Mythbusters: Debunking Misconceptions around Implementing MTSS and RtI
MnCEE
MPSA 2022
Introductions & Acknowledgements
Emma Murphy
Anne Floyd
Jessie Kember, PhD, LP, NCSP
Our goal for this session
Objectives
Talking points for critical conversations in the field.
Reflect
Pair/Share
Poll
Positionality
Misconception 1
MTSS is not an adequate method for supporting students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities.
Misconception 1 Roadmap
In what ways is this statement true?
MTSS has the potential to meet the needs of all students
Universal Screening
Universal screening allows us to document low achievement and inadequate instructional response
Early challenges with academics can predict future academic struggles
In one study (Juel, 1988), researchers found an 88% probability that children struggling with reading in 1st grade would continue to struggle with reading in 4th grade
Juel, 1988; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Reschly, 2014; Richards et al., 2007; Miciak & Fletcher, 2020
MTSS has the potential to meet the needs of all students
Universal Screening
Universal screening allows us to document low achievement and inadequate instructional response
Early challenges with academics can predict future academic struggles
In one study (Juel, 1988), researchers found an 88% probability that children struggling with reading in 1st grade would continue to struggle with reading in 4th grade
Early Identification and Qualification
RTI has the potential to identify students at risk before they show significant difficulties
RTI may reduce potential bias that is part of the referral process for SLD through screening
PM data help inform service delivery decisions (LRE)
Juel, 1988; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Reschly, 2014; Richards et al., 2007; Miciak & Fletcher, 2020
MTSS has the potential to meet the needs of all students
Service Delivery
PM and formative evaluation (i.e., time-series graphs) are helpful in developing student goals on an IEP, thereby maximizing student outcomes
Tiered system allows students who need more support to receive individualized, more intensive supports
Universal Screening
Universal screening allows us to document low achievement and inadequate instructional response
Early challenges with academics can predict future academic struggles
In one study (Juel, 1988), researchers found an 88% probability that children struggling with reading in 1st grade would continue to struggle with reading in 4th grade
Early Identification and Qualification
RTI has the potential to identify students at risk before they show significant difficulties
RTI may reduce potential bias that is part of the referral process for SLD through screening
PM data help inform service delivery decisions (LRE)
Juel, 1988; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Reschly, 2014; Richards et al., 2007; Miciak & Fletcher, 2020
Do we actually see improved student academic outcomes?
“...when these schools were able to implement coordinated and sustained MTSS practices and systems, their students - including students with, and at risk for, reading disabilities - demonstrated accelerated reading achievement that was evident across grades K-3, and that these gains increased across years of implementation (Coyne et al., 2016; Coyne et al., 2018).”
Leonard et al., 2019
These improvements are not limited to reading
Barrett and Newman, 2018
Next Steps
Identify what you need to adequately document data over time for easy access/decision-making.
Establish (and maintain) universal screening procedures across academic and SEB domains.
Lead efforts in conducting regularly scheduled data review meetings. Include all key stakeholders in this conversation.
Provide training in data literacy and visualization for decision-making.
Misconception 2
MTSS isn’t an effective method for addressing issues of inequity.
Misconception 2 Roadmap
MDE’s Definition of Equity
Educational equity is the condition of justice, fairness and inclusion in our systems of education so that all students have access to the opportunities to learn and develop to their fullest potentials. The pursuit of educational equity recognizes the historical conditions and barriers that have prevented opportunity and success in learning for students based on their races, incomes, and other social conditions. Eliminating those structural and institutional barriers to educational opportunities requires systemic change that allows for distribution of resources, information and other support depending on the student’s situation to ensure an equitable outcome.
In what ways is this statement true?
“Though MTSS may help reduce educational disparities, this is not guaranteed. Without intentional, sustained focus on bolstering Tier 1, the misuse of MTSS, particularly via segregating or labeling students, would compound inequalities.”
Sullivan et al., 2021
Equity-Centered MTSS
Artiles, 2013; Minnesota Department of Education, 2020; Weeks, 2021.
Office of Special Education Programs (2021)
Disaggregated data of students served by IDEA in 2019-2020
Equitable MTSS in Practice
Equitable MTSS in Practice
Sullivan et al., 2021
Lorem 3
Consider adjusting how eligibility decisions are made
Disaggregate data to explore whether groups have differential access to supports despite similar levels of need
Do not delay intensive intervention – provide students with the right type and amount of support based on needs
Lorem 1
Take a look at core curricula and practices
Lorem 2
Use a problem-solving model to formulate potential interventions from an equity perspective (e.g., everyone receives what they require based on individual needs)
Pair interventions with continuous data collection to formatively evaluate student progress and monitor treatment integrity for equitable decision-making
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Is MTSS improving student outcomes?
Swain-Bradway et al., 2019
Wisconsin Department of Education analysis of student reading score growth and levels of out of school suspension rates over a 6 year period of implementing equity-centered MLSS (MTSS)
“MTSS is a framework that provides us with systems and structures to make the most informed and objective decisions we can, but it’s not an algorithm that makes these decisions for us. In settings with equitable MTSS implementation, educators take ownership of the practice and engage in honest reflection and discussion of their decision-making process and whether or not it is working in the best interest of each and every student.”
Dundas, 2021
Next Steps
Evaluate for fidelity: Are checks in place to ensure services are being implemented with fidelity? If not, how can we do so?
Consider the role of community engagement: are we focusing on the needs and wants of diverse voices?
Take stock of current practices: Where are we in the implementation of MTSS? What components of MnMTSS are missing?
Today!
2:45 Session: Jean Duffy & Angela Mansfield: MDE COMPASS/ MnMTSS Overview
Misconception 3
MTSS and RtI are too expensive (financially and otherwise [e.g., staffing, time, resources, etc.]) for schools to implement.
Misconception 3 Roadmap
In what ways is this statement true?
Transitioning to an MTSS and/or RTI framework will require a redistribution of resources. Furthermore, successful change requires support from state agencies and stakeholders.
What are the Effects of MTSS on the Fiscal Value of Instructional and Administrative Time Saved?
Swain-Bradway et al., 2019; Deno, 2016
RtI: increased efficiency of financial resources
| Baseline | RtI (year 1) | ||
| # of Evals | % Qualified | # of Evals | % Qualified |
School 1 | 19.5 | 41% | 7 | 71% |
School 2 | 30 | 70% | 9 | 100% |
School 3 | 12.33 | 43% | 7 | 67% |
School 4 | 10.5 | 53% | 6 | 40% |
VanDerHeyden et al., 2007
“No school psychologist positions were cut during the years of this project and on the contrary, the district hired an additional school psychologist each year to facilitate the school psychologists' evolving role as instructional consultants.”
VanDerHeyden et al., 2007
Existing Federal (Fiscal) Support for RTI
Ensures a “fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.”
Title I
Staff for screening
Tier 2 services for Title I eligible students
Professional Development
Efforts to improve quality of instruction and equitable educational opportunities.
Title II
Professional development
Developing interventions
Data-based decisions and identification
Support students with limited English in meeting rigorous academic standards.
Title III
Funds can be used to support RTI implementation with English Language Learners
Coordination of services for K-12 students not receiving special education services.
CEIS
15% of funds
Use of RTI in students who need support, but are not eligible for special education
Rutgers Center for Effective School Practices (2021); U.S. Department of Education (2009)
Safe and Healthy Students
Title IV
SEL
Universal screening
Intervention support
Feasibility of MTSS Implementation
Turnover in staffing (leadership positions and otherwise)
05
Initiative fatigue
04
Lack of buy in and/or staff resistance
03
Lack of professional development/training
02
Lack of resources (including funding) and capacity (e.g., staffing)
01
SISEPs 4 Key actions for SEAs
Provide guidance
Define MTSS, and it’s critical features
Goodman et al., 2019; https://education.mn.gov/mde/dse/mtss/
“The Minnesota Multi-tiered System of Support (MnMTSS) is a systemic, continuous improvement framework for ensuring positive social, emotional, behavioral, developmental, and academic outcomes for every student. MnMTSS provides access to layered tiers of culturally and linguistically responsive, evidence-based practices and relies on the understanding and belief that every student can learn and thrive. In addition, it engages an anti-bias and socially-just approach to examining policies and practices and ensuring equitable distribution of resources and opportunity.”
SISEPs 4 Key actions for SEAs
MnMTSS District Roadmap
Describes a process for districts evaluate their current levels of implementation, plan for continuous improvement towards optimum operation and monitor systemic fidelity and implementation progress.
MnMTSS Action Planning Guide for District Teams
MnMTSS Action Planning Guide for District Teams
Provide guidance
Define MTSS, and it’s critical features
Standardize Resources and materials
Disseminate tools, training (e.g., PD), materials, and funding
Goodman et al., 2019
1
2
SISEPs 4 Key actions for SEAs
Provide guidance
Define MTSS, and it’s critical features
Standardize Resources and materials
Disseminate tools, training (e.g., PD), materials, and funding
Coordinate and align policies and services
Connect policy with practice
Goodman et al., 2019
“Another definition of advocacy is the everyday practices that promote change in the best interest of the client (i.e., student; Duncan & Fodness, 2008)....School psychologists can be essential to the success of collaborative advocacy in ensuring schools are employing evidence-based best practices that address the needs of all students…” (Oyen et al., 2019)
SISEPs 4 Key actions for SEAs
Provide guidance
Define MTSS, and it’s critical features
Standardize Resources and materials
Disseminate tools, training (e.g., PD), materials, and funding
Coordinate and align policies and services
Connect policy with practice
Invest in local implementation capacity
Develop regional and district-level structures and supports; leverage existing state structures
Goodman et al., 2019
LETRS
Next Steps
Engage in grassroots advocacy for state policy changes in SLD identification, etc. Keep open conversation with MDE, and other state professional organizations.
Reflect on how your school could implement MTSS or increase equitable outcomes within its current MTSS system. Connect and hold conversations with key stakeholders.
Speak with school and/or district leadership re: increased focus on MTSS and equity. Identify existing structures that can support implementation of MTSS.
Share talking points with staff at your school to increase buy-in for MTSS. Work on a school-level to create groups to promote MTSS/equity
What misconceptions have you encountered in your building/setting?
Are you a MSPA member? We are seeking your feedback! Please complete this 5 minute survey for entry into a book give away!
References
Artiles, A. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities: An intersectionality critique across disability models. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 329-347. doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000271
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016–4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Barrett, C. A., & Newman, D. S. (2018, March). Examining MTSS Implementation Across Systems for SLD Identification: A Case Study. In School Psychology Forum (Vol. 12, No. 1).
Deno, S. L. (2016). Data-based decision-making. In Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 9-28). Springer, Boston, MA.
Eagle, 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 and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Goodman, S., Ward, C., & McIntosh, K. (2019). Four key actions for State Education Agency teams to support implementation of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Harn, B. A., Chard, D. J., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2011). Meeting societies’ increased expectations through responsive instruction: The power and potential of systemwide approaches. Preventing School Failure, 55(4), 232– 239.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
References
Leonard, Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A. C., Burns, D., & Gillis, M. B. (2019). Implementing MTSS in Beginning Reading: Tools and Systems to Support Schools and Teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 34(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12192
Miciak, & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The Critical Role of Instructional Response for Identifying Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420906801
MN Department of Education. (2018). Specific Learning Disability (SLD). MN Department of Education. Retrieved from https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=005620&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary
NCLB. (2020). (rep.). Early Detection of Learning Difficulties: From 'Recognizing Risk' to 'Responding Rapidly'. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Early-Detection-of-Learning-Difficulties-1.pdf.
Newman, D. S., Hazel, C. E., Barrett, C. A., Chaudhuri, S. D., & Fetterman, H. (2018). Early-career school psychologists’ perceptions of consultative service delivery: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 28(2), 105-136.
Office of Special Education Programs (2021). OSEP Fast Facts: Race and Ethnicity of Children with Disabilities Served under IDEA Part B. U.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-race-and-ethnicity-of-children-with-disabilities-served-under-idea-part-b/
Oyen, K. A., Eklund, K., & von der Embse, N. (2020). The landscape of advocacy in public schools: The role of school psychologists. Psychological services, 17(S1), 81.
Reschly, D. J. (2014). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 39–58.
References
Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., & R, C. (2007). Response to Intervention: Building the Capacity of Teachers To Serve Students with Learning Difficulties. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 55–64.
Rutgers Center for Effective School Practices (2021). Response to Intervention Research Brief. Rutgers University. Retrieved from https://cesp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/CESP%20Research%20Brief%20-%20Response%20to%20Intervention.pdf.
Sullivan, Miller, F. G., McKevett, N. M., Muldrew, A., Hansen-Burke, A., & Weeks, M. (2020). Leveraging MTSS to Advance, Not Suppress, COVID-Related Equity Issues. Communiqué (National Association of School Psychologists), 49(1), 1–26–29.
Swain-Bradway, J., Gulbrandson, K., Galston, A., & McIntosh, K. (2019). Do Wisconsin Schools Implementing an Integrated Academic and Behavior Support Framework Improve Equity in Academic and School Discipline Outcomes? OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. www.pbis.org.
U.S. Department of Education (2009). Implementing RTI using Title I, Title III and CEIS funds [PowerPoint presentation].
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225-256.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.
Wood, & Hampton, E. (2020). An Initial Investigation of School Principal Perspectives on School Psychologists as Systems-Level Consultants. Contemporary School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00303-y