In this week’s Discussion you build on your Discussion from last week. You reflect on leadership strategies and components needed to promote successful implementation of an MTSS. You will also analyze various models of MTSS in several states to identify any possible components that may be missing in the model that your state has implemented. Pay attention to any gaps in practice as you analyze various models and evaluate the implementation of an MTSS.
Post a brief overview of your state’s implementation( My State is Florida) of MTSS. Then, explain components of MTSS in two other states that you believe should be implemented in your state. Provide a rationale for your components, explaining the gaps in practice in your current state and school, data supporting that gap, and how you envision these components supporting students in your state, district, and school.
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in the following ways:
Explain similar gaps at your school or within the states that you researched.
Comment on your colleagues’ suggestions for the need for additional research.
Share any experience you may have with any components or state identified by your colleague.
colleague 1: Pendo S Nyanda Main Post: Overview of Texas Implementation of MTSS
Multi-tier system support (MTSS) addresses students’ needs. In Texas, adopted MTSS is currently integrated into schools to support students’ academic and social behavioral needs. The school districts have been implementing positive behavior intervention and support (PBIS) and responses to intervention (RtI) as part of the tiered system under the MTSS. As Brown-Chidsey and Bickford (2016) described, MTSS requires implementing key components to support students’ needs effectively. The structure of implementing the MTSS at the state level includes the following components: data-based decision-making, assessment starting with universal screening, multilevel delivery method of instruction, curriculum, leadership teams, professional development, and progress monitoring. It is important to note that in the U.S.A., states adopted and implemented MTSS’s components differently depending on their context, resources, and organizational structure, for example, Florida and Michigan.
Components in Florida and Michigan States
Uniquely, Florida has a district action planning and problem-solving (DAPPS) process under the leadership component. As described by Kincaid and Batsche (2016), the process includes district personnel to support strategic planning and organizational problem-solving at the school level. DAPPS should be adopted in my school district. This way, the districts, including individual schools, can identify and develop plans to reduce problems MTSS encountered during the implementation, such as barriers and lack of positive outcomes (no learning is occurring).
Also, for Michigan State, MTSS has been implemented under Michigan’s Integrated Behaviour and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi). Russell and Harms (2016) noted that MiBLSi is at the state level to support local school districts implementing MTSS with fidelity to maximize the outcome. MiBLSi consists of team members, including the coaches and consultants, to provide capacity in terms of skills, information, and support to the school MTSS leadership team and teachers. This component could be useful in my school district. A component such as this could support the district in conducting teachers’ self-reflection, training, problem-solving action plans, and implementation with fidelity.
The gaps in practices in the State with supporting data.
Implementing MTSS at the district level is structured based on the STAAR performance and initial screening. According to the state report card for 2022 performance, for 5th grade, only 58% (reading) and 48% (math) performed at meets grade level or above (Texas State Education Agency, n.d.). This data is an example of gaps in practices. For example, the State outlined evidence-based practices (EBPs); however, there is no specific workgroup to conduct identification research on EBPs for use during the RtI/BPIS. Cook et al. (2015) argued that EBPs produce effective and meaningful student outcomes. Likewise, the fidelity process is ineffective and inconsistent. Therefore, these practices demonstrate ineffective implementation of the MTSS, affecting student outcomes.
Support from the new components
Effective implementation of MTSS is grounded on data, fidelity, and EBPs. As Brown-Chidsey and Bickford (2016) described, understanding the students’ data and the use of EBPs for interventions with fidelity yields positive student outcomes. With that, establishing an entity similar to MiBLSi for Michigan and DAPPS for Florida will benefit the school districts of my State. The focus should be on adding this component at the district level, whereby the entity could closely monitor and evaluate the needs of the districts and provide appropriate support. The entity could comprise MTSS coaches, consultants, instructional specialists, and curriculum coordinators (Russell & Harms, 2016). Under the entity, support for the problem-solving process, fidelity implementation, collecting reliable data, and interpretation could be given to the entity’s team. Moreover, the team will provide training on EBPs and continue to evaluate and revise the operation of MTSS depending on the needs. This way, the MTSS has a significant impact, and subsequently, academic, social-emotional, and behavioral students’ needs are addressed.
References
Brown-Chidsey, R. & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
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(1), 49–60.
Kincaid, D., & Batsche, G. (2016). Florida’s multi-tiered support system for academics and behavior. In K. McIntosh, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 287–304). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Russell, C., & Harms, A. (2016). Michigan’s integrated behavior and learning support initiative: A statewide system of support for MTSS. In K. McIntosh, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 305–324). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Texas State Education Agency (n.d.). Texas Performance Reporting System. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tprs/tprs_srch.html
Colleague 2 Emily Stafford: Georgia’s Implementation of MTSS
Georgia’s Tiered MTSS for students is a continuation of the PBIS which began in 1997, and RTI which was established in 2004. Georgia’s Systems of Continuous Improvement which was implemented to provide a tiered system of supports to districts, schools, and students (Georgia Department of Education, 2023). MTSS is required in the state of Georgia after the House Bill 740 was passed in 2018; it is a framework which is considered best practice for teaching and learning and intended to support all students Georgia Department of Education, 2023). When implemented with fidelity, MTSS is meant to close learning gaps, improve student achievement, increase graduation rates, and reduce behaviors. The essential components of Georgia’s MTSS include Screening, Progress Monitoring, Data-Based Decision Making, Multi-Level Prevention System, and Infrastructure to ensure easy personalization for every child through leadership, effective teaming, professional learning, and family and community engagement (Georgia Department of Education, 2023).
Florida and Michigan’s Implementation of MTSS
Florida’s MTSS began as the Florida Positive Behavior Support Project (FLPBS) in 1997 to address behavioral needs, and in less than 10 years, 82% of Florida’s schools were actively implementing FLPBS (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016). In 2006, the state of Florida started the Problem Solving/Response to Intervention (PS/RTI) Project which included extensive data collection to inform and scale-up RTI (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016). In 2010, the tiered MTSS model combining RTI and PBIS began to form at each district’s requested needs for support (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016). The essential components requested by the districts in Florida include integrating RTI and PBIS to reduce duplication of training and practices, increase effective use of personnel with greater support, provide a common language, build leadership skills to support implementation, provide evaluation models to demonstrate student outcomes, promote family and community engagement, align pre-k-12 practices within the model, and use evidence based coaching strategies to support implementation (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016).
Michigan’s MTSS began in 2000 with training and coaching in five schools to develop and implement a model for data-driven problem solving in schools which focused on both behavior and reading (Russell & Harms, 2016). From 2004 to 2013, 521 Michigan schools participated in scaling up this MTSS process with a formal application process and a three year professional development series (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016). The key components are professional development, investing in leadership, coaches and district trainers, continuous improvement through data, and ongoing support for fidelity in implementation (Kincaid & Batsche, 2016).
Differences in Components and Gaps in Research-to-Practice
Most of the key components between these three states are similar, however in the state of Georgia, I have noticed in both the listed components and in personal experience that there is a lack of ongoing coaching and training throughout the implementation of an evidence based practice. Leadership and administration need to identify and meet the needs of teachers who are struggling with implementation. Resources are not always continually available, data-collection is not always consistent, and practices are not being delivered with fidelity without the prioritization of consistency and training.
References
Georgia Department of Education. (2023). Georgia’s tiered system of supports for students. https://www.gadoe.org/wholechild/Pages/TieredSystemofSupports.aspx
Kincaid, D., & Batsche, G. (2016). Florida’s multi-tiered support system for academics and behavior. In K. McIntosh, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 287–304). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Russell, C., & Harms, A. (2016). Michigan’s integrated behavior and learning support initiative: A statewide system of support for MTSS. In K. McIntosh, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 305–324). New York, NY: Guilford Press.