University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

by
Dana Lewis Trucker Clark

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2023

Copyright 2023 Dana Lewis Trucker Clark

ii
DEDICATION
To my wife Mandi and daughter Breleigh (Monkey), I am forever grateful for your love, support,
and patience. As Carrie Underwood (2012) said, I will “see you again” Monkey:
Said goodbye, turned around
And you were gone, gone, gone
Faded into the setting sun
Slipped away
But I won’t cry, ’cause I know I’ll never be lonely
For you are the stars to me
You are the light I follow

I will see you again, oh
This is not where it ends
I will carry you with me, oh
’Til I see you again

I can hear those echoes in the wind at night
Calling me back in time
Back to you
In a place far away where the water meets the sky
The thought of it makes me smile
You are my tomorrow

I will see you again, oh
This is not where it ends
I will carry you with me, oh
’Til I see you again

Sometimes I feel my heart is breaking
But I stay strong and I hold on ’cause I know
I will see you again, oh
This is not where it ends
I will carry you with me, yeah, yeah

I will see you again, oh
This is not where it ends
I will carry you with me, oh
’Til I see you again
’Til I see you again
’Til I see you again
Yeah, yeah, oh

Said goodbye, turned around, and you were gone, gone, gone

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although this journey was one of the hardest ones in my life, I am proud that I was able
to find the strength through the pain, heartbreak, and tears to finish. This doctoral journey would
not be possible without the love, support, patience, guidance, and feedback I received from so
many people.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee. Dr. David
Haglund, thank you for your mentorship, experience, and knowledge that you were able to give
as an educator and superintendent. Dr. Melanie Brady and Dr. Marc Pritchard, thank you for
your guidance, encouragement, and honest feedback as co-chairs throughout the writing process.
Dr. Monique Datta, thank you for adding me to your class that first semester so that you could
push me to become a better writer. Dr. Ekaterina Moore, as the chair of my committee, thank
you for your guidance, patience, and continuous support. I am also grateful to all the USC
Rossier faculty from whom I had the privilege of learning and whose instruction helped inform
and craft my research.
I would like to express sincere admiration to my family and closest friends for your
unwavering support and encouragement over the past couple of years. I also want to thank the
many amazingly talented and diverse professionals of the Organizational Change and Leadership
Cohort 9 who deeply enriched my learning experience. The Old School Frat - “AEO” started as a
study group with me and five others (Todd, Rich, Jordan, Rob, and Erik). Friends are the family
we choose for ourselves, but AEO has become more than friends; we have become brothers.
AEO, thank you for the love, laughter, encouragement, and never giving up on me during one of
life’s most challenging endeavors.

iv
I would like to thank the many fellow educators I have worked with over the years; your
commitment to working with children and young adults has always been inspiring. I also want to
thank the many fellow administrators I have worked with over the years, some of whom are
fellow Trojans, your commitment to learning and serving others continues to inspire me.
I started this doctoral journey so that I could grow as an educator and leader. I felt that by
growing as an educator and leader, I could broaden my influence in serving others. I picked USC
because of its reputation and network. What I did not know is that I was pursuing a doctoral
degree, which is the highest degree awarded by USC, and from one of the best universities in the
world. Fight On!

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................... 1
District Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 2
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................. 6
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 7
Importance of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 12
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal ............................................................................ 13
Stakeholder Group for the Study ....................................................................................... 14
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................ 15
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 15
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................ 18
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ............................................................................................... 19
Multiple-Tiered System of Support as the Overarching Umbrella ................................... 19
Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework .................................................. 35
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Barriers ................................... 36
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization ......... 50
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 56

vi
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 57
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................ 57
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 58
Data Collection and Instruments ....................................................................................... 60
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 64
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 64
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 67
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 68
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 70
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 71
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 74
Results and Finding for Knowledge Causes ...................................................................... 75
Results and Finding for Motivation Causes ...................................................................... 81
Results and Findings for Organization Causes .................................................................. 84
Summary of Validated Barriers ......................................................................................... 91
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 94
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................ 94
Recommendations for Practices to Address KMO Barriers .............................................. 95
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 117
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 138
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach .................................................................... 139
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 141
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 143
References ................................................................................................................................... 145
Appendix C: One-on-One Interview Recruitment Email ............................................................ 155

vii
Appendix D: One-on-One Interview Protocol ............................................................................ 157
Appendix F: One-on-One Interview Informed Consent .............................................................. 163
Appendix G: Immediate Evaluation Instrument .......................................................................... 166
Appendix H: Blended Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................. 167
Appendix I: Fidelity Integrity Assessment .................................................................................. 170

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder
Performance Goals ........................................................................................................................ 14
Table 2: Knowledge Barriers, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Assessment ............................ 41
Table 3: Motivational Barriers, Motivational Type, and Motivational Assessments .................... 44
Table 4: Organizational Barriers, Organizational Types, and Organizational Assessment .......... 50
Table 5: Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and
Organizational Barriers ................................................................................................................. 61
Table 6: One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Grade Level,
and Years Working in Current Position ........................................................................................ 72
Table 7: One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Additional
Years of Administrative Experience Prior to Current Position, and Years Working in
Education Including Administration ............................................................................................. 73
Table 8: One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Highest Level
of Education, Gender, and Ethnic Background ............................................................................. 74
Table 9: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ................................................ 92
Table 10: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................... 92
Table 11: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................ 93
Table 12: Summary of Knowledge Barriers and Recommendations ............................................ 96
Table 13: Summary of Motivation Barriers and Recommendations ........................................... 105
Table 14: Summary of Organization Barriers and Recommendations ........................................ 110
Table 15: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ...................... 120
Table 16: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................. 122
Table 17: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 125
Table 18: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ...................................... 130
Table 19: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 132

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: MTSS Portrayed as a Picture of a Pyramid With Three Tiers, or as a Picture of an
Umbrella Serving All Students ........................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Within Organizational
Culture Models and Settings. ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 3: Sample FIA Scoring Tool ............................................................................................ 136
Figure 4: Sample FIA Scoring Report ......................................................................................... 137
Figure 5: Sample FIA Dashboard ................................................................................................ 138
Appendix A: MTSS Pyramid of Tiers ......................................................................................... 153
Appendix B: MTSS Umbrella Serving All Students ................................................................... 154
Appendix E: HUSD Approval to Conduct Research .................................................................. 162

x
ABSTRACT
This improvement model study utilized a gap analysis framework to address the problem of
school districts in the United States struggling to implement a multi-tiered system of supports
(MTSS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which one school district was
meeting its global organizational performance goal to enhance capacity development to
implement a high fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school. The method used to validate the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers was qualitative, using interviews
with school site principals, who are the primary stakeholders in implementing MTSS. Findings
indicate that principals have factual knowledge gaps in understanding the basics of the
framework and conceptual knowledge gaps in understanding its different components,
motivational gaps in goal orientation of mastering learning and understanding of implementing
MTSS, and organizational gaps within cultural models of trust and a cultural setting to change
policies, procedures and practices, and provide ongoing training, coaching and collaboration to
support implementation. Evidence-based recommendations were provided to address the
validated gaps and barriers and sustain assets. These evidence-based recommendations are then
arranged into an integrated implementation and evaluation plan using the meticulous and
rigorous new world Kirkpatrick model. This study serves as a blueprint for school districts in
implementing MTSS as the overarching umbrella to not just improve students’ academic,
behavior and social-emotional needs but also improve the overall performance and culture of the
schools within the district while serving all students.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
This dissertation addresses the problem of school districts in the United States struggling
to implement a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), defined as an evidence-based
framework that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to address
students’ academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs through varying levels of intensities or
tiers based on their needs (Gamm et al., 2012). Sugai et al. (2016) demonstrated that this is a
problem in that schools have recognized the need to address the academic, behavior, and social-
emotional issues affecting students, schools, and classrooms but that many of the evidence-based
interventions and practices lack the capacity development of high fidelity and sustained
implementation within MTSS. The evidence highlights that only 50% to 80% of all students are
successful with universal supports and interventions, that 30% to 20% require additional targeted
or supplemental supports and interventions, and that 20% to 5% require intensified
individualized supports and interventions (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). Over the past few
years, new research provided greater understanding and increased awareness for school districts
to use MTSS as an evidence-based framework to help serve all students (California Department
of Education, 2018). Therefore, this study explored the problems associated with implementing
MTSS as the overarching umbrella to not just improve students’ academic, behavior, and social-
emotional needs but also improve schools’ overall performance and culture while serving all
students.
Organizational Context and Mission
Founded in 1888, Hope Unified School District (HUSD, a pseudonym) is one of the
largest school districts in the state, and the largest district in Heart County (pseudonym). Hope
Unified School District provides educational services to approximately 50,000 students, is the

2
second largest employer in the city of Hope (pseudonym), provides job opportunities to
approximately 4665 employees (2761 certificated employees, 1715 classified employees, 189
Managers), and has an operational budget over $583.1 million. There are 37 elementary schools,
nine intermediate schools, and seven high schools. The district also operates four educational
options schools, one dependent charter, one deaf and hard of hearing resource center, two early
childhood education programs, and one early learner childhood education special needs
developmental center.
Ninety-six percent of the students in HUSD are Hispanic, with 2% being Asian and 2%
other. Approximately 60% of the students are English language learners, and Spanish,
Vietnamese, and Khmer are the most common languages spoken in the home. Approximately
91% of the student population is designated as coming from low-income families and qualifying
for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Ninety-four percent of the parents do not have a
college education. The district’s attendance rate is over 98%, the graduation rate is just over
97%, and the students attending post-secondary education are over 70%. Hope Unified School
District’s mission is to work collaboratively to meet the unique educational and social-emotional
needs of a diverse student population in a safe and nurturing environment that ensures all
students are college and career ready and become productive citizens in the community, country,
and a global society.
District Initiatives
Since 2008, HUSD has focused on building a positive school culture and climate within
its schools. The district has acknowledged the value of a school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports (SWPBIS) framework in building this positive school culture and
climate. The district is one of the only school districts in the state and the only district of its size

3
that has implemented positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) districtwide. This
initiative began in 2008 when seven schools received support from the state department of
education for PBIS training and implementation. After the positive results associated with the
PBIS training and implementation, the HUSD School Board approved a district-wide PBIS
training and implementation plan. In 2013-2014, the final cohort of schools began training and
implementing a SWPBIS system.
Currently, 54 out of 59 schools continue to participate in training based on their differing
levels of implementation. In 2015–2016, HUSD offered 15 full- and 45 partial-day PBIS training
to over 800 participants (administrators, general and special education teachers, school
psychologists, after-school providers, paraprofessionals, playground supervisors, and classified
staff). The district PBIS leadership team conducted site visits to support the development of
behavior matrices, effective office discipline referrals, and coaching strategies for students
exhibiting problematic behavior, which would otherwise be referred for suspension and
expulsion prior to PBIS implementation. Additionally, in 2017, HUSD received a 3-year grant
from the U.S. Department of Education, which has allowed it to hire five PBIS school climate
community liaisons assigned to 30 schools to increase the fidelity of PBIS implementation.
School site leadership teams are utilizing district-created alternatives to suspension and
discretion with permissive expulsions. These options afford greater opportunity to reteach
expected behavior and address the underlying issues of problematic behavior manifested by the
students. In 2014-2015, HUSD initiated a pilot of restorative practices and culturally relevant
social-emotional learning curriculum at five schools to address PBIS Tiers 2 and behaviors. In
2015–2016, the school climate committee (consisting of community partners, students, parents,
HUSD administration, and HUSD board of education members) led the expansion of restorative

4
practices to six out of nine intermediate schools and eight out of nine high schools. Through
restorative practices within the PBIS framework and other alternatives to violence prevention,
such as Joven Noble and Xinachtli, HUSD has provided culturally responsive strategies to
support challenging PBIS Tier 2 and Tier 3 student behaviors.
Although HUSD has done much work implementing PBIS and restorative practices, there
is still a need to implement MTSS as the overarching umbrella to improve students’ academic,
behavior, and social-emotional needs and also improve schools’ overall performance and culture
while serving all students. In 2017, HUSD applied for a statewide initiative grant to develop
resources for MTSS to help align academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports to serve
all students. This initiative involved training all stakeholders (district leadership, school site staff,
students, parents and community partners) and the creation of integrated education data-driven
frameworks, policies, and practices that serve all students. Throughout the 2017–2018 school
year, a team of 20 stakeholders participated in a four-part training on implementing MTSS at the
district and school site levels. A key part of this training allowed this team to collaborate and
dialogue about various barriers and gaps that lead to the problem of implementing MTSS. To
show the commitment of HUSD to overcoming these various barriers and gaps, HUSD has
updated its districts plan by adding a fourth goal of implementing an MTSS framework that
provides timely and responsive support to targeted students within identified subgroups to meet
individual academic, behavioral, and social-emotional learning needs.
Hope Unified School District is part of a collaborative consortium with other state urban
school districts to build and maintain a research-based and data-driven comprehensive school
improvement and accountability system in the areas of academics, behavior, social-emotional
learning, school climate, assessment, attendance, and graduation. At first glance, it appears that

5
HUSD is committed to overcoming the problem of implementing MTSS by being part of a
collaborative consortium that believes in mutual accountability, shared responsibility, and
working together to innovate, implement, and create new strategies and tools that eliminate
equity and achievement gaps, and lead to successful outcomes for all students. When HUSD is
compared to other of the state’s urban school districts, HUSD has shown much growth and
improvement in addressing students’ behavioral and social-emotional learning needs but is
lacking growth in academic literacy data and serving the needs of all students.
Using a district needs assessment conducted with HUSD schools, school site leaders
indicated that they still spend about 10 to 20 hours per week dealing with office discipline
referrals, limiting the time they have available to be present on the playground, in the classroom,
or providing support to teachers, students, parents, or community partners. Student achievement
is often hindered by excessive time spent out of class. Past ineffective practices, including zero-
tolerance policies and in-school and out-of-school suspensions for disruptive or defiant behavior,
take away valuable instructional time from students and create a punitive rather than restorative
culture within the schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
To implement a comprehensive MTSS framework that would provide an overarching
umbrella approach, HUSD conducted a review of the barriers and gaps in services available to
students and their families. This review identified a need for more unified Tier 1 level supports,
additional targeted Tier 2 level supports, and more intensive Tier 3 level supports. Other barriers,
gaps, and weaknesses in current services are training and coaching for administrators, teachers,
other staff, parents working with all students and students of need, few referral resources for
students with more complex needs, and the fact that the main focus has been in and around high
school students, with less focus on intermediate and almost non-existent at the elementary level.

6
Organizational Goal
Over the last few years, HUSD has shown its commitment to not just improving teaching
and learning but also improving school climate by ensuring that students and staff have healthy,
safe, and secure learning environments. The defined organizational goal for this study was that
by May 2020, HUSD will have enhanced the capacity development to implement a high-fidelity
and sustained MTSS in every school. Although improving school climate is centered around the
school-to-prison pipeline initiative to reduce suspensions and expulsions and use other positive
means of discipline, it also is centered around meeting all students' academic, behavioral, and
social-emotional needs.
Ultimately, meeting the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of all students
falls under the leadership of the assistant superintendent of school performance and culture, but it
is also the responsibility of the superintendent, other executive cabinet members, the board of
education, principals, and other leaders. This goal was established with stakeholder input from
leadership, certificated teachers, classified staff, students, parents, and community members.
Data continues to play an integral role in continuously monitoring supports and
interventions. Hope Unified School District’s success with implementing a PBIS framework and
restorative practices still has not overcome all the barriers and service gaps for serving all
students. When the need for academic interventions is added, the number of students who need
support more than doubles. Schools cannot afford to utilize the traditional waiting-to-fail model
to see if students will improve their academics, correct their behavior, or have their social-
emotional needs met.
Several data sources were used to create the organizational goal of this study.
Multidimensional performance indicators from the state’s dashboard were used in creating this

7
organizational goal, such as academic data in English language arts and mathematics, chronic
absenteeism, graduation rate, suspension rate, and college and career readiness. Other data
sources were district suspensions, expulsions and PBIS data, school climate, safety and overall
student wellness survey data, and social-emotional learning (SEL) assessment data. Annual
measurable outcomes established for the 2017–2020 district plan were also used in creating this
organizational goal. If the school district does not begin to address the needs of all students, all
the work and effort in improving school climate will begin to unravel. If the problem of
implementing MTSS is not addressed, these students will not only lose out on valuable education
and learning but will most likely suffer negative effects as adults in a global society (Felitti et al.,
1998).
Related Literature
New research has occurred over the past few years with greater understanding and
increased awareness of the problems associated with school districts struggling to implement
MTSS. Therefore, this related literature review will briefly explore the problems associated with
implementing MTSS. One of the biggest problems associated with school districts struggling to
implement MTSS is not having a clear understanding of MTSS. Besides not having a clear
understanding of MTSS, not aligning implementation efforts with student results, not scaling up
strategically, not utilizing exiting structures and supports, and not aligning other key initiatives
also serve as problems in implementing MTSS. Continuous improvements are the last problem
that school districts have with implementing MTSS.
School districts throughout the United States struggle to implement MTSS. One of the
biggest problems associated with school districts struggling to implement MTSS is not having a
clear understanding of MTSS. Gamm et al. (2012) defined MTSS is an evidence-based

8
framework that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to address
students’ academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs through varying levels of intensities or
tiers based on student needs. Harn et al. (2015) added that MTSS is also a response to
intervention (RtI), PBIS, restorative practices, SEL, and trauma-informed care. Multiple-tiered
system of support also involves family and community engagement, administrative leadership,
integrated educational frameworks, and inclusive policy and practices (SWIFT Education Center,
2015). Many times, MTSS is described or portrayed as a picture of a pyramid with three tires:
universal or all, targeted or some, and intensified or few, or as a picture of an umbrella serving
all students (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). This is illustrated in Figure 1. Understanding
MTSS is required for successful implementation and serving all students' needs.

9
Figure 1
MTSS Portrayed as a Picture of a Pyramid With Three Tires, or as a Picture of an Umbrella
Serving All Students

Note. Adapted from Guide to understanding California MTSS by SWIFT Education Center,
2015. (https://ocde.us/MTSS/Pages/Guide-to-Understanding-CA-MTSS.aspx)

Several other problems affect school districts with the implementation of MTSS.
Goodman (2017) highlighted a few of the problems that school districts face with implementing
MTSS: not aligning implementation efforts with student results, not scaling up strategically, not
utilizing exiting structures and supports, and not aligning other key initiatives. For example, one
of the problems with implementing MTSS is that many of the interventions within MTSS are
created and delivered in silos verses an integrated framework (Eagle et al., 2015). Another
reason school districts are struggling to implement MTSS is a lack of guidance on how to do so

10
(Arden & Pentimonti, 2017). Many of the evidence-based interventions within MTSS have not
been widely demonstrated, and Sugai et al. (2016) explained that these interventions are further
lessened by a lack of professional development, misalignment to student, classroom and student
needs, competing initiatives, lack of cultural relevance, and a lack of leadership, policy and
resources. Lastly, McIntosh and Goodman (2016) stated that schools are feeling overwhelmed
and have initiative exhaustion because there are constant changes in education, a continuously
growing diverse student population, and a demand to use evidence-based frameworks.
Within MTSS, systems of initiatives, supports, and resources are to undergo continuous
improvements (The California Department of Education, 2018). The California Department of
Education (2018) further highlighted a few of the problems school districts face with the
implementation of MTSS are aligning those systems of initiatives, supports and resources;
implementing evidence-base problem-solving interventions, appropriate instructional strategies,
social-emotional interventions, and culturally and relevant instruction; integrating data
collection, assessment, and progress monitoring; and evaluating the effectiveness of those
evidence-base problem-solving interventions. In a case study, Ross and Lignugaris-Kraft (2015)
exposed that school districts lack effective teachers trained in all aspects of implementing MTSS.
Harrington et al. (2016) found that school districts lack school counselors trained with the
knowledge and understanding of MTSS, but more importantly, trained as data-based decision
makers, especially within the social-emotional aspect of MTSS. Lastly, when it comes to
implementing MTSS, school districts are struggling with the increased efforts to address the non-
academic barriers, such as the mental health needs of the students (August et al., 2018). August
et al. (2018) highlighted that mental health issues are continuously not identified or addressed
within schools, making schoolwide mental health advocacy and prevention a critical need.

11
Importance of the Evaluation
Today’s school districts face a complex problem of serving increasingly diverse student
populations, which requires academic, behavior, and social-emotional interventions and supports
only offered through an evidence-based framework, such as MTSS. Sugai et al. (2016)
expounded that schools have been tasked with dealing with issues that are negatively affecting
students, such as illiteracy, achievement gags, school climate, violence, discipline, student
dropouts, and mental health issues, while the students they serve have increasingly become more
diverse. Solving the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS will not only
benefit the students but is also key to “producing a well-educated and healthy adult population
that is sufficiently skilled to participate effectively in a global economy and to become
responsible stakeholders in a productive society” (Shonkoff et al., 2017, p. 232).
Focusing on this issue from the social-emotional standpoint shows that students exposed
to trauma are at risk of academic and behavioral problems and diminished overall health and
development. Since the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Study was released in 1998,
trauma-informed practices have been implemented in many different fields, but school districts
still struggle with implementation (Felitti et al., 1998). Instead of completing initiatives, Harden
et al. (2014) suggested that MTSS is the overarching umbrella for improving schools and
meeting the social-emotional needs of students. Because of the number of students affected by
trauma, Paccione-Dyszlewski (2016) believes that schools and classrooms must become trauma-
informed, not just a place of learning. Because schools hold a daily captive audience of trauma-
impacted students, it is the school’s responsibility to create MTSS to meet the needs of the
students they serve.

12
Violence, crime, and abuse continue to grow, and the number of children impacted by
this is at its highest. Just over two-thirds of all K–12 students aged 17 and younger have
experienced some trauma (Finkelhor et al., 2015). Of those two-thirds, 60% had at least one
trauma exposure, 50% had more than one, 15% had six or more, and 4% had 10 or more trauma-
related experiences (Finkelhor et al., 2015). If schools cannot implement MTSS, these numbers
will increase, and students’ struggles with academics, behavior and SEL will continue to grow.
Ultimately, these ACEs can lead to social, emotional and cognitive impairment, health-risk
behaviors, disease, disability and social problems, and eventually to an early death (Felitti et al.,
1998). If schools can overcome the struggles of implementing MTSS, they can shift from asking
what is wrong with students to asking what happened to them.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholders at HUSD include district leadership, principals and assistant principals,
teachers, counselors and classified staff, and parents and students. District stakeholders include
the superintendent, deputy superintendents, assistant superintendents, and various directors.
District leaders are an important stakeholder group in providing the policy, procedures, finances,
and other means of support for successful implementation. School site stakeholders are
principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors, and classified staff. All have important roles
in implementing MTSS, such as identifying, screening, assessing, and offering a multi-tiered
approach to meet the students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. Parents are a
vital stakeholder group in that they must be part of the team and process of implementing a
successful MTSS. Students are the stakeholder group that is directly impacted by the
implementation of MTSS.

13
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Through a statewide initiative’s four-part training, an initial MTSS leadership team
developed resources for implementing MTSS that would help to align academic, behavioral, and
social-emotional supports within the district to serve all students. This initial MTSS leadership
team developed the global organizational and stakeholder performance goals and established the
primary focus group for this study. This global organizational performance goal, the stakeholder
performance goals, and the established primary focus group of this study were then further
crafted with input from a district taskforce. The district stakeholders meet annually to review
data, identify gaps, and revise the progress toward meeting the expected annual measurable
outcomes for each district goal, including the newly formed fourth goal of implementing an
MTSS framework. Implementing MTSS will require stakeholder participation at all levels.

14
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder
Performance Goals
Organizational mission
Hope Unified School District’s mission statement is to work collaboratively to meet the
unique educational and social-emotional needs of a diverse student population in a safe and
nurturing environment that ensures all students are college and career ready and become
productive citizens in the community, country, and a global society.
Global organizational performance goal
By May 2020, HUSD will have enhanced the capacity development to successfully
implement a high fidelity and sustained multi-tiered system of support in every school.
District level
leadership goal
School site principal
goal
Teacher goal Classified staff goal
By January 2020, all
district level
leadership will
have been trained
with the
implementation of
multi-tiered system
of support.
By January 2020, all
school site
principals will have
been trained with
the implementation
of multi-tiered
system of support
and completed a
tiered inventory
assessment.
By January 2020, all
teachers will have
been trained with
the implementation
of multi-tiered
system of support
and begun
implementation.

By January 2020, all
classified staff will
have been trained
with the
implementation of
multi-tiered system
of support and
begun
implementation.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Some schools have principals, assistant principals, coordinators, and teachers on special
assignments (TOSAs), and other schools might just have a principal. The school site stakeholder
group charged with implementing MTSS, and the primary stakeholder focus group for this study,
is school site principals. These primary stakeholders are the force in implementing MTSS with
true fidelity at the various tiered levels of support and have direct daily and hourly time with the
students. These primary stakeholders have important roles in the implementation and at the
various tiered levels of support, such as identifying, screening, assessing, and offering a multi-

15
tiered approach to meet the students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. If these
primary stakeholders do not address the problem of implementing MTSS, the students will lose
out on a valuable education and will most likely suffer negative effects as adults in a global
society (Felitti et al., 1998).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which HUSD is meeting its global
organizational performance goal that by May 2020, HUSD will have enhanced the capacity
development to implement a high-fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school. Multi-tiered
system of support is the overarching umbrella to improve students’ academic, behavioral, and
social-emotional needs and schools’ overall performance and culture while serving all students.
Data collection and analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers
related to achieving the global organizational performance goal. While a complete performance
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the primary stakeholder focus
group in this study is school site principals The following research questions guided this study:
1. How does the school site principal’s knowledge impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
2. How does the school site principal’s motivation impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
3. How do organizational barriers impact the implementation and sustainability efforts
of a multi-tiered system of support?
Methodological Framework
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, which is a
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and

16
identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers.
Identifying these assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational performance gaps is
essential in HUSD meeting its goal. The methodological framework used in this study to further
validate the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers is a qualitative method
design using one-on-one interviews. A qualitative method design is a process of data collection
and analysis for exploring and understanding problems (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using a
qualitative method design of one-on-one interviews, I triangulated the data by interviewing 5
elementary principals, 5 intermediate principals and five high school principals, analyzing the
data separately, and then comparing the results to confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Definitions
Culturally responsive teaching: Connecting the teaching to the students’ cultural
understanding, past experiences, and academic knowledge to validate what the students already
know (Kozleski, n.d.).
Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): An evidence-based model that uses data-driven
decision making and problem-solving techniques to address students’ academic, behavior, and
social-emotional issues through varying levels of intensities or tiers based on student needs
(Gamm et al., 2012).
Positive behavior intervention and support (PBIS): An evidence-based model that uses
data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to provide students with positive
behavioral support and interventions through varying levels of tiers (PBIS, 2018).

17
Response to intervention (RtI): An evidence-based model that uses data-driven decision
making and problem-solving techniques to provide students with academic support and
interventions through varying levels of tiers (RTI Action Network, 2018).
Restorative circles: Not just a place to practice the restorative principals, but they also
allow community, family, communication, and respect among students and staff (Wachtel,
2007).
Restorative justice: An alternative to punishment by creating a learning opportunity for
the student to recognize the wrong, restore or fix the wrong, and learn from the wrong to do it
differently in the future (Wachtel, 2007).
Restorative practices: The formal and informal practices that give the student the
opportunity to learn from the wrong they have committed (Wachtel, 2007).
School-to-prison pipeline: Refers to the severe zero-tolerance disciplinary practices and
policies used in schools, which ultimately pushes students, especially those of minority status
and low social-economic status, into the prison system (Castillo, 2014).
Social-emotional learning: The “process of acquiring the ability to understand, manage,
and express the social and emotional aspects of one’s life, such as self-awareness, control of
impulsivity, working cooperatively, caring about oneself and others” (Hough et al., p. 2).
Tier 1: Provides core universal support for all students with inclusive academics,
behavioral, and SEL (SWIFT Education Center, 2015).
Tier 2: Provides additional targeted supplemental support to some students who require
more academic, behavioral, and SEL support (SWIFT Education Center, 2015).
Tier 3: Provides intensified individualized support to a few students who require even
more academic, behavioral, and SEL support (SWIFT Education Center, 2015).

18
Trauma-informed care: Understanding that some students suffer from previous events
that cause adverse childhood experiences (physical, emotional, or were life threatening), and
these adverse childhood experiences are affecting the students’ academic, behavior and social-
emotional needs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A framework for designing learning environments
and lessons that eliminate barriers through differentiated instruction and giving all students an
opportunity to learn (Novak, 2016).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduced the problem of
practice, organizational context and mission, organizational goals, related literature and
importance of the study, description of the stakeholders, stakeholder performance goals, research
questions, methodological framework, and definitions. Chapter Two provides a general literature
review, gap analysis framework, stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers, and a conceptual framework. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers that were examined, as well as the methodology used for choosing
participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four presents the data collection results and
finding, assessment and analysis, and closes with a summary and implications. Chapter Five
provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps and
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature review will further examine the problem of school districts in the United
States struggling to implement MTSS. Understanding this problem is important to study because
implementing MTSS directly impacts improving the students’ academic, behavior, and social-
emotional needs and the overall performance and culture of the schools. First, this literature
review begins with general research on the problem of implementing MTSS by exploring MTSS,
academic support and interventions, behavioral supports and interventions, social-emotional
supports and interventions, and state-level initiatives. Second, this literature review follows Clark
and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis in examining knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assumed barriers that directly impact the implementation of MTSS. Lastly, this review is
followed up with a conceptual framework that illustrates concepts, assumptions, beliefs,
expectations, and theories that support and informs the research.
Multiple-Tiered System of Support as the Overarching Umbrella
To fully understand the problem of school districts in the United States struggling to
implement MTSS, this general literature review will start with a basic understanding of MTSS.
Multi-tiered system of support is an integrated comprehensive framework that aligns academic,
behavioral, and social-emotional interventions. Gamm et al. (2012) defined MTSS is an
evidence-based model that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to
address students’ academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs through varying levels of
intensities or tiers based on student needs. Harn et al. (2015) added that MTSS is also RtI, PBIS,
restorative practices, SEL, and trauma-informed care. Multiple-tiered system of support also
involves family and community engagement, administrative leadership, integrated educational
frameworks, and inclusive policy and practices (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The SWIFT

20
Education Center (2015) explains that many times MTSS is portrayed as a picture of a pyramid
with three tires: universal or all, targeted or some, and intensified or few (Appendix A) or as a
picture of an umbrella serving all students (Appendix B). Understanding MTSS’s historical
context and emergence lends to an even further understanding of MTSS.
Multi-Tiered System of Support
In December 2004, President Bush signed the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which continued the educational rights, guarantees and
safeguards of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 for all students with
disabilities. In a recent research article, Sugai and Horner (2009) express that the IDEA
reauthorization’s specific purpose or intention is to match and align the purposes of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which amended Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. The intent to match and align IDEA with NCLB is important in
understanding the historical context and emergence of MTSS by first understanding RtI. Sugai
and Horner (2009) highlighted that the phrase or term “RtI” is never used in either IDEA or
NCLB. Response to intervention is often associated with the term scientifically based research
(SBA) or response to scientifically based (RSB), and a search for that term in IDEA was found
18 times, while a search for that term in NCLB was found 69 times (Sugai & Horner, 2009).
Bradley et al. (2002) clarify that prior to the reauthorization of IDEA, the Office of Special
Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education established the Learning Disabilities
Initiative. One of the many outcomes of this initiative was a change in using the term RSB,
which was based on achievement discrepancies, to a new term called RtI, which was based on
the use of effective intervention for struggling students (Bradley et al., 2002).

21
The reauthorization of the IDEA of 2004 changed out-of-date, inconsiderate, or
prejudiced educational practices under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
Wexler (2017) discussed that one of these changes is the old refer-test-place method that uses the
difference between a student’s intellectual ability and academic scores to determine if the student
qualifies for special education services. Under the reauthorization of the IDEA of 2004, Wexler
(2017) explains that states were no longer required to use these out-of-date, inconsiderate, or
prejudiced educational practices. Furthermore, under IDEA, a student’s special education
qualification was based on data from the student’s responses to Evidence-Based Interventions
(EBI; Wexler, 2017). With the start of EBIs, such as RtI, schools started to use a new framework
called MTSS to determine students' success.
Understanding MTSS is crucial not only for successful implementation but also for
serving all students' needs. Multiple-tiered system of support focuses on aligning interventions
and resources into an integrated framework that addresses the needs of all students (California
Department of Education, 2018). Utley and Obiakor (2015) described features of an MTSS
framework as evidence-based supports and interventions, data-driven decision making and
problem-solving techniques, progress monitoring, varying levels of intensities or tiers,
identifying, screening and assessing, continuous improvement, and addressing the students’
academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs. Multiple-tiered system of support consists of
three tiers: universal support, targeted or supplemental support, and intensified support (SWIFT
Education Center, 2015). Tier one provides universal academic, behavioral, and social-emotional
support to all students; Tier two 2 additional supplemental support to some students; and Tier 3
provides intensified support to a few students (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The goal of
MTSS as the overarching umbrella is to improve students’ academic, behavior, and social-

22
emotional needs and schools’ overall performance and culture. For schools to do that, they must
overcome the problems of implementing MTSS.
Problems of Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support
There are several problems affecting school districts with the implementation of MTSS.
Goodman (2017) highlighted a few of the problems that school districts are facing with the
implementation of MTSS are not having a clear definition of MTSS, not aligning implementation
efforts with student results, not scaling up strategically, not utilizing existing structures and
supports, and not aligning MTSS to other key initiatives. Eagle et al. (2015) explicated that one
of the largest problems of implementing MTSS is that many of its interventions are created and
delivered in silos versus an integrated framework. Another reason school districts are struggling
to implement MTSS is a lack of guidance on how to implement MTSS (Arden & Pentimonti,
2017). To further complicate the situation, Sugai et al. (2016) added that many of the EBI within
MTSS have not been widely demonstrated. These EBI are further diminished by a lack of
professional development, not aligned with student needs and classroom needs, competing
initiatives, a lack of cultural relevance, and a lack of leadership, policy, and resources (Sugai et
al., 2016). Lastly, McIntosh and Goodman (2016) stated that among the constant changes in
education, a growingly diverse student population, and a demand to use evidence-based
frameworks, schools are overwhelmed and have initiative exhaustion.
Within MTSS, systems of initiatives, supports, and resources are to undergo continuous
improvements (The California Department of Education, 2018). A few of the problems school
districts are facing with the implementation of MTSS are aligning those systems of initiatives,
supports, and resources, implementing evidence-base problem-solving interventions, evaluating
the effectiveness of those evidence-base problem-solving interventions, and providing district-

23
level support to schools, staff and students (The California Department of Education, 2018). A
few more of the problems school districts are facing with the implementation of MTSS are
implementing appropriate instructional strategies, challenging all school staff to change the way
they work, implementing social-emotional interventions, implementing culturally and relevant
instruction, and integrating data collection, assessment, and progress monitoring (The California
Department of Education, 2018).
Ross and Lignugaris-Kraft (2015) exposed the problem of a lack of effective teachers
trained in all aspects of implementing MTSS. Harrington et al. (2016) highlighted that schools
also lack school counselors trained with the knowledge and understanding of MTSS, but more
importantly, trained as data-based decision makers, especially within the social-emotional aspect
of MTSS. Another problem that school districts face with implementing MTSS is increasing
efforts to address the non-academic barriers, such as the mental health needs of the students
(August et al., 2018). August et al. (2018) highlighted that mental health issues are continuously
not identified or addressed within schools, making schoolwide mental health advocacy and
prevention a critical need. These problems of implementing MTSS will be further explored in the
gap analysis section examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed barriers.
Academic Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
To understand academic supports and interventions within MTSS, one must understand
RtI. Response to intervention has a lengthy history that dates back prior to the NCLB of 2001
and the reauthorization of the IDEA of 2004 (Sugai & Horner, 2009). In fact, RtI dates to the
early 1970s when Congress was pressed to take action that would guarantee the education rights
of students with learning disabilities (Fuchs et al., 2003). In 1975, President Ford signed into law
the Education for All Handicapped Children Ac (EHA), which provided guaranteed rights,

24
safeguards, and access to special education services that would meet the needs of the students
(Sugai & Horner, 2009). Sugai and Horner (2009) highlighted that RtI is never used in EHA,
NCLB, or IDEA and that RtI is often associated with the term Scientifically Based Research
(SBA) or RSB.
Response to intervention and MTSS are often spoken of synonymously, and for those
new to MTSS, it can be difficult to determine what people mean when these terms are used
interchangeably. Response to intervention is defined as an evidence-based model that uses data-
driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to provide students with academic
support and interventions through varying levels of tiers (RTI Action Network, 2018). The
California Department of Education (2018) adds that RtI is an evidence-based model that uses
data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to address students’ academic
needs through varying levels of intensities or tiers. Although both of these definitions might
sound similar to MTSS, MTSS is more robust in that it provides students with not just academic
supports and interventions but also behavior and social-emotional ones (Gamm et al., 2012). In
fact, the California Department of Education (2018) is using a new term, “Response-to-
Instruction and Intervention” (RtI2), which is a spin-off from RtI. Response-to-Instruction and
Intervention within MTSS is similar to RtI in that both are evidence-based frameworks that use
data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to provide students with academic
supports and interventions through varying tiers. The big difference is that RtI2 calls for
integrating resources to strengthen core instruction and tiered supports and interventions to serve
all students.
Response to intervention is not the only term used in understanding academic supports
and interventions within MTSS. Culturally responsive teaching is relatively new but critical in

25
understanding academic supports and interventions within MTSS. Kozleski (n.d.) defined
culturally responsive teaching as connecting the teaching to the students’ cultural understanding,
past experiences, and academic knowledge to validate what the students already know. When
teachers can embrace the cultural knowledge that the students already process through what is
being taught, they navigate teaching and learning with the students, which then reflects the
communities where the students learn (Kozleski, n.d.). Although Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) is not a new term, it has received a new purpose under academic supports and
interventions within MTSS. Universal Design for Learning is a framework for designing learning
environments and lessons that eliminate obstacles through differentiated instruction and giving
all students an opportunity to learn (Novak, 2016). Universal Design for Learning is flexible and
can be adjusted to the needs of all students using three guidelines: provide multiple means of
engagement, provide multiple means of representation, and provide multiple means of action and
expression (Novak, 2016). In many ways, under MTSS, UDL is the driver that allows for
culturally responsive teaching.
Problems With Academic Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
Understanding some of the problems associated with implementing academic supports
and inventions within MTSS is crucial in understanding the problems affecting school districts
with the implementation of MTSS. Sugai and Horner (2009) elucidated that a common problem
is the simple understanding that RtI is not just for special education students but a general
approach for providing academic supports and interventions to all students. Fuchs and Fuchs
(2005) indicated that a problem with implementing academic supports and inventions within
MTSS is understating the components that are involved, such as an evidence-based model that
uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques, universal screening, progress

26
monitoring, and MTSS for all students. Another common problem with implementing academic
supports and interventions is understanding how to use them (Tier 2 provides universal academic
support to all students; Tier 2 provides additional supplemental support to some students; and
Tier 3 provides intensified support to a few students; McIntosh et al., 2010).
The evidence highlights that school districts struggle to implement academic supports
and interventions within MTSS in that 65% of all K–12 students are below proficient in
mathematics and reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). McIntosh et al. (2010)
argued that schools have to understand that over time, low academic performance eventually
leads to student problem behavior. Additionally, many academic supports and interventions, such
as RtI, are only implemented in elementary schools, leaving out intermediate and high school
students (Fuchs et al., 2010). McIntosh et al. (2010) highlighted that schools have begun to
recognize and understand the need to adopt academic supports and interventions, but they cannot
be created in isolation. In a three-part series, McIntosh et al. (2010) elucidate the need for an
integrated MTSS to address students' academic and behavioral needs. These problems of
implementing academic supports and inventions within MTSS will be further explored in the gap
analysis section examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed barriers.
Behavioral Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
To understand behavioral supports and interventions within MTSS, one must start with
understanding PBIS. Positive behavioral intervention and supports has a long history of
existence tied to the EHA of 1975 (PBIS, 2018). Fitzgerald et al. (2014) explained that the
reauthorization of the IDEA of 1997 called for two amendments that required schools to
complete a behavior intervention Plan (BIP) drawing on data from a functional behavior
assessment for special education students who were having behavioral problems. The

27
reauthorization of the IDEA of 2004 required that the BIP be based on the student’s individual
education program (IEP; Fitzgerald et al., 2014). Sugai and Simonsen (2012) elaborate even
further in that the IDEA of 1997 created funding for a grant to establish a national center on
positive behavioral intervention and supports, which would provide research and assistance on
best practices for students with behavior issues. A unique feature of this center was the blending
of researcher and implementer from across the county to better learn from one another (Sugai &
Simonsen, 2012).
Much like RtI, PBIS and MTSS are often spoken of synonymously, and for those new to
MTSS, it can be difficult to determine what people mean when these terms are used
interchangeably. Positive behavior intervention and support is defined as an evidence-based
model that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to provide students
with positive behavioral support and interventions through varying levels of tiers (PBIS, 2018).
Although that definition might sound similar to MTSS, MTSS is more robust in that it provides
students with not just behavioral supports and interventions but also academic and social-
emotional supports and interventions (Gamm et al., 2012). The California Department of
Education (2018) highlighted that PBIS is an evidence-based model that uses data-driven
decision making and problem-solving techniques to address students’ behavioral needs through
varying levels of intensities or tiers.
Although PBIS has been around for over 30 years now, it really received momentum and
support during the dismantling of zero tolerance and the school-to-prison pipeline reform. The
school-to-prison pipeline refers to the severe zero-tolerance disciplinary practices and policies
used in schools, ultimately pushing students, especially those of minority status and low social-
economic status, into the prison system (Castillo, 2014). In 2009, Texas state leaders supported a

28
study by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Public Policy Research
Institute at Texas A&M University that collected school records on all students attending Texas
schools over 3 years (Kang-Brown et al., 2013). The study revealed that over 60% of students
from middle or high school were suspended at least once over a 6-year period (Kang-Brown et
al., 2013). This study further highlighted that the zero-tolerance policy disproportionately
affected African American and Hispanic students by being suspended or expelled at much higher
rates than white students (Kang-Brown et al., 2013). This Texas study would become
groundbreaking research that would lead other states to conduct similar research. States finally
began requiring schools to develop and use frameworks such as PBIS and restorative justice,
restorative practices, and restorative circles when dealing with student behavioral issues
(Castillo, 2014).
As schools began to use other means for student discipline, PBIS became a great way to
identify students who need tired behavior supports and interventions. Wachtel (2007) defined
Restorative Justice as an alternative to punishment by creating a learning opportunity for the
student to recognize the wrong, restore or fix the wrong, and learn from the wrong to do it
differently in the future. Restorative Practices are the formal and informal practices that give the
student the opportunity to learn from the wrong they have committed (Wachtel, 2007). Wachtel
(2007) added that restorative circles are a place to practice restorative principles and allow
community, family, communication, and respect among students and staff.
Problems With Behavioral Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
Understanding some of the problems associated with implementing behavioral supports
and inventions within MTSS is crucial in understanding the problems affecting school districts
with the implementation of MTSS. Fitzgerald et al. (2014) indicated that some of the largest

29
obstacles with implementing PBIS within MTSS are time constraints, lack of resources, deficient
finances, inadequate support, and insufficient knowledge and understating of the different
components of PBIS. Sugai and Horner (2006) indicated that a problem with implementing PBIS
supports and inventions within MTSS is understating the components involved, such as an
evidence-based model that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques,
universal screening, progress monitoring, and MTSS for all students. Several empirical studies
highlight some of the same problems with implementing PBIS within MTSS, such as
unsuccessful professional development, misalignment of students to supports and inventions,
competing initiatives, using non-evidence-based approaches, non-alignment to teaching and
learning, and unsupportive leaders, policies, and procedures (Mclntosh et al., 2009; Sugai &
Horner, 2006). Many times, PBIS is done in isolation, only focusing on behavioral needs, but
Sugai and Horner (2009) called for implementing an MTSS that can address students’ academic,
behavioral and social-emotional needs.
Even with all the work in dismantling zero-tolerance policies and the school-to-prison
pipeline, the data highlights that between 5% and 6% of all K–12 students received one or more
out-of-school suspensions and about 0.2% have received an expulsion (U.S. Department of
Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2018). That same data also shows that those percentages
double when looking at African American, Hispanic, and students from low social-economic
status or urban school districts. Kline (2016) highlighted that removal from school due to
suspensions and expulsions is not only linked to academic failure but that students who miss out
on learning opportunities due to behavior issues only fall further behind academically, become
more frustrated, and have reoccurring behavior incidents. One problem with using restorative
justice, restorative practices, and restorative circles as behavioral supports and interventions

30
within MTSS is that there is a lack of empirical research and evaluation studies to show their
impact (Fronius et al., 2019). These problems of implementing behavioral supports and
inventions within MTSS will be further explored in the gap analysis section examining the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed barriers.
Social-Emotional Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
In the 1990s, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning created the
term “social-emotional learning.” Hough et al. (2018) defined SEL as the process of acquiring
the ability to understand, manage, and express the social and emotional aspects of one’s life, and
includes self-awareness, control of impulsivity, working cooperatively, and caring about oneself
and others, and in recent years, the term SEL refers to the beliefs, attitudes, personality traits, and
behaviors that are foundational for students to be successful in school today. (p. 2). The Every
Student Succeeds Act of 2015 requires states to measure at least one component of school
quality or student success (Marsh et al., 2018). In fact, many states now require school districts
to create yearly goals and measurements of SEL and school culture-climate (California
Department of Education, 2018).
Over the last few years, several collaborative districts have been working with the U.S.
Department of Education to collect non-academic outcomes for students, or SEL outcomes
(Marsh et al., 2018). Once a year, in grades 4 through 12, students participate in an SEL
assessment that collects data in regard to the student’s self-management, growth mindset, self-
efficacy, and social awareness (Marsh et al., 2018). Many schools in California also utilize the
California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), which is a survey for students in Grades 5 and above
(California Department of Education, 2018). The CHKS collects data on the following: how
students feel about being connected to the school and how students feel about being engaged and

31
motivated with learning; how students feel about the safety, culture and climate of the school;
how students feel about school safety, violence and bullying; how student feel about their overall
physical health, mental health, and SEL; and how students feel about being supported, caring
relationships, high expectations and overall participation (California Department of Education,
2018). Together, the SEL assessment and CHKS help schools promote resilience, social-
emotional learning, and trauma-informed support systems within MTSS.
Although trauma-informed practice is not a new concept, several landmark events and
research laid the foundation for schools to implement trauma-informed practices within MTSS.
In 1994, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration held the Dare to
Vision Conference, which was a first-of-its-kind event focused on trauma (SAMHSA, 2014).
Later in 1998, SAMHSA funded the Women Co-Occurring Disorders and Violence Study, which
in 2001 led SAMHSA to fund the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative (SAMHSA, 2014).
Over the years, SAMHSA has become a leader in defining trauma, creating interventions and
approaches, and moving trauma-informed practices from the behavior health field to education,
schools, and classrooms (SAMHSA, 2014). From 1996-1997, The ACE study was conducted
with over 13,000 patients from Kaiser Permanente, a landmark study that linked adults’ health
risk to childhood trauma (Felitti et al., 1998). Of the 13,000 patients in the ACE study, over
9,000 responded to the survey, and more than half reported having an ACE. The work of Felitti
et al. (1998) ACEs study called for more research, training, and interventions with trauma-
informed practices, but also the need to address these traumas within schools. In 2015, the school
trauma-informed care movement took a major shift toward education with the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which calls on schools to address the trauma
needs of children (Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) credit this

32
major shift with the understanding that today’s children have more trauma than ever before, with
over two-thirds of all children being affected by trauma. Over the years, there has been an
increased awareness and understanding of students with trauma and the need for MTSS in
schools, but schools are struggling with social-emotional supports and interventions within
MTSS.
Problems With Social-Emotional Supports and Interventions Within MTSS
Despite landmark research that has called for schools to implement social-emotional
supports and interventions within MTSS, many schools are struggling to address the needs of the
students. In a review and meta-analysis of 19 school-based intervention programs that address
trauma among children, Rolfsnes and Idsoe (2011) conclude that these intervention programs can
be very successful at helping children overcome traumatic events but are also relatively non-
existent within most schools. Furthermore, Rolfsnes and Idsoe (2011) highlighted that only 17%
of school-age children will seek mental health services outside of school, thus the need to create
school-based MTSS. In a case study of social-emotional trauma-informed integrated models,
most school-based social-emotional trauma-informed practices are done in isolation, also
referred to as programs (Domitrovich et al., 2010). Since schools have a captive audience of
students, there is a call to create MTSS-integrated practices to address the needs of students
during the school day (Domitrovich et al., 2010). Jaycox et al. (2010) highlight the fact that most
schools that use social-emotional trauma-informed practices tend to only provide services to the
most intensive cases, missing many children who are affected by trauma or have other social-
emotional needs. This research calls for the early identification of children affected by trauma so
that interventions can be provided early. This empirical research underscores a need for schools

33
to create and implement social-emotional supports and interventions within MTSS, but further
roadblocks are preventing this from becoming a reality.
As schools begin to address the needs of the students, problems with implementing
social-emotional supports and interventions within MTSS, creating culture change, and
professional development to support social-emotional trauma-informed practices are continued
roadblocks. Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) argued the need for schools to create a blueprint
for using an MTSS approach to implementing social-emotional trauma-informed practices, such
as using SWPBIS. The awareness and understanding of the need for social-emotional trauma-
informed practices in schools are clear, but that research, evidence, and best practices to support
an MTSS approach are still lacking (Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). Another major issue
schools have with implementing social-emotional support and interventions within MTSS is that
they tend to create programs instead of changing cultures that support the whole student
(Hopkins, 2015). When schools create a culture that supports all students with MTSS, principles
such as community, togetherness, respect, trust, and empathy help to support the student’s needs
(Wachtel, 2007).
One of the biggest roadblocks with schools struggling to implement social-emotional
support and interventions within MTSS is that school staff are not adequately provided with the
professional development to implement social-emotional trauma-informed cultures (Anderson et
al., 2015). Anderson et al. (2015) call for more attention to the specific design and creation of
professional development of MTSS. If schools can overcome the struggles of implementing
social-emotional supports and interventions within MTSS, they can shift from asking what is
wrong with students to asking what happened to them and what help they would like. These
problems of implementing social-emotional supports and inventions within MTSS will be further

34
explored in the gap analysis section examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assumed barriers.
State Level Initiative
Although states such as Kansas, Florida, Massachusetts, and Utah were early leaders in
implementing MTSS, California has emerged as a new leader taking MTSS implementation to a
further dimension. In 2015, California Assembly Bill 104, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015,
appropriated over 10 million dollars to help schools implement MTSS (California Department of
Education, 2018). In 2016, California Senate Bill 828, Chapter 29, Statutes 2016, added 20
million dollars, and The Budget Act of 2018 authorized an additional 15 million dollars,
appropriated by AB 1808, Chapter 32, Statues of 2018 and SB 840, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2018
(California Department of Education, 2018). The sole purpose of this funding is to help schools
overcome the problems of implementing MTSS.
California’s Scaling Up MTSS Statewide (SUMS) Initiative was created to develop
resources for implementing MTSS within schools that align the academic, behavioral, and social-
emotional supports and interventions that serve all students. California’s SUMS takes it even
further by integrating five domains of MTSS that includes MTSS, family and community
engagement, administrative leadership, integrated education frameworks, and inclusive policy
and practice (California Department of Education, 2018). With the MTSS domain,
implementation science, improvement science, and plan-do-study-act (PDSA) are used for
continuous improvements (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The MTSS domain also calls for
inclusive academic intervention (RtI and UDL), inclusive behavior intervention (PBIS and
Restorative Practices), a continuum of support through varying levels of intensities or tiers, and
alignment with school district plans (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The administrative

35
leadership domain requires strong and engaged site leadership that uses data-driven decisions to
support instruction, empower stakeholders, provide coaching, and create vision (SWIFT
Education Center, 2015). The integrated educational framework domain is a fully integrated
organizational structure of subgroups that helps build strong and positive school culture, school
climate, collaboration, culturally responsive teaching, college and career, and extracurricular
activities to support all students (SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The family and community
engagement domain include trusting family partnerships and trusting community partnerships
(SWIFT Education Center, 2015). The inclusive policy structure and practices domain includes
strong district-to-school relationships, supportive policies and procedures, open lines of
communication, data-driven decisions, and evidence-based practices (SWIFT Education Center,
2015). These state initiatives and how they impact the implementation of MTSS will be further
explored in the gap analysis section examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assumed barriers.
Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, which is a
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and
identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational
(O) barriers, also referred to as KMO. To achieve the stakeholder goal and improve performance,
stakeholders’ assumed lack of knowledge and skills, assumed lack of motivation, and assumed
organizational barriers were evaluated to determine if a gap exists in achieving the goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Identifying these assumed KMO performance gaps
is essential in HUSD meeting its goal of enhancing the capacity development to implement a
high fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school.

36
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Barriers
Knowledge Barriers
Knowledge barriers are the first dimension that will help HUSD’s school site principals
achieve their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that knowledge and skills are
one of three critical factors that can cause performance gaps when trying to achieve goals.
Knowledge and skill enhancement are needed if the employees do not know how to achieve their
goals or if challenges arise that require problem solving (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011)
suggested posing a simple question of asking what employees need to know to achieve the
performance goal. The second question is how they can be helped to learn, such as through
information, job aids, training, or education, to achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). Once the organization can determine what knowledge and skill gaps exist, it can work to
close them and achieve the stakeholder goal.
For HUSD’s school site principals to achieve their stakeholder goal and eliminate
performance gaps, it is necessary to understand the knowledge barriers, knowledge types, and
methods of assessing these performance gaps. Krathwohl (2002) described the six major
categories of the cognitive domain with Bloom’s taxonomy of knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which were later changed from nouns to verbs
and now include remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. According to
Krathwohl (2002), there are three types of knowledge. The first type is factual, which is known
as facts or basic knowledge of specific disciplines, contexts, or domains (Krathwohl, 2002). This
knowledge type includes definitions, terminology, or details to understand or solve problems.
The second type is conceptual, which focuses on the interrelationships of basic elements that
need to function together within a structure (Krathwohl, 2002). This type includes categories,

37
classifications, principals, generalizations, theories, models, or structures used to function
together. The third knowledge type is procedural, which refers to knowing how to understand or
solve problems (Krathwohl, 2002). This type includes methods of inquiry, specific or finite
skills, techniques, or methodologies to accomplish specific tasks.
Mayer (2011) described learning as having three parts: learning involves a change in the
learner, in the learner’s knowledge, and in the leaners’ experience. Based on a review of current
research literature, three knowledge barriers impacting HUSD’s school site principals from
achieving their stakeholder goals will be discussed in the next section. Each barrier will be
categorized using the four knowledge types, and this categorization into types will help to
determine the types of assessment needed to understand these gaps.
School Site Principals Need to Understand the Basic Knowledge of the MTSS Framework
The first knowledge type that HUSD’s school site principals need to achieve their
stakeholder goal is factual: understanding the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework. Multi-
tiered system of support uses evidence-based practices and data-based problem solving to align
academic, behavioral, and social-emotional prevention and intervention through a three-tiered
system (California Department of Education, 2018; Gamm et al., 2012). An MTSS framework
includes district support, aligned policies and practices, rigorous core instruction, assessment,
evaluation and monitoring, and stakeholder engagement (Gamm et al., 2012). Freeman et al.
(2017) explained that MTSS is the overarching framework that provides intervention and support
to all students through varying tiers. The importance of understanding the basic knowledge of the
MTSS framework is really about being able to use all the different components (Freeman et al.,
2017).

38
School Site Principals Need to Understand the Different Components That Make Up an MTSS
Framework
The second knowledge type that HUSD’s school site principals need to achieve their
stakeholder goal is conceptual: understanding the different components that make up an MTSS
framework to support and service all students. California’s SUMS initiative paints the best
picture of the different components of an MTSS framework, not only academic, behavior, and
social-emotional supports and interventions for all students but also family and community
engagement, supportive administrative leadership, integrated educational frameworks, and
inclusive policies and practice (California Department of Education, 2018). Response to
intervention and PBIS are both multi-tiered frameworks, but when placed under MTSS as the
overarching umbrella, they become aligned to help support and serve all students (California
Department of Education, 2018; Gamm et al., 2012). Harn et al. (2015) described six common
features that both RtI and PBIS have, which are schoolwide evidence-based supports and
interventions; data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques; identifying,
screening, assessing and progress monitoring; varying levels of intensities or tiers; committed
principals and staff; and ongoing professional development. Understanding the different
components that make up an MTSS framework leads to an understating of the three-tiered model
within an MTSS framework.
School Site Principals Need to Demonstrate an Understanding of the Three-Tiered Model
Within an MTSS Framework
The third knowledge type that HUSD’s school site principals need to achieve their
stakeholder goal is procedural to demonstrate an understanding of the three-tiered model within
an MTSS framework. The SWIFT Education Center (2015) described the three-tiered model

39
within an MTSS framework as a tiered system consisting of three tiers: universal support,
targeted or supplemental support, and intensified support. August et al. (2018) and Walker et al.
(1996) described the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework: Tier 1 is referred to as core
universal support that provides intervention and support to all students; Tier 2 is referred to as
targeted support that provides supplemental intervention and support to some or groups of
students; and Tier 3 is referred to as intensive one-on-one support that provides supports and
intervention to individual students. Gamm et al. (2012) added that an MTSS framework is an
evidence-based model that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to
address students’ academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs through varying levels of
intensities or tiers based on students’ needs. Once school site principals can demonstrate an
understanding of placing students within the three-tiered model, they can begin to utilize all of
the systems and principals of initiatives, supports, and resources within an MTSS framework.
School Site Principals Need to Utilize All the Systems and Principles of Initiatives, Supports,
and Resources Within an MTSS Framework
The fourth knowledge type that HUSD’s school site principals need to achieve their
stakeholder goal is procedural: to utilize all of the systems and principals of initiatives, supports,
and resources within an MTSS framework. Three examples can guide leaders on how to align
initiatives under MTSS. Implementation science is understanding how creativity and innovation
are explored, adopted, implemented, and sustained with short-term and long-term goals that
promote continuous improvement. Improvement science is a problem-solving technique that
involves an inquiry and learning cycle. The PDSA is an improvement science tool used for
continuous improvement by testing changes, documenting results, and revising theories to
achieve goals (Bohanon et al., 2016; SWIFT Education Center, 2015). Universal lesson design,

40
the school-to-prison pipeline, mental health counseling, restorative practice, restorative circles,
and trauma-informed care are initiatives, supports, and resources that could fall under MTSS as
additional evidence-based tiered interventions and preventions to all students (California
Department of Education, 2018). Besides implementing PBIS and restorative practices, HUSD’s
school site principals need to utilize all of the systems and principals of initiatives, supports, and
resources within an MTSS framework.
Table 2 illustrates the information specific to knowledge barriers, knowledge type, and
knowledge assessment. As Table 2 indicates, three knowledge types (factual, conceptual, and
procedural) were evaluated to gain insight into the knowledge HUSD’s principals have in regard
to MTSS. A better understanding of the knowledge dimension will help HUSD’s school site
principals achieve their stakeholder goal.

41
Table 2
Knowledge Barriers, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Assessment
Assumed knowledge barriers Knowledge type Knowledge assessment
School site principals need to
understand the basic
knowledge of the MTSS
framework.
declarative (factual) One-on-one interviews
School site principals need to
understand the different
components that make up
an MTSS framework to
support and service
students.
Declarative (conceptual) One-on-one interviews
School site principals need to
demonstrate an
understanding of the three-
tiered model within an
MTSS framework.
Procedural One-on-one interviews
School site principals need to
know how to utilize all of
the systems and principles
of initiatives, supports, and
resources within an MTSS
framework.
Procedural One-on-one interviews

Motivation Barriers
Motivation is the second dimension that will help HUSD’s school site principals achieve
their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as what initiates us, inspires
us, and guides us as to how much exertion to spend at work or on a task. Schunk et al. (2009)
described motivation as an activity that is set in motion, continuously supported, and goal driven.
Rueda (2011) explained that the “instigation and sustainment of motivation are influenced by
internal (cognitive and affective) and external (social, cultural) factors” (p. 38). Mayer (2011)
further concluded that motivation is an internal state that has four components: personal (occurs

42
within), activating (instigates behavior), energizing (creates persistence and intensity), and
directed (accomplishing the goal). Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted three motivational indexes
or types of motivational processes that are either opportunities or problem areas. First, there is
active choice, which is when the employee makes a choice to actively pursue goals. The second
is persistence, which is when employees are determined to complete the goal despite barriers or
distractions. Lastly, there is mental effort, which is when the employee chooses to start a goal
and continues to push past distractions until the goal is achieved. Once the organization can
determine motivation gaps, it can work to close them.
Hope Unified School District can increase its ability to accomplish the organizational
goal by examining the motivation of the school site principals to achieve their stakeholder goal.
Based on a review of current research literature, two motivational barriers impacting HUSD’s
school site principals from achieving their stakeholder goals will be discussed in the next section.
Each motivation barrier will be categorized using the two motivation types (utility value and goal
orientation), and this categorization into types of motivation will help to determine the types of
assessment needed to understand these motivation gaps.
School Site Principals Need to See the Value in the Implementation of MTSS.
The first motivational type related to HUSD’s school site principals achieving their
performance goal is that they need to see the utility value in the implementation of MTSS. Eccles
and Wigfield (2002) described four types of value: intrinsic value, which refers to the enjoyment
one gets from doing a task or being engaged in the task; attainment value, which is the
connection of the task and the individual; utility value, which is how the task fits within the
individual’s goals or plans; and perceived cost, which is the beliefs about the cost of completing
the task. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) explained that expectancy value is really about asking if one

43
can do the task and wants to do the task. Focusing only on utility value, Rueda (2011)
highlighted that utility value is about the task fitting into the individual’s goals or plans. Recent
education reforms call for school site leaders to improve academic performance, reduce behavior
incidents, and provide students with the social-emotional support needed to be successful (Sugai
et al., 2016). Implementing MTSS as the overarching framework that provides evidence-based
tiered interventions and preventions to all students can have a positive impact on students’
success (Sugai & Horner, 2009). If school site principals can begin to see the value in
implementing MTSS, then they can use the implementation of MTSS to improve key
performance indicators (KPIs).
School Site Principals Need to Use Mastery Orientation of Implementing MTSS to Improve
Key Performance Indicators
The second motivational type related to HUSD’s school site principals achieving their
performance goal is that they will use mastery orientation (goal of learning and understanding) of
implementing MTSS. Rueda (2011) described two types of goals in goal orientation theory. The
first is goal content, which is about the goals being current, concrete, and challenging, and asking
what one wants. The second is goal orientation, which is about the purpose and reason for
engaging in a task. Within goal orientation is goal mastery, which is about approaching goals to
learn, gain competence, or accomplish challenges or activities (Rueda, 2011). A key component
of implementing MTSS is setting goals of implementation to improve students’ outcome
performance (Gamm et al., 2012). HUSD has embarked on an instructional leadership cycle
designed to continually draw the school site principals' focus back to their responsibility as
instructional leaders. Hope Unified School District’s school site principals use KPIs to focus on
improvements by setting goals, reviewing and monitoring progress data, making adjustments and

44
revisions, and striving for continuous improvements. This instructional leadership cycle guided
by the KPIs is the type of goal orientation needed to show improvements through implementing
MTSS.
Table 3 illustrates the information specific to assumed motivational barriers, motivational
type, and motivational assessment. As Table 3 indicates, two assumed motivational barriers
(utility and goal orientation) were evaluated to gain insight into the motivation principals have
regarding MTSS. A better understanding of the motivation dimension will help HUSD’s school
site principals achieve their stakeholder goal.

Table 3
Motivational Barriers, Motivational Type, and Motivational Assessments
Assumed motivational
barriers
Motivational type Motivational assessment
School site principals need to
see the value in the
implementation of MTSS.
Utility value One-on-one interviews
School site principals need to
use mastery orientation
(goal of learning and
understanding) of
implementing MTSS to
improve key performance
indicators.
Goal orientation One-on-one interviews

45
Organizational Barriers
Assumed organizational barriers make up the third dimension of the KMO gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This third dimension causes performance gaps due to a
“lack of efficient and effective organizational work process and material resources” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 103). Clark and Estes (2008) explained that work processes are how material,
equipment, and people interreact over time to reach desired goals. Clark and Estes (2008) further
elaborated that material resources are the tools and equipment needed to reach desired goals.
These material resources also include a variety of equipment, specialized environments and
buildings, rapidly changing information and technology, and new knowledge associated with
these material resources. Clark and Estes (2008) described how value streams analyze an
organization's interaction of divisions and departments and the different processes they
implement. This analysis is to better understand the overall business and the cost-effectiveness of
the many work process. In addition to value streams, value chains utilize the information learned
from value streams to identify how divisions, departments, or teams processes achieve goals for
the internal and extremal customers of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition to the
assumed knowledge and motivational barriers previously discussed, it is also necessary to
examine the assumed organizational barriers in regard to current culture, structure, polices, and
practices (Rueda, 2011). If the HUSD can determine if an organizational gap exists by
identifying the type of assumed organizational barriers, it can work toward solutions to eliminate
the gap, which will help the organization achieve its global goal.
Rueda (2011) explained that culture and cultural processes are extremely difficult to
define because they are not very visible, mostly automated, not always transparent, and involve
relative values. In discussing organizational culture, Schein (2017) highlighted the problem of

46
defining culture clearly in that all of the following have been used at some point to describe
culture: the observed behaviors when people interact with one another, the culture and climate
within groups, group norms within working groups or teams, values and principles that guide
groups, policies and procedures that guide groups; the unwritten rules within groups, the
knowledge and skills that the individuals possess within groups, the perceptions, thoughts and
language used by groups, and the celebrations and reignitions within groups. Schein (2017) then
defined culture as the values, norms, behaviors, and shared meaning within a group and added
that it is something learned and something that evolves over time. Erez and Gati (2004)
described culture as being dynamic and created as the individuals in an organization negotiate
their daily routines and challenges. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) further added that cultural
models are the shared conception and understanding of how the organization works and ought to
work and that they help to understand what is customary and normal and gain an understanding
of invisible aspects of the organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that cultural
settings can be seen as the more visible aspects of the organization, such as the who, what, when,
where, why, and how of the routines of everyday life and that they are made up of the various
social contexts where the policies and practices are enacted.
The Organization Needs to Establish a General Acceptance and Willingness Among
Administration and Faculty to Change Existing Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes That Support
the Implementation of MTSS
The first cultural model barrier is that the organization needs to establish a general
acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs, and
attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS. Research has shown that the beliefs and
attitudes of the implementers about leaders can affect motivational and organizational gaps when

47
implementing something new (Cook et al., 2015). Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) argued that
values, beliefs, and attitudes that go unchecked can often hinder the implementation of new
initiatives. Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) elaborated that one way to deal with these is by
holding peer group discussions, where these values, beliefs, and attitudes can be exposed, and
participants can learn from one another. School districts implementing MTSS must create a
system of engagements to understand the why, what, and how, and that understanding each team
member's why helps in the implementation efforts (The SWIFT Education Center, 2015). Being
able to change values, beliefs, and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS should
help at creating a culture of trust in the school between the administration and faculty.
The Organization Need to Create a Culture of Trust Between Administration and Faculty in
Order to Achieve the Goal of Implementing MTSS
Forman and Crystal (2015) explained that a key to establishing trust between the
administration and faculty is creating a supportive organizational structure for new programs or
practices that provides the infrastructure for successful implementation. Forman and Crystal
elaborated that collaborative teams or focus groups are a way to provide the mechanisms for the
development of interdisciplinary cooperation and build trust. Romer et al. (2018) elucidated that
past negative interactions with establishing programs can interfere with the establishment of new
programs and that overcoming these past negative influences is the key to building a culture of
trust. If HUSD’s school site principals can create a culture of trust in the school between the
administration and faculty, they can begin to change policies, procedures, and practices that help
support the implementation of MTSS.

48
The Organization Needs to Change Existing Policies, Procedures, and Practices That Help
Support the Implementation of MTSS
The first cultural setting barrier is that the organization needs to change policies,
procedures, and practices that help support the implementation of MTSS. Sugai et al. (2016)
explained that schools finally understand the need to establish MTSS to support all students but
that policies and procedures prevent implementation. Sugai et al. (2016) further added that
school districts have to create policies, procedures, and practices that support the implementation
of MTSS and help to sustain it. Bohanon et al. (2016) suggested using implementation science as
a way for continuous and ongoing improvements with changing policies, procedures, and
practices that help support the implementation of MTSS. A key to changing policies, procedures,
and practices is to create ones that not only support the implementation of MTSS but also
support ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration.
The Organization Needs to Provide Ongoing Training, Coaching, and Collaboration That
Helps Support the Implementation of MTSS
The second cultural setting barrier is that the organization needs to provide ongoing
training, coaching, and collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS. When
MTSS is viewed through the leans of professional accountability, school site principals should
receive initial and ongoing professional development so that they have the knowledge and skills
to deliver effective research-based supports and interventions and make data-based decisions
about students (Burke, 2004). One of the biggest roadblocks with schools struggling to
implement MTSS is that staff are not adequately provided the professional development needed
(Anderson et al., 2015). Anderson et al. (2015) highlighted the need for more attention to the
specific design and creation of professional development in and around MTSS. Specific design

49
and creation of professional development in and around MTSS would require ongoing
professional development, coaching, mentoring, and collaboration (Freeman et al., 2017 Stuart &
Rinaldi, 2009). Providing ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration that help support the
implementation of MTSS will only further the organization in meeting its goal.
Table 4 illustrates the information specific to the assumed organizational barriers, types,
and assessments. As Table 4 indicates, there are two cultural models and two cultural settings
that were evaluated to gain insight into HUSD’s assumed organizational barriers in regards to
MTSS. A better understanding of the organizational dimension will help HUSD’s school site
principals achieve their stakeholder goal.

50
Table 4
Organizational Barriers, Organizational Types, and Organizational Assessment
Assumed organizational
influence
Organizational type Organizational assessment
The organization needs to
establish a general
acceptance and willingness
among administration and
faculty to change existing
values, beliefs, and attitudes
that support the
implementation of MTSS.
Cultural model One-on-one interviews
The organization needs to
create a culture of trust
between administration and
faculty in order to achieve
the goal of implementing
MTSS.
Cultural model One-on-one interviews
The organization needs to
change existing policies,
procedures, and practices
that help support the
implementation of MTSS.
Cultural setting One-on-one interviews
The organization needs to
provide ongoing training,
coaching, and collaboration
that help support the
implementation of MTSS.
Cultural setting One-on-one interviews

Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
According to Maxwell (2013), the purpose of a conceptual framework is to present a
visual representation that describes concepts, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and theories that
support and inform the research. Maxwell (2013) defined a conceptual framework as a visual
(graphic or illustration) and written (narrative) representation of the main things to be studied,
such as key information, concepts, questions, or variables, and the correlation among them.

51
Maxwell (2013) highlighted that the most important thing to understand about a conceptual
framework is that it is primary a conception or model of the research literature and the
connection of that to the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers, which
informs the problem to be evaluated. This conception or model serves as the underlying structure
for the study framed by the researcher’s disciplinary orientation and also serves as the
interrelationships among key ideas, factors, and variables; thus, the conceptual framework
impacts every aspect of the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Maxwell (2013) explained that a conceptual framework is something the researcher
builds, incorporates parts of the study, and not something that already exists. This framework
becomes unique to the problem to be evaluated because it scaffolds the researcher’s personal
beliefs, experiences, and knowledge with the research literature and the connection of that to the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The problem of implementing MTSS justifies the need for this problem to be
evaluated. The conceptual framework is driven by my personal beliefs, experiences and
knowledge, the literature, the connection to the assumed KMO barriers, and the goals of the
organization and stakeholders.
The conceptual framework is further driven by the researcher’s worldviews, which
inform and advance the problem to be evaluated. Two worldviews converge to inform and
advance the problem to be evaluated: a constructivism or social-constructivism worldview and a
pragmatic worldview. Creswell and Creswell (2014) explained that a constructivism or social-
constructivism worldview is one that constructs meaning or seeks understanding from engaging
in the world with others. Constructing meaning and seeking understanding by engaging
participants in engaging discussions, asking open-ended questions, and listening carefully to

52
what participants say or do is key to the constructivism or social-constructivism worldview
(Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Creswell and Creswell (2014) elaborated that a researcher with a
constructivism or social-constructivism worldview focuses on the contexts in which participants
work to understand the historical and cultural settings of the participants.
Researchers understand that their personal beliefs, experiences, and knowledge shape
their interpretation, and they acknowledge how their interpretation flows from their personal
cultural and historical experiences. A researcher’s purpose is to make sense of or interpret the
meanings others have about the world as it pertains to the problem to be evaluated. Creswell and
Creswell (2014) elucidated that a pragmatic worldview “arises out of actions, situations, and
consequences, rather than antecedent conditions” (p. 10). With this worldview, the concern is
with the implementation of what will work and the solutions to the problem, not committed to
any one system, and open to multiple approaches (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Creswell and
Creswell (2014) expounded that a researcher with a pragmatic worldview does not focus on
methods; instead, they focus on the research problem and use multiple approaches to understand
the problem, just like the participants.
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework of this study. This conceptual framework
represents the interaction of the problem of implementing MTSS, the stakeholder’s assumed
KMO barriers, worldviews, the organizational global goal, and the stakeholder goal, all working
together as individual puzzle pieces. Each puzzle piece is part of the problem of implementing
MTSS as an individual piece but can also be part of a bigger problem when paired with other
pieces. This conceptual framework represents the interaction of the stakeholder’s knowledge and
motivation within organizational culture models and settings, which has been previously
explained as separate elements affecting the problem of implementing MTSS. As shown in

53
Figure 2, the three elements of assumed KMO barriers are not separate but are intertwined with
the problem of implementing MTSS as pieces of a puzzle (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes
(2008) explained that the assumed KMO barriers affecting a problem need to be addressed
simultaneously to achieve the organizational global goal and stakeholder goal. The center of this
puzzle highlights that all the different puzzle pieces pull away from implementing MTSS and
justifies the need to evaluate this problem.

54
Figure 2
Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Within Organizational Culture Models
and Settings

This conceptual framework starts with the problem of HUSD struggling to implement
MTSS (orange puzzle piece). This figure illustrates the relationship between the stakeholder’s
assumed knowledge and motivational barriers (green and light blue puzzle pieces) regarding
implementing MTSS. The assumed knowledge and motivational barriers are also interconnected
to the assumed organizational barriers (dark blue puzzle piece). Together, the assumed KMO
barriers create the phenomenon (center of the puzzle) of implementing MTSS. The assumed

55
KMO barriers that lead to the phenomenon justify the need to evaluate this problem and create
the organizational goal (fuchsia puzzle piece), which then leads to the stakeholder goal (red
puzzle piece) that all school site principals will have been trained with the implementation of
MTSS and complete a tiered Fidelity Inventory Assessment.
This conceptual framework clarifies the assumed knowledge barriers and how this puzzle
piece is part of the problem of implementing MTSS as an individual piece. The first barrier
HUSD’s school site principals must overcome to achieve their stakeholder goal is factual
knowledge of understanding the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework. The second barrier is
understanding the different components of an MTSS framework to support and service all
students. The third is demonstrating an understanding of the three-tiered model within an MTSS
framework. The fourth is utilizing all of the systems and principals of initiatives, supports, and
resources within an MTSS framework. A better understanding of the knowledge dimension will
help HUSD’s principals achieve their stakeholder goal.
This conceptual framework clarifies the assumed motivation barriers and how this puzzle
piece is part of the problem of implementing MTSS as an individual piece. The first motivational
barrier related to HUSD’s school site principals achieving their performance goal is utility value
in that school site principals need to see the value in implementing MTSS. The second
motivational barrier related to HUSD’s school site principals achieving their performance goal is
goal orientation in that school site principals will use mastery orientation of implementing
MTSS.
This conceptual framework clarifies the assumed organizational barriers and how this
puzzle piece is part of the problem of implementing MTSS as an individual piece. The first
cultural model barrier is that the organization needs to establish a general acceptance and

56
willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs, and attitudes that support
the implementation of MTSS. The second cultural model barrier is that the organization needs to
create a culture of trust in the school between the administration and faculty to achieve the goal.
The first cultural setting barrier is that the organization needs to change policies, procedures, and
practices that help support the implementation of MTSS. The second cultural setting barrier is
that the organization needs to provide ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration that help
support the implementation of MTSS.
The ultimate goal is getting these puzzle pieces to connect and align to support the
organizational global goal (fuchsia puzzle piece), which then leads to the stakeholder goal (red
puzzle piece) that all school site principals will have been trained with the implementation of
MTSS and complete a tiered Fidelity Inventory Assessment. If this can be done, then HUSD will
have achieved its global goal.
Conclusion
As previously stated, MTSS as the overarching umbrella not only improves students’
academic, performance, behavior, and social-emotional needs but also improves schools’ overall
performance and culture while serving all students. This chapter presented a general review of
literature on the problem of school districts in the United States struggling to implement MTSS,
Clark and Estes's (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework in examining the assumed KMO
barriers that directly impact the implementation of MTSS and a visual representation of a
conceptual framework that illustrates concepts, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and theories
that supports and informs the research. Chapter Three of this study will describe the
methodological methods used to evaluate the assumed barriers.

57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, which is a
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and
identifies assumed KMO performance gaps. Identifying these assumed performance gaps is
essential in HUSD meeting its goal of enhancing the capacity development to implement a high
fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school. The methodological framework used in this study
to further validate the assumed barriers was a qualitative method design using interviews. A
qualitative method design is a process of data collection and analysis for exploring and
understanding problems, such as the problems with implementing MTSS (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Using interviews, I triangulated the data by interviewing five elementary principals, five
intermediate principals and five high school principals, analyzing the data separately, and then
comparing the results to confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which HUSD is meeting its global
organizational performance goal. Data collection and analysis focused on assumed KMO barriers
related to achieving the global organizational performance goal. The primary stakeholder focus
group in this study was school site principals. The following research questions guided this
study:
1. How does the school site principal’s knowledge impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
2. How does the school site principal’s motivation impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?

58
3. How do organizational barriers impact the implementation and sustainability efforts
of a multi-tiered system of support?
Participating Stakeholders
Some schools have principals, assistant principals, coordinators, and TOSA, and other
schools have only principals. The school site stakeholder group charged with implementing
MTSS and the primary stakeholder focus group for this study are HUSD’s school site principals.
The school site principals are the leaders charged with implementing MTSS at each school site,
which is why they were chosen as the primary focus group for this study. These primary
stakeholders are the force in implementing MTSS with true fidelity at the various tiered levels of
support and have direct daily and hourly time with the students. These primary stakeholders have
important roles in the implementation and at the various tiered levels of support, such as
identifying, screening, assessing, and offering a multi-tiered approach to meet students’
academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. If the problem of implementing MTSS is not
addressed, the students will lose out on a valuable education and will most likely suffer negative
effects as adults in a global society (Felitti et al., 1998).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The first criterion was that the interviewees must be school site principals charged with
the implementation of MTSS. The second was that they must have a role at the various tiered
levels of support, such as identifying, screening, assessing, and offering a multi-tiered approach
to meet students’ needs. The third was that they were committed to implementing MTSS.
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Nonprobability convenience sampling is the most common method used in qualitative
studies (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) highlighted that

59
convenience purposeful sampling is based on the researcher’s goal to discover information,
understand perceptions and implications, and gain new insight, and therefore must select a
sample to best learn from. Maxwell (2013) explained that the best participants to be used in
convenience purposeful sampling should be the experts in the study’s field who can provide the
most insight into the research questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) clarified that interviews are
critical to gathering information that goes beyond focus groups or surveys and that they provide
information that cannot be observed, such as feelings, thoughts, intentions, perspectives, and
how interviewees interpret the world around them. Due to time and the availability of
participants, convenience purposeful sampling was the best method to use with interviews.
The district of focus has 37 elementary schools, nine intermediate schools, seven high
schools, four educational options schools, one dependent charter, one deaf and hard of hearing
resource center, two early childhood education programs, and one early learner childhood
education special needs developmental center. Using convenience purposeful sampling,
interviews were conducted with five elementary principals, five intermediate principals and five
high school principals.
For each interview group (elementary, intermediate, and high school), I sent a
recruitment email invitation (Appendix C) to all school site principals asking for volunteer
participation. In the recruitment email, I asked participants to volunteer by replying directly to
me. Although the recruitment email described aspects and explained detailed information about
the study, a follow-up email highlighting more in-depth details of the interviews, a Google Link
for scheduling interviews, and a few demographic questions were also sent once participants
opted to participate. A few principals elected to participate but were excluded because they did
not meet Criterion 2 or Criterion 3.

60
Data Collection and Instruments
This study utilized a qualitative method design using one-on-one interviews to further
validate the assumed KMO barriers. A qualitative method design is a process of data collection
and analysis for exploring and understanding problems, such as the problems with implementing
MTSS (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using a qualitative method design of interviews, I
triangulated the data by interviewing five elementary principals, five intermediate principals and
five high school principals, analyzing the data separately, and then comparing the results to
confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell & Creswell, 2008).
Interview Protocol
The interviews were semi-structured. A semi-structured format allows for consistency
between interviews but also allows flexibility for the researcher to probe further into situations at
hand, emerging worldviews, and/or new ideas (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured
format allows the researcher to dive deeper to explore key information or themes that arise
during the interview. An interview protocol was created (see Appendix D) containing semi-
structured open-ended questions with additional follow-up prompts that will provide the richest
information possible. I identified 14 interview questions for the interviews. The questions were
also aligned with the study’s conceptual framework and targeted the stakeholder’s assumed
performance gaps in the KMO barriers discussed in the previous chapter.
Interview Procedures
Since there were only five interviewees from each group (elementary, intermediate, and
high school), all interviews were conducted over a 5-day period. Since the interviewees are from
various school sites, the interviews were conducted at the participants' school sites. Each
interview was scheduled to last 1 hour, but interviews were scheduled every 3 hours, starting at 8

61
a.m. until 5:00 p.m., which gave me time to finalize notes and recordings and travel between
interviews. All interviews were recorded with the use of a digital recorder and transcribed
through Rev Transcription Service and through researcher notes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
explained that recording and transcribing interviews preserves the actual conversation data and
allows for the rapid production of transcripts following the session.
Alignment of Barriers and Data Collection Methods
Table 5 provides a summary of the data collection methods used to assess the assumed
barriers preventing HUSD from meeting its goal. Table 5 demonstrates the alignment between
the assumed barriers and the attendant data collection method. Table 5 illustrates the
organizational mission, organizational goal, stakeholder goal, and information specific to the
barriers.

Table 5
Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Barriers
Assumed
knowledge
barriers
Knowledge type Interviews
School site
principals need to
understand the
basic knowledge
of the MTSS
framework.
Declarative
(factual)
Can you describe your understanding of the MTSS
framework? (Probe: can you add anything
further?)
School site
principals need to
understand the
different
components that
make up an MTSS
framework to
support and
service students.
Declarative
(conceptual)
Can you list some key components of MTSS and
why they are important? (Probe: can you list any
others?)

62
Assumed
knowledge
barriers
Knowledge type Interviews
School site
principals need to
demonstrate an
understanding of
the three-tiered
model within an
MTSS
framework.
Procedural Can you explain how tiered interventions work
within MTSS? (Probe: how are tiered academic,
behavior, and social-emotional interventions
being used at your school sites (Probe for
academic, behavior, and social-emotional
interventions)?)

School site
principals need to
utilize all of the
systems and
principles of
initiatives,
supports, and
resources within
an MTSS
framework.
Procedural Let’s discuss what additional initiatives, supports,
and/or resources are being used at your school
site to support students. (Probe: after writing a
few down), can you explain further how these
support students (probe for LCAP, restorative
practices, PBIS, key performance indicators
(KPI), data hub, curriculum, etc.)?

Walk me through how you would administer a
SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment (FIA)?
(Probe: What insights did you gain from
administering a FIA?)
Motivational barriers
School site
principals need to
see the value in
the
implementation of
MTSS
Utility value What is the value of the implementation of MTSS?
School site
principals will use
mastery
orientation (Goal
of learning and
understanding) of
implementing
MTSS to improve
key performance
indicators.
Goal orientation Describe something new you have learned by
implementing MTSS at your school site. (Probe:
How has this helped to improve your school
and/or students?). (Probe: Is there any additional
learning you need to fully master the
implementation of MTSS at your school site?)
Have you set any goals for yourself in
implementing MTSS? If so, tell me about these?
(Probe: What are a few of your low KPIs you are
working to improve this school year?). (Probe:
what were 1–3 growth areas from your FIA?)
Organizational barriers
The organization
needs to establish
a general
acceptance and
Cultural model What values, beliefs, and/or attitudes have you
(personally/professionally) changed to support
the implementation of MTSS? (Probe: can you

63

Assumed
knowledge
barriers
Knowledge type Interviews
willingness
among
administration and
faculty to change
existing values,
beliefs, and
attitudes that
support the
implementation of
MTSS.
add anything further (willingness or
unwillingness to change)?

The organization
needs to create a
culture of trust
between
administration and
faculty in order to
achieve the goal
of implementing
MTSS.
Cultural model Describe the established culture of trust between
district administration and school site
administration.
The organization
needs to change
existing policies,
procedures, and
practices that help
support the
implementation of
MTSS.
Cultural setting To fully implement MTSS, what existing policies,
procedures, and/or practices need to change and
why? (Probe: Could you elaborate on a few of
these and how changing these policies,
procedures, and/or practices supports the
implementation of MTSS?)

The organization
needs to provide
ongoing training,
coaching, and
collaboration that
help support the
implementation of
MTSS.
Cultural setting Describe the kinds of training opportunities you
have received in regards to the implementation
of MTSS. (Probe: What additional training
opportunities do you need and why?)

What kinds of resources have you received, and
how have they helped? (Probe: Are there any
addition resources needed for you to fully
implement MTSS?). (Probe: How will these
additional resources help?)

64
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that data analysis is the process of making
meaning from data collection. One-on-one interviews were used in this study. Data analysis
began during the collection of data through one-on-one interviews. During the interviews, I took
simple notes throughout the interviews. At the conclusion of each interview, I wrote analytic
memos documenting thoughts, concerns, questions, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to the study’s research questions and conceptual framework. I used a digital recorder and
iPhone to record the interviews. The interviews were transcribed through a third party, Rev
Transcription Services. Once the transcriptions process was completed, I read and reviewed the
transcripts several times prior to the coding process.
The first phase of the data analysis coding process involved creating a codebook using
Microsoft Excel. The second phase of coding involved the use of deductive open or prior codes
from the study’s conceptional framework (codes relating to the research questions and pertaining
to the assumed performance gaps). The third phase involved using inductive vivo or empirical
codes that emerged from mining the data. The fourth phase involved aggregating open or prior
codes and vivo or empirical codes into analytic or axial codes (constructing linkage between the
data). The final phase involved identifying patterns or theme codes that emerged in relation to
the research questions and pertaining to the assumed performance gaps due to KMO barriers.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument for data collection and brings
inherent bias and reactivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Researcher bias is the subjectivity of data
selection that aligns with the researcher or stands out to the researcher, and researcher reactivity
as the influence of the researcher on the setting or individual study (Maxwell, 2013). The goal of

65
a qualitative researcher is not to try and eliminate these influences but rather acknowledge,
understand, and use them productively (Maxwell, 2013). This section describes the strategies I
took to minimize bias and reactivity and increase credibility and trustworthiness throughout all
phases of the study.
I used reflectivity as a strategy to enhance and strengthen the study’s credibility and
trustworthiness. The reflexivity strategy is the way a researcher affects and is affected by the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A researcher needs to be upfront and explain their biases,
dispositions, assumptions, experiences, and or worldviews that could impact the study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). I acknowledge the potential for biases, having worked not only in education for
over 27 years in alternative education settings where students could benefit the most from the
successful implementation of MTSS. With this known bias, I understood that through data
collection and analysis, there would be opportunities to include or exclude certain data, skew the
interpretation of meaning, or even choose the importance of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To eliminate the perception of biases, it was essential to build in steps to minimize the biases and
increase credibility and trustworthiness throughout all phases of the study.
Triangulation is another strategy used throughout the study to enhance and strengthen
credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Triangulation involves the use of multiple data sources to validate research findings. This
study utilized a qualitative method design to enhance credibility and trustworthiness through the
triangulation of interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For the qualitative method design of
data collection and analysis, I used five elementary principals, five intermediate principals and
five high school principals. Using this method of triangulation helps to increase and strengthen

66
credibility and trustworthiness by safeguarding against the researcher’s own biases (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Member checking is another strategy used to enhance and strengthen the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study. Member checking is systematically soliciting feedback about
preliminary or emerging specific descriptions, major findings, common themes, and/or data and
conclusions from the participants being studied (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A key time to use member checking strategy is after the data
collection and analysis. One member from each qualitative interview group was asked to provide
feedback on my interpretations of the one-on-one interviews. This feedback was generated in a
study group format with one member from each group and me. Another key time to use member
checking strategy is after the data collection and analysis. Member checking is the “single most
important way of ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants
say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on” (Maxwell, 2013, pp. 126–127).
Research design is another strategy to enhance and strengthen a study’s credibility and
trustworthiness. Maxwell (2013) explained that the research questions highlight what the
researcher wants to know. Maxwell (2013) elaborated that interview questions are what is asked
to understand. The interview questions in this study were aligned with the study’s research
questions and conceptual framework and targeted the stakeholder’s assumed performance gaps. I
created an interview protocol that was reviewed and critiqued by several professors from the
University of Southern California, peer doctoral students at the University of Southern
California, and fellow principals for HUSD. I also pilot-tested the qualitative one-on-one
interview questions with peer doctoral students at the University of Southern California, fellow
principals for HUSD, and expert educators who specialize in MTSS.

67
Ethics
Rubin and Rubin (2012) described the researcher's four primary ethical responsibilities
when gathering data from human participants: showing respect, honoring promises, not
pressuring, and doing no harm. To ensure the highest ethical principles were upheld during the
qualitative data collection and analysis of this study, a number of procedures were applied. First,
the study proposal was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the office for
protection of research subjects (OPRS) at the University of Southern California. Second, the
study proposal was approved by HUSD’s department of research and evaluation (Appendix E).
Third, informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews
(Appendix F), which is a requirement of HUSD’s department of research and evaluation. The
informed written consent form explains that participation is voluntary, that the participants have
the right to decline or withdraw at any time, acknowledge any potential risks and/or benefits in
participating, and ensures the confidentiality of the data and their participation (Glesne, 2011;
Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
With interviews, I explained and reviewed the written consent forms, the interview and
procedures, including recording and transcribing of data, how data would be stored and remain
confidential, and obtain both written and verbal consent (Glesne, 2011; Krueger & Casey, 2009;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). No identifiable information was collected or obtained, nor were
participants asked to identify themselves. I created pseudonyms to use in place of the
participants’ real names to protect their identities. Once the data were collected and analyzed, I
sent the participants a thank you card to demonstrate appreciation for their participation.
I, the primary researcher of this study, am a member of the organization in the study and
hold an administrative leadership role, but no subordinates participated as participants, only

68
administrative leadership colleagues. Due to my administrative leadership role, there was the
possibly that some participants might feel coerced or pressured in how they answered questions
or even to participate (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This potential pressure to participate was relieved
by voluntary participation, which was explained in the written consent forms and verbally
highlighted. I also acknowledge that collecting data through interviews with administrative
leadership colleagues can have an impact on the existing relationship. To mitigate this issue, I
explained the difference between a researcher role and an administrator role. Further helping to
mitigate this issue, all participants who are administrative leadership colleagues were voluntary
participants. This potential issue even further highlights the need that all data are obtained with
the highest ethical considerations of trustworthiness, respect, integrity, honesty, and
confidentiality, not to damage any personal relationships (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
I acknowledge the potential for biases, having worked not only in education for over 27
years but having worked all of those 27 years in alternative education settings where students
could benefit the most from the successful implementation of MTSS. With this known bias, I
understood that through data collection and analysis, there would be opportunities to include or
exclude certain data, skew the interpretation of meaning, or even choose the importance of the
data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To mitigate these known bias, I used several strategies to help
increase credibility and trustworthiness, such as reflectivity, triangulation, and member checking.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations associated with this study. Creswell and Creswell (2018)
explained that limitations are the factors that the researcher cannot control. First is the small
sample, due to the size of the stakeholder group of focus, which precludes broad generalization

69
about the findings. The issue of generalizability is compounded by the fact that the research took
place within a single school district. Future research could identify similar large urban school
districts with similar demographics to validate whether the assumed barriers hold across multiple
contexts. Second, is that this study was dependent upon the truthfulness of the participants. Third
is that this study was also conducted in a relatively short time and in the middle of the school
year, which can be a stressful time for the stakeholder group of focus. Fourth was my
administrative leadership role at the organization in this study. On the one hand, my role gives
me a unique perspective on the study’s research questions and conceptual framework, but on the
other hand, there was a need for me to maintain a heightened level of confidentiality as employee
and researcher.
There are several delimitations associated with this study. Creswell and Creswell (2018)
explained that delimitations are the researcher’s decisions that may have implications for the
study. The first is that the stakeholder group of focus for this study is school site principals. The
study did not include other staff, students, parents, or community members, although they are
valuable members of the school community. Second, this study utilized qualitative methods
using only interviews. I did not use other qualitative methods, such as focus groups, observations
or document and artifact data collection, or a mixed-methods design to include a quantitative
survey is a delimitation. Third is the fact that I chose a holistic study in regard to the
implementation of MTSS versus a single part. The delimitations of this study have been
considered, and thus, triangulation by data collection and analysis from one-on-one interviews
was critical to marinating the integrity of this study.

70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which HUSD is meeting its global
organizational performance goal of enhancing capacity development to implement a high-fidelity
and sustained MTSS in every school by May 2020. Three questions guided this study:
1. How does the school site principal’s knowledge impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
2. How does the school site principal’s motivation impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
3. How do organizational barriers impact the implementation and sustainability efforts
of a multi-tiered system of support?
The assumed KMO barriers were derived from the review of related literature in
conjunction with HUSD’s goal. Knowledge barriers assumed that HUSD’s principals need: (a)
factual knowledge of understanding the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework; (b)
conceptual knowledge of understanding the different components that make up an MTSS
framework to support and service all students; (c) procedural knowledge to demonstrate an
understanding of the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework; and (d) procedural
knowledge to utilize all of the systems and principals of initiatives, supports, and resources
within an MTSS framework. Motivation barriers assumed that HUSD’s principals need: (a) to
see the utility value in implementing MTSS; and (b) that school site principals will use mastery
orientation of implementing MTSS. Lastly, two cultural models and two cultural settings were
articulated to describe the assumed organizational barriers: (a) the organization needs to establish
a general acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs,
and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS; (b) the organization needs to create a

71
culture of trust in the school between the administration and faculty to achieve the goal of
implementing MTSS; (c) the organization needs to change policies, procedures, and practices
that help support the implementation of MTSS, and (d) the organization needs to provide
ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS.
The methodological framework used in this study to further validate the assumed KMO
barriers was a qualitative method design using one-on-one interviews. The interviews were
conducted using a semi-structured format, which allowed me to dive deeper into the assumed
barriers related to achieving HUSD’s goal. The interview results and findings are organized by
the specific assumed barrier.
Participating Stakeholders
The school site stakeholder group charged with implementing MTSS and the primary
stakeholder focus group for this study are HUSD’s school site principals. The school site
principals are the leaders charged with implementing MTSS at each school site, which is why
they were chosen as the primary focus group for this study. These primary stakeholders are the
force in implementing MTSS with true fidelity at the various tiered levels of support and have
direct daily and hourly time with the students. These primary stakeholders have important roles
in the implementation and at the various tiered levels of support, such as identifying, screening,
assessing, and offering a multi-tiered approach to meet students’ academic, behavioral and
behavior and social-emotional needs.
Hope Unified School District has 37 elementary schools, nine intermediate schools, and
seven high schools (four traditional comprehensive high schools, two fundamental high schools,
and one early college high school on the campus of the local community college). There are also
four educational options schools, one dependent charter, one deaf and hard of hearing resource

72
center, two early childhood education programs, and one early learner childhood education
special needs developmental center. Using convenience purposeful sampling, interviews were
conducted with five elementary principals, five intermediate principals and five high school
principals. The 15 participating principals were given pseudonyms to protect and honor their
confidentiality. Table 6 displays the participants' pseudonyms, grade levels, and years working in
their current positions. Table 7 displays the participants' pseudonyms, additional years of
administrative experience prior to their current positions, and years working in education,
including administration. Table 8 displays the participants' pseudonyms, their highest level of
education, gender, and ethnic backgrounds.

Table 6
One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Grade Level, and Years
Working in Current Position

Pseudonyms Grade level Years working in current position
HUSD-1-1 Elementary school 6–10
HUSD-1-2 Elementary school 1–5
HUSD-1-3 Elementary school 6–10
HUSD-1-4 Elementary school 1–5
HUSD-1-5 Elementary school 6–10
HUSD-2-1 Intermediate school 1–5
HUSD-2-2 Intermediate school 1–5
HUSD-2-3 Intermediate school 1–5
HUSD-2-4 Intermediate school 1–5
HUSD-2-5 Intermediate school 1–5
HUSD-3-1 High school 6–10
HUSD-3-2 High school 1–5
HUSD-3-3 High school 1–5
HUSD-3-4 High school 1–5
HUSD-3-5 High school 1–5

73
Table 7
One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Additional Years of
Administrative Experience Prior to Current Position, and Years Working in Education Including
Administration
Pseudonyms Additional years of administrative
experience prior to current
position
Years working in education,
including administration
HUSD-1-1 1–5 21 and beyond
HUSD-1-2 1–5 11–15
HUSD-1-3 6–10 16–20
HUSD-1-4 11–15 21 and beyond
HUSD-1-5 1–5 21 and beyond
HUSD-2-1 1–5 16–20
HUSD-2-2 1–5 16–20
HUSD-2-3 6–10 21 and beyond
HUSD-2-4 1–5 1-5
HUSD-2-5 11–15 16–20
HUSD-3-1 11–15 16–20
HUSD-3-2 11–15 16–20
HUSD-3-3 1–5 21 and beyond
HUSD-3-4 6–10 16–20
HUSD-3-5 11–15 21 and beyond

74
Table 8
One-on-One Interview Participant Demographic Data: Pseudonyms, Highest Level of
Education, Gender, and Ethnic Background
Pseudonyms Highest level of education Gender Ethnic background
HUSD-1-1 Master’s degree Female Caucasian
HUSD-1-2 Doctorate Female Caucasian
HUSD-1-3 Doctorate Female Hispanic
HUSD-1-4 Master’s degree Female Caucasian
HUSD-1-5 Master’s degree Female Caucasian
HUSD-2-1 Doctorate Female Caucasian
HUSD-2-2 Master’s degree Male Hispanic
HUSD-2-3 Master’s degree Female Caucasian
HUSD-2-4 Master’s degree Female Other
HUSD-2-5 Master’s degree Male Hispanic
HUSD-3-1 Master’s degree Male Hispanic
HUSD-3-2 Master’s degree Male Caucasian
HUSD-3-3 Master’s degree Male Caucasian
HUSD-3-4 Doctorate Female Caucasian
HUSD-3-5 Doctorate Male Hispanic

For each interview group, I sent a recruitment email invitation asking for volunteer
participation. The email asked participants to volunteer by replying to me. A follow-up email
highlighted more in-depth details of the interviews, a Google Link for scheduling interviews, and
demographic questions. All interviewees participated voluntarily.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study was informed trough semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol
contained 14 semi-structured open-ended questions with additional follow-up prompts aligned
with the conceptual framework and targeting the stakeholder’s assumed performance gaps. I
triangulated the data by interviewing five elementary, five intermediate, and five high school
principals, analyzing the data separately, and comparing the results (Creswell & Creswell, 2008).

75
I determined saturation once the majority of participants’ responses produced no new
information, insights, or ideas. After further data analysis by mining the data into categories,
themes, and findings, I affirmed barriers as needs or assets if at least half of the participants had
similar responses.
Results and Finding for Knowledge Causes
This study assumed factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge barriers to HUSD
principals achieving their goal of implementing MTSS (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
First, it was assumed that HUSD’s principals need to have factual knowledge of understanding
the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework. Second, it was assumed that HUSD’s principals
need to have conceptual knowledge of understanding the different components that make up an
MTSS framework to support and service all students. Third, it was assumed that HUSD’s
principals need to have procedural knowledge to demonstrate an understanding of the three-
tiered model within an MTSS framework. Last, it was assumed that HUSD’s principals need to
have procedural knowledge to utilize all of the systems and principles of initiatives, supports,
and resources within an MTSS framework. The results and findings presented below are
organized in accordance with these assumptions.
Factual Knowledge: School Site Principals Need to Understand the Basic Knowledge of the
MTSS Framework
It was clear that all 15 of the school site principals had minimal knowledge of MTSS
when they were asked to describe their understanding of the MTSS framework. Eight principals
described the MTSS framework as a three-tiered system of supports and interventions within
academics, behavior, and SEL. Four principals described the MTSS framework as a system that
supports the whole child. For example, HUSD-1-2 described the MTSS framework as a “multi-

76
tiered system that supports the student’s academic, social-emotional, and behavior needs, a
system that covers the whole child.” Four principals described the MTSS framework as a system
that supports all students. For example, HUSD-2-3 described their “understanding of the MTSS
framework as a three-tiered system that supports all students academically, behaviorally, and
social-emotionally.” Three principals elaborated that the MTSS framework involves RtI, PBIS,
and restorative practices. For example, HUSD-1-5 described the MTSS framework as a system
that “integrates the academic intervention side called RtI, the behavior intervention side called
PBIS, and the social-emotional intervention side called restorative practices within a three-tiered
system.” The other principals described their knowledge of the MTSS framework with a similar
understanding.
The assumed knowledge barrier that school site principals need to understand the basic
knowledge of the MTSS framework was determined to be a need. Although eight principals
described the MTSS framework accurately, not one mentioned evidence-based framework, data-
driven decision making, problem-solving techniques, or could describe the varying levels of
intensities or tiers within the framework. All five elementary principals and all five intermediate
principals were able to describe a slightly more in-dept understanding of the MTSS framework
when compared to the high school principals. Therefore, this factual knowledge barrier is
determined to be a need.
Conceptual Knowledge: School Site Principals Need to Demonstrate an Understanding of
the Different Components That Make Up an MTSS Framework
Although 12 school site principals could list some key components of MTSS, the answers
were extremely varied, and only three could express why these key components are important.
HUSD-1-5 stated that “a key component of MTSS was having a strong foundation of Tier 1

77
supports and interventions, such as best first teaching, appropriate curriculum, behavior
expectations, incentives, and positive feedback.” HUSD-1-5 explained “the importance of having
a strong foundation of Tier 1 supports and interventions is because Tier 1 supports Tier 2
implementation.” HUSD-2-3 mentioned that “a key component of MTSS is continuous staff
professional learning.” HUSD-2-3 added that “staff need to know how to support students either
academically, behaviorally, or social-emotionally, which is only done with continuous staff
professional learning.” HUSD-3-2 stated that “a key component of MTSS is having a
coordination of services team [COST] to identify and address the academic, behavior, and social-
emotional needs of the students.” Other key components of MTSS mentioned were RtI, PBIS,
restorative practices, mental health, check-in and check-out, expectations, incentives,
monitoring, and community partners.
The assumed knowledge barrier that school site principals need to understand the
different components that make up an MTSS framework to support and service students was
determined to be a need. Twelve school site principals could list some key components of
MTSS, but the answers differed widely, and only three could express why these key components
are important. The three who were able to list some key components and further explain why
they are important highlighted having a strong foundation or Tier 1 supports and interventions,
continuous staff professional learning, and having a COST to identify and address the needs of
the students. Therefore, this conceptual knowledge barrier is determined to be a need.
Procedural Knowledge: School Site Principals Need to Demonstrate an Understanding of
the Three-Tiered Model Within an MTSS Framework
Twelve interviewees were able to explain how tired supports and interventions work
within MTSS, and nine were able to describe how academic tired supports and interventions

78
work within MTSS. HUSD-1-4 explained academic tiered supports and interventions as “Tier 1
is providing first instruction and good teaching to all students, Tier 2 is grouping students who
need additional support, such as tutoring, and Tier 3 is the most intensive, such as teachers
proving one-on-one student support.” HUSD-2-1 explained academic tiered supports and
interventions as Tier 1 is using schoolwide AVID strategies for all students, Tier 2 is using peer
mentoring to support groups of struggling students, and Tier 3 is using check-in and check-out to
support individual students who have the most intensive needs. Three interviewees expanded
their explanation of tired supports and interventions within MTSS by explaining behavior or
social-emotional supports and interventions. HUSD-1-2 explained behavior tiered supports and
interventions as Tier 1 is having schoolwide behavior expectations that all students know, Tier 2
is using restorative circles to group students who have minor behavior issues, and Tier 3 is
having community partners provide restorative intervention to students in a one-on-one setting.
All students, groups, one-on-one, check-in and check-out, restorative circles, core curriculum,
tutoring, behavior expectations, positive reinforcements, peer mentoring, and community
partners were other common mentions among the school site principals as they explained how
tired supports and interventions work within MTSS.
The assumed knowledge barrier that school site principals need to demonstrate an
understanding of the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework was determined to be an
asset. All five elementary principals, three intermediate principals and four high school
principals could explain tiered supports and interventions. Nine school site principals were able
to describe how academic tired supports and interventions work within MTSS. Three school site
principals were able to expand their explanation of tired supports and interventions within MTSS

79
by explaining behavior or social-emotional interventions. Therefore, this procedural knowledge
barrier is determined to be an asset.
School Site Principals Need to Know How to Utilize All the Systems and Principles of
Initiatives, Supports, and Resources Within an MTSS Framework
Thirteen interviewees were able to discuss additional initiatives, supports, and resources
that were being used at their school site so support students. Ten mentioned the use of data hub,
seven principals mentioned the use of restorative practices, and seven principals mentioned the
use of PBIS. HUSD-1-2 explained how they are “using data hub to review and extract student
academic and behavior data for bi-weekly COST meetings, which is helping the team to be more
proactive in responding to the students’ needs.” HUSD-2-2 explained how they are using “PBIS
to create a positive school culture by creating behavior expectations, holding monthly
assemblies, using student incentives, and creating behavior tired supports and interventions.”
HUSD-3-4 explained how they use “restorative practices to support the behavior and social-
emotional needs through restorative circles, which helps to resolve conflict, create connections,
establish trust and communication, and allows for healing.” Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),
the CHKS, Social-Emotional Survey, and RTI were other initiatives, supports, and resources
used at school sites so support students.
Thirteen school site principals were able to walk me through how they administered the
SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment (FIA), and 12 of them elaborated on goals that they had
created from the assessment. HUSD-1-2 explained that the “FIA was administered to the school
site leadership team, which is composed of various staff from the instructional leadership team,
COST team, and PBIS team.” HUSD-1-2 elaborated that one clear goal from the FIA was “to
improve communication from the leadership team to all other stakeholders by identifying who

80
was monitoring what and establishing protocols for how each team will communicate back out to
the whole.” HUSD-2-4 explained that the “FIA was administered to the school’s instructional
leadership team.” HUSD-2-4 elaborated on “one clear goal to become more data-driven in using
data to improve the students’ English and math scores, which, in turn, would help to create
appropriate tiered supports and interventions.” HUSD-3-3 explained that the “FIA was
administered “through department meetings with the instructional leadership team.” HUSD-3-3
elaborated that the “FIA showed five areas that had deficiencies, but the instructional leadership
team decided to focus on one, which was creating more academic, behavior, and social-
emotional Tier 1 supports and interventions within the classroom.” Other goals mentioned from
the administration of the FIA were monitoring data, district support, parent engagement, and
learning more about the implementation of MTSS.
The assumed knowledge barrier that school site principals need to know how to utilize all
of the systems and principles of initiatives, supports, and resources within an MTSS framework
was determined. Four elementary principals, five intermediate principals, and four high school
principals were able to discuss additional initiatives, supports, and resources that were being
used at their school site so support students. Ten principals mentioned the use of data hub, seven
principals mentioned the use of restorative practices, and seven principals mentioned the use of
PBIS. Thirteen principals were able to walk me through how they administered the FIA, and 12
of those 13 elaborated on goals that they had created from the assessment. The top three goals
mentioned were becoming more data-driven, improving communication among staff, and
creating more academic, behavior, and social-emotional Tier 1 supports and interventions.
Therefore, this procedural knowledge barrier is determined to be an asset.

81
Results and Finding for Motivation Causes
In addition to the knowledge barriers, this study has assumed motivation barriers derived
from expectancy-value theory (utility value and social cognitive theory) goal orientation keep the
HUSD principals from achieving their goal with the implementation of MTSS (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). The first assumed motivation barrier to HUSD’s principals achieving their
performance goal is that the principals need to see the utility value in the implementation of
MTSS. The second assumed motivation barrier was that they needed to use mastery orientation
of implementing MTSS. The results and findings associated with these assumed motivation
barriers are discussed in the following sections.
Utility Value: School Site Principals Need to See the Value in the Implementation of MTSS
All 15 school site principals could articulate the value of implementing MTSS. All five
elementary principals and four out of the five intermediate principals mentioned that they have a
hyperconsciousness around the value of providing more tired behavior and social-emotional
supports and interventions for students. HUSD-1-1 stated that “the value in implementing MTSS
is having a systematic approach to addressing not only the academic needs of students but also
addressing the behavior and social-emotional needs of students.” HUSD1-4 stated that “the value
in implementing MTSS is creating teams [COST, PBIS, leadership, etc.] to review data, identify
struggling students, assign supports and interventions, and monitor students.” HUSD-2-2 added
that “the value in implementing MTSS is understanding what educators see on the surface of a
student may not be a true indicator of what’s going on with that student.” HUSD-2-2 said that by
implementing restorative practices, they “are able to dive deeper through restorative circles to
look past the symptoms and try to understand the root cause.”

82
All five of the high school principals mentioned that they have a better understadning of
the value of providing more tired academic supports and interventions for students. HUSD- 3-4
mentioned the “value in implementing MTSS has been focusing on creating Tier 1 academic
supports and interventions.” HUSD 3-4 added, Over the last few years, there had been an
emphasis on PBIS and restorative practices to help address the behavior and social-emotional
needs of students, but with MTSS you have to address the needs of the whole student, which
now includes the academic needs. Another value mentioned was that every student gets the
support they need; it is a systematic approach, requiring leaders to be data-driven and create
supports and interventions that did not exist before implementing MTSS.
The assumed motivational barrier that school site principals need to see the value in the
implementation of MTSS was determined to be an asset. All 15 school site principals were able
to articulate the value of the implementation of MTSS. All five elementary principals and four
out of the five intermediate principals mentioned that they have a hyperconsciousness around the
value of providing more tiered behavior and social-emotional supports and interventions for
students. All five of the high school principals mentioned that they now have a better
understanding of the value of providing more tired academic supports and interventions for
students. Therefore, this utility value motivational barrier is determined to be an asset.
Mastery Orientation: School Site Principals Need to Use Mastery Orientation of
Implementing MTSS to Improve Key Performance Indicators
All 15 of the school site principals could describe something new they have learned by
implementing MTSS at their school site. Additionally, all 15 of the school site principals could
articulate how learning this thing has helped improve their school. Even further, all 15 of the
school site principals mentioned something else they would like to learn to fully master the

83
implementation of MTSS at their school site. HUSD-1-3 mentioned that “they have learned the
importance of using data to drive decisions and how to monitor that data over time, so that they
can adequately provide appropriate supports and interventions that meet the student’s needs.”
HUSD-1-3 added that they “want to learn more about the types of Tier 2 and Tier 3 social-
emotional supports and interventions they can provide for students.” HUSD-2-1 explained that
they “have learned the importance of using UDL to give students a voice and choice in the
creation of tiered supports and interventions.” HUSD-2-1 added that they “want to learn more
about how shift the staff’s mindset to not just look at the problem, but to look at the whole
student.” HUSD-3-4 explained that they “learned the power of using social-emotional supports
and interventions, such as restorative practice and restorative circles to address the students’
academic needs.” HUSD-3-4 mentioned that “since they now have academic, behavior, and
social-emotional tired supports and interventions, they want to learn how to use PDSA cycle to
review and monitor what is working and what is not, so they can make adjustments.”
Although all 15 of the school site principals could articulate KPI goals or FIA goals from
the implementation of MTSS, only five of the 15 school site principals had set personal goals for
themselves in implementing MTSS. HUSD-1-1 explained a “personal goal in implementing
MTSS is learning how COST works and to better understand the different tiers for academic,
behavior, and social-emotional supports and interventions.” HUSD-1-4 highlighted a “personal
goal in implementing MTSS is to become more data-driven and learn how to break down the
data, filter the data, analyze the data, and monitor the data over time.” HUSD-2-5 described a
“personal goal in implementing MTSS is to build a positive relationship with the staff, which
would help to build a strong MTSS framework.” HUSD-3-3 expounded a “personal goal in
implementing MTSS is to simply better understand the different academic tiered supports and

84
interventions to improve the overall college and career going culture on campus.” HUSD-3-4
explained a “personal goal in implementing MTSS was to model risk taking with the
implementation of MTSS as a whole school’s response to meeting the needs of the students.”
Although only five of the 15 school site principals had set personal goals for themselves in
implementing MTSS, 10 did mention site goals, such as improving special education and English
learners’ progress, improving student attendance, and empowering teams.
The assumed motivational barrier that school site principals need to use mastery
orientation (goal of learning and understanding) of implementing MTSS to improve KPIs was
determined to be a need. All 15 school site principals could describe something new they have
learned by implementing MTSS at their school site. Additionally, all 15 of the school site
principals could articulate how learning this thing has helped improve their school, and all 15 of
the school site principals had mentioned something else they would like to learn to fully master
the implementation of MTSS at their school site. Although all 15 of the school site principals
could articulate KPI goals or FIA goals from the implementation of MTSS, only five of the 15
school site principals had set personal goals for themselves in implementing MTSS. Therefore,
this goal orientation motivational barrier is determined to be a need.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
In addition to knowledge and motivation barriers, this study has assumed that
organizational barriers, such as cultural models and cultural settings, keep the HUSD principals
from achieving their goal with the implementation of MTSS (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
From a cultural model viewpoint, this study has assumed that the organization needs to establish
a general acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs,
and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS; and that the organization needs to create

85
a culture of trust in the school between the administration and faculty to achieve the goal of
implementing MTSS. From a cultural setting viewpoint, this study has assumed that the
organization needs to change policies, procedures, and practices that help support the
implementation of MTSS; and that the organization needs to provide ongoing training, coaching,
and collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS. The results and findings that
follow are organized in accordance with these assumed cultural model and setting barriers.
Cultural Models: The Organization Need to Establish a General Acceptance and
Willingness Among Administration and Faculty to Change Existing Values, Beliefs, and
Attitudes That Support the Implementation of MTSS
All 15 of the school site principals could articulate a value, belief, and/or attitude that
they have either personally or professionally changed to support the implementation of MTSS.
Fourteen school site principals articulated a belief that has changed to support the
implementation of MTSS. Two principals articulated how their belief in instructional leadership
had changed to support the implementation of MTSS. For example, HUSD-1-5 articulated “that
the principal has to be the instructional leader leading the way for change, and to do that, you
have to learn what MTSS is and get others involved in the implementation of MTSS.” Two
principals articulated how their beliefs about restorative practices had changed to support the
implementation of MTSS. For example, HUSD-2-3 articulated that “they had to shift their mind
sets in regard to using punitive practices verses restorative practices in dealing with student
behavior.” HUSD-2-3 also mentioned that one of the central restorative practices being used at
their school is restorative circles in classrooms.
Three principals articulated how their belief in creating a tired system can help all
students. HUSD-3-3 articulated “that their belief in creating academic, behavior, and social-

86
emotional tiered supports and interventions actually helps all students.” HUSD-3-3 said,
“through COST, they are now able to identify struggling students, provide tired supports or
interventions, and then monitor those students over time, whereas before, those struggling
students would just fall through the cracks.” Other beliefs that were changed include how
behavior and social-emotional needs can affect a student’s academic progress, MTSS is the best
way to meet the needs of all students, that after-school programs make a difference, and the
importance of having strong academic Tier 1 supports and interventions.
The assumed organizational barrier that the organization needs to establish a general
acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs, and
attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS was determined to be an asset. All 15
interviewees could articulate a value, belief, and/or attitude that they have either personally or
professionally changed to support the implementation of MTSS. Fourteen school site principals
articulated a belief that has changed to support the implementation of MTSS. Three school site
principals articulated a value that has changed to support the implementation of MTSS, such as
valuing staff collaboration with using data to drive academic change, the value in training
teachers how to use Tier 1 supports within the classroom, and the value in relationship building
to support academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs of the students. Therefore, this
cultural model organizational barrier is determined to be an asset.
The Organization Need to Create a Culture of Trust Between the Administration and
Faculty in Order to Achieve the Goal of Implementing MTSS.
It was evident, based on the principals’ responses, that the organization needs to work to
improve the culture of trust between district administration and school site administration.
Fourteen school site principals mentioned issues with either no communication, lack of support,

87
lack of experience and knowledge, or one-way communication that is seen as punitive. HUSD-1-
5 described the established culture of trust, “I feel that the district administration wants to do
what is best for students, but there is no trust amongst us, and it stems from a lack of
communication between district administration and school site principals.” HUSD-1-5 explained
that “when they reach out for support in implementing MTSS, such as emails or phone calls, no
one answers or replies.” HUSD-2-1 described the established culture of trust, “I do not think
there is trust between district administration and school site principals because I am not trusted
or valued.” HUSD-2-1 explained, “Whenever there is a complaint from a parent or community
member, not one from the districts calls to gather evidence or find facts, the parent or community
member is always right, and we principals are always wrong.”
HUSD-3-2 described the established culture of trust: “There is a lack of trust between
district administration and school site principals because district administration is far removed
from the school sites and act more like managers verses leaders.” HUSD-3-2 added that the
“district administration does not seem to have an instructional mindset and that school site
principals were just told to implement MTSS but have not received any additional resources.”
HUSD-1-4 mentioned they have a “great evaluator who is quickly to respond to their needs with
help.” HUSD-1-4 added, “I know that many of my colleagues do not get the support I have, and I
feel it is because many of the district administration have not been school site principals.”
The assumed organizational barrier that the organization needs to create a culture of trust
between administration and faculty to achieve the goal of implementing MTSS was determined
to be a need. Fourteen interviewees mentioned issues with the established culture of trust
between district administration and school site administration. Issues such as no communication,
lack of support, lack of experience and knowledge, one-way communication that is seen as

88
punitive, high district administration turn over, no strategic plan, lack of training, too many
initiatives, and no instructional support were the main issues described. One principal did have a
response that stood out as an outlier compared to the other responses. Therefore, this cultural
model organizational barrier is determined to be a need.
Cultural Settings: The Organization Needs to Change Existing Policies, Procedures, and
Practices That Help Support the Implementation of MTSS
Based on the principals’ responses, it is clear that policies, procedures, and/or practices
need to change to fully implement MTSS. Ten school site principals listed practices that needed
to change, and five listed procedures that needed to change. Six expressed the need for
specifically trained staff to fully implement MTSS. HUSD-1-3 explained that “each school site
needs a reading specialist, math specialist, behavior specialist, mental health counselors, and
trained staff to solely run COST and PBIS.” Four principals expressed a change in funding
procedures and practices to fully implement MTSS. HUSD-2-2 explained that “funding
procedures have to change to support the site’s needs to hire [specifically] trained staff, offer
staff extra duty, and purchase resources such as curriculum.” HUSD-2-2 also explained that “the
district uses a blanket approach to funding schools, but some schools need more funding
resources when compared to others.”
Four interviewees elaborated on a need for collaboration and sharing of best practices to
fully implement MTSS. HUSD-3-3 mentioned that “school site principals and teachers are
operating in silos and that the district must find a way to create MTSS collaboration to share
what is working and what is not.” Other procedures or practices that need to change are
communication, teacher prep periods, after-school supports and interventions, and flexibility in
thinking outside the box to fully implement MTSS.

89
The assumed organizational barrier that the organization needs to change policies,
procedures and practices that help support the implementation of MTSS was determined to be a
need. Ten interviewees listed practices that needed to change. Five listed procedures that need to
change. Besides the need for specifically trained staff, changes in funding procedures, and the
need for collaboration and sharing, three out of 15 school site principals expressed a need for a
district strategic plan for implementing MTSS. Therefore, this cultural setting organizational
barrier is determined to be a need.
The Organization Need to Provide Ongoing Training, Coaching, and Collaboration That
Help Support the Implementation of MTSS.
All 15 of the school site principals mentioned that they had attended a brief overview of
MTSS before the school year had started and had received no additional training opportunities in
regard to the implementation of MTSS. When asked the follow-up question of what additional
training opportunities they needed and why, all 15 could provide suggestions. Five school site
principals mentioned the need for further training on creating academic, behavior, and social-
emotional tired supports and interventions. HUSD-1-1 explained that “the principals understand
the basic tiered structure, but we are all struggling to create tiered supports and interventions.”
HUSD-1-1 added that “some schools need help creating tired one supports and interventions,
some schools are struggling with creating Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports and interventions, and
others just need help creating either academic, behavior, or social-emotional tiers.” Four school
site principals mentioned the need for further training on implementing academic, behavior, and
social-emotional tired supports and interventions. HUSD-2-4 explained that “all principals were
trained on the basic understanding of MTSS so that we could train our staff, but the staff now
need training on how to implement MTSS, especially tired one supports and interventions within

90
the classrooms.” HUSD-2-4 explained that “teachers know how to teach, but they are struggling
with how to implement the various tiers simultaneously within the classroom.” Three school site
principals mentioned the need for the grade level and content-specific collaboration in regard to
the implementation MTSS. HUSD-3-3 highlighted “that if MTSS is the way of the district, then
the district needs to create grade level MTSS collaboration and content specific collaboration
called MTSS academics or MTSS institutes.” Other mentions were a need for training specific to
academic tiers, training specific to behavior tiers, and training specific to social-emotional tiers.
Only six school site principals were able to describe the resources they have received to
fully implement MTSS. Five of them mentioned that they had received coaching and support
with implementing restorative practices and PBIS. When asked a follow-up question about
additional resources needed to fully implement MTSS, all 15 listed something needed, although
the answers were extremely varied. Five school site principals mentioned the need for additional
funding for interventions. HUSD-1-4 mentioned that through “COST, they are able to identify
struggling students, but there is just so much help you can offer during the school day, and they
need additional funding to create after-school interventions.” Six school site principals
mentioned a need for additional support staff and teacher collaboration time. HUSD-2-5
mentioned that “they did receive a mental health work to help address the social-emotional needs
of students struggling, but they need a reading specialist, math specialist, and behavior specialist
to address the other needs that students struggle with.” Other needs mentioned were funding,
staffing, training, material and collaboration in regard to the various tiers, social-emotional
curriculum, additional community partners, COST support, and additional support with the
implementation of PBIS and restorative practices.

91
The assumed organizational barrier that the organization needs to provide ongoing
training, coaching, and collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS was
determined to be a need. All 15 principals mentioned that they had attended a brief overview of
MTSS before the school year had started and had received no additional training opportunities
regarding the implementation of MTSS. All 15 were able to respond with additional training
needed to fully implement MTSS. Only six could describe the resources they have received to
fully implement MTSS. Therefore, this cultural setting organizational barrier is determined to be
a need.
Summary of Validated Barriers
Tables 9, 10, and 11 show the KMO barriers and their determination as assets or needs.
Table 9 shows the knowledge assets or needs as determined by the data. Most often, factual and
conceptual knowledge (the what) proceeds procedural knowledge (the how). As indicated in
Table 9, the HUSD Principals demonstrated a need for factual and conceptual knowledge but
demonstrated procedural knowledge as an asset. Table 10 shows the motivation assets or needs
as determined by the data. Table 11 shows the organization's assets or needs as determined by
the data.

92
Table 9
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge barriers Knowledge type Asset or need
School site principals need to
understand the basic knowledge
of the MTSS framework.
Declarative (Factual) Need
School site principals need to
understand the different
components that make up an
MTSS framework to support and
service students.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Need

School site principals need to
demonstrate an understanding of
the three-tiered model within an
MTSS framework.
Procedural Asset

School site principals need to utilize
all of the systems and principles
of initiatives, supports, and
resources within an MTSS
framework.
Procedural Asset

Table 10
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed motivational barriers Motivational type Asset or need
School site principal need to see the
value in the implementation of
MTSS
Utility value Asset
School site principal will use
mastery orientation (goal of
learning and understanding) of
implementing MTSS to improve
key performance indicators.
Goal orientation Need

93
Table 11
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed organizational barriers Organizational type Asset or need
The organization needs to establish
a general acceptance and
willingness among administration
and faculty to change existing
values, beliefs, and attitudes that
support the implementation of
MTSS.
Cultural model Asset

The organization needs to create a
culture of trust between
administration and faculty to
achieve the goal of implementing
MTSS.
Cultural model Need
The organization needs to change
existing policies, procedures, and
practices that help support the
implementation of MTSS.
Cultural setting Need

The organization needs to provide
ongoing training, coaching, and
collaboration that help support the
implementation of MTSS.
Cultural setting Need

Chapter Five focuses on research-based recommendations that support HUSD’s goal to
enhance capacity development to implement a high-fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school.
The recommendations are organized around the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs
and assets identified in this chapter. Chapter Five will explain the recommendations, the
implementation plan, and the evaluation plan derived from utilizing the new world Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

94
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has explored the knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers affecting
HUSD’s goal to enhance capacity development to implement a high-fidelity and sustained MTSS
in every school. Chapter One introduced the problem of practice, organizational context and
mission, organizational goals, related literature and importance of the study, description of the
stakeholders, stakeholder performance goals, research questions, methodological framework, and
definitions. Chapter Two provided a general literature review, gap analysis framework,
stakeholder’s KMO barriers, and a conceptual framework. Chapter Three detailed the barriers
examined and the methodology for choosing participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter
Four presented the data collection results and findings, assessment and analysis, and closed with
a summary of validated barriers. Chapter Five starts by reviewing the purpose of the project and
research questions, which helps connect the results and recommendations to the purpose of the
study. Chapter Five then discusses evidence-based recommendations for each of the validated
KMO barriers. These evidence-based recommendations are then arranged into an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan using the meticulous and rigorous new world Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Lastly, this chapter discusses the strengths and
weaknesses of the study and future research related to this study and ends with a conclusion.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which HUSD is meeting its global
organizational performance goal of implementing MTSS. Data collection and analysis focused
on knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers related to achieving the global
organizational performance goal. The primary stakeholder focus group in this study was school
site principals The following research questions guided this study:

95
1. How does the school site principal’s knowledge impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
2. How does the school site principal’s motivation impact the implementation and
sustainability efforts of a multi-tiered system of support?
3. How do organizational barriers impact the implementation and sustainability efforts
of a multi-tiered system of support?
Recommendations for Practices to Address KMO Barriers
As discussed previously in Chapter Two, Krathwohl (2002) described a framework to
assess knowledge performance gaps. According to the Krathwohl framework, there are three
types of knowledge performance gaps: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and
procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). This study uses the Krathwohl framework to assume
that factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge barriers keep the HUSD principals from
achieving their goal with the implementation of MTSS.
Knowledge Recommendations
Through the data collection and analysis of this study, it was validated that factual and
conceptual knowledge barriers indeed keep the HUSD principals from achieving their goal with
the implementation of MTSS. Specifically, the data validated that HUSD principals do not have
factual knowledge of understanding the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework and do not
have conceptual knowledge of understanding the different components that make up an MTSS
framework to support and service all students. Moreover, the data validated that HUSD
principals have procedural knowledge to demonstrate an understanding of the three-tiered model
within an MTSS framework and do have procedural knowledge to utilize all of the systems and
principles of initiatives, supports, and resources within an MTSS framework. Table 12 shows the

96
assumed knowledge barriers, validated knowledge barriers as an asset or gap, and evidence-
based recommendations tied to theoretical principles of knowledge.

Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Barriers and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
barriers
Validated
as an asset
or gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
School site principals
need to understand
the basic knowledge
of the MTSS
framework. (D-F)
Gap Y Information
learned
meaningfully
and connected
with prior
knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered
more accurately
because it is
elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).

How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide information
and job aids to
school site
principals on the
basic knowledge of
an MTSS
framework.

School site principals
will be placed in
ongoing
collaborative teams
to discuss and
dialogue
(connecting prior
knowledge) about
this information
and job aids as it
relates to the basic
knowledge of the
MTSS framework.

School site principals
need to understand
the different
components that
make up an MTSS
framework to support
Gap Y Information
learned
meaningfully
and connected
with prior
knowledge is
stored more
Provide training to
school site
principals on the
different
components that
the district has
implemented over

97
Assumed knowledge
barriers
Validated
as an asset
or gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
and service students.
(D-C)
quickly and
remembered
more accurately
because it is
elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).

To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
the years (PBIS,
restorative
practices, trauma-
informed care, data
hub, and KPI
teams) and how
those make up an
MTSS framework
to support the
students’ academic,
behavior, and
social-emotional
needs.

With this training
and education,
school site
principals can be
placed in ongoing
collaborative teams
to discuss and
dialogue about the
different
components that
make up an MTSS
framework.
School site principals
need to demonstrate
an understanding of
the three-tiered model
within an MTSS
framework. (P)
Asset Y To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).

Modeling to-be-
learned
strategies or
Provide education to
the school site
principals on how
to use the three-
tiered model within
an MTSS
framework.

Provide an
opportunity for the
school site
principals to
demonstrate their
understanding of
the three-tiered
model within an
MTSS framework

98
Assumed knowledge
barriers
Validated
as an asset
or gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
behaviors
improves
learning and
performance
(Denler et al.,
2014).

with ongoing
collaborative teams
to discuss,
dialogue, practice,
and receive
feedback.
School site principals
need to utilize all of
the systems and
principles of
Initiatives, Supports,
and Resources within
an MTSS framework.
(P)
Yes Y To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).

Modeling to-be-
learned
strategies or
behaviors
improves
learning and
performance
(Denler et al.,
2014).
Provide education to
school site
principals on how
to utilize all of the
systems and
principles of
initiatives,
supports, and
resources in an
MTSS framework.

Provide an
opportunity for the
school site
principals to
demonstrate the
utilization of all the
systems and
principles of
initiatives,
supports, and
resources in an
MTSS framework
with ongoing
collaborative teams
to discuss,
dialogue, practice,
and receive
feedback.

99
School Site Principals Need to Understand the Basic Knowledge of the MTSS Framework
Data from this study showed that HUSD’s school site principals lacked an understanding
of the basic declarative knowledge of the MTSS framework. A recommendation rooted in
information processing system theory has been selected to close this declarative knowledge gap.
Information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly
and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Schraw and McCrudden (2006) explained how individuals organize
knowledge influences by how they learn and apply what they know. This would suggest that
helping school site principals connect and organize new learning would help their understanding
of the basic declarative knowledge of the MTSS framework. The recommendation is to provide
information and job aids to school site principals on the basic knowledge of an MTSS
framework. For example, school site principals will be placed in ongoing collaborative teams to
discuss and dialogue (connecting prior knowledge) about this information and job aids related to
the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework.
MTSS is a framework of support that uses evidence-based practices and data-based
problem solving to align academic, behavioral, and social-emotional prevention and intervention
through a three-tiered system (California Department of Education, 2018; Gamm et al., 2012).
The MTSS framework includes district support, aligned policies and practices, robust and valid
core instruction, assessment, evaluation and monitoring, and stakeholder engagement (Gamm et
al., 2012). Freeman et al. (2017) explained that MTSS is the overarching framework that
provides support and intervention to all students through varying tiers. Freeman et al. (2017) also
added that the importance of understanding the basic knowledge of the MTSS framework is the
difference between knowing and doing.

100
School Site Principals Need to Understand the Different Components That Make Up an MTSS
Framework
Data from this study showed that HUSD’s school site principals lacked the declarative
knowledge to understand the different components that make up an MTSS framework. A
recommendation rooted in information processing system theory has been selected to close this
declarative knowledge gap. As mentioned above, information learned meaningfully and
connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) explained that to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component
skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. This would
suggest that providing training to school site principals would increase their declarative
knowledge of understanding the different components that make up an MTSS framework. The
recommendation is to provide training to school site principals on the different components that
the district has implemented over the years (PBIS, restorative practices, trauma-informed care,
data hub, and KPI teams) and how that makes up an MTSS framework to support students’
academic, behavior, and social-emotional needs. For example, in these training sessions,
principals can be placed in ongoing collaborative teams to discuss and discuss the components of
an MTSS framework.
California’s SUMS initiative paints the best picture of the different components of an
MTSS framework: not only academic, behavior, and social-emotion support and intervention for
all students but also family and community engagement, supportive administrative leadership,
integrated educational frameworks, and inclusive policies and practice (California Department of
Education, 2018). RtI and PBIS are both multi-tiered frameworks, but when placed under MTSS

101
as the overarching umbrella, they become aligned to help support and serve all students
(California Department of Education, 2018; Gamm et al., 2012). Harn et al. (2015) described six
common features that both RtI and PBIS have, which are schoolwide evidence-based supports
and interventions; data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques; identifying,
screening, assessing and progress monitoring; varying levels of intensities or tiers; committed
principals and staff; and ongoing professional development. Understanding the different
components that make up an MTSS framework leads to an understating of the three-tiered model
within an MTSS framework.
School Site Principals Need to Demonstrate an Understanding of the Three-Tiered Model
Within an MTSS Framework
Data from this study showed that HUSD’s school site principals have a strong grasp of
procedural knowledge to demonstrate an understanding of the three-tiered model within an
MTSS framework. A recommendation rooted in information processing system theory and social
cognitive theory has been selected to continue to grow this procedural knowledge asset. To
develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned, and modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors
improves learning and performance (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Denler et al., 2014). These
theories suggest that providing education to the school site principals would increase their
procedural knowledge of the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework. The
recommendation is to provide school site principals with education on using the three-tiered
model within an MTSS framework. Therefore, school site principals will be able to demonstrate
their understanding of the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework with ongoing
collaborative teams to discuss, dialogue, practice, and receive feedback.

102
The SWIFT Education Center (2015) described the three-tiered model within an MTSS
framework as a tiered system consisting of three tiers: universal support, targeted or
supplemental support, and intensified support. August et al. (2018) and Walker et al. (1996)
described the three-tiered model within an MTSS framework. Tier 1 is referred to as core
universal support that provides support and intervention to all students, and Tier 2 is referred to
as targeted support that provides supplemental support and intervention to some or groups of
students. Tier 3 is referred to as intensive one-on-one support that provides support and
intervention to individual students. Gamm et al. (2012) explained that MTSS is an evidence-
based model that uses data-driven decision making and problem-solving techniques to address
students’ academic, behavior, and social-emotional issues through varying levels of intensities or
tiers based on student needs. Once school site principals can demonstrate an understanding of the
three-tiered model within an MTSS framework, they can then begin to utilize all of the systems
and principles of initiatives, supports, and resources within an MTSS framework.
School Site Principals Need to Know How to Utilize All the Systems and Principles of
Initiatives, Supports, and Resources Within an MTSS Framework
This study found that HUSD’s school site principals comprehend the procedural
knowledge to utilize all of the systems and principles of initiatives, supports, and resources
within an MTSS framework. A recommendation rooted in information processing system theory
and social cognitive theory has been selected for the continuous development of this procedural
knowledge asset. To develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned, and modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves learning and performance (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Denler
et al., 2014). These theories suggest that providing education to the school site principals would

103
increase their procedural knowledge to utilize all of the systems and principles of initiatives,
supports, and resources within an MTSS framework. The recommendation is to provide school
site principals with education on how to utilize all of the systems and principles of initiatives,
supports, and resources in an MTSS framework. Once this education has been provided, school
site principals should be able to demonstrate the utilization of all the systems and principles of
initiatives, supports, and resources in an MTSS framework in ongoing collaborative teams to
discuss, practice, and receive feedback.
School improvement-by-design involves controlling contextual factors during
implementation, and implementation science, which focuses on understanding how creative ideas
and innovations are adopted for success, are two examples that can guide leaders in aligning
other initiatives under MTSS (Bohanon et al., 2016). Universal lesson design, the school-to-
prison pipeline, mental health counseling, restorative practice, restorative circles, and trauma-
informed care are initiatives, supports, and resources that could fall under MTSS as additional
evidence-based tiered interventions and preventions to all students (California Department of
Education, 2018). Besides implementing PBIS and restorative practices, HUSD’s school site
principals need to utilize all of the systems and principles of initiatives, supports, and resources
within an MTSS framework.
Motivation Recommendations
As discussed previously in Chapter Two, Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted three
motivational indexes or types of motivational processes that are either opportunities or problem
areas: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. There are numerous theories related to
motivation, and this study specifically focused on the theories of utility value and goal
orientation as assumed motivation barriers that keep the HUSD principals from achieving their

104
goal with the implementation of MTSS. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) described utility value as
how the task fits within the individual’s goals or plans. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) explained
that expectancy value is really about asking, “Can I do the task?” And “Do I want to do the
task?” Rueda (2011) described two types of goals in goal orientation theory. One is goal
orientation, which is about the purpose and reason for engaging in a task. Within goal orientation
is goal mastery, which is about approaching goals to learn, gain competence, or accomplish
challenges or activities (Rueda, 2011). This study validated that goal orientation motivational
barriers indeed keep the HUSD principals from achieving their goal with the implementation of
MTSS. Specifically, the data validated that HUSD principals use utility value in seeing the value
of implementing MTSS. Ironically, the HUSD principals do not use goal orientation in mastery
orientation (goal of learning and understanding) of implementation MTSS to improve KPIs.
Table 13 shows the assumed motivation barriers, validated motivation barriers as an asset or gap,
and evidence-based recommendations tied to theoretical principles of motivation.

105
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Barriers and Recommendations

Assumed motivation
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority

Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
School site principals need
to see the value in the
implementation of
MTSS. (UV)
Asset Y Rationales that
include a
discussion of
the importance
and utility value
of the work or
learning can
help learners
develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values
the task (Eccles,
2006).

Provide school
site principals
training with
embedded
collaborative
sharing on the
importance and
utility value in
the
implementation
of MTSS.
School site principals will
use mastery orientation
(goal of learning and
understanding) of
implementing MTSS to
improve key
performance Indicators.
(GO)
Gap Y Focusing on
mastery,
individual
improvement,
learning, and
progress
promotes
positive
motivation
(Yough &
Anderman,
2006).

Creating mastery
orientation
enhances
Provide school
site principals
training with
embedded
collaborative
sharing on how
implementing
MTSS affects
key
performance
indicators.

School site
principals meet
in KPI teams
four times per

106
Assumed motivation
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority

Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
learning and
motivation,
(Rueda, 2011).
year (an initial
Summit
selecting and
presenting data
to be able to
take
action/impleme
nt, problem
solve and build
coherence,
KPI#1 is about
taking action
and pushing
the action plan
forward, diving
deeper and
make
adjustments,
KPI#2 allows
for assessment,
thinking
forward and
energize, and
the End of the
Year KPI is
about
Reflection and
Planning for
next year).

107
School Site Principals Need to See the Value in the Implementation of MTSS
Data from this study showed that HUSD’s school site principals assimilate the utility
value in the implementation of MTSS. A recommendation rooted in expectancy-value theory has
been selected to continue to enhance this utility value motivation asset. Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Eccles (2006) explained that learning and
motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task. This suggests that collaborative sharing
can enhance the utility value of school site principals seeing the value in implementing MTSS.
The recommendation is to provide school site principals training with embedded collaborative
sharing on the importance and utility value of implementing MTSS. For example, this training
will be provided to school site principals in established collaborative teams so they can share and
learn from one another.
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) described four types of value: intrinsic value, which refers to
the enjoyment one gets from doing a task or being engaged in the task; attainment value, which
is the connection of the task and the individual; utility value, which is how the task fits within the
individual’s goals or plans; and perceived cost, which is the beliefs about the cost of completing
the task. Rueda (2011) suggested that utility value is about the task fitting into the individual’s
goals or plans. Recent education reforms call for school site leaders to improve academic
performance, reduce behavior incidents, and provide students with the social-emotional support
needed to be successful (Sugai et al., 2016). Sugai and Horner (2009) explained that when MTSS
is implemented as the overarching framework that provides evidence-based tiered interventions
and preventions to all students, it can have a positive impact on the student’s success. If school

108
site principals can begin to see the value in the implementation of MTSS, then they can use the
implementation of MTSS to improve KPIs.
School Site Principals Need to Use Mastery Orientation of Implementing MTSS to Improve
Key Performance Indicators
Data from this study showed that HUSD’s school site principals lacked goal orientation
of using mastery orientation (goal of learning and understanding) of implementing MTSS. A
recommendation rooted in goal orientation theory has been selected to close this goal orientation
motivation gap. Yough and Anderman (2006) explained that focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and progress promotes positive motivation. Creating mastery orientation
enhances learning and motivation (APA, 2015). This suggests that training school site principals
on how to use mastery of orientation would enhance their mastering, learning and understanding
of implementing MTSS. The recommendation is to provide school site principals training with
embedded collaborative sharing on how implementing MTSS affects KPI. School site principals
will then meet in KPI teams four times per year to share out. An initial summit will cover
selecting and presenting data to be able to take action and/or implement, problem solve, and
build coherence. KPI 1 is about taking action, pushing the action plan forward, diving deeper,
and making adjustments. KPI 2 allows for assessment, thinking forward and energizing, and the
end-of-the-year KPI is about reflection and planning for next year.
Rueda (2011) described two types of goals in goal orientation theory: first is goal content,
which is about the goals being current, concrete, and challenging, and asking the question, “what
do I want?” The second is goal orientation, which is about the purpose and reason for engaging
in a task. The author explained that within goal orientation is goal mastery, which is about
approaching goals to learn, gain competence, or accomplish challenges or activities (Rueda,

109
2011). Gamm et al. (2012) explained that a key component to implementing MTSS is setting
goals of implementation to improve students’ outcome performance. HUSD has embarked on an
instructional leadership cycle designed to continually draw the school site leaders' focus back to
their responsibility as instructional leaders. HUSD’s school site leaders use KPIs to focus on
improvements by setting goals, reviewing and monitoring progress data, making adjustments and
revisions, and striving for continuous improvements. This instructional leadership cycle that is
guided by KPIs is just the type of goal orientation needed to show improvements through the
implementation of MTSS.
Organization Recommendations
As discussed previously in Chapter Two, Schein (2017) defined culture as the values,
norms, behaviors and shared meaning within a group and something learned and something that
evolves over time. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) added that cultural models are the shared
conception and understanding of how the organization works and ought to work and that these
cultural models help to understand what is customary and normal and gain an understanding of
invisible aspects of the organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that cultural
settings can be seen as the more visible aspects of the organization, such as the who, what, when,
where, why, and how of the routines of everyday life, and that cultural settings are made up by
the various social contexts where the policies and practices are enacted. This study uses these
cultural models and settings to assume organizational barriers to HUSD principals’ goal of
implementing MTSS. This study validated that cultural model barriers and cultural settings do
prevent the implementation of MTSS. Specifically, the data validated that the organization has
established a general acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change
values, beliefs, and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS. Ironically, the data

110
validated that the organization needs to create a culture of trust; change policies, procedures and
practice; and provide ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration that helps support the
implementation of MTSS. Table 14 shows the assumed organizational barriers, validated
organizational barriers as an asset or gap, and evidence-based recommendations tied to
theoretical principles of organizational change.

Table 14
Summary of Organization Barriers and Recommendations
Assumed organization
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
The organization needs to
establish a general
acceptance and
willingness among
administration and
faculty to change
existing values, beliefs,
and attitudes that
support the
implementation of
MTSS. (CM-1)
Asset Yes Effective change
begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the
group knows
why it needs to
change. It then
addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and
skill needs
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Organizational
culture is created
through shared
experience,
shared learning
and stability of
membership. It is
something that
has been learned.
It cannot be
Through ongoing
collaboration,
school site
principals will
share and learn
from one
another to make
changes to
existing values,
beliefs, and
attitudes that
support the
implementation
of MTSS.

111
Assumed organization
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
imposed (Schein,
2017).

The organization needs to
create a culture of trust
between administration
and faculty to achieve
the goal of
implementing MTSS.
(CM-2)
Gap Yes Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders are
trustworthy and,
in turn, trust their
team. The most
visible
demonstration of
trust by a leader
is accountable
autonomy.

Organizations with
high levels of
cultural trust tend
to produce high-
quality products
and services at
less cost because
they can recruit
and retain highly
motivated
employees.
These employees
are more likely to
enjoy their work,
take the time to
do their jobs
correctly; make
their own
decisions; take
risks; innovate;
embrace the
organization’s
vision, mission,
and values; and
display
organizational
citizenship
The Organization
needs to do
what it says it is
going to do and
keep its
commitments.

The organization
needs to
understand how
to communicate
effectively to
promote
motivation
among
employees.

112
Assumed organization
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
behavior (e.g.,
helping a
coworker in
need), (Colquitt
et al., 2007).

Effective leaders
are aware of the
influence of
motivation as it
relates to
communication
and its role in
organizational
change (Gilley et
al., 2009).
The organization needs to
change existing policies,
procedures, and
practices that help
support the
implementation of
MTSS. (CS-1)
Gap Yes Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages,
rewards, policies
and procedures
that govern the
work of the
organization are
aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Create an internal
audit committee
to review
existing
policies,
procedures and
practices so that
they align with
MTSS.
The organization needs to
provide ongoing
training, coaching, and
collaboration that help
support the
implementation of
MTSS. (CS-2)
Gap Yes Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders insure
that
employees have
the resources
needed to
achieve the
organization’s
goals:
The organization
needs to
provide
ongoing
training,
coaching, and
collaboration in
all aspects of
MTSS.

113
Assumed organization
barriers
Validated as
an asset or
gap?
Priority Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation

Insuring staff’s
resource needs
are being met is
correlated with
increased student
learning
outcomes
(Waters et al.,
2003).

The Organization Needs to Establish a General Acceptance and Willingness Among
Administration and Faculty to Change Existing Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes That Support
the Implementation of MTSS
Data from this study showed that HUSD has established a general acceptance and
willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs, and attitudes that support
the implementation of MTSS. A recommendation rooted in organizational change theory has
been selected to continue to enhance this cultural model organizational asset. Clark and Estes
(2008) explained that effective change begins by addressing motivation influencers; it ensures
the group knows why it needs to change. Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) added that it then
addresses organizational barriers and then knowledge and skills needs. Organizational culture is
created through shared experience, shared learning and stability of membership, and it is
something that has been learned. It cannot be imposed (Schein, 2017). This suggests that shared
experiences and learning are the key to establishing a general acceptance and willingness among
administration and faculty to change values, beliefs, and attitudes that support the
implementation of MTSS. The recommendation is that through ongoing collaboration, school

114
site principals will share and learn from one another to change values, beliefs, and attitudes that
support the implementation of MTSS.
Implementers’ beliefs and attitudes about leaders affect motivational and organizational
gaps when implementing something new. (Cook et al., 2015). Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016)
argued that values, beliefs, and attitudes that go unchecked can often hinder the implementation
of new initiatives. Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) explained that one way to deal with these is
by holding peer group discussions, where these values, beliefs, and attitudes can be exposed, as
well as others learning from one another. The California Department of Education (2018) and the
SWIFT Education Center (2015) stated that school districts implementing MTSS must create a
system of engagements to understand the why, what, and how. Being able to change values,
beliefs, and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS should help at creating a culture
of trust in the school between the administration and faculty.
The Organization Needs to Create a Culture of Trust Between the Administration and Faculty
in Order to Achieve the Goal of Implementing MTSS
Data from this study showed that HUSD needs to create a culture of trust in the school
between the administration and faculty to achieve the goal of implementing MTSS. A
recommendation rooted in leadership theory has been selected to close this cultural model
organizational gap. Colquitt et al. (2007) explained that organizations with high levels of cultural
trust tend to produce high-quality products and services at lesser costs because they can recruit
and retain highly motivated employees. These employees are more likely to enjoy their work;
take the time to do their jobs correctly; make their own decisions; take risks; innovate; embrace
the organization’s vision, mission, and values; and display organizational citizenship behavior
(e.g., helping a coworker in need). This suggests that creating a culture of trust in the school

115
between the administration and faculty is imperative to achieve the goal of implementing MTSS.
The recommendation then is that the HUSD needs to do what it says it is going to do and keep its
commitments and that the organization needs to understand how to communicate effectively to
promote motivation among employees.
Forman and Crystal (2015) explained that a key to establishing trust between the
administration and faculty is by creating a supportive organizational structure for new programs
or practices that provides the infrastructure that is needed for successful implementation. Forman
and Crystal (2015) explained that the creation of collaborative teams or focus groups is a way to
provide the mechanisms for the development of interdisciplinary cooperation and build trust.
Romer et al. (2018) explained that past negative interactions with establishing programs can
interfere with the establishment of new programs and that overcoming these past negative
influences is the key to building a culture of trust. If HUSD’s school site principals can create a
culture of trust in the school between the administration and faculty, then they can begin to
change policies, procedures, and practices that help support the implementation of MTSS.
The Organization Needs to Change Existing Policies, Procedures, and Practices That Help
Support the Implementation of MTSS
Data from this study showed that HUSD needs to change policies, procedures, and
practices that help support the implementation of MTSS. A recommendation rooted in
organizational change theory has been selected to close this cultural setting organizational gap.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that effective organizations insure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies and procedures that govern the organization's work are aligned with
or are supportive of organizational goals and values. This suggests that supportive policies,
procedures, and practices can help support the implementation of MTSS. The recommendation is

116
for HUSD to create an internal audit committee to review policies, procedures, and practices so
that they align with MTSS. For example, this internal audit committee can meet monthly to
review policies, procedures, and practices and make recommendations for change to the board of
education.
Sugai et al. (2016) argued that schools finally understand the need to establish MTSS to
support all students but that many schools’ policies and procedures are preventing
implementation. Additionally, Sugai et al. (2016) explained that school districts have to work at
creating policies, procedures, and practices that not only support the implementation of MTSS
but also help to sustain it. Bohanon et al. (2016) suggested using implementation science as a
way for continuous and ongoing improvements with changing policies, procedures, and practices
that help support the implementation of MTSS. A key to changing policies, procedures, and
practices is to create ones that not only support the implementation of MTSS but also support
ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration.
The Organization Needs to Provide Ongoing Training, Coaching, and Collaboration That
Helps Support the Implementation of MTSS
Data from this study showed that HUSD needs to provide ongoing training, coaching,
and collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS. A recommendation rooted in
organizational change theory has been selected to close this cultural setting organizational gap. A
recommendation rooted in leadership theory has been selected to close this cultural setting
organizational gap. Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders insure that employees
have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals, such as ensuring staff’s resource
needs are being met is correlated with increased student learning outcomes (Waters et al., 2003).
This would suggest that ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration can help support the

117
implementation of MTSS. The recommendation then is that HUSD needs to provide ongoing
training, coaching, and collaboration in all aspects of MTSS.
When MTSS is viewed through the lens of professional accountability (Burke, 2004),
school site leaders should receive initial and ongoing professional development so that they have
the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver effective research-based supports and interventions
and make data-based decisions about students. Anderson et al. (2015) mention one of the largest
roadblocks with schools struggling to implement MTSS is that school staff are not adequately
provided with the professional development needed. The research calls for more attention to the
specific design and creation of professional development in and around MTSS. This would
require ongoing professional development, coaching, mentoring, and collaboration (Freeman et
al., 2017 Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009). Providing ongoing training, coaching, and collaboration that
help support the implementation of MTSS will only further the organization in meeting its goal.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation framework utilizes the new world Kirkpatrick model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This new world model builds upon the original Kirkpatrick
four-level model of evaluation (reaction, learning, behavior, and results) but in reverse order
(results, behavior, learning, and reaction).
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained the four levels of professional training
evaluation as follows: Level Four (Results) consists of leading indicators, which are short-term
observations and measurements that propose critical behaviors (external outcomes and internal
outcomes) are aligned to achieve the desired results. Level 3 (behavior) consists of critical
behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning that is learned during the training and

118
applied once back on the job. Level 2 (learning) is the degree to which the participants obtain the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from their training. Level 1 (reaction) is
the degree to which the participants find satisfaction, engagement, and relevance from the
training.
The new world Kirkpatrick model is used in combination with Clark and Estes’s (2008)
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and
identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers,
also referred to as KMO. Now that the qualitative data collection and analysis from Chapter Four
is complete, the new world Kirkpatrick model can be applied to evaluate the training program.
Evaluating HUSD’s training program will help enhance the capacity development to implement
a high-fidelity and sustained MTSS in every school. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
explained three reasons to evaluate a training program: to “improve the program, maximize
transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent organizational results, and to demonstrate the
value of training to the organization” (p. 5).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Hope Unified School District’s mission is to work collaboratively to meet the unique
educational and social-emotional needs of a diverse student population in a safe and nurturing
environment that ensures all students are college and career ready and become productive
citizens in the community, country, and a global society. The problem is that school districts
struggle to implement MTSS practices as the overarching umbrella to improve students’
academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs and schools’ overall performance and culture.
The school site stakeholder group charged with implementing MTSS, and the primary
stakeholder focus group for this study is school site principals. These primary stakeholders are

119
the force in implementing MTSS with true fidelity at the various tiered levels of support and
have direct daily and hourly time with the students. These primary stakeholders have important
roles in the implementation and at the various tiered levels of support, such as identifying,
screening, assessing, and offering a multi-tiered approach to meet the students’ academic,
behavior and social-emotional needs. The primary stakeholder goal for this study is that by
January 2020, all school site principals will have been trained to implement MTSS and
completed an FIA.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
For HUSD to achieve its stakeholder goal, it must monitor and evaluate both external and
internal outcomes. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that Level 4 (results) consists of
leading indicators, which are short-term observations and measurements that propose critical
behaviors (external outcomes and internal outcomes) that are aligned to achieve the desired
results. External outcomes include increased student academic performance, decreased student
behavior incidents, increased students’ SEL skills, and improved KPI results. Internal outcomes
include successful implementation of MTSS at every school, increasing the school site leader’s
knowledge of MTSS, successful use of the three-tiered model within MTSS, and increased the
use of the systems and principles of initiatives, supports, and resources within MTSS. Table 15
outlines the external and internal outcomes, the related metrics, and the methods that will be used
for measuring them

120
Table 15
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Increased student
academic performance
Percentage of growth or decline Local and state measures
Decreased student
behavior incidents
Percentage of growth or decline Local and state measures
Increase students’ social-
emotional learning skills
Percentage of growth or decline CHKS and SEL assessment
Improved KPI results Percentage of growth or decline Principals summit, KPI 1, KPI
2, and final KPI
Internal outcomes
Successful
implementation of
MTSS at every school
site
Number of schools that have
implemented MTSS
LCAP, PBIS-TFI, and MTSS-
FIA
Increase school site
principals’ knowledge of
implementing MTSS.
Number of school site principals
who have attended basic
MTSS training
HUSD Go-PD data
Successful use of the
three-tiered model with
MTSS
Percentage of students placed in
each tier
HUSD data hub, COST data,
PBIS data, restorative practice
interventionist data
Increased use of the
systems and principles
of initiatives, supports,
and resources within
MTSS
Percentage of students receiving
services from the various
initiatives, supports, and
resources
HUSD data hub, COST data,
PBIS data, restorative practice
interventionist data

Level 3: Behavior
For HUSD to achieve its stakeholder goal, it must identify, monitor and evaluate critical
behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that Level 3 (behavior) consists of

121
critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning that is learned during the training and
applied once back on the job. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) also explained that Level 3 is
the most important and most challenging level because of the importance of supporting and
holding stakeholders accountable for applying their new learning.
Critical Behaviors
There are three components to Level 3: the critical behaviors required to meet the
stakeholder goal; the drivers that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the critical behaviors
learned; and creating an organizational culture and expectation of a growth mindset to enhance
and sustain stakeholder performance. Table 16 outlines the critical behaviors, the related metrics,
the methods that will be used for measuring them, and the timing.

122
Table 16
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
School site
principals will
learn the basic
knowledge of the
MTSS
framework.
Number of school site
principals who have
attended basic
MTSS training
HUSD Go-PD data Yearly leadership
symposium, bi-
monthly leadership
meetings, and
professional
development
opportunities
throughout the
year
School site
principals will
learn how to use
the different
components that
make up an
MTSS
framework.
Creation of MTSS
collaboration team
meetings
Agenda item notes of
discussions
Yearly leadership
symposium, bi-
monthly leadership
meetings, and KPI
team meetings
School site
principals will
demonstrate an
understanding of
the three-tiered
model within an
MTSS
framework.
Percentage of students
placed in each tier
HUSD data hub, COST
data, PBIS data,
restorative practice
interventionist data
Bi-monthly
leadership
meetings and KPI
team meetings
School site
principals will
show utilization
of all the systems
and principles of
initiatives,
supports, and
resources within
an MTSS
framework.
Percentage of students
receiving services
from the various
initiatives, supports,
and resources
HUSD data hub, COST
data, PBIS data,
restorative practice
interventionist data
Bi-monthly
leadership
meetings and KPI
team meetings
School site
principals will be
able to explain the
Creation of MTSS
collaboration team
meetings
Agenda item notes of
discussions
Yearly leadership
symposium, bi-
monthly leadership

123
Critical behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
value of the
implementation of
MTSS
meetings, and KPI
team meetings
School site leaders
will use the
implementation of
MTSS to improve
key performance
indicators.
Percentage of growth
or decline
Principal’s summit Bi-monthly
leadership
meetings, KPI
team meetings,
and principal
summit
School site leaders
will attend
ongoing training,
coaching, and
collaboration that
help support the
implementation of
MTSS.
Number of school site
leaders who have
attended basic
MTSS training
HUSD Go-PD data Yearly leadership
symposium, bi-
monthly leadership
meetings, and
professional
development
opportunities
throughout the
year

Required Drivers
The critical behaviors mentioned above cannot alone support HUSD’s stakeholders in
achieving their goal. There are three components to Level Three, one of which is the required
drivers that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the critical behaviors learned (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that reinforce, encourage,
and reward fall under support and that monitoring falls under accountability. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) breakdown and describe each required driver: reinforce, encourage, reward,
and monitor. To reinforce is to provide job aids, training, education, reminders, refreshers, and
on-the-job training modules. These reinforcing drivers highlight the importance of the transfer of
the critical behavior to be learned and then applied (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Encouragement must be planned to occur formally and regularly to support the critical behaviors,
which can be done with a coach or mentor. These encouraging drivers are the systems, supports,

124
and processes that motivate and inspire the continued transfer of the critical behavior to be
learned and then applied (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rewards are about public
recognition and other incentives for those who perform critical behaviors regularly. Rewarding
drivers recognize the correct implementation of the critical behavior to be learned and then
applied (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As mentioned earlier, monitoring is all about
accountability. Monitoring allows the organization to track whether critical behaviors have been
implemented (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 17 outlines the reinforcing, encouraging,
rewarding, and monitoring drivers, the methods that will be used for measuring them, the timing,
and the critical behaviors supported by the required drivers.

125
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical behaviors supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide information and job
aids to school site principals
on the basic knowledge of an
MTSS framework.
Yearly leadership symposium,
bi-monthly leadership
meetings, KPI team
meetings, and professional
development opportunities
throughout the year
1–7
Provide training to school site
principals on the different
components that the district
has implemented over the
years (PBIS, Restorative
Practices, Trauma-Informed
Care, Data Warehouse, and
KPI Teams) and how those
make up an MTSS
framework to support
students in academics,
behavior, and social-
emotional.
Bi-monthly leadership
meetings and professional
development opportunities
throughout the year
1–7
Provide education to the
school site principals on how
to use the three-tiered model
within an MTSS framework.
Bi-monthly leadership
meetings and professional
development opportunities
throughout the year
1–7
Provide education to school
site principals on how to
utilize all of the systems and
principles of initiatives,
supports, and resources in an
MTSS framework.
Bi-monthly leadership
meetings and professional
development opportunities
throughout the year
1–7
Encouraging
School site principals will be
placed in ongoing
collaborative teams to
discuss and dialogue
(connecting prior
knowledge) about the job
Bi-monthly leadership
meetings
1–7

126
Methods Timing
Critical behaviors supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
aids, training, and education
as it relates to the
implementation of MTSS.
School site principals will
receive feedback for district
administration, superior,
evaluator, and KPI teams.
Yearly leadership symposium,
bi-monthly leadership
meetings, KPI team
meetings, and professional
development opportunities
throughout the year
1–7
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement at
yearly leadership
symposium, bi-monthly
leadership meetings, and
KPI team meetings
Yearly leadership symposium,
bi-monthly leadership
meetings, KPI team
meetings, weekly district
new letters, and social-media
platforms
1–7
Public acknowledgement at
district board meetings
Bi-monthly board meetings 1–7
State recognitions Yearly leadership symposium,
bi-monthly leadership
meetings, KPI team
meetings, weekly district
new letters, and social-media
platforms
1–7
Monitoring
State dashboard data Ongoing 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7
Local dashboard data Ongoing 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7
KPI data. Ongoing 1–7
Collaboration team
discussions
Ongoing 1–7

127
Organizational Support
The critical behaviors required to meet the stakeholder goal and the required drivers that
reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor the critical behaviors learned are not enough to
support HUSD’s stakeholders in achieving their goal. To fully achieve the stakeholder goal,
HUSD needs to create an organizational culture and expectation of a growth mindset to enhance
and sustain stakeholder performance. Four organizational barriers mentioned in this study will
need to be addressed for HUSD to create an organizational culture and expectation of a growth
mindset to enhance and sustain stakeholder performance. First, HUSD needs to establish a
general acceptance and willingness among administration and faculty to change values, beliefs,
and attitudes that support the implementation of MTSS. Second, HUSD needs to create a culture
of trust in the school between the administration and faculty to achieve the goal of implementing
MTSS. Third, HUSD needs to change policies, procedures, and practices that help support the
implementation of MTSS. Fourth, HUSD needs to provide ongoing training, coaching, and
collaboration that help support the implementation of MTSS. Addressing these cultural model
and cultural setting barriers will help the organization reinforce the critical behaviors necessary
for the stakeholders to achieve their goal.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals. Upon completion of the formal MTSS training, HUSD’s school site
principal will be able to do the following:
1. Describe the MTSS framework (declarative, factual, knowledge).
2. Describe 1–3 components of MTSS and why they are important (declarative,
conceptual, knowledge).
3. Explain how tiered interventions work within MTSS (procedural knowledge).

128
4. Explain what initiatives, supports, and/or resources fall within MTSS and how they
support students (procedural knowledge).
5. Describe how key performance indicators (KPIs) align with MTSS (procedural
knowledge).
6. Explain why the use of the data hub is important to MTSS (procedural knowledge).
7. Explain the benefits of implementing MTSS (utility value).
8. Describe new learning or understanding you have gained from implementing MTSS
(goal orientation).
Program. The learning goals listed above will be achieved through a four-part training
series. The four-part training series will be taught quarterly for the first year. Series 1 will be
titled The Foundations of MTSS and is where school site principals will learn the basic
knowledge and understanding of the MTSS framework. Series 2 is titled The Structure of MTSS
and is where participants will learn the different components of an MTSS framework. Series 3 is
titled The Umbrella of MTSS and is where they will learn how to us the three-tiered model,
initiative, supports, and resources within an MTSS framework. Series 4 is titled Sustaining
MTSS Implementation and is where they will learn the value, how to use MTSS to improve
KPIs, and how to use reflection to further the implementation process.
Through this four-part training series, school site principals will receive a combination of
job aids, training, and education. Job aids will show expectations, strategies, examples, and
models that will help the principals learn and understand the basic knowledge of an MTSS
framework. Training and education will be used in a blended learning format, incorporating
asynchronous direct teaching (lectures, presentations, readings, videos, and reflections) and
independent learning (reading, videos, reflections, and demonstrations). The learning goals will

129
be further advanced by school site principals being placed in ongoing collaborative teams to
discuss and dialogue (connecting prior knowledge) about the job aids, training, and education as
it relates to the implementation of MTSS. The real learning will take place at the school sites,
where principals will begin to build their schools’ MTSS framework based on their new learning.
Each school site principal will be required to create a trained MTSS team.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. For HUSD to achieve its stakeholder goal,
the stakeholders must expand their declarative and procedural knowledge. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that Level 2 (learning) is the degree to which the participants
obtain the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from their training. A
combination of formative and summative methods will be used to evaluate the components of
learning. Table 18 outlines evaluation methods and timing that will be used to evaluate the
components of learning.

130
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, collaboration teams, and
professional development opportunities
throughout the year
Knowledge checks through discussions and
think, pair, share
Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, collaboration teams, and
professional development opportunities
throughout the year
Knowledge checks through exit tickets Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, collaboration teams, and
professional development opportunities
throughout the year
Completion of FIA action plan Quarterly FIA
Completion of TFI action plan Quarterly TFI
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
During asynchronous portions of the training Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
During collaborative team discussions Collaborative team meetings
Quality feedback during KPI teams KPI team meetings
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre- and post-training assessments Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
Observation of participants during the training Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
During collaborative team discussions Collaborative team meetings
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, collaboration teams, and

131
professional development opportunities
throughout the year
During collaborative team discussions Collaborative team meetings
Quality feedback during KPI teams KPI team meetings
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
During collaborative team discussions Collaborative team meetings
Completion of KPI plan Principal summit and KPI team meetings
Completion of FIA action plan Quarterly FIA
Completion of TFI action plan Quarterly TFI

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that Level 1 (reaction) is the degree to
which the participants find satisfaction, engagement, and relevance from the training. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick further explained that Level 1 should be done quickly and efficiently to gather
the determination data on the quality of the training program. These data can come from
formative evaluations (observations, pulse checks, or dedicated observers) or summative
evaluations (surveys, interviews, or focus groups). Table 19 outlines the methods or tools and the
timing that will be used to measure the reactions to the training program.

132
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Attendance Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
Observation during collaborative team
discussions
Collaborative team meetings
Training program evaluation Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
Relevance
Pulse check with participants. Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
Training program evaluation Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
FIA action plan. Quarterly FIA
TFI action plan Quarterly TFI
Customer satisfaction
Pulse check with participants Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year
Training program evaluation Series training, bi-monthly leadership
meetings, and professional development
opportunities throughout the year

133
Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation. There are three reasons to
evaluate training programs through participant feedback, “improve the program, to maximize
transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent organizational results, and to demonstrate the
value of training to the organization” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 5). Level 1 (reaction)
will be measured in multiple ways to gauge the degree to which the participants find satisfaction,
engagement, and relevance from the training. Formative evaluations (observations, pulse check,
and dedicated observer) and summative evaluations (surveys and interviews) will be used to
measure Level 1 reaction. Level 2 (learning) will be measured in multiple ways to gauge the
degree to which the participants obtain the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment from their training. A combination of formative (knowledge check, discussion,
individual and group activitiy, and simulation) and summative (post-test, presentation, action
planning, and survey) methods will be used to evaluate the components of learning. An example
of the evaluation tool that will be used immediately following the program implementation is in
Appendix G.

134
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) explained that blended evaluation design should be used when designing evaluations that
are delayed for a period after the implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick explained several
considerations in designing these blended evaluations: what information will be useful to the
training department; what information will be helpful to the stakeholders; have participants have
applied what they learned; what support participants are receiving on the job; or what kind of
results have the participants demonstrated. Since blended evaluations use multiple methods that
cross multiple levels, surveys, questionnaires, action planning and action monitoring, work
review, action learning, knowledge checks, presentations, and MTSS metrics will be used. For an
example of the blended evaluation tools that will be used for delayed evaluation for a period after
the program implementation, see Appendix H.
Data Analysis and Reporting
A blended approach will be used in the data analysis and reporting of the MTSS
implementation training. Schools are the overarching umbrella for not just improving the
students’ academic, behavior and social-emotional needs but also improving the overall
performance and culture of the district’s schools while serving all students. Schools must use
evidence-based research and problem-solving techniques to examine their MTSS implementation
efforts around the FIA domains and features to ensure that all students receive universal support.
The intention of FIA is to encourage district teams to utilize a strength-based approach to
analyze current data trends, identify the actions, services, or features that are having the biggest
positive impact, and begin binding those actions, services, or features into a successful MTSS.
The FIA (Appendix I) is an assessment tool schools utilize to monitor progress in
implementing the MTSS framework. The descriptors and examples provided in this tool are

135
helpful with learning about specific domains and features and provide important improvement
data to inform the schoolwide implementation of MTSS. The FIA assesses the following areas of
MTSS implementation: administrative leadership, MTSS, integrated educational frameworks,
family and community engagement, and inclusive policy structures and practices (SWIFT
Education Center, 2015). Response options for the FIA are as follows: 0 = Laying the
Foundation (not yet started or minimal implementation), 1 = Installing (working toward
implementation), 2 = Implementing (transformation and systemic efforts are underway), and 3 =
Continuous Improvement and Sustainability (systems are in place that are regularly monitored
and revised; SWIFT Education Center, 2015). Principals and their MTSS teams will take the
FIA four times per year, reporting the results to HUSD’s research and evaluation department. To
assure and model accountability and progress in regards to not only MTSS implementation but
the training associated with the implementation of MTSS, the research and evaluation
department will post the FIA results for each school on HUSD’s MTSS web link. Figure 3 is a
sample of the FIA scoring tool. Figure 4 is a sample of the FIA scoring report. Figure 5 is a
Sample of the FIA dashboard.

136
Figure 3
Sample FIA Scoring Tool

137
Figure 4
Sample FIA Scoring Report

138
Figure 5
Sample FIA Dashboard

Summary
The new world Kirkpatrick model uses evidence-based recommendations arranged into
an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to support HUSD’s goal (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). This new world Kirkpatrick model builds upon the original Kirkpatrick four-
level model of evaluation in reverse order (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 4 (results)
consists of leading indicators, which are short-term observations and measurements that propose

139
critical behaviors (external outcomes and internal outcomes) are aligned to achieve the desired
results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 (behavior) consists of critical behaviors,
required drivers, and on-the-job learning that is learned during the training and applied once back
on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 2 (learning) is the degree to which the
participants obtain the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from their
training, and Level 1 (Reaction) is the degree to which the participants find satisfaction,
engagement, and relevance from the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). With a
combination of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
use the new world Kirkpatrick model to prescribe evidence-based recommendations for each
validated KMO barrier. These evidence-based recommendations are then arranged into an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan using the meticulous and rigorous new world
Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
As previously mentioned, this study utilized Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework, which is a conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder
performance goals and identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers. To achieve the stakeholder goal and improve performance, stakeholders
assumed lack of knowledge or motivation and organizational barriers were evaluated to
determine if a gap exists in achieving the desired goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Identifying these assumed KMO performance gaps was essential in HUSD
meeting its goal. The comprehensive and methodological approach of Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis framework is a definitive strength, and conversely, the strength of this framework
can also be considered a weakness.

140
Stakeholders at HUSD include district leadership, principals and assistant principals,
teachers, counselors and classified staff, and parents and students. District stakeholders include
the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and various Directors.
District leaders are an important stakeholder group in providing the policy, procedures, finances,
and other means of support for successful implementation. School site stakeholders are
principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors, and classified staff. All have important roles
in implementing MTSS, such as identifying, screening, assessing, and offering a multi-tiered
approach to meet the students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs. Parents are a
vital stakeholder group in that they must be part of the team and process of implementing a
successful MTSS. Students are the stakeholder group that is directly impacted by the
implementation of MTSS. The primary stakeholder focus group in this study was school site
principals. As such, interviewing the school site principals was a strength because it did provide
rich and meaningful data, but this strength can also be considered a weakness because the data
and analysis did not include all stakeholders.
The methodological framework used in this study to further validate the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers was a qualitative method design using one-
on-one interviews. A qualitative method design is a process of data collection and analysis for
exploring and understanding problems, such as the problems with implementing MTSS
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using a qualitative method design of one-on-one interviews, I
triangulated the data by interviewing five elementary principals, five intermediate principals and
five high school principals, analyzing the data separately, and then comparing the results to
confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Had time permitted, a more in-
depth and thorough mixed-methods evaluation could have entailed deeper and richer findings by

141
combining the interviews with focus group interviews, document and artifact analysis, and
quantitative surveys (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) new world Kirkpatrick model prescribes evidence-
based recommendations for each of the validated KMO barriers. These evidence-based
recommendations are then arranged into an integrated implementation and evaluation plan using
the meticulous and rigorous new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The strength of this new world Kirkpatrick model builds upon the original Kirkpatrick four-level
model of evaluation. A combination of this study’s results and findings, comprehensive
evidence-based recommendations, and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan
supports HUSD’s goal. Multi-Tiered System of Support is the overarching umbrella to not just
improving the students’ academic, behavior and social-emotional needs but also improving the
overall performance and culture of the schools within the district while serving all students.
Future Research
To expand the generalizability of this study’s findings, future research should start by
enlarging the focus stakeholder group. As previously mentioned, stakeholders at HUSD include
district leadership, principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors, classified staff, parents,
and students. Enlarging the stakeholder group would be more time-consuming but could also
yield more enriched and deeper data. District leaders are an important stakeholder group in
providing the policy, procedures, finances, and other means of support for successful
implementation. School site stakeholders are principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors,
and classified staff. Parents are a vital stakeholder group in that they must be part of the team and
process of implementing a successful MTSS. Students are the stakeholder group that is directly
impacted by the implementation of MTSS.

142
As suggested above, future research should also include a mixed-methods framework. As
previously mentioned, the methodological framework used in this study to further validate the
assumed KMO barriers was a qualitative method design using one-on-one interviews. A more in-
depth and thorough mixed-methods evaluation could have entailed deeper and enriched findings
by enlarging the interviews to include all stakeholders, blending qualitative focus group
interviews, incorporating qualitative document and artifact analysis, and including quantitative
surveys. By expanding to a mixed-methods framework, the research can use a three-phase
process. The first phase is to use qualitative data collection and analysis with one-on-one
interviews and focus group interviews to explore. The second phase is to use quantitative data
collection and analysis with surveys to explain, and the third phase is to use documents and
artifacts to converge (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that
this three-phase approach allows the researcher to triangulate data across qualitative and
quantitative analyses. To further expand the data collection, HUSD could use comparative
analysis with a district with similar demographics.
As with many organizations, the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID) changed
day-to-day operations. Future research should include the impact of COVID on educational
settings in general and how it affected the problem of school districts struggling to implement
MTSS. Kuhfeld et al. (2020) highlighted that students are demonstrating learning loss due to the
interruptions in the educational system and are showing a greater need for social-emotional care.
The Education Trust (2020) highlighted that the federal and state governments are responding to
school districts’ needs with increased one-time funding to combat the vast educational needs.
The HUSD could benefit from a comparative analysis of pre-COVID academic, behavioral, and

143
social-emotional needs and what is currently in place to meet students’ ongoing academic,
behavioral, and social-emotional needs.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which HUSD is meeting its global
organizational performance goal. Today’s school districts face a complex problem of serving
increasingly diverse student populations, which requires academic, behavior, and social-
emotional interventions and supports only offered through an evidence-based framework, such as
MTSS. Sugai et al. (2016) expound that schools have been tasked with dealing with issues that
are negatively affecting students, such as illiteracy, achievement gags, school climate, violence,
discipline, student dropouts, and mental health issues, while the students they serve have
increasingly become more diverse. Solving the problem of school districts struggling to
implement MTSS will not only benefit the students but is also key to “producing a well-educated
and healthy adult population that is sufficiently skills to participate effectively in a global
economy and to become responsible stakeholders in a productive society” (Shonkoff et al., 2017,
p. 232).
Just focusing on the importance of addressing this issue from the social-emotional
standpoint shows that students who are exposed to trauma are not only at-risk of academic and
behavioral problems but also overall impaired health and development. Since the ACE study was
released in 1998, trauma-informed practices have been implemented in many different fields, but
school districts still struggle with implementation (Felitti et al., 1998). Instead of completing
initiatives, Harden et al. (2014) suggested that MTSS is the overarching umbrella for improving
schools and meeting the social-emotional needs of students. Because of the number of students
affected by trauma, Paccione-Dyszlewski (2016) noted that schools and classrooms must become

144
trauma-informed, not just a place of learning. Because schools hold a daily captive audience of
trauma-impacted students, it is the school’s responsibility to create MTSS to meet the needs of
the students they serve.
The number of children impacted by violence, crime, and abuse is higher than ever
before. Without MTSS, these numbers will increase, and students’ struggles with academics,
behavior and SEL will grow. However, school districts struggle with the implementation of
MTSS. The stakeholder group charged with implementing MTSS is the force in implementing
MTSS with fidelity and has direct daily time with students. They have important roles in the
implementation and the various tiered levels of support.
If the problem of implementing MTSS is not addressed, students will lose valuable
education and learning and likely suffer negative effects as adults (Felitti et al., 1998). MTSS is
the overarching umbrella for improving schools’ overall performance and culture. If schools can
overcome the struggles of implementing MTSS, they can truly shift from asking what is wrong
with students to asking what happened to them.

145
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. M., Blitz, L. V., & Saastamoinen, M. (2015). Exploring a school-university model
for professional development with classroom staff: Teaching trauma-informed
approaches. School Community Journal, 25(2), 113–134.

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.

August, G. J., Piehler, T. F., & Miller, F. G. (2018). Getting “SMART” about implementing
multi-tiered systems of support to promote school mental health. Journal of School
Psychology, 66, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.001

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

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice. the LEA series on special education and disability. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
Jossey-Bass.

California Department of Education. (2018). Multi-tiered system of supports - curriculum
resources. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri

Castillo, J. (2014). Tolerance in schools for latino students: Dismantling the school-to-prison
pipeline. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 26, 43–58.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Colquitt, J., Scott, B., & LePine, J. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-
analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.4.909

Cook, C. R., Lyon, A. R., Kubergovic, D., Wright, D. B., & Zhang, Y. (2015). A supportive
beliefs intervention to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices within a
multi-tiered system of supports. School Mental Health, 7, 49–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-014-9139-3

146
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2019). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/

Domitrovich, C., Bradshaw, C., Greenberg, M., Embry, D., Poduska, J., & Ialongo, N. (2010).
Integrated models of school-based prevention: Logic and theory. Psychology in the
Schools, 47, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20452

Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E. G. (2015). Implementing a multi-
tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and
administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational & Psychological
Consultation, 25(2-3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960

Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Education Trust. (2020). COVID-19: Impact on education equity: Resources and responses.
https://edtrust.org/covid-19-impact-on-education-equity-resources-responding/

Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53, 583–598.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.x

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss,
M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction
to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences
(ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence of childhood
exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of children’s
exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746–754.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatric s.2015.0676

Fitzgerald, C. B., Geraci, L. M., & Swanson, M. (2014). Scaling up in rural schools using
positive behavioral interventions and supports. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(1),
18–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051403300104

147
Forman, S. G., & Crystal, C. D. (2015). Systems consultation for multitiered 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., & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging knowing
to doing. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241946

Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A.
(2019). Restorative justice in US schools: An updated research review. WestEd Justice
and Prevention Research Center. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2220727665

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle
and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087787

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners,
policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800112

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
5826.00072

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing culture models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5

Gamm, S., Elliott, J., Halbert, J., Prince-Baugh, R., Hall, R., Walston, D., & Casserly, M. (2012).
Common core state standards and diverse urban students: Using multi-tiered systems of
support. The Council of Great City Schools.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20039

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.

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.

Harden, T., Kenemore, T., Mann, K., Edwards, M., List, C., & Martinson, K. (2014). The truth
N’ trauma project: Addressing community violence through a youth-led, trauma-
informed and restorative framework. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(1),
65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-014-0366-0

148
Harn, B., Basaraba, D., Chard, D., & Fritz, R. (2015). The impact of schoolwide prevention
efforts: Lessons learned from implementing independent academic and behavior support
systems. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(1), 3–20.

Harrington, K., Griffith, C., Gray, K., & Greenspan, S. (2016). A grant project to initiate school
counselors’ development of a multi-tiered system of supports based on social-emotional
data. The Professional Counselor, 6(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.15241/kh.6.3.278

Hopkins, B. (2004). Just schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.

Hopkins, B. (2015). From restorative justice to restorative culture. Revista de Asistenta Sociala,
(4), 19–34.

Hough, H. J., March, J., & Mckibben, S. (2018). Enacting social-emotional learning: Lessons
from “outlier schools” in California. Policy Analysis for California Education.

Jaycox, L. H., Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Walker, D. W., Langley, A. K., Gegenheimer, K.,
Scott, M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Children’s mental health care following Hurricane
Katrina: A field trial of trauma-focused psychotherapies. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
23(2), 223–231.

Kang-Brown, J., Trone, J., Fratello, J., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2013). A generation later: What
we’ve learned about zero tolerance in schools. Vera Institute of Justice.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1820764599

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.

Kline, D. M. S. (2016). Can restorative practices help to reduce disparities in school discipline
data? A review of the literature. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 97–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2016.1159099

Kozleski, E. B. (n.d.). Culturally responsive teaching matters! Equity Alliance.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the
potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement.
(EdWorkingPaper: 20-226). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
https://doi.org/10.26300/cdrv-yw05

149
Marsh, J., Mckibben, S., Hough, H., Hall, M., Allbright, T. Matewos., & Siqueira, C. (2018).
Enacting social-emotional learning: Practices and supports employed in CORE districts
and schools. Policy analysis for California Education.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.

McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI
and PBIS. Guilford Press.

McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanon, H. (2010). Toward true integration of academic and
behavior response to intervention systems: Part one—tier 1 support. Communique, 39(2),
1.

Mclntosh, K., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Sustainability of systems-level evidence-based
practices in schools: Current knowledge and future directions. Handbook of Positive
Behavior Support. Springer.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). National assessment of educational progress –
the nations report card. (2018). https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Novak, K. (2016). UDL Now: A teacher’s guide to applying universal design for learning in
today’s classrooms. CAST Professional Publishing.

Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: Introduction to the
Special Issue. School Mental Health, 8(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-
9184-1

Paccione-Dyszlewski, M. R. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: A must. The Brown University
Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 32, 8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30139

Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2018). U.S. Department of Education’s Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (OESE), the Technical Assistance Center. https://www.pbis.org/pbis/getting-
started

150
Rolfsnes, E. S., & Idsoe, T. (2011). School-based intervention programs for PTSD symptoms: A
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(2), 155–165.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20622

Romer, N., Green, A. L., & Cox, K. (2018). Educator perceptions of preparedness and
professional development for implementation of evidence-based practices within a multi-
tiered system of supports. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9234-
3

Ross, S. W., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2015). Multi-tiered systems of support preservice
residency: A pilot undergraduate teacher preparation model. Handbook of response to
intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102954-10

RTI Action Network. (2018). The National Center for Learning Disabilities.
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications.

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., Garner, A. S.,
McGuinn, L., Pascoe, J., & Wood, D. L. (2017). The lifelong effects of early childhood
adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2663

Stuart, S. K., & Rinaldi, C. (2009). A collaborative planning framework for teachers
implementing tiered instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 52–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200206

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of
trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. 14-4884).
https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA14-4884/SMA14-4884.pdf

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive
behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4),
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375

151
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-
wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989

Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: History,
defining features and misconceptions. Center for PBIS & Center for Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports.

Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., & La Salle, T. (2016). Capacity development and multi-
tiered systems of support: Guiding principles. Australasian Journal of Special Education,
40(2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.11

SWIFT Education Center. (2015). Guide to understanding California MTSS.
https://ocde.us/MTSS/Pages/Guide-to-Understanding-CA-MTSS.aspx

Underwood, C. (2012). See you again. On Blown Away. Arista Nashville.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2018). 2015-16 Civil rights data
collection: School climate and safety.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-safety.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of School Climate and Discipline. (2014). Guiding
Principles: A resource guide for improving school climate and discipline.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-principles.pdf

Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (2015). Measuring the cool tool as a targeted intervention to
minimize teacher reprimands and students’ on-task behavior in an urban elementary
school. Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 43–57.

Wachtel, T. (2007). Defining restorative. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 16(2), 2.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/214199680

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M.
J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-
age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669600400401

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on pupil achievement. A working paper.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Wexler, D. (2017). School-based multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS): An introduction to
MTSS for neuropsychologists. Applied Neuropsychology. Child, 1(11). Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2017.1331848

152
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/

153
Appendix A: MTSS Pyramid of Tiers

154
Appendix B: MTSS Umbrella Serving All Students

155
APPENDIX C: ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW RECRUITMENT EMAIL
Dear School Site Leadership Team Members
My name is Trucker Clark, Principal at Blank High School (pseudonym), and I am also
currently pursuing a degree from the Rossier School of Education’s Doctor of Education in
Organizational Change and Leadership program at the University of Southern California. For my
doctoral dissertation (research study), I am evaluating the problem of school districts in the
United States struggling to implement a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). The pseudonym
that I am using for our district is Hope Unified School District (HUSD).
This research study utilizes Clark and Estes’s gap analysis framework, which is a
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and
identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational
(O) barriers. Identifying these assumed KMO performance gaps is essential in HUSD meeting its
goal of having enhanced the capacity development to implement a high-fidelity and sustained
Multi-Tiered System of Support in every school. The methodological framework used in this
research study to further validate these assumed KMO barriers is a simple qualitative method
design of data collection and analysis using one-on-one interviews.
School site principals are the stakeholder group that will be charged with the
implementation of MTSS. These stakeholders have important roles at not just the
implementation, but also important roles at the various tiered levels of support, such as
identifying, screening, assessing, monitoring, and offering a multi-tiered approach to meet the
various student’s needs. Thus, school site principals are the most important stakeholder group
and primary focus of this research study.

156
I want to invite you to participate in a qualitative one-on-one interview. For the
qualitative one-on-one interviews, I am seeking voluntary participation from five Elementary
principals, five Intermediate principals, and five high school principals. These interviews will
occur at various times over a 5-day period, and I will travel to your school site. Please
understand that participation is completely voluntary. If you agree to participate in a one-on-one
interview, please reply to this this email. Once you have agreed to participate, I will follow-up
with another email highlighting more in-depth details of the qualitative one-on-one interviews, a
Google Link for scheduling, and a few demographic questions.
If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me by email or phone at 000-
000-0000.

157
APPENDIX D: ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
My name is Trucker Clark and I am the Principle Investigator (PI) for this research study.
I want to start out by thanking you for taking the time to volunteer as a stakeholder participant to
be interviewed for this dissertation study. I truly value your time, knowledge, and expertise that
you might provide as a stakeholder for this research study. This one-on-one interview should
take no more than an hour. Let’s start out by reviewing the topic, the one-on-one interview
format, and some additional requirements.
This research study utilizes Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, which is a
conceptual framework that guides organizational and stakeholder performance goals and
identifies assumed performance gaps within knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational
(O) barriers. Identifying these assumed KMO’s performance gaps is essential in HUSD meeting
its goal “of having enhanced the capacity development to successfully implement a high fidelity
and sustained Multi-Tiered System of Support in every school”. The methodological framework
that will be used in this research study to further validate these assumed KMO barriers is a
qualitative method design using a single-phase process of data collection and analysis of one-on-
one interviews. Do you have any questions?
As mentioned earlier, I am the principal investigator (PI) for this research study, and I am
conducting this one-on-one interview as part of the degree requirements for the Rossier School
of Education’s Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership program at the
University of Southern California. To ensure the highest ethical principals were upheld during
the qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis of this research study, a number of
procedures were applied. This research study’s proposal was approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB), from the Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) at the

158
University of Southern California. This research study’s proposal was also approved by Hope
Unified School District’s Department of Research and Evaluation. Do you have any questions?
I want to assure you that everything said here today is strictly confidential. All of the data
collected and findings for this research study will be reported in the aggregate. All recordings
will be transcribed through a third party - Rev Transcription Service. When I use an actual quote
from a one-on-one interview like this one, I will indicate that it is from “a stakeholder of Hope
Unified School District.” No names will ever be associated with the data collected or findings
reported. I also want to assure you that none of the data collected will be shared with anyone else
in this organization. Although you have previously reviewed and signed the informed consent
form to participate as a stakeholder volunteer, I want to review that informed consent form again
with you now. Let review that now. With that, do you still want to volunteer as a stakeholder
participant to be interviewed for this research study. At any time during this one-on-one
interview you start to feel uncomfortable or have a concern, please inform me and we can stop
the one-on-one interview to discuss. Do you have any questions?
If at any time after this one-on-one interview, you have questions, concerns or
suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss these. If I cannot address your
questions or concerns, or you need further clarification, you can always directly contact the
Institutional Review Board (IRB), from the Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) at
the University of Southern California, and/or Hope Unified School District’s Department of
Research and Evaluation for further assistance. Do you have any questions?
The last couple of things I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview
process. I have brought two digital recorders with me today so that I can accurately capture what
you share, with one being used as a backup. The recorders help me focus on our conversation

159
and not on taking notes, although I will also be taking some simple notes throughout the one-on-
one interview process. If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder you can push this button to
may make comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects of data collection is
completely voluntary. May I have your permission to record and get started? Begin recording…
mention date and time.
One-on-One Interview Questions
These first few questions are in regard to the assumed knowledge barriers:
1. Can you describe your understanding of the MTSS framework? (K-F)
• Probe: Can you add anything further?
2. Can you list some key components of MTSS and why they are important? (K-C)
• Probe: Can you list any others?
3. Can you explain how tiered interventions work within MTSS? (K-P).
• Probe: How are tiered academic, behavior, and social-emotional interventions
being used at your school sites (Probe for academic, behavior, and social-
emotional interventions)?
4. Let’s discuss what additional initiatives, supports, and/or resources are being used at
your school site to support students? (K-P)
• Probe: (After writing a few down), can you explain further how these support
students (Probe for LCAP, Restorative Practices, PBIS, Key Performance
Indicators (KPI), Data Hub, Curriculum, etc…)?
5. Walk me through how you would administer a SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment
(FIA)? (K-P)
1.1. Probe: What insights did you gained from administering a FIA?

160
These next few questions are in regard to the assumed motivation barriers:
6. What is the value of implementation of MTSS? (M-UV)
7. Describe something new you have learned by implementing MTSS at your school site?
(M-GO)
• Probe: How has this helped to improve your school and/or students?
• Probe: Is there any additional learning you need to fully master the
implementation of MTSS at your school site?
8. Have you set any goals for yourself in implementing MTSS, if so, tell me about these?
(M-GO)
• Probe: What are a few of your low KPI’s you are working to improve this school
year?
• Probe: What were 1-3 growth areas from your FIA?
These last few questions are in regard to the assumed organizational barriers:
9. What values, beliefs, and/or attitudes have you (personally/professionally) changed to
support the implementation of MTSS? (O-CMI-1)
• Probe: Can you add anything further (willingness or unwillingness to change)?
10. Describe the established culture of trust between district administration and school
site administration? (O-CMI-2)
• Probe: Can you explain anything further that is impacting this trust?
11. In order to fully implement MTSS, what existing policies, procedures, and/or
practices need to change and why? (O-CSI-1)
• Probe: Could you elaborate on a few of these and how changing these policies,
procedures, and/or practices supports the implementation of MTSS?
12. 1Describe the kinds of training opportunities you have received in regard to the
implementation of MTSS? (O-CSI2)

161
• Probe: What additional training opportunities do you need and why?
13. What kinds of resources have you received and how have they helped? (O-CSI2)
• Probe: Are there any addition resources needed for you to fully implement
MTSS?
• Probe: How will these additional resources help?
14. Is there anything else you would like to share about the implementation of MTSS?
Closing and Follow-up
In closing, that concludes this one-on-one interview. I would like to thank you for your
time, knowledge, and expertise that you have provided today as a stakeholder participant for this
research study. If I find that I need further clarification on a question or follow-up, do I have
your permission to contact you? Again, thank you for being a stakeholder participant for this
research study.

162
Appendix E: HUSD Approval to Conduct Research

163
APPENDIX F: ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Multi-Tiered System of Support as the Overarching Umbrella

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Trucker Clark, Principal
Investigator. You have been selected to participate in this one-on-one interview because you hold
a school site principal role within your school district. Your participation in this study is
completely voluntary. Please take as much time as you need to read the information in this
consent form. Please ask questions about anything you do not understand or requires clarity. If
you decide to participate in the one-on-one interview, you will be asked to sign this consent
form, and a copy of this consent form will be given to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to evaluate school site principal’s knowledge, motivation,
and organizational barriers related to the implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports.
Understanding school site principal’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers is
essential in the district in meeting its goal of having enhanced the capacity development to
successfully implement a high fidelity and sustained Multi-Tiered System of Support in every
school. The findings of this research study will contribute to the growing body of literature on
how to support school districts with the implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of Support.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a one-hour audio-
recorded one-on-one interview. You do not have to answer any question that you do not want to
answer. If you do not agree to be audio-recorded, you will be unable to participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. All identifiable
information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your responses will
be audio-recorded and transcribed through a third party - Rev Transcription Service, which will
code your responses as participant. You will have the option to review and edit the written
transcript of the audio-recording for this one-on-one interview. The audio-recordings will be
destroyed once they have been transcribed. The data for this study will be kept on the
researcher’s password-protected computer and will be kept indefinitely. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California’s Human subjects Protection Program
(HSSP) may access the data for review. The HSSP reviews and monitors research studies to

164
protect the rights and welfare of research participants. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, none of your identifiable information will be used.

PARTICPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will not result in penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies by participating in this research study.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORT
There are no known risks or discomforts related to this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will not be compensated for their participation in the one-on-one interview.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions of concerns about this study, please contact the following individuals:
Principal Investigator Dana Lewis “Trucker” Clark via email at danalcla@usc.edu or Dissertation
Chair Dr. Ekaterina Moore via email at ekaterim@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT — IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

165
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO

I agree to be audio recorded.

I do not want to be audio recorded.

_______________________________________
Name of Participant

_______________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Participants Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all his/her questions. I believe that
he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

_______________________________________
Name of Investigator

_______________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Investigator Date

166
APPENDIX G: IMMEDIATE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
Please place an X in the box to indicate the degree to which you agree with each
statement:

Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I actively participated
in the MTSS
professional
development.

MTSS is relevant for
my school.

The MTSS
professional
development
benefited me as a
principal.

I can accurately
identify
components of the
MTSS framework
that I have learned
today.

I can execute the
specific MTSS tiers
for academic,
behavior, or social-
emotional support
and intervention.

I believe in my
abilities to
implement the
MTSS Framework.

I feel confident in
implementing the
Framework at my
school.

I am committed to
implementing the
MTSS Framework
at my school.

167
APPENDIX H: BLENDED EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
Please place an X in the box to indicate the degree to which you agree with each
statement:

Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I actively participated
in each of the
MTSS professional
development
opportunities.

MTSS is relevant for
my school.

The MTSS
professional
development
benefited me as a
principal this year.

I can accurately
identify
components of the
MTSS Framework I
learned this year.

I can execute the
specific MTSS tiers
I learned this year
for academic,
behavior, or social-
emotional support
and intervention.

I believe in my
abilities to
implement the
MTSS Framework.

I feel confident in
implementing the
Framework at my
school.

I am committed to
implementing the
MTSS Framework

168
at my school next
school year.
My ability to learn
the MTSS
components has
increase due to the
MTSS professional
development.

My ability to set
goals for myself in
implementing
MTSS has
increased due to the
MTSS professional
development.

My ability to identify
strengths and areas
of growth related to
the MTSS
implementation has
increased due to the
MTSS professional
development.

I will use what I
learned in the
MTSS professional
development with
the various teams at
my school site.

My ability to
incorporate MTSS
tired supports and
interventions has
increased as a result
of the MTSS
professional
development.

The number of
Tier#3 and Tier#2
students in the
MTSS Framework
will decrease within
the given school
year.

169
My ability to increase
staff and student
satisfaction when it
comes to the
implementation of
MTSS has
increased as a result
of the MTSS
professional
development.

170
APPENDIX I: FIDELITY INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT
FIA1: Administrative Leadership
1. The school has a leadership team that that continuously uses data to improve teaching
and learning?? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous
Improvement and Sustainability. (K-C)
2. The principal and school leadership team encourage open communication and support all
staff, students, and families to contribute to core school decisions? 0. Laying the
Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and
Sustainability. (O-CMI-2)
3. The school provides sufficient professional learning and instructional coaching to
improve teaching and learning? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing,
or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (O-CSI2)
4. Personnel evaluations are supportive and useful for educators to build instructional
knowledge and skills? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3.
Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (GO)
FIA2: Multi-Tiered System of Support
5. The school has schoolwide systems to promote academic success for all students and
responds with additional support for students who do not demonstrate success? 0. Laying
the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and
Sustainability. (K-P)
6. The school personnel use multi-level instructional strategies for both reading and math to
include all students with various needs in the general education curriculum and

171
coursework? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous
Improvement and Sustainability. (K-P)
7. The school identifies and prioritizes instructional interventions based on analysis of
multiple sources of academic data? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2.
Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (K-C)
8. The school has schoolwide systems to promote positive behavior for all students? 0.
Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement
and Sustainability. (K-P)
9. The school provides multi-tiered interventions based on functions of behavior with
fidelity? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous
Improvement and Sustainability. (K-P)
10. The school identifies and prioritizes behavioral interventions based on analysis of
multiple data sources? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3.
Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (K-P)
FIA3: Integrated Education Framework
11. All students in the school participate in the general education curriculum, coursework,
and activities of their grade level peers? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2.
Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (K-P)
12. The school embraces non-categorical service delivery to support diverse needs of
students? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous
Improvement and Sustainability. (K-C)
13. All students, including those with IEPs, have equal access to the general education
curriculum and extracurricular learning activities within appropriate support? 0. Laying

172
the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and
Sustainability. (K-P)
14. All school personnel in instructional and other roles share responsibility to educate all
students in the school and employ culturally appropriate and sustaining practices? 0.
Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement
and Sustainability. (CMI-2)
FIA4: Family and Community Engagement
15. The school provides families and students with opportunities and resources to participate
in school decisions? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3.
Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (0-CMI-2)
16. All personnel in the school understand the importance of building positive partnerships
with students and students’ families? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2.
Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (CMI-2)
17. The school collaborates with a variety of community partners to match resources and
services in the community with identified school needs? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1.
Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (O-CMI-
2)
18. The school offers various resources to benefit the surrounding community? 0. Laying the
Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and
Sustainability. (O-CSI-2)

173
FIA5: Inclusive Policy Structure and Practices
19. The district actively and adequately supports our schools’ implementation of equity-
based MTSS? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous
Improvement and Sustainability. (O-CSI-1)
20. The district addresses and removes policy and other barriers to success? 0. Laying the
Foundation, 1. Installing, 2. Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and
Sustainability. (O-CSI-1)
21. The district supports equity-based MTSS by linking multiple initiatives, revising policies,
and extending practices to schools? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2.
Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (O-CSI-1)
22. The district uses school level information to support and ensure training regarding
research or evidence-based practices? 0. Laying the Foundation, 1. Installing, 2.
Implementing, or 3. Continuous Improvement and Sustainability. (O-CSI-2)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

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

PDF

Understanding the gaps for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees across industries

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

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

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

A call for transparency and accountability: continuous improvement in state education agency policy implementation

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Clark, Dana Lewis Trucker (filename)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/11/2023

Defense Date 04/10/2023

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

Tag academics,behavior,KMO,knowledge,Motivation,MTSS,multi-tiered system of support,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,restorative practices,social-emotional,trauma-informed

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Haglund, David (committee member)

Creator Email danalcla@usc.edu,truckerclark@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113004190

Unique identifier UC113004190

Identifier etd-ClarkDanaL-11600.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ClarkDanaL-11600

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Clark, Dana Lewis Trucker

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230411-usctheses-batch-1019 (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