficacy: stakeholder input and adult reinforcement.
Stakeholder Input. Participants in various roles across the district suggested gathering
site administrator input would be helpful because they have a sense of the “political climate and
temperature” at their school sites and may have ideas for navigating those pieces during rollout.
Participant 10 suggested, “Having a little bit more teacher input as a whole helps everybody feel
heard, and I think we would get more buy-in.”
Adult Reinforcement. Interviewees suggested providing adult reinforcement as a way to
support MTSS implementation. This strategy may be beneficial in increasing staff self-efficacy.
Participant 9 suggested “constant encouragement [and] reassuring teachers that we are already
doing most of it.” Similarly, Participant 10 suggested, “even if it’s just like a ‘good job’ or ‘hey,
good job,’ I think that would really transform. Again, not that anybody did anything wrong. It’s
just how can we make it better.” Participant 12 shared,
73

I feel like as long as you have someone there that can kind of help show these teachers,
like, “You are doing a good job, as it is, but we can do these things a little bit more to
support these kids a little bit more in a certain way.”
Paradigm Shift
Participant 14 discussed the difficulty of being “held by the standards” and the need to
help address students’ social-emotional needs. They explained, “I think it’s a huge challenge for
me is learning how to meet [students’] needs quickly but also effectively so that they’re ready to
move on to the next thing.” Participant 14 highlighted this dilemma by providing an example:
“How do you fix them quickly because I need to go on and teach a writing lesson and/or I can
get you to stop crying, but does that mean you’re ready to learn? Probably not.” The emotion
was palpable during this interview. The interviewee showed heartfelt emotion as they conveyed
the complexity and challenge of balancing the requirements and pressures of meeting teaching
expectations while addressing students’ needs.
Interviewees also shared their experience of staff wanting to keep the status quo and their
resistance to trying new ways of doing things. Participant 12 highlighted their perception of
some teachers as less open to changing certain classroom practices, such as incorporating more
technology or using different teaching strategies.
Participant 11 reported the reliance on TOSAs for designated ELD rather than
incorporating it in classrooms as a Tier I strategy as a challenge to implementing MTSS with
fidelity. This reliance is often also seen with social-emotional and behavioral intervention. The
system may rely on Tier 2 and 3 supports, overloading those supports rather than developing Tier
I interventions. A participant explained,
74

It directly impacts me because I’m the Tier III intervention, but the way that teachers are
not providing your Tier II intervention in the classroom through small-group instruction
really makes me the Tier II intervention. I play that Tier II intervention role, which is not
following the MTSS framework with regard.
Similarly, participant 8 said they often saw teams go straight to a Tier III intervention without
considering other ways to support a student.
Pandemic and Well-being
Eight participants stated that the effects of the pandemic, including staff well-being and
burnout, were challenges. There were likely particular challenges due to being the first full
academic year back in person after the initial COVID-19 school closures. In addition, rising
COVID-19 cases presented challenges with the overall rollout and ability to implement strategies
consistently due to many students being absent during that time.
Staff well-being and burnout likely also interrelated with staff resistance. Returning to in-
person learning presented many challenges, which led to staff feeling overwhelmed and drained.
Participant 6 explained, “I think for teachers, things that are challenging is just them feeling
overall overwhelmed. This school year was especially tough.” Participant 10 confirmed, “I don’t
want to speak for everybody, but I think I put more energy this year into my classroom and
student well-being. I’ve never been so tired at the end of the day.”
Participants also noted many challenges at the district level in dealing with COVID-19-
related concerns. Participant 3 detailed,
We got derailed in terms of people’s exhaustion. I mean, everyone was exhausted. We
were exhausted, right? We got derailed in the middle of the year when we would have
75

moved forward with our second district [PD] day. We were, like, okay, we’ve got one
more district day. Let’s use it. Then, the surge derailed us there.
The COVID-19 pandemic also presented challenges by interrupting consistency in the
classroom, especially when positive cases increased after returning from winter break in January
2022. Participant 12 shared, “I don’t really feel like this year was a fair chance for MTSS
because of the consistency of it.” They also highlighted challenges with the pandemic in general
and burnout as challenges to implementation. Participant 12 elaborated,
COVID definitely was actually a really big factor of the pandemic, just not having a
regular year. Like, your kids are out, they’re here, they’re not here, because that goes
with consistency because you want to try to be as consistent to get that outcome. You
want them to be successful, but if they’re not here every day, you can’t really base that
off of them not showing up to school. … Overall, I would say that just really kind of
made it hard to implement it and feel good about implementing. You can implement it
and try your best, but if your kids are not there for you to actually truly implement it and
… consistently. If they missed here and there, but once you get COVID, you’re out for
like 5 days, and then there goes a week. … I understand absence here and there, but to
truly implement it, you can’t.”
Participant 13 explained,
I think it’s just been a hard year for a lot of people because we’re kind of relearning how
to get back to this thing that we call school. I think the kids really struggled, especially
early on, struggled to find their student thing, whatever that is. … So, I think if there are
any barriers and challenges, it was just trying to navigate that world again, which, you
know, what can we do about that? I mean, we had to go through it together.
76

Timing, in general, appeared to be difficult with just coming off the stressors of the pandemic
and the first year fully back in person after COVID-19 closures.
Communication
Four participants found communication presented challenges. Conflicting messages
regarding PD and lack of clear messaging around the district’s vision and mission created
challenges with communication. These include messaging around significant disproportionality.
Conflicting messages regarding PD were challenging because they limited PD for staff
during the initial rollout. One participant reported that “some groups of teachers were saying we
want the training and others saying we’re shutting it down, and that part’s been hard because PD
is instruction, and that’s what we’re supposed to be in the business of: instruction.” The
participant continued, “We just get different messages. So, we get some messages that are like
this district never communicates its vision; there’s never something cohesive. And then from
other people, were getting we don’t want district top-down PD” There also seemed to be a
challenge balancing educators’ wants and needs with the fact that the district was in significant
disproportionality, as conveyed by Participant 3. There appeared to be a lack of messaging
around creating a strong sense of urgency related to the significant disproportionality of Latinx
students identified for special education, which is the initial rationale for MTSS implementation.
Ten participants called for district communication improvement. Their suggestions
included creative ways of receiving information, a suggested frequency of communication, and
messaging improvements.
Emails were commonly suggested as a way to improve communication due to
accessibility. The interviewees also suggested creative ways to increase communication. These
77

suggestions included videos, recorded messages, short PowerPoints, Q&A sessions, the Parent
Square app, and newsletters. Participant 12 shared,
I think the more accessible it is, [the] more likely I’d be willing to try to find out like if
they said, ‘Oh, this is MTSS,’ and here’s a link or video. Check it out. I’ll be more
willing to do that.
Participant 4 expressed the importance of email subject lines, stating, “I’m really big on putting
the key thing in the subject line, so not only do I know what I need to read in order of priority,
but then it also makes it more searchable.” Participant 9 suggested using district newsletters “like
a follow-up. Like, ‘Hey, I read this great article, and it talks about this’ and summarizing it.” A
few interviewees saw once per month as the ideal frequency of MTSS communication.
Participant 9 shared, “I think the district, if they’re really going for it, I would say, at least once a
month to just keep it on our forefront.”
Interviewees also provided communication suggestions in terms of district messaging.
Participant 12 explained,
I think if that’s their goal, maybe they could be a little bit more transparent with the
district, or maybe having it on a slide deck to say, “Hey, you know, in our district, I really
think this is a need. So, in the next 5 years, it’s a rollout, and this is what we’re going to
use is portrait-of graduate-and MTSS.”
Participant 12 added, “I think having a long-term goal and maybe a short-term goal … and then
showing us the value of that.” Participant 14 suggested district representatives go to a staff
meeting to talk with them about MTSS. They added, “Then, the district shows how it’s really
important because I left my office to be here.” Similarly, Participants 9 and 12 reported valuing
district administrator visibility on school site campuses.
78

Knowledge Gaps
Nine participants noted knowledge gaps as a challenge to MTSS implementation.
Specifically, knowledge gaps highlighted were confusion around expectations during initial
rolling and understanding tiered interventions.
Clear Expectations
Interviewees described a challenge to implementation caused by a lack of clarity around
expectations and a misunderstanding of the MTSS framework in general. Participant 13
explained, “I think that’s the main thing that’s been hard because it’s not that people can’t do the
things that they’re asked to do. It’s not knowing when or how to do it.” Participant 13 added,
“Implementing it, I think, [has] been challenging for everybody to kind of figure out exactly
what it is.” Establishing concrete next steps can be difficult as there are many components to the
framework of MTSS, and some aspects of the initiative are less concrete. Participant 2 reported a
preference for established rules and concrete next steps.
As suggestions for MTSS implementation, interviewees highlighted building a clear plan
and having explicit expectations for staff. Participant 4 emphasized “common language, common
strategies and common elements” across the K–12 continuum. Participant 13 suggested a
“framework of how it’s going to work at our school site and then specific strategies that we
should be implementing, like clear expectations of what they want to see in our classrooms.”
Participant 9 agreed,
With MTSS, there’s no guideline, there’s no outline, there’s no expectations of what
should happen, and … I assume that it’s done purposefully because they want to give
teachers that freedom to implement it on their own, but just tell us what you want, and
we’ll make it happen.
79

Understanding the Tiered Intervention and Supports
Interviewees shared challenges with a lack of understanding of tiered intervention.
Participant 11 conveyed, “speaking from a teacher’s lens, one of the elements of MTSS that I see
teachers not understanding is the Tier I, II and III.” Similarly, Participant 8 specified, “It’s hard
to learn what all the tiers are if we don’t necessarily know what supports are in each of the tiers.”
Participant 8 added,
I think also some other resources are just kind of filtered to the Tier III supports and then
we kind of quickly exhaust all of those supports, so we’re not really putting a lot of
attention and on more Tier I and Tier II to try to avoid that.
Participant 13 shared, “Challenges of learning, I would say, is just lack of information,
lack of resources or strategies, because we had the one day, but beyond that, I don’t think I’ve
heard more about it.” There are some implications for practice as, per Participant 3, MTSS is
“not one and done.” In addition, interviewees noted there was pushback regarding PD. However,
at the end of the school year, there were questions about the lack of PD, which ultimately
contributed to the lack of clarification and understanding of the MTSS initiative. It is difficult to
fully understand which voices are at the table and communicating for the majority.
Limited Resources for Sustainability
Ten participants noted limited resources as a challenge to sustaining MTSS. Specifically,
the resources highlighted were material, financial, and time-related. Material resources were
district-wide access to evidence-based SEL curriculum. Financial resources were reported as a
challenge due to one-time COVID relief funds being used to secure specific personnel,
interventions and supports. Lastly, lack of time to learn about MTSS and effectively apply MTSS
principles were identified as implementation challenges.
80

Material Resources
Participants discussed differences in access to the SEL curriculum across the district.
This access varied by school and included counselors creating curriculum from resources pulled
online, a 2002 VCR version of the Second Step curriculum, and the newest version of this
curriculum with diverse students included. This curriculum is not shared across schools, and
access can differ greatly. One participant expressed over equitable access that “it should
technically be seen, the same thing as a textbook. You don’t buy it for one school and not for
others.” Participant 8 suggested conducting a needs assessment “to understand what support we
need and identifying those various interventions that we might need so we can make sure that we
have the support or the curriculum is in place.”
Financial/Personnel
Personnel and financial resources were also noted as a challenge to MTSS
implementation due to concerns over long-term sustainability. Participant 2 noted the idea of
sustainability as a challenge due to much of the one-time COVID relief funds being used.
Participants 8 and 14 also described increasing student needs and staff being stretched thin.
Participant 8 specified the “increase with mental health, homeless, foster youth, and behavioral
issues, all of that is increasing, but then our funding because of enrollment is going down, so
then we’re losing administrators and positions and things like that.”
Lack of Time
Eight participants saw a lack of time as a challenge. They described the lack of time to
learn about MTSS and to apply MTSS principles as a challenge to implementation.
Time and energy were challenges that interfered with learning about MTSS. Participant
10 explained,
81

I think everybody was expending this energy, and I feel me, personally, I needed the time
now. I want to grapple more with it, but it’s the time of even just to just kind of be there
for your students.
Similarly, Participant 5 shared the challenge of “just putting in the time that it takes to learn all
the fine intricacies for the application … getting staff buy-in and having the time.” Participant 5
also had difficulty attending training they signed up for:
I’ve signed up for every single one [training series], and because of my job the way it is, I
can’t attend any of them because they are at 2 o’clock and there’s just no way, so if they
were in the evening, I can do them, but my learning curve is kind of halted when I can’t
attend the meetings.
Interviewees also shared challenges related to time to apply what they learned. This
includes being able to stop and implement SEL strategies when there is pressure to continue
teaching. About managing social-emotional needs in the classroom, Participant 14 expressed, “I
think, for a lot of teachers, it’s the time. … The time and efficiency, how to help the kids to
figure out what’s wrong with them and how to make it better for them.” Similarly, Participant 14
shared the school counselor was unable to consistently implement Second Step due to limited
time and increasing student needs. Participant 11 also explained, “It takes a lot of time, even just
to take one lesson that you’ve already been teaching for years and years, to turn it into a UDL
lesson. It’s time, and there’s never enough of it.”
Organizational Change
Eleven participants saw organizational change as a challenge. Specifically, the
organizational change highlighted included systemic change, systems/SST, and teachers’ union
policies.
82

Systemic Change
Interviewees highlighted creating systemic change across ASD. Participant 3 explained,
When we talk about systemic change, that means it can’t just be the ED services
department thinking this way. We need HR to think this way. We need business to think
this way. We need classified to think this way. MTSS, it’s all hands on deck.
This type of systemic change is important because it also relates to change that needs to happen
throughout the organization. Participant 2 noted that at one school, a counselor has to be invited
into classrooms to conduct SEL lessons, whereas, at another site, the counselor can simply walk
in and deliver a lesson. Participant 2 expanded,
It’s been challenging because the resources have been put in place without the framework
really being there, so I think that probably at the sites that understanding of what those
people are supposed to do, like the interventionists. [I] think it’s still a little bit muddy.
Lack of Systems
Seven participants saw the lack of systems like SST as a challenge. One participant noted
how the lack of understanding of a formal framework directly impacts Tier III supports.
Participant 11 explained,
The way that teachers are not providing your Tier II intervention in the classroom
through small-group instruction really makes me the Tier II intervention. I play that Tier
II intervention role, which is not following the MTSS framework with that regard.
Participant 8 expanded on this concept with social-emotional supports: “It shouldn’t go straight
from nothing to now you’re receiving a Tier III intervention for individual therapy.”
The lack of systems and the implications for students were also shared. Participant 6
explained, “I think it leaves students to almost like a failure system because these teachers are
83

not putting things in place, so then [students] do end up falling on our lap for assessment.”
Participant 4 described the implications for practice:
Then, implementation … so, what are the levers? What do we want to accomplish? What
are the structures and policies that are in place to implement that? How do we ensure that
the staff is knowledgeable and aware of what those processes and systems are, and then
the follow-up where there’s gaps in those?
They expanded on how this relates to significant disproportionality:
I think some issues like our SigDisPro, for instance, are because we’ve had very limited
strategies, and, so, where kids didn’t meet learning targets or behavioral targets, the only
resources we have [is] special education. Really, bringing in MTSS and the SST, I think,
has been a growth area.
Participants provided suggestions for MTSS implementation, including developing
systems and practices within the MTSS framework. Participant 2 suggested the district and
schools would benefit from a process to lean back on. Participant 2 specified that the process for
SST should be district-led: “The district has said that we have to do an SST team meeting, and
they said these people have to come. They’ve said this data has to be included.” They highlighted
this would provide greater accountability and set clear expectations district-wide. Similarly,
Participant 8 suggested, “Consistency needs to happen as well. It might look a little bit different
every school, but at least having that guideline of this is the expectation for the whole district
really needs to happen.” They added,
Whether it’s about academics, behavior, or social-emotional, so having a general
understanding that we can have an SST for all of those things. It’s not just academics and
84

really start to ensure that all kids before they get to special education get filtered through
that process to make sure that we are trying various interventions on a regular basis.
Participant 5 agreed with having a district-wide process for SST and suggested that the district
ensure that processes align with the resources currently available to the schools and district.
Teachers ’ Union
The teachers’ union created resistance towards PD, which led the district to pause some
initial planning rollout activities. There was pushback regarding PD early in the 2021–2022
school year, and at the end of the term, questions arose surrounding the lack of PD. Participant 3
shared concerns regarding representation and voice:
I also think union-wise, there’s groups in their union that want [PD], and I’m not so sure
those are the voices that are coming to the table, and so these people are coming at us
individually, and these people are coming at us collectively, and I don’t know if they’ve
talked to these people. Participant 3 added, “I think the teachers union and really to push
back on any of the PD is hugely limiting to keeping their own teachers relevant our
teachers are not being trained in innovative practices.”
Some interviewees saw a lack of follow-through in the pivot from PD to accommodate
union requests. Participant 9 reported, “I liked the enthusiasm at the beginning of the school
year, but it felt like, as a district, it kind of lost steam … We started off so strong and then it was
gone.” Participant 12 shared, “I think it kind of goes back to follow-through and accountability.”
This may only further exacerbate challenges, such as voices not being included in decision
making, a lack of transparency and communication regarding the rationale for decisions, and a
lack of clarity on the district’s mission and vision.

85

Additional Observations
This study includes several findings related to the problem of practice and other
outcomes. These findings indicate an emerging impact of MTSS implementation on the rate of
Latinx students identified for special education. Additional findings related to short-term
outcomes were social-emotional outcomes, the school climate, academic outcomes, and
outcomes related to data practices. Suggestions for improvement that were not embedded in the
prior sections are also included as part of additional observations. These suggestions are for PD
improvement, creating an MTSS committee, and improvements for SEL.
Emerging Impact
Interviews were conducted in June of the 2021–2022 school year. At this time, updated
significant disproportionality data were available and initial outcomes were reported. According
to participants, as a result of MTSS implementation efforts, the over-identification of Hispanic
students as having an SLD declined from 5.5% to 4.47%. Another participant also noted an
overall decrease in special education assessments. They explained, “Most teachers are pretty on
par with that. They’re not pushing assessment right away. Like, they want to try their hardest …
and pursue the SST Process 1 and 2 before really pushing for assessment.” The emerging impact
on English language learners was also disclosed. The district reclassified more English learners
during the 2021–2022 school year and was on track for reclassifying upwards of 300 students
compared to only 24 students in previous years. Participant 11 shared, “That shows to me that
what we’re doing providing targeted intervention to these kiddos is actually making a
difference.” It is important to note that progress was reported despite the challenges presented
and the rollout not being implemented as planned.

86

Social-Emotional Outcomes
Positive social-emotional outcomes were reported as part of this study’s findings. These
positive outcomes included: positive adult perceptions, positive student outcomes and increases
in SEL practices on campuses. Participant 14 expressed that, through MTSS, they “learned it’s
ok to show kids love they need it, respond to it and then they’ll be better for you because they
know that its safe, trying to create a safe space for students where they feel capable and smart.”
Participant 11 observed positive changes in students noting their “attitude changed, gained
confidence, finding their voice these are the things not measured in standardized testing.” They
also expressed,
I see a lot of teachers are doing a lot of things, such as putting a mirror on the wall and
having positive affirmations around it. I’ve been seeing a lot of that around campus as
well, but I think that’s a significant portion of the MTSS.
Participant 5 noted informal observations, sharing that students had a positive response to daily
check-ins, and they were able to “extinguish a lot of the problems before they started and really
find the kids that need that support in the morning.”
Outcomes Related to School Climate
Positive observations were noted as a result of the district WOW activities. Participant 13
reported,
There seemed to be a lot less anxiety because coming back to school can be stressful
under normal circumstances, but a lot of these kids hadn’t been on campus in the year
and a half, let alone to their middle school campus.
They continued,
87

We got feedback from the kids, and a lot of them said it was a great way to come back:
“It made me feel like my teachers were interested in who I am and getting to know me,”
and that sort of thing.
Similarly, Participant 9 shared an example of positive outcomes related to school climate:
The counselors and the TOSAs, and it wasn’t all the time, but for some recess, they
would be out there, playing with the kids … or they would just be like walking around
with the bubble gun, so that was amazing.
Participants 9 and 10 also provided examples of increased inclusion for special education
students by their general education peers. Examples were shared in both the elementary and
middle school settings.
Academic Outcomes
Positive short-term academic outcomes were also highlighted. Participant 1 shared,
Targeted interventions have been the strongest, and I love that they really stood or really
tried to stay to the model with fidelity. So, they did every 6 to 8 weeks. They went
through and reevaluated whether their current group was at, and it wasn’t static they kept
the groups moving I feel that that was probably the strongest piece to what we did this
year.
Participant 11 shared their observations of teachers implementing small groups:
After we set it up, we touch base again the following week, reflect on it: How did it go?
And I would say 100% of the time, that’s quantifying the data, percent of the time, the
teachers have said that it made a positive impact and the students, even in something as
simple as their attitude has changed.

88

Outcomes Related to Data Practices
Short-term outcomes related to data had mixed results, according to interviewees.
Participant 13 shared,
I think we’ve looked more at things like explosions and suspension and stuff like that, so
I know there’s data behind that and how that’s happening, who it’s happening to, so I
think that’s been something that they think about. I haven’t been in on those kinds of
conversations personally, but I know that that sort of stuff is being discussed.
Similarly, Participants 1 and 8 reported positive outcomes related to targeted intervention
and SST data. On the other hand, interviewees also shared that the area of data collection
remains an area of growth. Participants 4 and 5 shared that data systems and practices remained
an area of growth. Participant 6 explained,
We don’t have much data at one site. We have some SST notes for some of the students
that we met for, and so as far as data on fidelity of services or our accommodations that
teachers did, we don’t have that we have the data for intervention for math and reading
and for counseling, but that’s as far as it goes.
Suggestions for Improvement
This section includes suggestions as part of additional observations for improvement that
were not embedded as part of challenges to implementation. These suggestions are for PD
improvement, an MTSS committee, and improvements for SEL.
Suggestions for Professional Development
All participants provided suggestions for PD improvement. These included consideration
of theory to application and implementation principles of learning of part of PD.
89

Theory to Application. Interviewees provided suggestions for professional development,
including the UDL committee training. It was suggested that some training sessions during the
school year leaned heavily on theory and left participants wanting more strategies for practical
application. Participants 11 and 13 suggested a more balanced approach between research/theory
and strategies for application. Participant 6 also suggested a more solution-focused approach.
Participants 6 and 8 provided suggestions for training topics, such as SEL, tension relief, and
classroom management strategies. Participants 1 and 9 emphasized including classified staff as
part of professional development. Having presenters who are knowledgeable about the content
was also important to interviewees. Five participants suggested having presenters with
experience and expertise in the field, such as classroom experience and being specifically trained
for the needs of elementary schools.
Learning Strategies. Interviewees shared strategies that would benefit participant
learning. Five participants suggested modeling strategies and providing examples as support to
facilitate learning. Participant 7 included providing resources, like articles, that can be shared and
are easily accessible. Three participants suggested that resources be organized to be easily
accessible so they could refer to materials at their convenience. They suggested a shared Google
Drive with a master slide deck to accomplish this suggestion. Three participants suggested
having time to step away from duties to attend PD, being mindful of other duties and
responsibilities, and time to process after district-wide PD day would be beneficial to learning.
Participant 10 explained, “Not adding more but allowing time to process what was learned.”
Three participants suggested being able to collaborate is important to their learning as well.
Another suggestion for improvement was scaffolding training information and following
up after PD. Three participants provided suggestions for scaffolding. This included emailing
90

short videos or learning materials once a month; providing time, no more than an hour, in staff
meetings to process after a district-wide PD day; and short 1-hour discussions on rationale,
modeling, and resources. Scheduling time for later follow-up was also suggested. Four
Participants suggested follow-up as a way to support, keep MTSS at the forefront, and hold
people accountable. It was clarified that check-in should be done as a way to provide support,
reassurance and encouragement rather than “checking up” on staff.
Create a District MTSS Committee
Participants suggested having an MTSS committee along with a district MTSS support
staff would improve implementation. Participants 10 and 13 suggested having an MTSS
committee to facilitate implementation and communication. Participant 13 suggested that the
committee members serve as “representatives who are part of the greater committee at the
district level that can talk to us about what that means for us here at my site that’s helpful.”
Participant 10 also suggested having an MTSS person to support district-wide MTSS
implementation. They also suggested that the person should not be a teacher due to having many
other roles and responsibilities. Participant 10 highlighted having someone who can come into
the classrooms and provide feedback and suggestions would be helpful to their current role and
successful implementation.
Suggestions for Social-Emotional Learning
Seven participants provided suggestions for SEL improvement. Participants 2 and 8
suggested creating consistency in district-wide supports, such as the SEL curriculum. This
includes ensuring equal access to updated versions of evidence-based SEL curriculum across the
district. Participant 8 also suggested creating a plan to ensure consistent social-emotional lesson
delivery. For example, as part of a homeroom class or elective that is part of a student’s schedule
91

of classes. They also suggested providing initial support to teachers to implement classroom SEL
lessons while building their capacity “but also making that a standard (teaching SEL lesson) like
this is what we’re doing all teachers are doing it.” Similarly, participant 10 shared, “One thing I
think is a missing component is SEL for teachers … because if we’re expected to guide our
students, we need that time as well.”
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASD’s integrated MTSS framework to
learn more about the barriers and facilitators during the first year of implementation. Several key
findings were presented in this chapter to answer this study’s evaluation questions. The
following sections summarize these findings.
To address the first evaluation question, activities coincided with the logic model and
were organized as PD, academic interventions, behavior interventions, social-emotional
interventions, district and school-wide culture/climate, and family engagement. Implementation
facilitators were training and technical support, attitudes and beliefs, leadership, systems, and
resources. Challenges related to a paradigm shift and resistance, issues related to the pandemic
and well-being, communication, knowledge gaps, resources, and organizational change.
Additional observations made during this study included emerging impact. Updated data
on significant disproportionality showed that the rate of Hispanic students overidentified as
having an SLD declined from 5.5% to 4.47%, as a result of MTSS implementation. In addition,
ASD expected to reclassify over 300 students. Other positive outcomes were also presented in
the areas of social-emotional impact, attitudes and beliefs, school climate, and academics. Lastly,
interviewees’ suggestions for improvement were presented. The key findings emerging from the
evaluation questions inform the recommendations presented in Chapter Five.
92

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASD’s integrated MTSS framework, as a
strategy to address significant disproportionality, and to learn more about the barriers and
facilitators during the first year of implementation. This chapter will discuss the evaluation’s
findings and recommendations for practice. Recommendations for future research and this
study’s limitations and delimitations will also be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a
brief overview of the evaluation, including the study’s emerging impact on the rate of Latinx
disproportionality in ASD.
Discussion of Evaluation Findings
The study’s findings support alignment with the logic model in Table 1. In addition,
Chapter Four reviewed key findings related to interviewees’ perceptions of facilitators and
barriers during the first year of MTSS implementation. Evaluation findings will be further
discussed in the following sections.
Evaluation Question 1: To What Extent Was the MTSS Initiative Implemented During the
2021–2022 School Year?
Interviewees provided qualitative data for the activities conducted, many of which
aligned with the logic model. The activities were a leadership retreat, leadership training, training
teachers and administrators to understand how to disaggregate data, training teachers on creating
SMART Goals for Tier I intervention supports, developing an SST referral guide and training
stakeholders, developing and implementing professional learning community protocols, training
teachers and administrators on UDL and MTSS principles, training special education assessors in
bilingual assessments, training all district staff in implicit bias and cultural awareness, and
universal screening using the BESS. Activities reported by interviewees were the leadership
93

retreat, a district-level principals’ meeting, district-wide PD, site-level principals’ meetings, and
a UDL committee. Interviewees also reported the BESS as part of the activities conducted.
Interviewees reported additional activities that were not depicted in the logic model.
These focused on academic, behavioral, and SEL interventions. Interviewees also discussed
encouragement and further development of positive district and school-wide culture and climate,
which included family and student engagement activities. These activities consisted of a district-
wide WOW focused on creating a positive environment for students to return to in-person
learning. In addition, other positive strategies were greeting students by name at the door and
conducting morning check-ins with them. Family/student engagement activities included sending
postcards home, e-communication with families, and creating a classroom mailbox for increased
student connection. The 2021–2022 school year was the first full academic year back in person
after COVID-19 school closures. As a result, some MTSS activities shifted to address students’
emerging social-emotional and well-being needs.
Evaluation Question 2: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Factors That
Facilitated Implementation of MTSS?
Evaluation Question 2 pertained to factors that facilitated MTSS implementation.
Interviewees identified the following factors: training and technical support, attitudes and beliefs,
leadership, systems, and resources. The types of training and technical support highlighted
included experts from the field, modeling strategies, making connections, and collaboration with
peers. These findings aligned with the literature and factors that lead to successful MTSS
implementation. The literature presented suggests establishing leadership, school-wide
intervention teams, school psychologist collaboration and consultation, coaching and
professional development, and educator attitudes and beliefs as factors that promote MTSS
94

success (Aarons & Palinkas, 2007; Choi et al., 2019; Cook et al., 2015; Eagle et al., 2015; Haney
et al., 1996; Kozleski & Huber, 2012; Sailor et al., 2021; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). The following
sections discuss the similarities between the findings and the literature review.
The literature suggests that establishing leadership, including site-based school principal
leadership, facilitates MTSS implementation. Establishing leadership includes influencing
equitable learning environments, systemic change, and inclusive practices for all students’
diverse learning needs (Choi et al., 2019; Eagle et al., 2015; Kozleski & Huber, 2012). Similar to
what other researchers have found regarding establishing strong leadership, this study found the
district mission and leadership support were beneficial to MTSS implementation. In addition,
this study’s findings highlighted district- and site-level leaders’ support as helpful to
implementation. Future considerations based on the literature would be for ASD to establish site-
based leadership in the form of a school-wide intervention team.
The literature noted PD and coaching as important for establishing and maintaining
MTSS implementation (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Similarly, this study
found that training and technical support help with MTSS implementation. In addition, the
literature suggests educator attitudes and beliefs directly correlate with their use of EBPs and
influence successful MTSS implementation (Aarons & Palinkas, 2007; Cook et al., 2015; Haney
et al., 1996; Sailor et al., 2021). This study found staff attitudes and beliefs were beneficial to
MTSS implementation, similar to what other researchers found on this topic. This study’s
findings related to training and technical assistance and educator attitudes and beliefs are
important, as empirical evidence suggests these factors correlate to more successful outcomes
(Aarons & Palinkas, 2007; Cook et al., 2015; Haney et al., 1996; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Sailor
et al., 2021). Future considerations for ASD include focusing on building their coaching capacity
95

and developing training by experts from the field, modeling strategies, and making connections
to MTSS principles.
Evaluation Question 3: What Were Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding the Challenges to
the Implementation of MTSS?
Evaluation Question 3 asked about challenges to MTSS implementation during the 2021–
2022 school year. The challenges pertained to a paradigm shift and resistance, the pandemic’s
effects on well-being, communication, knowledge gaps, resources, and organizational change.
The knowledge gaps exposed the lack of expectation clarity and understanding of tiered
interventions and supports. Material, personnel, and financial resources also posed a challenge.
Participants felt they had limited time to learn about and apply MTSS principles. The challenges
with organizational change included a lack of SST process and union policy. These challenges
align with prior research.
Challenging factors that lead to unsuccessful MTSS implementation outcomes were
discussed in the literature review. These challenges were a lack of guidance with
implementation, lack of training, lack of knowledge and experience implementing MTSS with
diverse student populations, educator buy-in, lack of communication, and a lack of resources
(Braun et al., 2020; Cook & Odom, 2013; Lancaster & Hougen, 2017; Meyer & Beha-Horenstein
2015; Sugai & Horner 2009). This study’s findings regarding factors that were barriers to MTSS
implementation were similar to those in the literature.
One major challenge to implementing a successful MTSS framework is the lack of
guidance on how it should be done (Arden & Pentimonti, 2017; Balu et al., 2015; Hauerwas et
al., 2013; VanDerHeyden et al., 2016). In addition, the literature highlights educators’ lack of
knowledge and experience implementing MTSS with diverse student populations as a challenge
96

(Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2009; Lancaster & Hougen, 2017;
Moats, 2017; Sugai & Horner 2009). Similar to the literature, this study found challenges related
to the clarity of expectations and understanding concepts of tiered intervention and supports.
Thus, ASD may consider training focused on the core components of implementation.
The literature also noted educator buy-in and lack of communication as challenges to
MTSS implementation (Braun et al., 2020; Meyer & Beha-Horenstein, 2015; Orosco & Klinger,
2010). Similarly, this study found paradigm shifts, resistance and communication were
challenges. Therefore, ASD may consider increasing communication to increase stakeholder
engagement and involvement in district-wide MTSS implementation.
Emerging Impact and Addressing the Problem of Practice
Additional observations during this study included findings related to an emerging impact
on the rate of Latinx significant disproportionality in ASD, as a result of MTSS implementation.
A decrease in significant disproportionality was reported for the 2021–2022 school year.
Significant disproportionality of Latinx students identified with an SLD declined from 5.5% to
4.47%. In addition, ASD reclassified more English learners during this term and was on track for
reclassifying upwards of 300 students compared to only 24 students in previous years. This
study’s findings may be related to prior research suggesting that MTSS implementation paired
with UDL decreases inappropriate special education referrals (Sailor, 2012; Sailor et al., 2021).
Outcomes related to the decreased rate of disproportionality and English learner
reclassification are directly related to the problem of practice. However, additional positive
outcomes were also reported: SEL, school climate, and academic outcomes. This study’s
findings are similar to the literature in that implementing a school-wide MTSS can improve
97

social-emotional, behavioral, and academic achievement (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Sailor et
al., 2021).
Recommendations
This study’s findings provided insight into stakeholders’ perceptions of barriers and
facilitators during the first year of MTSS implementation. Based on the findings and related
literature, the following recommendations for practice are proposed: monthly MTSS
communication, layered MTSS training, a district-wide leadership team for MTSS, training
guided by principles of learning, and capacity building for data-based decision making and
fidelity.
Recommendation 1: Monthly MTSS Communication
Freeman et al. (2015) highlighted communication and collaboration across the continuum
of implementation and district support staff as vital features of MTSS implementation. However,
the findings presented in Chapter Four indicated that participants perceived communication
around messaging, expectations and clarity of expectations as challenges. Goodman (2017)
emphasized creating a clear definition, including outlining critical features, of MTSS to improve
communication and action planning. It is recommended that an MTSS leadership committee
provide monthly MTSS communication via email.
Monthly communication will increase transparency across the district and provide key
updates on the critical features of implementation, including the development and monitoring of
systems and procedures. Increased communication efforts may also help create a sense of
urgency regarding the district’s disproportionality and provide clarity regarding the district’s
mission. This study’s participants provided suggestions for communication enhancement,
including creative ways of receiving information, optimal frequency, and improved messaging.
98

They suggested emails as a way to improve communication due to ease of accessibility. Creative
ways to increase communication were videos, recorded messages, short PowerPoints, Q&As, the
Parent Square app, and newsletters. It is also recommended that ASD consider implementing
participant suggestions to incorporate stakeholder feedback.
Recommendation 2: Layered MTSS Training
Findings presented in Chapter Four showed knowledge gaps, including a lack of clarity
around expectations and confusion around tiered interventions. Kittleman et al. (2020) suggested
“well-trained and supported educators” are more likely to have increased self-efficacy and
successfully address their students’ needs across tiers” (p. 266). Freeman et al. (2015)
recommended implementing layered training, including awareness-level training, “to introduce
elements of MTSS to new school staff, administrators, family members, and the community”
(p.63). It is recommended that layered and awareness training be implemented throughout the
school year to help close knowledge gaps.
Layered training focuses on multiple MTSS core components and stakeholders, and
awareness training is focused on a broad overview of the MTSS initiative. Layered training
should include focus areas related to the MTSS initiative and vary in intensity to address the
continuum of tiered interventions. It is recommended that awareness training on the MTSS
initiative consistently connect the district’s rationale and mission to address disproportionality of
special education eligibility in addition to positive educational outcomes for all students. This
study found training and technical assistance facilitate MTSS implementation. Adding layered
training focused on technical support would be one way to incorporate and build on stakeholder
feedback. In addition, ASD may consider other training in specific focus areas related to MTSS
core components.
99

Additional training topics for ASD to consider as results of this study’s findings and in
alignment with the literature include data collection and progress monitoring. This study’s
findings indicated that data practices had mixed outcomes. In addition, the literature suggests
that a lack of adequate data collection skills has a domino effect that might carry over to other
MTSS implementation areas, such as delivering instruction, monitoring progress, collecting and
analyzing data, and modifying intervention plans (Arden & Pentimonti, 2017; Braun et al., 2020;
Greenfield et al. 2010). This is important because progress monitoring, data-driven decision
making and problem solving are also core components of the MTSS framework.
Recommendation 3: Create a District-Wide Leadership Team for MTSS
This study’s findings showed a need for organizational change related to systems, an
unclear systems/SST process, and policy around the teachers’ union. An important component of
implementing an integrated MTSS is having district leaders meet consistently “to discuss
implementation efforts, share data, design professional development, and establish integrated
policies and practices for academic and social competence” (Freeman et al., 2015, p.61).
Kittleman et al. (2020) emphasized implementation teams investing time and effort into “systems
to support their implementation” (p. 96). Kittleman et al. (2020) further explained using
organizational systems or “frameworks” help teams to identify and implement EBPs, identify
strategies to facilitate implementation using the implementation process, and use data to monitor
implementation and to guide decision making. It is recommended that a district-wide MTSS
leadership committee, including various stakeholders across the district and district leadership,
be implemented and meet once a month.
A district-wide MTSS committee may help increase stakeholder engagement and can
facilitate the monthly communication discussed earlier. The committee can gather stakeholder
100

input, establish clear and measurable goals for the school year, use a consistent framework to
establish clear procedures for supporting students, and facilitate school teams’ implementation of
established processes to ensure a consistent continuum of support for all students. After each
meeting, committee members can send all staff a newsletter providing relevant updates and
guidance on the systems and processes it created.
Recommendation 4: Incorporate Principles of Learning Within Training and Technical
Support
This study’s findings highlighted challenges due to knowledge gaps and lack of time to
learn about MTSS, including confusion around implementation expectations and understanding
tiered interventions. Along with layered training, ASD would likely benefit from incorporating
principles of learning to help develop an understanding of MTSS while considering best
practices for learning. A meta-analysis by Joyce and Showers (2002) found that successful
training presents information about the intervention, provides modeled demonstrations, and
creates opportunities to practice skills. Additional findings suggested that training that focuses
solely on theory and discussion results in limited learning and generalization of skills in the
classroom. Learning principles recommended to facilitate learning about MTSS are scaffolding
concepts, modeling, time to process what was learned and worked examples.
Literature suggests that scaffolding and shorter learning sessions may benefit learning
outcomes (Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011). Scaffolding may also benefit stakeholders by
reducing cognitive load and presenting concepts in digestible parts (Mayer, 2011). In addition,
Mayer (2011) suggested frequent short training sessions might be more effective than longer
sessions. This study’s participants suggested time to process information and one-hour training
sessions to improve MTSS implementation, which aligns with the literature. Training focused on
101

key components of MTSS, including common vocabulary, could be presented in one-hour
increments to introduce concepts and give staff time to process. In addition, these one-hour
sessions can be used to prime staff for future training materials or as a follow-up to complex
concepts. This recommendation could complement the district-wide PD days that occur twice a
year. The recommendations align with the research and participants’ suggestions to improve
MTSS training and technical support.
Research also suggests that modeling and worked examples can support learning
(Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011). Denler et al. (2014) suggested that modeling to support
learning can improve self-efficacy, use of skills, and learning outcomes. This study also found
modeling strategies facilitate MTSS implementation. Worked examples may also benefit
educators’ learning outcomes. An example is providing educators with sample lesson plans
developed using the principles of UDL. It is recommended that ASD use modeling and worked
examples to promote staff learning of the MTSS framework and principles. This strategy may
help close the knowledge gaps previously discussed as challenges.
Recommendation 5: Fidelity and Data-Based Decision Making
Recent literature suggests “interventions are often adopted slowly and delivered with
poor fidelity,” which can result in poor student outcomes (Sanetti & Luh, 2019, p. 204). Fidelity
measures whether an intervention or strategy is consistently being implemented as intended and
to what extent (Coffee et al., 2013; Gresham, 1989, Freeman et al., 2017). Within the MTSS
framework, data-based decision making and problem solving should be based on a student’s
response to interventions. Determining this response requires educators to collect data on student
outcomes and fidelity of intervention implementation; however, research suggests that collecting
fidelity data is not a regular practice of implementation (Cochrane et al., 2019; Sanetti & Collier-
102

Meek, 2019). This study found that data practices had mixed outcomes. It is suggested that ASD
build practices and systems that promote data collection and fidelity of implementation. Fidelity
data may benefit district-wide MTSS implementation and individual student intervention
implementation to improve outcomes.
District-wide MTSS systems-level fidelity is recommended to promote consistency of
practices district-wide, including in data collection and progress monitoring. O’Connor and
Freeman (2012) noted,
Many districts become lost and confused when it is discovered they are not making
progress toward their desired outcomes. Without a “roadmap” for the system, it is easy
for district leadership to become overwhelmed or disjointed in their [MTSS] efforts.
(p. 302)
Sanetti and Luh (2019) recommended “educators integrate key findings from implementation
science into their practice and research” to promote understanding of the implementation process
(p. 214). They also highlighted implementation science and fidelity as being increasingly
recognized for contributing to successful MTSS implementation. This success includes
considerations for incorporating evaluation of implementation at the systems level. Ruffini et al.
(2016) reported 47% of schools did not implement MTSS adequately, and 49% did not include
evaluation practices. Although additional research is needed regarding MTSS implementation
using implementation science, these practices continue to be recommended to facilitate a
systematic implementation process.
Fidelity and data-based decision making for student interventions and supports are also
recommended. These include focusing on the fidelity of interventions targeting English learners
and students with learning disabilities to address specific disproportionality. Culturally
103

responsive practices to address significant disproportionality as a Tier 1 intervention should also
be considered. Cochrane et al. (2019) found that only 14% of participants in a national survey of
school psychologists reported their MTSS problem-solving teams evaluated intervention fidelity
“most of the time.”
Sanetti and Luh (2019) noted that a lack of fidelity data for student interventions might
result in being “recommended for more intensive intervention” when not responding to support
(p. 209). They further explained that “when fidelity is assumed and not assessed in an MTSS
model,” the lack of student progress is related to students’ abilities rather than fidelity of
intervention implementation (p. 209). Lack of intervention fidelity could result in misidentifying
students as learning disabled even when they have not received consistent intervention.
It is recommended that ASD support educators in building skills and practices around
data collection while also starting to introduce the concept of fidelity. The concept of fidelity
may be introduced in earlier stages of implementation while building capacity for data collection
at all levels. Once there is greater consistency in data collection, in general, it would be
important to build capacity around implementation fidelity to promote stronger student outcomes
and discontinue intensive interventions.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher’s choices and decisions throughout this study had implications for
limitations and delimitations. A limitation of this study was the trustworthiness of respondents’
interview responses. The researcher cannot control for the truthfulness of respondents’
responses. Therefore, I reassured participants that their confidentiality would be protected. This
was important to mitigate potential concerns during interviews. Another limitation was that the
104

findings are not generalizable. Due to the nature of the evaluation and examining ASD’s specific
MTSS rollout, the findings cannot be generalized to other populations.
This study’s delimitations include researcher decisions regarding participants and data
collection methods. The researcher recruited at least two to three participants in each position
category. The delimitations pertained to the population type and the number of participants
recruited in each position category. Another delimitation is the inclusion of only one district. The
ASD is considered a small district compared to others in Los Angeles County. Furthermore, this
evaluation was conducted at the beginning stages of implementation; therefore, the full range of
implementation was not known.
Recommendations for Future Research and Evaluation
To further support MTSS implementation in ASD, future research should be considered.
A needs assessment to learn more about supports needed to facilitate district-wide capacity for
implementation would likely be beneficial. For example, there is a need for data regarding access
to evidence-based SEL curricula or which MTSS components need additional training to support
learning. In addition, it is recommended that ASD gather stakeholder input via surveys or
interviews to learn more about educators’ perceptions of MTSS and help guide future decision
making. Stakeholder input should be collected mid-year and at the end of each school year. This
would help increase stakeholder engagement and involvement in district-wide MTSS
implementation.
With districts statewide increasing implementation of MTSS, it is also important for
future research to be conducted on application strategies. This should include longitudinal
studies on MTSS from the beginning stages and following implementation progress for at least 3
to 5 years. In addition, it is recommended that future research focus on using specific
105

frameworks like program theory, using logic models, and implementation science to
systematically guide and monitor implementation. Although there is increasing support for using
implementation science to support MTSS implementation, there is also a lack of clarity regarding
specific models or frameworks used. Conducting future research in this area may help provide
concrete guidance to implementation and evidence to support MTSS implementation.
Future research is recommended to establish EBPs for significant disproportionality in
special education, including historically marginalized populations. Future longitudinal research
should focus on interventions directly related to addressing SLD. Interventions that can be
further explored may include culturally responsive teaching and assessment practices and
interventions related to EL students. In addition, future research regarding MTSS
implementation to decrease disproportionality rates may be beneficial. This should include
methods to monitor the fidelity of implementation and sustaining practices over time.
Conclusion
This study focused on evaluating ASD’s first year of MTSS implementation to address
Latinx significant disproportionality, and to learn more about the barriers and facilitators to
implementation. The findings provided qualitative data to indicate the extent to which the
initiative was implemented. Challenges around COVID-19 posed implications for full
implementation, yet ASD did implement many activities. Participants also shared perspectives
regarding various challenges and facilitators to implementation. Additional observations
included qualitative data regarding short-term outcomes and emerging impact significant
disproportionality. This is important as evaluation findings can help ASD’s decision making for
future directions while considering stakeholder feedback. Findings highlighted short-term
positive outcomes: SEL, school climate, and academic outcomes. In addition, findings indicated
106

an emerging impact and decrease in the rate of Latinx students disproportionately identified as
SLD in ASD using MTSS. These findings are valuable as they support using MTSS to create a
positive environment that ensures successful outcomes for all students. Furthermore, it provides
evidence for application of MTSS components and highlights the importance of addressing
social inequalities to create more equitable educational opportunities for historically
marginalized student populations. This is significant for the field of education and each
individual little girl and boy who brings a face and story to this problem of practice. It is
imperative that we continue to improve our educational systems, for children to believe not only
in their potential but in a world of possibility for their educational futures.

107

References
Aarons, G. A. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership: Association with attitudes
toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services, 57(8), 1162–1169.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2006.57.8.1162
Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child
welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 34,
411–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0121-3
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the EL assessment and special education eligibility.
Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282–2303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00782.x
Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A
content analysis of peerreviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. The Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295
Albers, C. A., & Kettler, R. J. (2014). Best practices in universal screening. In P. Harrison & A.
Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative
decision making (pp. 121–131). National Association of School Psychologists.
Algozzine, B., Cooke, N., White, R., Helf, S., Algozzine, K., & McClanahan, T. (2008). The
North Carolina reading and behavior center’s K-3 prevention model: Eastside elementary
school case study. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide
prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 173–214). The Guilford
Press.
Alkin, M., & Vo, A. (2018). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
108

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.).
Longman.
Andreou, T. E., McIntosh, K., Ross, S. W., & Kahn, J. D. (2015). Critical incidents in the
sustainability of school- wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. The Journal
of Special Education, 49, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914554298
Arden, S. V., & Pentimonti, J. M. (2017). Data-based decision making in multi-tiered systems of
support: Principles, practices, tips, & tools. Perspectives on Language and Literacy,
43(4), 19–23.
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and
explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture.
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600303
Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research-
based instructional practice: A case study of peer- assisted learning strategies in
mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250010301
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of
response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016- 4000).
U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/pdf/20164000.pdf
Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Merrill.
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. Plenum.
109

Bernstein, H., Gonzalez, D., Karpman, M., & Zuckerman, S. (2020). Amid confusion over the
public charge rule, immigrant families continued avoiding public benefits in 2019. Urban
Institute.
Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. (2012). Validation of an instrument for
assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia,
62, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0070-8
Bohanon, H., Gilman, C., Parker, B., Amell, C., & Sortino, G. (2016). Using school
improvement and implementation science to integrate multi-tiered systems of support in
secondary schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 99–116.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.8
Bollmer, J., Bethel, J., Garrison-Mogren, R., & Brauen, M. (2007). Using the risk ratio to assess
racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education at the school-district level. The
Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 186–198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410030401
Braun, K., Kumm, S., Brown, C., Walte, S., Hughes, M. T., & Maggin, D. M. (2020). Living in
Tier 2: Educators’ perceptions of MTSS in urban schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 24(10), 1114–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1511758
Briesch, C., Chafouleas, S. M., Nissen, K., & Long, S. (2020). A review of state-level procedural
guidance for implementing multitiered systems of support for behavior (MTSS-B).
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(3), 131–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719884707
110

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. L., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
responsiveness to intervention research: Examining field-based and research-
implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406
California Department of Education. (2016). Developing, aligning, and improving systems of
academic and behavioral supports: Scaling up multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) in
California, request for applications.
California Department of Education. (2020). Definition of MTSS.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp
California Department of Education. (2022). 2022 Significantly disproportionate LEAs.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/qa/sigdisp.asp
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of
literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8),
791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
Carta, J., & Miller Young, R. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for young children: Driving
change in early education. Brookes Publishing.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2.
http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Choi, J. H., McCart, A., Hicks, T., & Sailor, W. (2019). Analysis of mediating effect of school
leadership on MTSS implementation. The Journal of Special Education, 53(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918804815
Choi, J., Meisenheimer, J. M., McCart, A. B., & Sailor, W. (2017). Improving learning for all
students through equity-based inclusive reform practices: Effectiveness of a fully
111

integrated schoolwide model on student reading and math achievement. Remedial and
Special Education, 38, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516644054
Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Curriculum-based
measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset
quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001
Cochrane, W., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Minster, M. (2019). School psychologists’ beliefs and
practices about treatment integrity in 2008 and 2017. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 295–
305. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22177
Coffee, G., Ray-Subramanian, C. E., Schanding, G. T., Jr., & Feeney-Kettler, K. A. (2013).
Early childhood education : a practical guide to evidence-based, multi-tiered service
delivery. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126875
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education.
The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911420877
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in
special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402913079002021
Cook, C. R., Burns, M., Browning-Wright, D., & Gresham, F. M. (2010). Transforming school
psychology in the RTI era: A guide for administrators and school psychologists. LRP
Publications.
Cook, C. R., Lyon, A. R., Kubergovic, D., Browning Wright, D., & Zhang, Y. (2015). A
supportive beliefs intervention to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based
112

practices within a multi-tiered system of supports. School Mental Health, 7(1), 49–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-014-9139-3
Cooper, Y. (2017). What is intersectionality and what does it have to do with me?
https://.ywbost.org/2017/03what-is-interctionality-andwhat-does-it-have-to-do-with-me/
Delobelle, P., Rawlinson, J. L., Ntuli, S., Malatsi, I., Decock, R., & Depoorter, A. M. (2011). Job
satisfaction and turnover intent of primary healthcare nurses in rural South Africa: A
questionnaire survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(2), 371–383.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05496.x
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Deno, S. L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for
intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10–40). The Guilford Press.
Donaldson, S. I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809730
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,
63(8), 6–11.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Gibbons Holtzman, E. (2015). Implementing a
multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and
113

administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational & Psychological
Consultation, 25, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Elder, F. (2019). D. N., Persico, C., & Imberman, S. A. School Segregation and Racial Gaps in
Special Education Identification., https://doi.org/10.3386/w25829
Erchul, W. P., & Martens, B. K. (2012). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases of
practice (3rd ed.). Springer.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention:
Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288–
310. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300302
Fiedler, C. R., Chiang, B., Van Haren, B., Jorgensen, J., Halberg, S., & Boreson, L. (2008).
Culturally responsive practices in schools: A checklist to address disproportionality in
special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 52–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000507
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: Synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Louis de
la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-
based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 213–230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402913079002071
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating
academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
114

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role
of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37
Forman, S. G., & Crystal, C. D. (2015). Systems consultation for multi-tiered systems of
Supports (MTSS): Implementation issues. Journal of Educational & Psychological
Consultation, 25(2-3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.963226
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Susannah, E. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging
knowing to doing. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241946
Freeman, R., Miller, D., & Newcomer, L. (2015). Integration of academic and behavioral MTSS
at the district level using implementation science. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary
Journal, 13(1), 59-72. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A435002619/CWI?u=usocal_
main&sid=bookmark-CWI&xid=c1c15bec
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic
assessment as responsiveness to intervention. A scripted protocol to identify young at-
risk readers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 58–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900508
Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150
115

Furney, K. S., Aiken, J., Hasazi, S., & Clark-Keefe, K. (2005). Meeting the needs of all students:
Contributions of effective school leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 546–570.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460501500504
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly,
41(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.5
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing Qualitative Data (2nd ed.). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867
Golloher, A. N., Whitenack, D. A., Simpson, L. A., & Sacco, D. (2018). From the ground up:
Providing support to emergent bilinguals to distinguish language difference from
disability. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 15(2), 127.
Goodman, S. (2017). Lessons learned through a statewide implementation of a multi-tiered
system of support. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(4), 24–28.
Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, C. P., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of a
response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual
qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 47–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310365499
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral
intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1989.12085399
116

Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical
foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson M. K. Burns, & A. M.
VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 10–24). Springer.
Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality
through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48, 585–
621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912456847
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding
the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33, 971–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199611)33:9<971::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-S
Harlacher, J. E., Sakelaris, T. L., & Kattelman, N. M. (2014). Practitioner’s guide to curriculum-
based evaluation in reading. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9360-0
Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority
representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances:
Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education & Treatment
of Children, 29(4), 779–799. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42900563
Hauerwas, L. B., Brown, R., & Scott, A. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to
intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000105
Heumann, J. E., & Hehir, T. (1994). Questions and answers on the least restrictive environment
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (OSEP 95-9). U.S.
Department of Education.
117

Hixson, M. D., Christ, T. J., & Bruni, T. (2014). Best practices in the analysis of progress
monitoring data and decision making. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices
in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 343–354). National Association of School
Psychologists.
Horner, R. H., & McIntosh, K. (2016). Reducing coercion in schools: The impact of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports. In T. Dishion & J. Snyder (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics: Basic mechanisms, developmental
process, and intervention applications (pp. 330–340). Oxford University Press.
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Albin, R., &
O’Neill, R. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support. The
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(3), 125–132.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079699001500301
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2019, November 7). Section 1418 (d):
Disproportionality. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1418/d
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning
comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention
plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070040401
Jimerson, B. M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The
science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dean, E., Graham, L., & Smith, D. (2009). The role of
teacher education programs in preparing teachers for implementing evidence-based
118

reading practices. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Implementing evidence-based
academic interventions (pp. 605–626). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195325355.003.0022
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
ASCD.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
Association for supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). Behavioral and emotional screening system.
Pearson.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kittelman, A., Goodman, S., & Rowe, D. A. (2021). Effective teaming to implement evidence-
based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(4), 264–267.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059921993020
Kittelman, A., Horner, R. H., & Rowe, D. A. (2020). Selecting evidence based practices to
improve learning and behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(2), 96–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920964684
Kozleski, E. B., & Huber, J. J. (2012). System-wide leadership for culturally-responsive
education. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of
leadership and administration for special education (pp. 155–169). Taylor & Francis.
119

Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education:
Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 14, 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778379
Kramarczuk Voulgarides, C., Fergus, E., & King Thorius, K. A. (2017). Pursuing equity:
Disproportionality in special education and the reframing of technical solutions to
address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 61–87.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16686947
Lancaster, P., & Hougen, M. (2017). Preparing educators to work in an MTSS Model: Making a
case for partnerships. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(4), 41–46.
Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Improving
hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 130–139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290402900204
Levey, S. (2021). Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211031954
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive
school wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1–24.
Loftus-Rattan, S. M., Wrightington, M., Furey, J., & Case, J. (2021). Multi-tiered system of
supports: An ecological approach to school psychology service delivery. Teaching of
Psychology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211024262
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Ruby, S. F., & Martella, R. C. (2007). Intensifying reading instruction
for students within a three-tier model: Standard-protocol and problem solving approaches
within a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) system. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,
3(5). http://journals.cec.sped.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=tecplus
120

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McIntosh, & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and
PBIS. Guilford Press.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills
and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. The Journal of Special
Education, 42, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313253
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A
comprehensive guide (1st ed.). Guilford Publications.
Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success: How to
use implementation science to improve outcomes for children. Zero to Three, 32(4), 11–
18.
Meyer, M., & Behar-Horenstein, L. (2015). When leadership matters: Perspectives from a
teacher team implementing response to intervention. Education & Treatment of Children,
38(3), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0022
Moats, L. (2017). Can prevailing approaches to reading instruction accomplish the goals of RTI?
Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(3), 15–22.
Moreno, G., & Segura-Herrera, T. (2013). Special Education Referrals and Disciplinary Actions
for Latino Students in the United States. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 33–
51. https://doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2013-0022
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2021, May). English Language Learners in Public
Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf
121

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2017, February 1). The state of learning disabilities:
Understanding the 1 in 5.ns for impact.https://www.ncld.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/Executive-Summary.Fin_.03142017.pdf
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020, October 19). Significant disproportionality in
special education: Current trends and actions for impact. https://www.ncld.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/2020-NCLD-Disproportionality_Trends-and-Actions-for-
Impact_FINAL-1.pdf
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020, October 19). Significant disproportionality in
special education: Trends among Latinx students. https://www.ncld.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/2020-NCLD-Disproportionality_Latinx-Students_FINAL.pdf
National Education Association (2008). Disproportionality: Inappropriate identification of
culturally and linguistically diverse children. Retrieved 2021
National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special
education. Retrieved 2020.
National Implementation Research Network. (2020). Implementation stages planning tool.
National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/stagesimplementation-analysis-where-are-we
Nelson, J. R., Colvin, G., & Smith, D. J. (1996). The effects of setting clear standards on
students’ social behavior in common areas of the school. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 3, 10–
18.
Nelson, L. L. (2014). Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using universal design for
learning. Paul H. Brookes.
122

Novak, K. (2014). UDL now! A teacher’s guide to applying universal design for learning in
today’s classrooms. CAST Professional Publishing.
O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and
sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–310.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21598
Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One School’s Implementation of RTI with English
Language Learners: Referring Into RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–
288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355474
Pavri, S., & Luftig, R. (2001). The social face of inclusive education: Are students with learning
disabilities really included in the classroom? Preventing School Failure, 45(1), 8–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880109599808
Pluymert, K. (2014). Problem-solving foundations for school psychological services. In P. L.
Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and
collaborative decision making (pp. 25–39). National Association of School Psychologists.
Prasse, D. P., Breunlin, R. J., Giroux, D., Hunt, J., Morrison, D., & Thier, K. (2012). Embedding
multi-tiered system of supports/response to intervention into teacher preparation.
Learning Disabilities (Weston, Mass.), 10(2), 75–93.
Pullen, P. C., & Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of response to intervention and multi-
tiered systems of support. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102954
Rabin, B., Comeron, W. C., Henton, M., Tabak, R., Mitchell, S., Brownson, R., & Glasgow, R.
(2018). Dissemination and implementation models in health research and practice.
http://www.dissemination-implementation.org/
123

Riccomini, P. J., & Witzel, B. S. (2010). Response to intervention in math. Corwin Press.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452219356
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ruffini, S. J., Miskell, R., Lindsay, J., McInerney, M., & Waite, W. (2016). Measuring the
implementation fidelity of the response to intervention framework in Milwaukee public
schools (REL 2017-192). U.S. Department of Education.
Sailor, W. (2012). National center on schoolwide inclusive school reform: The SWIFT center
(Grant No. H326Y120005). Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of
Education.
Sailor, W., & McCart, A. B. (2014). Stars in alignment. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914534622
Sailor, W., Doolittle, J., Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. (2009). Response to intervention and
positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R.Horner, (eds)
Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 729–753). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_29
Sailor, W., McCart, A. B., & Choi, J. H. (2018). Reconceptualizing inclusive education through
multi-tiered system of support. Inclusion, 6(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-
6.1.3
Sailor, W., Skrtic, T. M., Cohn, M., & Olmstead, C. (2021). Preparing teacher educators for
statewide scale-up of multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Teacher Education and
Special Education, 44(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420938035
124

Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2019). Supporting successful interventions in schools:
Tools to plan, evaluate, and sustain effective implementation. Guilford Press.
Sanetti, L. M., & Luh, H.-J. (2019). Fidelity of implementation in the field of learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(4), 204–216.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719851514
Shapiro, E. S. (2013). Commentary on progress monitoring with CBM-R and decision making:
Problems found and looking for solutions. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.003
Shapiro, E., & Guard, K. B. (2014). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for
academic skill improvement. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology: Student-level services (pp. 51–66). National Association of School
Psychologists.
Shealey, M. W., McHatton, P. A., & Wilson, V. (2011). Moving beyond disproportionality: The
role of culturally responsive teaching in special education. Teaching Education, 22, 377–
396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.591376
Shinn, M. R. (2008). Best practices in using curriculum- based measurement in a problem-
solving model. In A. Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology
V (pp. 243–261). National Association of School Psychologists.
Skiba, R., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Losen, D. J., & Harry, E. G. (2016). Risks and
consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al.
(2015). Educational Researcher, 45(3), 221–225.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644606
125

Stoiber, K. C. (2014). A comprehensive framework for multitiered systems of support in school
psychology. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology:
Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 41–70). National Association of
School Psychologists.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive
behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17,
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T.,
Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D., Wilcox, B.,
& Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral
assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070000200302
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The
lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Burns, M., Brown, R., Shinn, M. R., Kukic, S., Gibbons, K., Batsche, G.,
& Tilly, W. D. (2016, January 5). Four steps to implement RTI correctly. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-four-steps-to-implement-rti-
correctly/2016/01
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the
effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special
education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004
126

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to
instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 18, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00070
Vincent, C. G., Swain-Bradway, J., Tobin, T. J., & May, S. (2011). Disciplinary referrals for
culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without disabilities: Patterns
resulting from school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptionality, 19, 175–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.579936
W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide.
Wanzek, J., Roberts, G., Al Otaiba, S., & Kent, S. C. (2014). The relationship of print reading in
Tier 1 instruction and reading achievement for kindergarten students at risk of reading
difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 148–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713518334
Ward, C. S., Kittelman, A., & Rowe, D. A. (2021). Supporting evidence-based practices: What
implementation activities are needed when for success? Teaching Exceptional Children,
53(5), 332–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211010176
Wexler. (2018). School-based multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS): An introduction to
MTSS for neuropsychologists. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 7(4), 306–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2017.1331848
Witzel, B., & Clarke, B. (2015). Focus on inclusive education: Benefits of using a multi-tiered
system of supports to improve inclusive practices. Childhood Education, 91(3), 215–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2015.1047315
127

Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A
literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1–37.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n19.2010
Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004300107

128

Appendix: Interview Protocol
This interview protocol was developed using the logic model in Table 1, evaluation
questions and MTSS intervention as a guide for inquiry.
Evaluation Questions
EQ1. To what extent was the MTSS initiative implemented during the 2021-2022 school
year?
EQ2. What were stakeholder perceptions regarding the factors that facilitated
implementation of MTSS?
EQ3. What were stakeholder perceptions regarding the challenges to implementation of
MTSS?
Respondent Type
Educational services personnel responsible for MTSS roll out and professional development,
administrators responsible for school-wide accountability at each site, school psychologists and
counselors responsible for recommending and implementing tiered strategies, and teachers
responsible for implementing tiered strategies
Introduction to the Interview
First, I would like to ask if I have permission to record this interview. The purpose of this
study is to conduct an evaluation of the ASD’s integrated MTSS framework to learn more about
the barriers and facilitators during the first year of implementation. Evaluation data may be used
to shape decision making and future directions for MTSS implementation. Results of the
evaluation can be made available to you once the evaluation is complete. In addition, I would
like to ensure you are aware of your right to withdraw participation at any time during the course
of the evaluation. Can I answer any clarifying questions for you before we begin?
129

Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes EQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
logic model
Are you at least 18 years old?

Screening
questions

Have you worked in the district
since the beginning of the
2021-2022 school year?

Screening
questions

How long have you worked for
the district?

How would you describe your
role in MTSS implementation?

How many district-provided
trainings did you attend?
Which trainings did you
attend?

Let’s talk about the __
training first.

What was your overall
satisfaction with the
training?

In what ways, if any, was
the training useful to your
work?

To what extent, if at all,
have you implemented
anything you learned in
the training in your work?
Can you provide an
example?
In what ways, if any, do you
think the training could be
improved?
EQ1 Resources,
activities,
outputs
130

Interview questions Potential probes EQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
logic model
(Probes will be repeated for
each training the
participant attended)
Were there any additional
trainings or topics you would
have liked the district to
provide during this first year
of implementation?
Did you participate in any
additional trainings other
than those provided by the
district?
EQ1 Resources,
activities
In what ways, if any, were the
trainings helpful?
Can you tell me what you
mean by...?
EQ2 Outputs. short-
term outcomes
In what ways, if any, do you
think they could be improved?
Do you have any solutions
for these areas of
improvement?
EQ3 Short-term
outcomes
What was your overall
impression of the MTSS
rollout this school year?
What was your level of
satisfaction with this roll
out?
EQ1 Resources,
activities,
outputs
What was your knowledge about
MTSS prior to this school
year?
Tell me more about that. EQ1 Baseline, short-
term outcomes

In what ways, if any, did the
trainings this year contribute
to your knowledge of MTSS?
Can you give me an
example of that?
EQ1, EQ2 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
What have been the primary
challenges to learning about
MTSS principles and
strategies?
How did that make you
feel?
EQ3

Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
Aside from training, what other
support or assistance was
offered from the district or site
principal to help gain
knowledge or skills on MTSS
this school year?
How satisfied were you with
the level of support
offered?
EQ1, EQ2 Resources,
activities
131

Interview questions Potential probes EQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
logic model
What additional support or
assistance would you have
liked to have or do you still
need regarding learning about
MTSS?
Are there any others that
you would suggest be
considered for next school
year?
EQ3 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes,
long-term
outcomes
Which specific MTSS practices
have you seen implemented in
your school, department or
district?
Can you describe what that
looked like?
EQ1 Outputs, short-
term outcomes
To what extent would you say
you have been able to
implement MTSS practices in
your classroom, at your school
site and/or at the district?
Can you give me an
example of that?
EQ1 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
What have been the primary
challenges to MTSS
implementation at your school
site and/or at your district?
How did those barriers
affect you?
EQ3 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
Aside from training, what other
support or assistance, if any,
was offered by the district or
site principal to help you
specifically with
implementation of MTSS?
How satisfied were you with
the level of support
offered?
EQ2, EQ3 Resources,
activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
How did the district
communicate about MTSS and
provide information about any
relevant updates?
How was the introduction of
MTSS as a district-wide
initiative communicated?
If any, how often were
updates typically
communicated?
EQ1,
EQ2, EQ3
Resources,
activities
outputs
How satisfied were you with the
district’s communication and
updates regarding MTSS?
Do you have suggestions for
improvement?
EQ1,
EQ2, EQ3
Resources,
activities,
outputs
In the past year, how has your,
your school site, or the
district’s use of data changed,
How comfortable were you
with this process?

EQ1, Activities,
short-term
outcomes
132

Interview questions Potential probes EQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
logic model
if at all, as a result of the
MTSS rollout?
Are you equally comfortable
with collecting academic,
behavior, and social-
emotional student data?
Can you describe how student
data is currently being utilized
in your classroom, at your
school site and/or at the
district?
Can you give me an
example?
EQ1 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
To what extent were you or your
site/district involved in using
tiered interventions this past
year?
What factors facilitated your
use of tiered
interventions?
EQ2 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
What were the challenges to
using tiered interventions?
Do you have any
suggestions for further
improvement?
EQ3 Activities,
outputs, short-
term outcomes
Looking ahead to next year,
what suggestions do you have
for the district regarding how
to improve implementation?
Is there anything that you
would like to see happen
next school year to
accomplish this?
EQ1, EQ3
Outputs, short-
term and long-
term outcomes

Conclusion to the Interview
Is there anything else that you would like to share that you did not have the opportunity
to during this interview? Would it be ok to contact you if I have any clarifying questions after
summarizing our interview? Thank you so much for participating in this interview. I really
appreciate your time. This concludes the interview. I will end the recording now.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners

PDF

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

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism

PDF

Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

Promising practices for developing leadership capacity in future school administrators

PDF

Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

An invisible army: access to basic training for special education paraprofessionals

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

Asset Metadata

Creator Ortiz, Valerie Michelle (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/16/2022

Defense Date 12/08/2022

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

Tag El,English learner,Latinx,MTSS,multi-tiered system of supports,OAI-PMH Harvest,significant disproportionality,SLD,Special Education,specific learning disability

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Ott, Maria (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email ValerieOrtiz@live.com,vmortiz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112620982

Unique identifier UC112620982

Identifier etd-OrtizValer-11389.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OrtizValer-11389

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Ortiz, Valerie Michelle

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221216-usctheses-batch-998 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu