Systems Consultation and Change in Schools: Integrating Implementation Science into Practice 3031213807, 9783031213809

Table of contents :
Contents
Chapter 1: Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features
Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features
Defining Features of Systems/Organizational Consultation
Systems/Organizational Consultation and Thinking Perspectives: A Long History
Why Is Thoughtful Systems Change/Organizational Consultation Important in Schools Today?
Connection of Systems Change Theory/Organizational Consultation to Implementation Science
Research to Practice Gap
References
Chapter 2: Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings
Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings
An Introduction to Implementation Science
Implementation Science and Systemic Change in Education
Defining the Factors of High-Quality Implementation
Usable Innovations
Implementation Drivers
Implementation Stages
Implementation Teams
Improvement Cycles
Implementation in Practice to Support Systems Change: Lessons from the Field
Usable Innovation
Implementation Teams
Implementation Drivers and Improvement Cycles
Implementation Stages
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change
Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change
Application of Implementation Science
Identifying, Selecting, and Developing School Staff
Key Educator Roles in Systems Change
Teachers
Teacher Leaders/Coaches
Specialized Instructional Support Personnel
School Board Members
Students
Administrators
Teaming to Support Implementation
Case Illustration: Engaging Staff and Stakeholders for Systems Change
References
Chapter 4: Connecting Implementation Science and School-Based Initiatives: Considerations for Practice
Connecting Implementation Science and School-Based Initiatives: Considerations for Practice
School-Based Applications and Case Examples
References
Chapter 5: Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary Discipline
Introduction
Description of the School
Impetus for the Change
Mediation
Teacher-Student Mediation
Purpose of Teacher-Student Mediation
Exploration and Installation
Facilitators
Barriers
Buy-in from Key Stakeholders
Initial Implementation
Introducing Mediation to School Staff
Tier II Implementation and Operation
Teacher-Student Mediation Operation
Full Implementation
Evaluation
Process Data
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Summary
Outcome Data
Teacher Response
Student Response
Summary
Sustainability and Innovation
Challenges to Sustainability
Innovation
Implications for the Field
References
Chapter 6: District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners
Introduction
Demographics of Community
Exploration
Facilitators
Barriers
Needs Assessment
Stakeholders
Program Installation
Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Data-Based Decision Making
Tier 1 Practices
Tier 2 Practices
Tier 3 Practices
Sustainability
Lessons Learned
Implications for the Field
Appendices
Appendix A: Example of ELL Record Review
Appendix B: Example of an MTSS 1 Page Checklist for ELLs
References
Chapter 7: Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based Interventions: Lessons Learned in an Urban High School
Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based Interventions: Lessons Learned in an Urban High School
Social-Emotional Health in Schools
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
Implementation Science for School-Based Social-Emotional Health
Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Model
Case Study
School Context and Demographics
Exploration Phase
Preparation Phase
Implementation Phase
Support Team Training
Screening Implementation
Tier 3 Implementation
Tier 1 Implementation
Family Engagement
Sustainment/Continued Implementation Phase
Continued Screening Implementation
Continued Tier 3 Implementation
Continued Tier 1 Implementation
Continued Family Engagement
Discussion
Successes
Challenges and Future Directions
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix A
Passive Consent Form for Screening
Appendix B
Teacher Script for Classroom Screening
References
Chapter 8: Districtwide Implementation of Universal Design for Learning
Introduction
Context for Change
The Need for Change
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
BCSC’s Implementation and Change Process
Explore (Pre-phase)
Prepare (Phase 1)
Integrate (Phase 2)
Scale (Phase 3)
Ongoing Optimization (Phase 4)
Student Outcomes
Conclusion
References
Chapter 9: District-Based Application: Strategic Planning for Continuous Improvement
The Role of Implementation Science
The Importance of Understanding Change
Strategic Planning Basics
Introductory Statement
Background Statement
Organizational Structure
Foundational Statements
Measurable Outcomes
Evaluation
Executive Summary
Stakeholder Survey and Focus Groups (an Optional Section That May Be Referred to as an Appendix or Stand-Alone as a Section Within the Overall Plan)
Deciding on the What and How Phases of Strategic Planning
Step-by-Step Supports and Resources for Implementing Strategic Planning
Introductory Activity
Purpose Statement Exercise
Core Values/Beliefs Exercise
Vision Statement Exercise
Mission Statement Exercise
Priority Statements Exercise
Survey or Focus Group Feedback Template
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1: Foundational Statements Survey
Appendix 2: Priority Statements Survey
References
Index

Citation preview

Leah M. Nellis Pamela A. Fenning   Editors

Systems Consultation and Change in Schools Integrating Implementation Science into Practice

Systems Consultation and Change in Schools

Leah M. Nellis  •  Pamela A. Fenning Editors

Systems Consultation and Change in Schools Integrating Implementation Science into Practice

Editors Leah M. Nellis Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN, USA

Pamela A. Fenning Loyola University Chicago Chicago, IL, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-21380-9    ISBN 978-3-031-21381-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1

 Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features ������������������    1 Pamela A. Fenning and Leah M. Nellis

2

 Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 Sophia Farmer, Caryn S. Ward, and Dale Cusumano

3

 Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change��   35 Leah M. Nellis, Brandon J. Wood, and Pamela A. Fenning

4

 Connecting Implementation Science and School-Based Initiatives: Considerations for Practice��������������������������������������������������������������������   55 Leah M. Nellis and Pamela A. Fenning

5

 Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary Discipline ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   59 Ondine Gross, Emma Healy, and Kelsie Reed

6

 District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 Laura Swanlund

7

 Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based Interventions: Lessons Learned in an Urban High School��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109 Natalie LaDuke, Ashley M. Mayworm, Wendy Mullen, and Elizabeth H. Connors

8

 Districtwide Implementation of Universal Design for Learning ��������  135 George Van Horn, Rhonda Laswell, Jessica Vogel, and Tina Greene

v

vi

Contents

9

 District-Based Application: Strategic Planning for Continuous Improvement��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  149 Bradley V. Balch

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171

Chapter 1

Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features Pamela A. Fenning and Leah M. Nellis

Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features The purpose of this chapter is to do the following: (1) provide a general overview of the key defining features of systems/organizational consultation, (2) provide a rationale for why a thoughtful approach to systems/organizational consultation is needed in schools for any system change effort to be effective and sustainable, and (3) describe how systems/organizational consultation is aligned with implementation science models (see Chap. 2).

Defining Features of Systems/Organizational Consultation While there is no one definition of systems/organizational consultation, there are commonly accepted features (Dougherty, 2013). For example, the focus of change within systems/organizational consultation is on the entire system rather than on individual students or clients (Dougherty, 2013). Meyers et  al. (2012) described school-based organizational consultation through an ecological approach, drawing upon Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Bronfenbrenner stressed the critical role of systems in children’s development, which include classrooms, schools, families, communities/neighborhoods, and the broader society, which must be considered when attempting to prevent and respond to educational concerns. Meyers et al. (2012) also described the role of Vygotsky’s (1978) notion P. A. Fenning (*) Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. M. Nellis Indiana University Kokomo, Kokomo, IN, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_1

1

2

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

of zone of proximal development, in which individuals learn best when consultants scaffold knowledge that is just beyond what individuals already know. In an ecological approach to organizational consultation, both the individual learner and the larger system in which that learning takes place is important (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Meyers et al., 2012). Some environments are simply more facilitative of learning than others. Meyers et al. also pointed to the influence of process consultation in the approach of systems/organizational consultation in attending to both organizational and individual health in any systems change effort (Schein, 1988, as cited in Meyers et al., 2012). Meyers et  al. (2012) additionally applied the work of prominent theorists (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Lewin, 1951; Schein, 1988; Vgotsky) when describing the work of organizational consultants as determining which factors in a system are likely to either facilitate or inhibit systems change. Meyers et al. also stressed the supportive role of organizational consultants as helping school and district partners gain the necessary skills to identify and address their own system concerns rather than doing this work “for” them. This thinking is similar to defining features of individual consultation models, drawn primarily from the school psychology literature, with teachers as consultees and school psychologists as consultants who come together to solve problems through mutual respect and shared expertise, resulting in the consultee gaining skills that can be applied to solve similar problems likely to happen again (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990; Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996; Newman & Morrison, 2019). Newman and Morris (2019) stated “the ultimate goal of school consultation is to give expertise away to adults who, working in nested systems (e.g., classroom, grade level, school), have an enduring impact on the individual students and the systems that surround and support them” (p. 52–53). As external consultants who have worked with schools and districts across many years, we would concur with Meyers et al. (2012) who stressed that schools are in the best position to understand their own systems, priorities for change, and contexts. Our role as systems/organizational consultants is to work alongside school partners as they gain skills and practice in prioritizing, assessing, and determining how best to respond systemically to educational issues that are important to them and to respond to their needs as well as build on the strengths of their local context. Undoubtedly, educators will face substantial issues throughout their careers that require systems thinking. Systems/organizational consultation offers a framework to focus change efforts on systems through the service delivery model of consultation (Meyers et al., 2012). Focusing change efforts on the systems rather than individual children often requires a new way of thinking in many schools. Systems/ organizational consultants engage in consultation service delivery with school personnel. Systems consultants support school personnel in acquiring systems skills to not only solve current systemic problems but subsequent ones they will encounter in the future (Meyers et al., 2012). Systems/organizational consultants do “with” and not “for” school partners by equipping them with skills in problem solving at the systemwide level. Like other consultation models, systems/organizational consultation follows stages, but they are not linear in practice (Meyers et  al., 2012). Broadly speaking s­ystems/

1  Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

3

organizational consultants guide school partners through the following stages when working through a systems-identified issue: (1) entry, (2) problem definition, (3) conducting a needs assessment, (4) intervention efforts, and (5) evaluation (Meyers et al., 2012). With respect to the early stages of entering a system, we have found that as systems/organizational consultants, we cannot enter a system we are not familiar with and propose ideas for change without working with school partners to understand the nuances of the local context and structure. To facilitate this understanding, ecologically based organizational consultation can be a useful and systematic model to follow in uncovering critical aspects of systems that are potential targets of interventions (Sullivan et al., 2015). Later in this chapter, we describe how implementation science (Fixsen et  al., 2005) can be used as a framework for systems/ organizational consultants to follow as they support schools in large-scale systemic reform efforts. A strength of consultants applying systems/organizational consultation (often called simply and interchangeably with organizational consultation) is that it moves thinking beyond looking to individuals. This systems approach holds promise when working with minoritized students and others with oppressed identities as there is often an unjust application of an individual deficit perspective when engaged in problem-solving (Reed et al., 2020; Valencia, 2010). Rather, the root cause of large educational and society inequities is linked with biased structures and systems that have maintained the status quo and contributed to the systemic and structural harm of students who hold oppressed identities (Sullivan et al., 2015). Systems/organizational consultation frameworks and the work of consultants taking this perspective serve well the large-scale systems problems that drive inequities and move the field beyond a focus on individual students that often results in them being blamed for the bias they are experiencing. As an example of shifting from individual to systemic views of structural and systemic inequities with minoritized populations, Sullivan et al. (2015) proposed an ecologically based organizational consultation approach to mitigating long-standing racial disproportionality in special education. They argued that such an approach moves the thinking and approach away from an internalized student-deficit view of minoritized students to one that is focused on the larger institutions and structures that maintain many forms of racial disproportionality and inequities beyond special education (i.e., discipline, graduation rates). Grapin (2017) described how organizational consultation could be applied at the university level by school psychology graduate faculty in creating more social justice-oriented training programs as another example drawn from higher education. As a third large-scale systems reform example, Meyers et al. (2015) illustrated how an ecologically driven organizational consultation was applied to the implementation of a schoolwide (universal; tier 1) curriculum with embedded social emotional learning (SEL) standards across multiple school districts in a rural county that was quite geographically spread out with a dearth of mental health services and providers. Children and families in the serving children and families were experiencing various forms of trauma and mental health concern. There were multiple collaborators including school-based personnel who implemented the SEL

4

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

program, along with university and school-based mental health professionals and an administrator, who served in the role of consultant. Additional examples of large-scale systems reform efforts that are commonly implemented across the country on school- and districtwide levels are positive behavior supports and multi-tiered systems of supports (MTSS) (Erchul & Young, 2014). Embedded within MTSS efforts are social-emotional screenings and using these findings to structure mental health supports across a continuum (Kilgus et al., 2013). Systems/organizational consultation has been enacted to support the implementation of district-level accountability systems aligned with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (ESSA, 2015).

 ystems/Organizational Consultation and Thinking S Perspectives: A Long History It is important to note that systems thinking has influenced the work of consultants whose work centers on the system as the unit of focus for decades. School-based consultants have long considered features of organizations that either promote or inhibit systems change. One can go back as far as the 1940s to Lewis’ description of systems as having either “restraining” or “driving” forces to change (Lewin, 1943, as cited in Gallessich, 1973; Lewin, 1951, as cited in Meyers et al., 2012). The role of the organizational consultants, therefore, is to understand and change these forces (Gallessich, 1973). In early writing about organizational consultation, Gallesich pointed to external and internal forces that school consultants should be aware of. Some examples of external forces are stability in district-level leadership (i.e., change in superintendent), how the principal is perceived, state and national legislation, family, and community organizations (Gallessich, 1973). Internal forces are things like communication norms, leadership structure, role clarity, as well as the implicit and unwritten school norms (Gallessich, 1973). It is fascinating to see that school organizational systems-level factors described as critical to guiding systems work decades ago remain relevant in today’s schools. More contemporary systems/organizational change thinking has influenced organizational consultation. Senge et al. (2012) described the importance of school districts understanding the history of how their system has evolved over time by analyzing key events that have happened (i.e., administrative transition, changing school demographics, funding cuts) and particularly how these events have influenced and interacted with one another – which may limit or exacerbate their impact. He encourages teams engaged in systems thinking and reform efforts to depict these interconnected factors as a “causal loop” (Senge, p.  130). Senge et  al. (2012) encourages those of us interested in wanting to engage in systems reform efforts to analyze the most important systemic factors in our schools that will lead to viable solutions. Similar to other systems/organizational change theorists described earlier (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), Senge et  al. (2012) pointed to the important role that

1  Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

5

individuals within systems play (i.e., principals, teachers, school boards) in impacting the systems they work in. Senge noted “systems often take their shape from the values, attitudes, and beliefs of the people in them” (p. 131). Senge defined these individual influences as “ mental models, our theories about the way the world works” (p. 131). The focus of Chap. 3 is on the individual roles that are critical to making or breaking a systems change effort, such as building and district administrators, teachers, lead teachers/coaches, community partners, school board members, and specialized instructional support staff (i.e., school psychologists, school counselors, and school social workers). Systems/organizational consultants play an important role in working with individuals in these roles who collaborate together to understand their systems and how they have evolved over time (Senge et  al., 2012). Specifically, systems/organizational consultants can help identify key systemic occurrences that have had the greatest impact on the system over time and how individuals in whatever role they have occupied have contributed to what is the most pertinent to the systems change issue that is being attended to (Senge et al., 2012). Systems/organizational theorists and experts pointed to the need for dissecting the system in this way before any efforts to change the system will be successful (Senge et al., 2012). Systems/organizational consultants can be key to supporting school partners in unpacking these systems issues and concerns so they can be addressed.

 hy Is Thoughtful Systems Change/Organizational W Consultation Important in Schools Today? Educators and administrators are bombarded almost daily with calls for systems reform, some externally mandated and driven, with others coming from within schools and districts. All seem to have a common purpose of addressing a systemwide educational issue that requires doing things in a different way. Perhaps the only real constant in education today is the ever-changing educational context and the continued demands on educators and administrators for implementing new initiatives. These calls for change, while perhaps well-intentioned and with significant hope and potential to better serve children and families, can also be overwhelming and stressful for today’s educators. Constant calls for reform, if disjointed and not viewed systemically, can result in frustration and wasted time. Bryk et al. (2017) in their educational systems work drawn from improvement science described the complexity of schools, teaching, and learning. They argued that it is important for schools “wanting to change” to take the time to do deep work in defining and analyzing the issue that is being targeted for change. They caution all of us engaged in systems work to look carefully at the local context and system in which any systems change effort is being proposed to understand what may be working as well as not working (Bryk et al). As noted by Bryk, “While we are wired to see evidence of success, we actually learn more by studying our failures” (p. 178). As part of their

6

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

six principles for improvement, Bryk et al. argued that we need to look at differing outcomes to get a handle on “what works for whom, and under what set of conditions” (p.  172). In their work, Bryk et  al. have formed networked communities (NC), which are a group of individuals with clearly defined expectations for working together in deep systems analysis work. Organizational consultants, who are focused on analyzing and considering the complexities of the systems in which interventions are developed, implemented, and evaluated, can play a key role in enacting the recommendations of systems change experts who encourage us to gain a deep and explicit understanding of the problem and the systems that will either support or inhibit implementation (Bryk et al., 2017; Meyers et al., 2012). We often look to systems-level and large-scale interventions to solve “wicked problems,” which are complex social problems with no immediate solution, requiring continual re-examination over time (Bentley & Toth, 2020; Rittel & Webber, 1973). It seems that many enduring educational concerns, particularly issues related to equity that have largely remained unchanged despite attempts to address them, are wicked problems that require a thoughtful systemic approach that is aligned with organizational consultation perspectives (Sullivan et al., 2015). Systems/organizational consultation is an approach by which educators, administrators, as well as internal and external consultants and partners can approach systems change together in a holistic manner through sustained attention, and with continuous data collection and analysis to evaluate, modify, and, as necessary, tweak innovative efforts through an iterative and ongoing feedback cycle (Senge et  al., 2012). As systems/organizational consultation teaches us, we need to be nimble in the process of systems change, making room for adaptations, retooling, and adjustments that will be part of the longevity of this work. Systems change work is difficult, complex, and ever-­ evolving, and we need to make space for what we do not know as new information comes to light which requires our attention. A systems/organizational consultation approach is increasingly important because educators, whether in the role of classroom teacher, building/district administrator, school-based mental health service provider, or consultant, are increasingly being tasked with considering systems and how they operate to effect change, yet may not have the training and background to engage in a deep analysis of systems (Bryk et al., 2017; Senge et al., 2012). However, often school personnel charged with designing, implementing, and evaluating systems change efforts frequently have limited training in how to go about it in their own professional preparation and experience. For example, we can think of teachers who focus on their content area and classroom instruction, yet are often charged with enacting systems reform components without having formal training and background in systems change. Therefore, if systems change efforts are not implemented systematically, then these efforts can lead to stress and burnout, inefficient use of resources, and loss of precious staff and administrative time. However, when systems change is implemented in a planful manner by a group with a shared unified purpose, by prioritizing common goals to address a key concern and learning from implementation, then systems change has enormous potential to address the most enduring educational challenges (Bryk et al., 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2015). As noted by Fullan and Quinn:

1  Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

7

What we need is consistency of purpose, policy, and practice. Structure and strategy are not enough. The solution requires the individual and collective ability to build shared meaning, capacity, and commitment to action. When large numbers of people have a deeply understood sense of what needs to be done—and see their part in achieving that purpose—coherence emerges and powerful things happen. (Fullan & Quinn, 2015, p. 1)

Decades ago, Seymor Sarason described the failure of most school systems reform efforts in his groundbreaking books The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Sarason, 1982) and Revisiting The Culture of the School and The Problem of Change written a decade and one half after that (Sarason, 1996). He cogently argued in both books that schools are the social institutions most often on the receiving end of externally driven change efforts, frequently driven by federal mandates, but with little positive educational outcomes to show for it. His words are certainly foretelling for today’s times as we can see the multiple externally driven demands that are driving education all at once, often with competing priorities. For example, school districts must respond to local school board policies, the broader community they serve, local and state politics, and state and federal legislation. Given that calls for school systems reform are often externally driven, schools suffer from having permeable boundaries to outside influences, unlike other systems, like private businesses that are more in a position to close their boundaries to outside influences compared with schools, particularly those that are publicly funded by tax dollars (Sarason, 1982). Sarason described these array of outside sources, leaving schools in a continuous state of reform and calls for change. Frequently, systems reform efforts are driven by persons without a background in education and not internally driven by Persians with deeper knowledge of the individual school culture and systemic factors and nuances (Meyers et al., 2012; Sarason, 1996; Senge et al., 2012). While Sarason offered a deep and comprehensive analysis of multiple factors driving change, he described the unique culture of schools as a key factor (Sarason, 2016). In order to understand systems change and why it may or may not work, Sarason described the importance of an ecological perspective and understanding how individuals take on the role they have been ascribed – be it a teacher, principal, or school support personnel (i.e., school psychologists, school social workers, etc.). For example, Sarason argued that principals have less individual autonomy than others in the school may think, such as teachers, due to external competing demands, which include school boards, communities, and persons not employed by the school, like consultants and universities (Sarason, 1982, 1996). Still, he argued that there is some individual autonomy, but this must be considered in light of role constraints. In Chap. 3, school personnel roles critical to systems change will be described in more detail. One can see how schools cannot simply implement the range of changes they are compelled to enact with continual demands for it from multiple sources. It is understandable that systems change efforts may be viewed with suspicion by schools because they may be suggested without a clear understanding of the local contextual realities nor the necessary personnel with the training and time to implement the efforts well. It is important for systems/organizational consultants to understand these nuances when approaching schools to engage in systems change efforts.

8

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

 onnection of Systems Change Theory/Organizational C Consultation to Implementation Science Regardless of whether systems change is internally initiated by the school or district, or driven from entities outside of the school, such as federal legislative mandates and reform, taking a systems thinking approach to the effort is essential. The APA Division 16 Working Group on Translating Science to Practice recommends applying implementation science as a framework to promote implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools (Foreman et  al., (2013). Cook and Odom (2013) described EBPs as “practices and programs shown by high-quality research to have meaningful effects on student outcomes” (p. 136). Implementation science is well-aligned with systems/organizational consultation and can offer a road map for consultants to lead school teams in effectively implementing and sustaining EBPs in a wide range of educational settings (Fixsen et al., 2005). Implementation science will be the focus of Chap. 2, so it will not be described in detail here. Implementation science is a natural framework for systems/organizational consultants to follow, as it shares many commonalities with systems/organizational consultation. Both take a stage approach, focus on the capacity and skills of educators who actually implement the intervention, as well as make use of data to plan, deliver, monitor, and evaluate interventions (Farmer et al., Chap. 2, this volume; Fixsen et al., 2005; Meyers et al., 2012). Both models emphasize understanding and analyzing the system before any practices begin (Fixsen et al., 2005; Meyers et al., 2012). Systems consultation and implementation science are both stage-based models that follow a roughly similar progression with slightly different names for each stage (Fixsen et al., 2005; Meyers et al., 2012). At the same time, the stages do not always emerge in such a predictable progression (Fixsen et al., 2005; Meyers et  al., 2012). Entry is the first stage of most systems/organizational consultation models (Meyers et al., 2012), while exploration/installation is the earlier stage of implementation science. Under the entry stage of systems/organizational consultation, the focus is on consultants gaining an understanding of the school context and ensuring that support for consultation is present at the highest administrative levels, which may take the form of a formal contract (Meyers et al., 2012). In a similar vein, the early stages of implementation science have a similar exploratory focus. Through an implementation science approach, a team considers whether a proposed innovation is a sound approach to consider in addressing a concern (exploration), along with an analysis of whether there are resources and structures either in place or could be identified to support the work, such as human capital/resources, quality professional development, data structures, etc. (installation) (Fixsen et  al., 2005; Farmer et.. al, Chap. 2, this volume).Following the “entry phase,” organizational consultants work with school partners to define the problem of concern (problem definition) and to conduct a needs assessment in which data are gathered through multiple means to gain the perspectives and input of key stakeholders who will either implement and/or be impacted by the systems change effort. Systems/organizational consultation and implementation science also have overlap at later stages in

1  Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

9

which systems change practices are actually implemented in some capacity. According to systems/organizational consultation, following data analysis, the consultant and school team collaboratively begin implementing an intervention, all the while considering systemic ecological variables (Meyers et al., 2012). The intervention proceeds in an iterative manner, in which alterations are made on an ongoing basis (Meyers et  al., 2012). Parallel stages in implementation science are initial implementation and full implementation (Fixsen et al., 2005, Chap. 2, this volume). In initial implementation, teams begin to implement practices and keep a careful watch on data so that changes can be made as necessary, while in full implementation, practices are fully in place and institutionalized (Fixsen et al., 2005; Chap. 2, this volume).

Research to Practice Gap There has been a great deal of focus on what is called the research to practice gap, which has been broadly defined as the weak application of evidence-based practices (EBPs often used interchangeably with EBIs) in real-world settings, despite scientific evidence supporting their use (Forman et al., 2013; Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019a; b; Stirman & Beidas, 2020). A related construct is treatment integrity, which is the degree to which interventions are implemented as intended at full fidelity (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Despite calls for published studies of EBPs to report treatment integrity data, it is not commonly done, even in prominent top-tier journals (Sanetti et al., 2011). More recent work focused on the use of implementation science in supporting the implementation of EBPs has centered on what is described as an “implementation gap” (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019a, b, p. 33). The implementation gap refers to the disconnect between EBPs that have proven scientific efficacy and the kinds of interventions that are carried out in schools (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019a; b). Forman (2019), in her commentary within a special series centered entirely on implementation science (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019a, b), stressed the importance of not only looking to factors internal to the school or district when an innovation is not working but also the possibility that the intervention itself should be changed to align with the setting it is being delivered in or the people it is intended to help. She stated ... issues of contextual and cultural adaptation need to be considered. When fidelity is low, the cause may be inadequate training or technical assistance, or organizational or individual implementer characteristics that are impeding implementation. Thus, when this perspective prevails, the cause of low fidelity is seen as residing within the individual implementer, the implementation setting, and/or use of faulty implementation strategies. Alternatively, it may be that the new program or practice needs to be adapted to better fit with the implementing organization and individual clients. (Forman, 2019, p. 64)

We concur with the recommendations of Forman (2019). Organizational consultants must engage in a delicate balancing act in supporting teams with implementation of EBPs as they were carried out in controlled scientific studies while also

10

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

understanding the nuances and needs of the communities they serve, which may call for adaptations that will better serve them. A key concern with the state of EBPs is their lack of documented efficacy with minoritized populations (Kataoka et  al., 2010). There is much more we need to learn and draw from in both the science and application of it in schools and districts across the country which are serving increased numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. School-aged children represent the most diversity in the USA, with the majority identifying as students of color (Wells, 2020). Given the relatively limited number of EBPs with substantiated efficacy compared with those that have documented effects with White majority students, there is much to learn about what interventions work best and how they may need to be adapted with minoritized populations. The next chapter authored by Farmer, Ward, and Cusumano provided a comprehensive overview of implementation science. We contend that implementation science is an important framework that can be adapted broadly based on local context and the particular and nuanced needs of the students, families, and communities we serve.

References Bentley, J., & Toth, M. (2020). Exploring wicked problems: What they are and why they are important. Archway Publishing (Simon and Schuster). Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. NY: Plenum. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human develop-ment. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2017). Learning to improve. How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. Cook, B.  G., & Odom, S.  L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144. Dougherty, A.  M. (2013). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school settings (6th ed.). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. ISBN 13: 978-1-285-09856-2. Erchul, W. P., & Young, H. L. (2014). Best practices in school consultation. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 449–460). Author. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Forman, S.  G. (2019). Implementation science and school psychology: Future needs for research and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 76(2), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsp.2019.07.018 Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield, S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000019 Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts and systems. Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council. Corwin. Gallessich, J. (1973). Organizational factors influencing consultation in schools. Journal of School Psychology, 11(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(73)90011-3.

1  Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

11

Grapin, S. L. (2017). Social justice training in school psychology: Applying principles of organizational consultation to facilitate change in graduate programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 173–202. Kataoka, S., Novins, D. K., & DeCarlo, S. C. (2010). The practice of evidence-based treatments in ethnic minority youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North American., 19(4), 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2010.07.008 Kilgus, S. P., Chafouleas, S. M., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2013). Development and initial validation of the social and academic behavior risk screener for elementary grades. School Psychology Quarterly., 28(3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000024 Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of National Research Council, 108, 33–65. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. Harper & Row. Meyers, A.  B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E.  C., Proctor, S.  L., & Huddleson, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(12), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10474412.2011.649649 Meyers, A. B., Tobin, R. M., Huber, B. J., Conway, D. E., & Shelvin, K. H. (2015). Interdisciplinary Collaboration Supporting Social-Emotional Learning in Rural School Systems. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10474412.2014.929956 Newman, D. S., & Morrison, J. Q. (2019). Giving expertise away through school consultation. A framework for school psychology. In M. K. Burns (Ed.), Introduction to school psychology: Controversies and current practice. Oxford University Press. Reed, K. N., Fenning, P., Johnson, M., & Mayworm, A. (2020). Promoting statewide discipline reform through professional development with administrators. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1045988X.2020.171667 Rittel, H.  W. J., & Webber, M.  M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. Guildford. Sanetti, L. M., & Collier-Meek. (2019a) (Eds). [Special Series]. Advancing implementation science in school psychology research. Journal of School Psychology. 76. Sanetti, L. M., & Collier-Meek, M. (2019b). Increasing implementation science literacy to address the research-to-practice gap in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology., 76, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.008 Sanetti, L. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 445–459. Sanetti, L. M., Gritter, K. L., & Dobby, L. M. (2011). Treatment integrity of interventions with children in the school psychology literature from 1995-2008. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087729 Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change”. Teacher College Press. ISBN 0-8077-3544-2. Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. Crown Business. Stirman, S. W., & Beidas, R. S. (2020). Expanding the reach of psychological science through implementation science: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 75(8), 1033–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000774

12

P. A. Fenning and L. M. Nellis

Sullivan, A.  L., Artiles, A.  J., & Hernandez-Sarca, D.  I. (2015). Addressing Special Education Inequity Through Systemic Change: Contributions of Ecologically Based Organizational Consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929969 Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wells, A. S. (2020). Racial, ethnic and cultural diversity across K-12 and higher education sectors: Challenges and opportunities for cross-sector learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52(2), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732787

Chapter 2

Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings Sophia Farmer, Caryn S. Ward, and Dale Cusumano

I mplementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings The goal of educational systems is to create environments in which student learning is paramount. Teaching that moves indicators of student success in desired directions hinges on teachers using effective or evidence-based practices (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Madon et  al., 2007). Unfortunately, various efforts have often been insufficient in making this a reality (Byrk et al., 2015; Dew & Boydell, 2017). There have been many attempts at systems change and reform in education to improve the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Examples of these have included overhauling teacher evaluation systems (Kraft & Gilmour, 2017; McGuinn, 2012), investment in professional learning for staff (Ning et al., 2015), and creation of instructional coach roles (Gomez, 2016). Each of these efforts have had limited impact and demonstrated little improvement in student, staff, and community outcomes. Plaguing many of these efforts were implementation issues such as failing to enact the system as a whole and, in particular, the intersection within systems where implementation was occurring; lack of attention to the local context; insufficient use of the practices as intended or with fidelity; insufficient resources for sustainability; and lack of evidence for practices in use. Despite years of research and billions of dollars devoted to the development of EBPs, education and many health and human services fields struggle with a “science to practice gap” (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019). Students can only benefit

S. Farmer (*) · C. S. Ward University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. Cusumano Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, NC, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_2

13

14

S. Farmer et al.

from those services and practices that they experience and receive (Albers et al., 2020; Fixsen et al., 2020). The field of implementation science has emerged as a discipline over the past 20 years to address the issues that relate to accomplishing durable systemic change and bridging the research-practice gap in health and human services including education. Eccles and Mittman (2006) defined implementation science as the “scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into a routine, and hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of services and care.” Specifically, implementation science provides frameworks, strategies, and measures to guide the creation of conditions and activities that promote the use of EBPs within enabling contexts. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to describe how educators can use implementation science theories, practices, and tools as a framework for systemic change focused broadly on education settings.

An Introduction to Implementation Science Implementation science has emerged as a transdisciplinary line of research that includes systems change, communications, organizational theory, team science, and adult learning and is aimed at supporting the use of evidence by individuals and organizations such as districts and schools (Albers et al., 2020). The early years of implementation science as a field produced 25 various implementation frameworks for practitioners to make use of to support the adoption, implementation, and dissemination of EBPs. A research synthesis by Meyers et al. (2012) revealed commonalities across the implementation frameworks. These commonalities include the following: • Assessing and creating readiness among individuals and organizations engaged in the implementation process • Conducting a needs and assets assessment prior to purposeful selection of an EBP • Engaging stakeholders (internal and external) meaningfully throughout the implementation process • Cultivating leaders to be champions of implementation efforts • Developing local staff capacity and competency to deliver the EBP • Constructing an infrastructure to support implementation (e.g., training, coaching, data systems) • Using a stage-based approach to guide capacity and infrastructure development • Monitoring and using iterative data cycles inclusive of bidirectional feedback loops Most recently, the field of implementation science has been focused on the identification and investigation of implementation strategies that conceptualize the activities needed for implementation (Proctor et al., 2013; Powell et al., 2015) and mechanisms through which these activities generate outcomes (Lewis et al., 2018; Parolini et  al., 2017). The goal of this most recent work in the field is to help

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

15

practitioners such as educators and leaders understand which implementation strategies to choose for different purposes and contexts as well as when to use the strategy in the implementation process (Powell et al., 2019). With a greater specification of implementation activities and understanding of how to tailor them for different contexts, the field of implementation science also provides guidance on key issues related to systemic change such as de-implementation, the process for intentionally abandoning the use of practices without proven results (Hasson et al., 2018); adaptation, the process of altering design or delivery of an EBP (Stirman et al., 2013, 2019); sustainment, the use of the practice maintained over time (Chambers et al., 2013); and scaling, the process of expanding the use and impact of the EBP (Milat et al., 2013).

Implementation Science and Systemic Change in Education As a field, implementation science frameworks and strategies have recognized that systems, such as education systems, are complex, often unpredictable, and must be responsive to changes needed to support effective use of practices. Specifically, implementation requires changes at the individual, organizational, and systems levels (Flaspohler et al., 2008). At the systems level, practitioners need new structures, roles, and functions as well as alignment of policy and practice to sustain and improve outcomes over time (Fixsen et al., 2020). Schools are one part of a larger complex education system consisting of nesting and intersecting organizations in support of successful education for students in partnership with families, local school boards, and the broader community. For example, schools are nested within a District or Local Education Agency, which is often a part of a regional or county system in the state and part of the state education system. Each level of the system intersects and collaborates in different ways with essential partners from mental health agencies and organizations, family support organizations, faith-based services, and other youth serving organizations. Each of these education organizations in the system has a specific role with responsibilities and functions in support of educators in their use of effective or evidence-based practices. For example, the State Education Agency sets standards and policy and provides guidance and resources to enact those policies. States, in collaboration with regional and county offices, support districts and schools to effectively execute policy and achieve set standards. Districts allocate resources and set processes and procedures aligned to state requirements as parameters in which schools work. Districts also facilitate the effective use of practices in schools by ensuring high-quality implementation supports such as effective leadership, strong community partnerships and training, coaching, and data systems are accessible. Such supports are more effective and produce greater outcomes when they are co-designed by teams at both the district and school levels. Using the allocated resources, structured guidance, and implementation supports, schools are responsible for the instructional design and delivery of practices or programs matched to student need as well as engagement

16

S. Farmer et al.

with community stakeholders (Ward et al., 2020). For the successful implementation of effective practices at the school level, alignment and coherence are needed within the education system and among its agencies (classroom to state level). It is paramount for schools in collaboration with district leadership to align initiatives and leverage existing resources to accomplish school improvement goals (Coburn, et al., 2016; McIntosh et al., 2013). Commonly used in education to address systemic change is the Active Implementation Frameworks (AIFs). The AIFs synthesize and integrate the many common tenets and themes across implementation science theories and research (Fixsen et al., 2013). To operationalize the three factors from theory to action, the AIF provides relevant strategies, methods, and tools for educators to use for systemic change.

Defining the Factors of High-Quality Implementation The research from implementation science specifies three critical factors necessary for achieving socially significant impact: Effective Practices × Effective Implementation × Enabling Context = Socially Significant Outcomes (see Fig. 2.1 Fixsen et al., 2015). Positioning the three critical factors as a multiplication equation aids school leaders and educators in understanding the importance of the relationship of the core components of implementation science. Multiplicative reasoning is an understanding that multiplying is iterative or the process of making multiple copies. This understanding illustrates that while having practices (i.e., the first factor) with a rigorous research basis is an important start, it is not enough if “multiple copies” or consistent replications of the practice multiple times in multiple settings or contexts cannot be created. In other words, should either of the factors of effective implementation (i.e., activities over time) or enabling contexts (i.e., hospitable environments in different contexts) be zero, the product or outcome is zero. Moving beyond small pockets of excellence, practices must be implemented effectively over time to Active Implementation Formula Effective Practice

Effective Implementation

Improved Outcomes Fig. 2.1  Active implementation formula

Enabling Contexts

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

17

reach the diversity of students, and families needed to dismantle inequities in the achievement of socially significant outcomes. Examining the equation through the lens of schooling provides the following example. Schools assess their needs through detailed data analysis and understanding the concerns and perceptions of students, families, and the communities in which they live and learn. Evidence-based programs and practices are matched to those needs as well as their goals for equitable systems reform (effective practice) and prioritized for use with an understanding of the potential changes that could result from high-quality implementation of these initiatives. Processes for training, coaching, use of data, communication, and leadership are co-created with district and external stakeholder support and leveraged to support educators to implement in a deliberate and adaptive stage-based approach (effective implementation). Finally, a hospitable environment with supportive policies and a culture of equitable, continuous improvement is needed to ensure educators and effective practices thrive and sustain (enabling context). The AIFs have been revised and refined by practice-based evidence from application within numerous health and human service fields, including K-12 education (Fixsen et al., 2013). The AIFs serve as the essential ingredients to full and effective use of initiatives for successful outcomes and include (1) innovations that are usable by virtue of being teachable, learnable, doable, and assessable in practice; (2) drivers or mechanisms that address the development of competencies and proactive systems practices that support use of innovations with fidelity; (3) a stage-based approach to change; (4) linked implementation teams; and (5) using iterative cycles of learning to improve systemic change. Schools efficacious in their reform efforts, achieving just and equitable outcomes, attend to each framework as a systematic way of work.

Usable Innovations Driven by federal laws and school reform initiatives, there is increasing demand for programs with strong evidence of effectiveness. After all, evidence-based practices, when used as intended, have predictable outcomes that result in positive outcomes for students. However, it is not enough that initiatives have rigorous evidence; they must also be “usable” in practice to affect outcomes (Naleppa & Cagle, 2010). Unfortunately, many are poorly operationalized, making them difficult to transfer through training and coaching. Crosse et al. (2011) cited evidence demonstrating that practitioners use only 3.5% of EBPs with any level of fidelity over time. Not only does this result in a waste of teachers’ and students’ time, but it also perpetuates the cycle of failure. The Usable Innovation AIF outlines specific processes, methods, and tools for selecting practices or programs and ensuring they are “teachable, learnable, doable, and assessable” (Fixsen et al., 2013; Flay et al., 2005). When selecting an evidence-­ based practice (EBP), the Usable Innovation framework guides organizations

18

S. Farmer et al.

through the use of tools such as the Hexagon Tool (Metz & Louison, 2018) in considering the match of EBPs to the needs of the focus population; evidence of effectiveness; available supports (e.g., training, coaching, data systems); capacity of implementing site (e.g., staffing, fiscal supports); fit with philosophy, values and existing initiatives in use at the implementing site; and usability (e.g., availability of a fidelity measure, successful replication, and level of specification). A good selection process is the first step. To fully realize the intended benefits of the EBP, it must be usable. For an innovation to be usable, state, district, and school leaders should work with teacher leaders and other stakeholders with diverse perspectives (i.e., IHEs, program purveyors) with expertise in the focus area of the selected initiative to collaboratively develop (a) a clear description of underlying philosophy, principles, theory of change, and intended beneficiaries; (b) working definitions of the essential components or active ingredients paired with the specific teacher behaviors needed to achieve intended outcomes; and (c) a measure of its use as intended (i.e., fidelity). An explicit process to ensure that practices are usable and include each component outlined above is delineated in such tools as innovation configurations (Hall & Hord, 2006) or practice profiles (Metz, 2016; Van Dyke, 2015). Using these tools as anchor documents, teams are better positioned to develop effective professional learning plans, coaching strategies, fidelity assessments, and efficient school procedures and processes that eliminate barriers to implementation caused by scheduling, limited planning time, resource allocation, and communications to enable the use of the practice as intended (Metz, 2016). Once implementers consistently put these structures in place, they are likely to sustain and scale the EBP with fidelity.

Implementation Drivers Implementation drivers create the conditions and infrastructure that support practices as they are adopted, used, and sustained with fidelity (see Fig.  2.2, Implementation Drivers). Implementation infrastructure is defined here as the mechanisms that support competent use of practices and the organizational and systems changes necessary to remove any barriers and facilitate the work of schools to use practices as intended (Metz & Bartley, 2012). Based on the commonalities between successfully implemented practices, two categories of implementation drivers, competency and organizational, emerged (Fixsen et al., 2005). Competency drivers develop, improve, and sustain the use of EBPs as intended. Competency drivers include intentional selection of individuals with required skills, abilities, and other prerequisite characteristics who will use the practices fully and effectively. The outcome of this selection process is to select staffing at the school level that embody both the technical skills necessary of the required initiatives as well as those tough to teach traits that make schools successful, such as openness to change and the ability to give and receive feedback (Ward et al., 2018). Assessing

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

19

Positive Outcomes Consistent Use of Innovations Fidelity Systems Intervention

Dr iv er en cy

pe t

iv

Dr

Decision Support Data System

s

er

Integrated & Compensatory

n tio

Co m

Facilitative Administration

za ni

Selection

ga

Training

Or

s

Coaching

Leadership Fig. 2.2  Implementation drivers

these traits often requires a deviation from traditional interview structures to the inclusion of scenarios and role plays with the specific interviewer “look-fors.” Once practitioners are selected, investments need to be made in mentoring for new teachers and ongoing training and leadership opportunities as teachers grow in experience (Darling-Hammond, 2003). The work of mentoring, training, and cultivating leadership is developed within implementation teams and anchored to what the district and schools have defined as their usable innovations. The competency driver outlines the criteria for professional learning inclusive of training to ensure individuals have the knowledge and skills to use practices with fidelity and on-the-­ job coaching that provide the ongoing support for use of EBPs. Effective schools capitalize on the skills and capacity of teacher leaders to become school and district trainers and sometimes peer-to-peer coaches. As with effective classroom lessons, training should not rely primarily on lectured content but provide multiple opportunities for teachers and other educators to engage with the learning and to practice the needed skills with feedback. Paired with training is job-embedded coaching essential to high-fidelity implementation of practices and programs. Coaching allows practitioners to observe that which gets in the way of implementing as intended and overcome those barriers through practicing the needed skills and abilities in context and building fluency (Fixsen et al., 2020). Collectively, the competency drivers ensure development and improvement of staff confidence and competence to effectively use the effective practices. Organizational drivers, on the other hand, develop and improve processes and systems practices that facilitate and support individuals using EBPs. In short, organizational drivers (i.e., decision support data system, facilitative administration, and systems intervention) include roles and structures whose goals are to develop, support, and sustain an environment that is conducive or “hospitable” to adopting the new EBP. For example, a Decision Support Data System will capture data at the

20

S. Farmer et al.

individual, group, and systems levels to describe the health and well-being of practices and processes in place to support implementation and scaling of the EBP as well as the impact it has on student outcomes. These data can be used to highlight needs and strengths and assist administrators in their work of supporting teachers and staff who must navigate internal challenges (i.e., educator certification, scheduling trainings while maintaining coverage of classrooms) that confound new practices (facilitative leadership). Systems intervention – those challenges that cannot be resolved at the local level – have the potential to derail progress if processes to send local level problems to higher levels of the system for problem solving are not defined (e.g., building to district). Undergirding and supporting the drivers is strong leadership with the skills and abilities to support and champion the new practice by (1) breaking down barriers and paving the way for teams to innovate solutions; (2) developing clear communication structures both within and among teams internal to the school and district; (3) adjusting and developing policies and procedures to support the practice; (4) allocating and leveraging necessary resources and expertise of staff; and (5) engaging external stakeholders collaboratively in the implementation process. For school leaders to be effective in the implementation process, they must be knowledgeable about the practice to be implemented and proactive in solving both adaptive and technical challenges in order to support staff and maintain disciplined attention through the ups and downs of the implementation process (Aarons et  al., 2014; Moullin et al., 2017). Technical challenges are easier to solve, are concrete, and can usually be addressed quickly through team action planning with minimal disagreement. Sometimes, however, the challenges are more adaptive in nature or concerning belief systems and feelings around the adoption of new ways of teaching and learning. Attention to both is critical to ensure sustained implementation with fidelity. It is important to note that identifying key individuals with the necessary skills in leadership positions is important, but not sufficient. Implementation relies on cultivating those same leadership skills within teams of teachers, paraprofessionals, caregivers, and other staff members to fully realize socially significant outcomes (Fixsen et al., 2020). A final characteristic of implementation drivers speaks to their integrated and compensatory nature. Less well-developed supports can be compensated for by more robust drivers. For example, if teachers selected to deliver the EBP possess limited knowledge of the practice, training and coaching will need to target these skills more intensively than if teachers with strong related backgrounds are chosen. Likewise, the full and effective use of each driver with fidelity in context relies on or is integrated with the best practices of the other drivers. Consider how the coaching driver is integrated with other drivers. A necessary part of coaching is training (one of the competency drivers) on the skills to be coached. To ensure that coaching is effective requires a system that outlines the necessary stakeholder voice, time, and resources (facilitative administration, systems intervention). Additionally a data system to support the continuous improvement of coaching and measure effectiveness in relation to student outcomes is needed (decision support data systems).

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

21

Implementation drivers define for schools what key mechanisms are necessary to support the school change efforts and sustain those changes over time. Districts play a key role supporting the implementation of change efforts through sharing the responsibilities of infrastructure development and decision making with their schools. Successful district and school partnerships exist when districts ensure practice – policy feedback loops. That is, districts co-design and refine with school leaders those policies and processes that enable the use of practices and programs with fidelity in classrooms.

Implementation Stages Building the infrastructure and support systems (e.g., drivers) takes time. Implementation stages (see Fig. 2.3 Stages) highlight the sequence of this work in a planned and purposeful approach (Fixsen et al., 2010). This does not mean to imply, however, that the stages are linear. Stages often overlap and stage-based activities may be applied across multiple stages. Additionally, schools can be in different stages at the same time for different practices. For example, a school may be in the initial implementation stage for its selected literacy practice but is also in exploration as it identifies needs for a practice to address social-emotional skills. Implementation work is never done. Even when achieving outcomes, work is needed to ensure continued effective use of the practices and avoid return to previous ways of work. To ensure the durability of the selected practices, sustainability is attended to throughout the stages, beginning with exploration (Ward et al., 2020). Exploration is the first stage and begins with identifying a need for change. Representative and engaged teams, inclusive of a variety of stakeholders and the intended beneficiaries and practitioners of the proposed changes, identify needs

Exploration

Installation

Initial Implementation

Full Implementation

Assess need; Examine fit and feasibility

Develop and/or secure resources; and supports

Initiate practice; use data to improve supports

Practice is consistent; positive outcomes

Fig. 2.3  Stages of active implementation

22

S. Farmer et al.

through careful data disaggregation and analysis. The goal of this needs sensing is to fully understand the disconnect between the current state of the school and the vision for success. This is a time for teams to challenge inequities, critically examine the status quo, and identify those barriers to high levels of achievement for each and every student. Once teams reach consensus, options for initiatives to address the need are explored. Decisions about fit, timing, capacity, and commitment for a school or district to use an EBP are determined. To guide this decision, exploration focuses on identifying assets in the school and community and planning what roles, structures, and functions would be needed to implement as intended. When commitment to move forward with a specific EBP is reached, teams are ready to begin a planning phase of implementation. Successful exploration demands that the teams engaged in the process have a deep understanding of the system, its stakeholders, and their experiences. In installation, attention focuses on planning and developing infrastructure that support systemic change (e.g., implementation drivers). The primary outcome of an effective installation stage is the acquisition and allocation of resources and supports that ensure the system is well equipped to implement best practices for the benefit of each and every student. The school team works closely with district support and expertise to ensure the practices are clearly defined and usable in context for the staff who will be implementing them. Teams define and communicate how the selected EBPs align with other initiatives, programs, or practices. The team also develops an implementation plan that outlines (a) protocols for selecting staff needed for implementation; (b) training and coaching supports; (c) data systems including what data will be collected (i.e., outcome, fidelity, and process data) and how and when data will be collected, analyzed, and shared; and (d) decision-making criteria for determining success (Ward et  al., 2020). In addition, implementation teams ensure access to materials and equipment necessary to support use of the effective practices and develop and use effective communication feedback loops among staff, leadership, community partners, and stakeholders (Metz et al., 2015; Saldana et al., 2012). Installation is a period of intentional planning around all elements of the system that contribute to the full and effective use of evidence-based practices or programs. As such, it is incumbent upon teams to not solely plan the infrastructure necessary for implementation but critically analyze policies and procedures to identify and prevent potential barriers to equitable outcomes for all students inclusive of marginalized populations. Through installation activities, school staff will have the professional learning, materials, resources, and measures to assess and continuously improve equitable systems of support based on the school’s context, capacity, and needs of teachers and their diverse student population (Ryan Jackson et al., 2018). Initial implementation, the next stage, represents a very fragile time where preliminary changes in the system occur when the EBPs are infused into educators’ interactions with students. In this period of trial and learning, implementation is not yet done to fidelity. It is critical during this time for the school team to meet regularly to use data to examine the effectiveness of the supports being provided and make improvements to the implementation infrastructure to meet the needs of teachers, challenge inequities at all levels of the system, and maximize success for

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

23

students. Successful implementation teams with supportive leadership embrace this stage as a period of “action research.” Through the current implementation efforts, teams are dismantling those practices or policies that maintain inequalities and pave the way for equitable outcomes that sustain over time. As practitioners begin to improve, teams use data and decision-making criteria for expanding use of the practice by additional school staff. It is imperative that strong communication protocols are in place from teachers in the classroom to the school’s leadership team who ensures teachers have the ongoing support they require. Without such support, it is easy for school staff to return to former, more habitual pedagogy that may perpetuate the outcomes identified for change. When the EBP becomes “the way of work,” the transition into full implementation (at least 50% of the practitioners meet fidelity standards for using the innovation in practice) begins. Teams should maintain provision of needed training and coaching supports, use of continuous feedback, and regular use of data for improvement. Schools continuously revisit previous stage-based activities as they on-board new staff, apply their implementation infrastructure to other school-wide practices, and continuously develop the capacity of school staff and their community. Although described in a linear fashion, movement from one stage to the next in either direction is not unusual as, for example, challenges (i.e.,. staff turnover) emerge or new areas of need arise. By engaging in these implementation activities, practice can inform policy, and policy can enable effective practice where school funding formulas and finance policies are equitable and lead to closing long-standing disparities in student outcomes (Ward et al., 2020).

Implementation Teams The processes, methods, and tools for making innovations teachable, learnable, doable, and assessable as described in previous sections are not the work of individual leaders or educators but the work of effective and efficient teams. A team is an organized group of individuals charged with a purpose or mission. More specifically, implementation teams are accountable for navigating through successes and challenges of systemic change with an eye on empowering the system to serve as an active lever to support and sustain systems change (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Higgins et al., 2012). Within education, this team of three to five individuals often includes executive leaders, individuals with deep knowledge about the school and community, decision-making authority, and hands-on experience with the implementation of EBPs in districts and schools. This accountability structure facilitates the necessary systems change by leveraging the collective expertise and skills of all staff, leaders, community partners, students, and families to complete the day-to-day implementation tasks and secure resources. This definition of teams mirrors the evolution of effective school leadership teams from those comprised of traditional leaders (i.e., principals, assistant principals, department heads) tasked with primarily visioning and direction-setting to a distributed leadership model that focuses on collaboration and co-creation with practitioners and/or recipients of change (those

24

S. Farmer et al.

most directly impacted, such as students and families) with characteristics needed for successful reform (Chrispeels et al., 2008). School implementation teams engage in several key functions: understanding instructional practices or programs, actively engaging in infrastructure development to support EBPs, performing iterative improvement cycles, and supporting the alignment of connections across the system (Metz & Bartley, 2020). In the beginning stages of implementation, teams select, operationalize, and contextualize needed initiatives as well as develop fidelity assessments. Together with relevant stakeholders, implementation teams build and improve the infrastructure supports necessary to utilize innovations as intended while building capacity across the system. Diverse perspectives present on implementation teams ensure authentic engagement in iterative improvement cycles by asking critical questions and collecting both qualitative and quantitative data to reflect on how well the program or practice is being implemented and whether it is improving outcomes with students. Finally, teams facilitate the alignment and connections across the system. Clear, delineated, feasible communication protocols are key to this function. School implementation teams should have clear protocols for communication with key stakeholders (e.g., school leadership team, school staff, district leadership, their families, and other identified stakeholders). Teams should develop and regularly use these bidirectional communication processes at every stage of implementation to share progress about what is or is not working and what is being learned, as well as to solicit feedback and input (Hurlburt et al., 2014). Research has shown that using implementation teams to actively and intentionally make changes produces higher rates of success more quickly than traditional methods of implementation with less-­ active approaches (Higgins et al., 2012; Metz et al., 2015). Implementation teams in an education system are most powerful when dispersed in a stepwise and interconnected relationship across the agency. For example, strategic placement at the state, regional (if available), local (i.e., district), and building levels provides a network of cascading teaming structures across which information, data, and feedback can flow which facilitate learning about contextual responses to change (see Fig.  2.4 Teams). In essence, the cascading system of

Building Implementation Team (BIT) District Implementation Team (DIT) Regional Implementation Team (RIT) State Implementation Teams

Fig. 2.4  Cascading system of implementation teams

Practice Fidelity

Socially Significant Outcomes

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

25

implementation teams creates a symbiotic accountability structure across the entire education agency supporting sustainable use of EBPs in buildings and classrooms (Blase, 2010; Metz & Bartley, 2012).

Improvement Cycles To accelerate student success and be responsive to contextual needs, education systems must operate in continuous cycles of improvement. This iterative process requires ongoing data-driven analysis of facilitators and barriers examining usability, alignment with other initiatives, feasibility, and use of EBPs with fidelity (Byrk et al., 2015; Daniels & Sandler, 2008; Fixsen et al., 2005; Kubiak & Benbow, 2009; Reosekar & Pohekar, 2014; Sanders, 2009). Successful and equitable improvement cycles require critical and continuous analysis of team representation to reflect on the perspectives included in the process and why or why not other perspectives are excluded. Decisions made are informed by data required to fully understand the type of support practitioners received, how the support is provided, who the intended beneficiaries are, what would change if the new practice is implemented well, and how gaps in outcomes will be mitigated. Improvement cycles provide the backbone to accomplish this task using data that highlights demands of the system and practices as stage-based work in implementation continues. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement method (see Fig. 2.5 Cycles). Specifically, a PDSA cycle is a “complex intervention made up of series of interdependent steps and key principles that inform its application”

CURRENT SYSTEM/ PROCESS

Act

Plan

Study

Do

Act

Plan

Study

Do

Act

Plan

Study

Do

Fig. 2.5  Iterative cycles of learning about systems change

VISION OF FUTURE SYSTEM/PROCESS

26

S. Farmer et al.

(Taylor et  al., 2014). As implementation issues arise, teams use PDSA cycles to make small tests of change, help define and refine a new practice and implementation supports for scale-up efforts, and inform alignment of policies and guidelines to support use of the practice. They do require considerable time and resources to implement effectively (Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). The development of an organizational culture that fosters continuous learning and improvement routinized in the mission, vision, and practices is critical for effective use of improvement cycles (Bryk et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2012). The PLAN phase identifies possible barriers or challenges to efficiency and feasibility. The DO phase uses the “planned” process and collects answers (data) to questions developed in planning. The STUDY phase analyzes data about process and outcomes. The ACT phase applies learning to improve process and outcomes. Finally, CYCLE reflects ongoing processing through PDSA phases until learning diminishes and outcomes are attained at sustainable levels across all contexts and settings. Unsurprisingly, PDSA cycles are used widely across human services including education (Cohen-Vogel et  al., 2015; Daniels & Sandler, 2008; Varkey et al., 2007) as they learn about expected and unexpected changes that result from new practices being put in place as they transition from their current to ideal vision of the future (Bolt, 2005; Griffiths et al., 2007; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).

I mplementation in Practice to Support Systems Change: Lessons from the Field As part of the nationally funded technical assistance center, the State Implementation and Scaling Up of Evidence-Based Practices Center (SISEP), we have documented a number of lessons learned in supporting state, regional, and local education agencies to engage in systems change work using the AIF. Specifically, the SISEP center supported developing linked implementation teams at the state, regional, and local education agencies to make use of implementation science methods and tools to improve student outcomes within a specified area (e.g., literacy, behavior, graduation rates). The lessons learned are organized by the AIF and represent multiple contexts and their application to various frameworks (e.g., Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, Positive Behavior Intervention Supports) and EBPs within different academic content areas (e.g., mathematics, literacy). These lessons have significant implications for practitioners at the school and classroom levels as they engage in systems change work and ultimately the success of all students (Ward et al., in press).

Usable Innovation SISEP identified lessons learned around the usable innovation framework specific to the prevalence of use of EBPs, locus of control for the selection of EBPs, and selection of frameworks or processes. Despite the growing importance placed on the

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

27

use of evidence-based practices, in many instances, EBPs were not identified or, if identified, appropriately matched to areas of need. Few coherent data systems were available with the sensitivity or variety of data to produce the necessary information needed to accurately narrow down specific areas for improvement. Lacking sufficient data, as well as systematic processes for selection, practices were typically selected based on a theory of research versus the fit and feasibility of the practice or program within districts and schools. To address these identified issues, SISEP developed the capacity of their stakeholders (e.g., regional staff, LEA staff, staff from participating educator preparation organizations, and staff from various state associations) to develop or adopt a selection process for the adoption of EBPs, operationalize the practices so that they were “teachable, learning and doable,” and work with identified subject matter experts of the practice to develop both fidelity measures and relevant data systems for informing decision making about the use and sustainability of the selected practices. The locus of control for the selection of practices was another area of learning. The identification of specific practices or programs used within instructional processes or frameworks was often left to districts and schools. The rationale presented for this approach was “local control.” However, resources and expertise were not equitably distributed across districts and schools. LEAs did not always have the support necessary to effectively select, operationalize, and create the infrastructure for identified programs. As a result, practitioners continued to struggle with effective implementation as practices continued to be loosely defined and supported. Without the support of state and regional entities to recommend, sponsor, and align evidence-based practices or programs with high-quality, content area instruction, districts found themselves with innovations that were misaligned with existing initiatives, competed for resources, or were redundant. Schools and teachers became overwhelmed with trying to navigate the implementation of multiple initiatives rather than those that were supported by evidence, driven by contextualized needs, and supported by the equitable allocation of resources. The majority of state agencies, however, have been willing to identify, operationalize, and develop an infrastructure for a research-based process or framework (i.e.,, continuous improvement process or multi-tiered systems of support framework). Frameworks and processes are often multifaceted and operationalized at the district or school level, rather than at the level of direct interaction between teachers and/or staff members and students. State agencies that identified a process or framework on which to focus their implementation work, in the absence of a specific practice utilized at the classroom level, have been slow to realize improved outcomes for students (Ryan Jackson & Ward, 2019). This does not suggest that those processes and frameworks are not useful or effective as organizing structures. It does, however, indicate that unless specific, usable educator-student level practices are identified and operationalized early on in the development and use of the framework, the length of time to achieving desirable outcomes may be longer, and an infrastructure aligned with specific practices implemented with students may not be easily replicable or scalable (Ward et al., 2020).

28

S. Farmer et al.

Implementation Teams In examining capacity building efforts around implementation teams, SISEP identified lessons learned around team formation and membership, team use of data, and team functioning. Using a teaming structure is not novel in education. In fact, many districts and, in particular, schools have too many teams with redundant outcomes and competing priorities. A key lesson learned was to examine current teaming structures and not develop a new team if an existing team could be repurposed to hold necessary functions. In the repurposing of a team, however, SISEP also learned not to make assumptions that an existing team has the necessary representation and skills needed to function as an implementation team but that these skills must be taught, coached, and nurtured. To effectively support the implementation of EBPs, teams require leadership skills that include (a) engaging in visible promotion of the work (i.e.,, ability to talk to and answer questions about what it takes to effectively implement the evidence-based practice), (b) creating opportunities with stakeholders to build a shared understanding of the need for selected practices and implementation work, and (c) using implementation data (i.e., fidelity, capacity, reach) in conjunction with outcome data for continuous improvement efforts (Aarons et al., 2014; Moullin et  al., 2017). Therefore, whether teams were new or repurposed, ongoing training and coaching were needed to build and cultivate these leadership functions. SISEP found it critical for teams to include an individual who could make decisions regarding personnel and resources without having to consult a higher authority. Teams that lacked accountability and leadership structures struggled to make any significant progress. To assist with team cohesiveness, consistency, and sustainability and to mitigate the potential negative impact of team member turnover on team progress, other key lessons learned were to have redundancy in various needed perspectives and competencies and to ensure membership on the team was reflected as a responsibility in job descriptions. Another key learning was to ensure different types of data (i.e., training effectiveness data, fidelity data) were being accessed and used by the implementation team within the first 6 months of team formation. Teams who struggled to access relevant data and use data past the 6-month mark often faded away. Attendance at meetings would decline and the teams struggled to accomplish specific implementation work. Finally, it was critical for teams to specify operating procedures including roles and responsibilities, decision-making methods, and communication protocols. Without these procedures, teams lacked focus and failed to make decisions, often halting the work. In addition to within-team communication protocols, the development of transparent and written communication protocols between linked teams was crucial for establishing trust and creating efficiencies for problem-­ solving implementation challenges (Ward et al., 2020).

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

29

Implementation Drivers and Improvement Cycles For implementation drivers and improvement cycles, SISEP identified lessons learned that impact school-level practitioners around the need for effective coaching systems, using multiple forms of data in decision making and using policy-practice feedback loops. Though professional learning systems are often a strength of districts and schools, the establishment of coaching systems that incorporate evidence-­ based coaching practices (i.e., observation, modeling, performance feedback) consistently presented challenges. Education agencies often struggle to identify funding or resources to hire coaches or release teachers to serve coaching roles. Even when resources are available, education agencies rarely have high-quality selection processes and competency development activities for those serving in coach roles. Identifying what data were needed by whom, in what form, and how to use data within a systematic data-based decision-making process that incorporates diverse perspectives were frequent areas of needed support. SISEP found that education agencies frequently reviewed student outcome data; however, collection and use of implementation data (e.g., fidelity, training and coaching effectiveness, capacity) was rare. Teams required support in identifying feasible methods to collect these data and significant modeling and scaffolding on use of these multiple sources of data (i.e., training and coaching effectiveness in combination with fidelity and outcome data) to provide a comprehensive picture of implementation effectiveness and inform decision making and improvement. Organizationally, implementation teams have consistently struggled with leveraging power structures and resources to break down implementation barriers. Creating practice-policy feedback loops and engaging stakeholders authentically not only takes time to build trusting relationships but also requires skill in using co-­ design processes that address power differentials. It takes on average three to four Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles of sharing data and information to understand the processes and use responses from stakeholders. To be effective, many additional cycles of improvement with ongoing coaching support were required for practice-policy feedback loops to become embedded into practice (Ward et al., 2020).

Implementation Stages Time is a valuable resource. To effectively and efficiently use a stage-based approach, it is critical that schools make time for exploration activities (i.e., not only conducting needs assessment but also engaging in fit and feasibility assessment for practice options to address the need). Time is also needed for necessary installation activities (i.e., developing training, coaching, and data systems). During initial implementation, teams needed continued coaching to support data use for continuous improvement and persistence to obtain outcomes. In this stage (often year three

30

S. Farmer et al.

of the implementation work), education agencies are most at risk for abandoning new implementation efforts. They often had to navigate changes in turnover in executive leadership, changes in legislation, and competing demands for resources while also trying to create readiness for expanding to additional implementers and continuing to support ongoing implementation efforts. At full implementation, a key lesson was to continue measuring fidelity, maintaining high-quality support, evaluating the impact on achieving intended outcomes, and continuing to use data for improvement purposes while processes become embedded as a way of doing business. Many lessons have been identified in the use of the AIFs by state, regional, and local education agencies to produce systemic change. Improvement in outcomes for students as measured on benchmark assessments, state summative assessments, and state graduation rates through the use of AIFs with fidelity in support of identified EBPs is possible (Ryan Jackson et al., 2018). The SISEP Center continues to systematically evaluate these outcomes and lessons learned and apply the learnings to ongoing training and coaching in the field (Ward et al., 2020).

Conclusion The best efforts and intentions of educators have often been insufficient in closing the gap between what is revealed in research and what is implemented in schools and classrooms to produce systemic change. This is not always due to the effectiveness of the practice itself but to inadequate attention directed at supporting the practice and attending to interactions in the system among the various roles, structures, and functions needed. Effective school teams endeavoring to improve their systems through the use of evidence-based practices and programs must develop, implement, and sustain the essential ingredients described within the active implementation frameworks. The AIFs, outlined in the formula for success, provide guidance for the selection and operationalization of effective practices and how and when schools should attend to the necessary infrastructure for implementation and key teaming structures for continuous improvement. Without each of these important factors, systemic change and improved outcomes cannot be realized.

References Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Farahnak, L. R. (2014). The implementation leadership scale (ILS): Development of a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership. Implementation Sci, 9, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-­5908-­9-­45 Albers, B., Shlonsky, A., & Mildon, R. (2020). Implementation science 3.0. Springer. Blase, K. (2010). Cascading logic model. National Implementation Research Network. Bolt, S. E. (2005). Reflections on practice within the heartland problem-solving model: The perceived value of direct assessment of students. The California School Psychologist, 10, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340922

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

31

Bryk, A.  S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning how to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Publishing. Burns, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3–11. 10.1177%2F0022466908315563 Chambers, D., Glasgow, R., & Strange, K. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework : Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8(117), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186//1748-­5908-­8-­117 Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508319582 Coburn, C.  E., Hill, H.  C., & Spillane, J.  P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and Implementation. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.310 2/0013189x16651080 Cohen-Vogel, L., Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D., Harrison, C., Kainz, K., Rose Socol, A., & Xing, Q. (2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Remaking researchers into improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29(1), 257–277. Crosse, S., Williams, B., Hagen, C.  A., Harmon, M., Ristow, L., DiGaetano, R., Broene, P., Alexander, D., Tseng, M., & Derzon, J.  H. (2011). Prevalence and implementation fidelity of research-based prevention programs in public schools: Final report. U.S.  Department of Education. Daniels, V. S., & Sandler, I. (2008). Use of quality management methods in the transition from efficacious prevention programs to effective prevention services. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­008-­9170-­3 Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters and what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13. Dew, A., & Boydell, K.  M. (2017). Knowledge translation: Bridging the disability research-to-­ practice gap. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 4(2), 142–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2017.1315610 Eccles, M.  P., & Mittman, B.  S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-­5908-­1-­1 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F, Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (no. FMHI publication #231). University of South. Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M. A., Naoom, S. F., & Van Dyke, M. (2010). Sustainability of evidence-based programs in education. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices, 11(1), 30–46. Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-­ based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230. 10.1177%2F001440291307900206 Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2015). Implementation science. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 695–702). Elsevier. Fixsen, D., Blase, K., & Van Dyke, M. (2020). Implementation practice & science.. Active Implementation Research Network. Flaspohler, P., Duffy, J., Wandersmann, A., Stillman, L., & Maras, M. (2008). Unpacking prevention capacity: An intersection of research to practice models and community center models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-­008-­9162-­3 Flay, B., Biglan, A., Boruch, R., Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., Mościcki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C., & Ji, P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151–175. Gomez, K. (2016). Instructional coaching implementation: Considerations for K-12 administrators. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1(2), 37–40.

32

S. Farmer et al.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-­378X.2004.00325.x Griffiths, A. J., Parson, L. B., Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A., & Tilly, W. D. (2007). Response to intervention: Research for practice. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Hasson, H., Nilsen, P., Augustsson, H., & von Thiiele Schwarz, U. (2018). Empirical and conceptual investigation of de-implementation of low-value care from professional and health care system perspectives: A study protocol. Implementation Science, 13(67), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13012-­018-­0760-­7 Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 366–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.1773 Hurlburt, M., Aarons, G.  A., Fettes, D., Willging, C., Gunderson, L., & Chaffin, M. (2014). Interagency collaborative team model for capacity building to scale up evidence-based practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2013.10.005 Hall, G.  E., & Hord, S.  M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Kraft, M., & Gilmour, A. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249. https://doi.org/1 0.3102/0013189X17718797 Kubiak, T. M., & Benbow, D. W. (2009). The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook (2nd ed.). ASQ Quality Press. Lee, S., Bright, C. L., & Berlin, L. J. (2012). Organizational influences on data use among child welfare workers. Child Welfare, 92, 97–116. Lewis, C., Klasnja, P., Powell, B., Lyon, A., Tuzzio, L., Joes, S., Walsh-Bailey, C., & Weiner, B. (2018). From classification to causality: Advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 65–66. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2018.00136 Madon, T., Hofman, K. J., Kupfer, L., & Glass, R. I. (2007). Public health implementation science. Science, 318, 1728–1729. McGuinn, Patrick. (2012). The state of teacher evaluation reform. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/70 McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., Hume, A. E., Frank, J. L., Turri, M. G., & Mathews, S. (2013). Factors related to sustained implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 79, 293–311. Metz, A. (2016). Practice profiles: A process for capturing evidence and operationalizing innovations. White Paper. National Implementation Research Network. Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success: How to use implementation science to improve outcomes for children. Zero to Three Journal, 32(4), 11–18. Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2020). Implementation teams: A stakeholder view of leading and sustaining change. In B. Albers, A. Shlonsky, & R. Mildon (Eds.), Implementation Science 3.0 (pp. 199–225). Springer. Metz, A. & Louison, L. (2018) The hexagon tool: Exploring context. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, Frank porter Graham child development institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Based on Kiser, Zabel, Zachik, & Smith (2007) and Blase, Kiser & van Dyke (2013). Metz, A., Naoom, S., Halle, T., & Bartley, L. (2015). An integrated stage-based framework for implementation of early childhood programs and systems. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2  Implementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice in Educational Settings

33

Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­012-­9522-­x Milat, A., King, L., Baumna, A., & Redman, S. (2013). The concept of scalability: Increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health Promotion International, 28(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar097 Moullin, J. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Aarons, G. A. (2017). The role of leadership in organizational implementation and sustainment in service agencies. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(5), 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517718361 Naleppa, M.  J., & Cagle, J.  G. (2010). Treatment fidelity in social work intervention research: A review of published studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 674–681. https://doi. org/10.1177/1049731509352088 Ning, H.  K., Lee, D., & Lee, W.  O. (2015). Relationships between value orientations, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-­015-­9294x Parolini, A., Tan, W., & Shlonsky, A. (2017). A blueprint for causal inference in implementation systems. Social Science Research Network, 1–38. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3208089 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3208089 Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., & Kircherner, J. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10, 21. Powell, B. J., Fernandez, M. E., Williams, N. J., Aarons, G. A., Beidas, R., Lewis, C., et al. (2019). Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: A research agenda. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 503–509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh2019.00003 Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillan, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and supporting. Implementation Science, 8(139), 1–11. Reosekar, R. S., & Pohekar, S. D. (2014). Six sigma methodology: A structured review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(4), 392–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-­12-­2013-­0059 Ryan Jackson, K., Fixsen, D., Ward, C., Waldroup, A., & Sullivan, V. (2018). Accomplishing effective and durable change to support improved student outcomes [white paper]. National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ryan Jackson, K., & Ward, C. S. (2019). A tale of two states: Alignment and cohesion to close long-standing disparities in student outcomes. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Saldana, L., Chamberlain, P., Wang, W., & Brown, H. C. (2012). Predicting program start-up using the stages of implementation measure. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 39(6), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-­011-­0363-­y Sanders, M. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-­ based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1693–1712. Sanetti, L.  M., & Collier-Meek, M.  A. (2019). Increasing implementation science literacy to address the research-to-practice gap in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.008 Stirman, S., Baumann, A. A., & Miller, C. J. (2019). The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations andmodifications to evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 14(58). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-­019-­0898-­y Stirman, S., Miller, C., & Toder, & Calloway, A. (2013). Development and framework of a coding system for modification and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 8(65), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-­018-­0769-­y Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bel, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. British Medical Journal of Quality and Safety, 23, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjqs-­2013-­001862

34

S. Farmer et al.

Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M., et al. (2017). Continuous improvement in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan–do–study–act cycles. Journal of Education Change, 18, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-­017-­9301-­4 Van Dyke, M.  K. (2015). Active implementation practitioner: Practice profile. Active Implementation Research Network. Varkey, P., Reller, M. K., & Resar, R. K. (2007). Basics of quality improvement in health care, Mayo Clinic proceedings, 82, 735–739. https://doi.org/10.4065/82.6.735 Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.  S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-­5826.00070 Ward, C., Metz, A., Louison, L., Loper, A., & Cusumano, D. (2018). Drivers best practices assessment. National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ward, C., Farmer, S., Ryan-Jackson, K., & Ihlo, T. (2020). Chapter 21: Support for school change and improvement. Handbook of effective inclusive elementary schools: research and practice. (2nd ed.). Manuscript submitted for publication. Ward, C., Ihlo, T., Ryan-Jackson, K., & Farmer, S. (in press). Effective implementation capacity to impact change for students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.

Chapter 3

Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change Leah M. Nellis, Brandon J. Wood, and Pamela A. Fenning

 oles of School Professionals and Stakeholders R in Systems Change While the process of school change and improvement presents an opportunity for systems change and improvement in school buildings and districts, substantial and sustained changes in practice (e.g., instruction, data-driven intervention, delivery of support services, equitable disciplinary actions, etc.) are contingent upon a complex interconnection of many factors. Studies indicate that the beliefs, practices, and conditions within a school, defined as the internal accountability system, are instrumental in a school’s ability to respond to both internal and external demands to achieve the desired outcomes (Abelmann & Elmore, 1999; Knapp & Feldman, 2012; Poole, 2011). Carnoy and colleagues (2003) identified three elements of a school’s internal accountability system: (a) an individual’s sense of responsibility to improving instruction and student learning; (b) a shared understanding among school staff, administrators, and other stakeholders regarding the externally based expectations; and (c) an awareness of the procedures, potential consequences, and timelines associated with external mandates. Additionally, school administrators must provide a framework of leadership as a strategy for building a culture that nurtures change and innovation (Sergiovanni, 2009). Such leadership requires administrators, at both the district and building L. M. Nellis (*) Indiana University Kokomo, Kokomo, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. J. Wood University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA P. A. Fenning Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_3

35

36

L. M. Nellis et al.

levels, who are comfortable empowering others and recognizing the leadership skills and content knowledge expertise of all professional staff. Kotter (2001) makes an important distinction related to staffing wherein management pertains to creating an organizational staffing plan with clear responsibilities and monitoring processes, while leadership is focused on aligning the people within an organization to create a shared vision and commitment to its achievement. While this distinction is relevant to everyday operations within an organization, it is especially important during times of systems change and improvement. Leadership and collaboration among key school personnel are essential to not only initiating but sustaining school improvement. Teachers and specialized instructional support personnel (SISP), such as school psychologists, counselors, and instructional coaches, have unique skill sets that are critical to school change. Stakeholders such as the school board, families, and community entities provide essential input on the need for change, are positioned to support implementation, and are critical voices in decision making about desired outcomes. School leaders have the responsibility to communicate the purpose and vision for change to staff and key stakeholders (Marzano et al., 2005), which is essential to helping others understand the reason for and aspects of the change. According to Fullan (1991), this shared understanding among staff is often lacking, which, in turn, limits the fidelity of implementation and realization of desired outcomes. This chapter will focus on who is involved in systems-change efforts and the application of implementation science and what impact this has for both the system and the individuals working within the systems as continuous school improvement occurs.

Application of Implementation Science Implementation science offers a framework for creating and sustaining organizational capacity for change and innovation (Fixsen et  al., 2005) and specifically addresses the importance of people in the implementation process. Applying implementation science to school improvement, Jackson et al. (2018) noted that educators and teams create a context within their district and schools that enables systematic improvements by “purposefully making changes in district and school systems so that practices are used as designed and their effectiveness is sustained over time” (p. 1). As described by Farmer and colleagues in Chap. 2, active implementation frameworks ([AIF]; Fixsen et al., 2005; Forman et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2021) are based upon implementation science theory and research and provide strategies, methods, and tools that schools can utilize to guide systems change and continuous improvement. Implementation drivers are the mechanisms through which an intentional focus is placed on creating the capacity within a district and schools that will support the effective and efficient use of the selected change or innovation. Three drivers – competency, organization, and leadership – work in an integrated way to serve as a foundation to ensure that the people doing the work have the necessary knowledge and skills, are empowered to make decisions, and are working within an

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

37

infrastructure of processes and structures that enable the chosen innovation to be implemented within the local context. Given the complexity of educational systems, with many inherent barriers to change, broad stakeholder involvement is key to ensuring that systems change efforts aimed at improving outcomes for all students are achieved as designed and are sustainable over time (Hickey et  al., 2018). Intentional consideration of all stakeholders including school staff, school board, community members, and students and their level and nature of engagement is critical for implementation success. Castillo (2020) points to the utility of consultants using both implementation science and organizational/systems consultation to help facilitate the adoption of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools while stressing the importance of the people who undertake the systems change work (consultants, consultees, and clients).

Identifying, Selecting, and Developing School Staff The competency drivers focus on four aspects of creating the human or personnel capacity to put programs and innovations into place as a part of everyday practice in schools and classrooms. Specifically, those drivers are selection, training and professional learning, coaching, and fidelity. An initial priority of the selection driver is establishing clarity about what staff will need to know and be able to do in order to implement the chosen innovation and what characteristics, such as openness to change, are important to implementation success. Taking stock of the existing talent and capacity within the system, as well as individuals’ interest in becoming involved, will help identify those who may be well positioned to support the change initiative and/or be early implementers. The responsibilities and needed skills will vary based upon one’s particular role (e.g., a teacher leader providing coaching support to classroom teachers) and will shift across the stages of implementation (e.g., providing training during installation and providing data-driven coaching during initial implementation). A distributed leadership model is essential to successful change initiatives and necessitates clear assignment of roles and responsibilities to each individual and team involved in systems change activities (Bush, 2013). For any systems change initiative to be successful, the fulfillment of and adherence to individual roles and responsibilities, at every level, is important (Adelman & Taylor, 2007).

Key Educator Roles in Systems Change Current employees of the district and schools will be among the first to implement a new practice and will be the leaders of change. District and school administrators make crucial decisions about which school staff will be involved and in what ways they will lead, support, or implement change. Classroom teachers will obviously be

38

L. M. Nellis et al.

central to any long-term change in practices as will those who are in supporting roles, such as teacher leaders, instructional coaches, school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. Additional staff may need to be recruited and hired to support implementation with an intentional focus on hiring to supplement the existing expertise among school and district employees. The ways in which school staff will support systems change will vary based on role or position, expertise, interest, and engagement in the change process. Teachers Teachers are key to any systems change effort and arguably spend the most time with students of any professional in the building. While systems change efforts are based on altering what happens in classrooms, it is not uncommon that teachers are left out of decisions around what to change as well as when and how to do so (Sarason, 1996). Often, they are brought in only after decisions about priorities for change have been made and may only learn about a systems change effort when they are tasked with implementing it. This is unfortunate, as without the meaningful involvement of teachers throughout the entire change process, most systems-change efforts are bound to fail. Teachers are critical members of a team from the very beginning stages of identifying and prioritizing an area for change, as well as determining the kinds of information, professional development, and support they need to truly implement practices aligned with whatever is being proposed as the systems change effort (Hagermoser Sanetti & Luh, 2020). Classroom teachers offer a critical perspective about potential barriers to the implementation of any new innovation, which is a consideration during the exploration phase. Considering barriers associated with staffing, training, and procedures early in the process of change can prevent or minimize negative perceptions about the new practice as well as gaps or setbacks in implementation. Teachers also play a key role in field testing innovations in the real-world settings of their classrooms, and they have an important and unique voice in what is working well and what is not (Bryk et al., 2017). Administrators are the instructional leaders in their building or districts, while teachers make decisions about how to teach the curriculum and create classroom culture. As described in Chap. 1, systems change efforts may be driven by external demands and by non-educators (Sarason, 1996; Senge et al., 2012). In such cases, educators may not feel a sense of ownership over the systems change effort. Feirsen (2022) emphasizes the importance of psychological ownership, a concept that differs from teacher buy-in as it includes both a cognitive understanding of an innovation and an emotional connection or feeling about the change initiative (Pierce et al., 2003). Psychological ownership fosters intrinsic motivation that aligns with educators’ desire for agency and, when established, supports the sustained use of the introduced practice as teachers embrace professional growth and collective self-­ efficacy (Yim et al., 2018).

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

39

Teacher Leaders/Coaches All classroom teachers in a building take on an important role in systems change. Some take on leadership roles with titles like instructional coaches/leaders or lead teachers. These teacher leadership positions have grown in number in many school districts across the country (Gallucci et al., 2010). While much more research and theory is needed to better understand how to prepare coaches for their roles in systems change (Gallucci et al., 2010), there are coaching models developed by those long engaged in this direct support of teachers that are useful guides (Knight, 2007). For example, Jim Knight has written extensively about seven factors that promote effective coaching, which have to do with coaches learning how to communicate effectively with teachers in a respectful way, having extensive knowledge themselves of evidence-supported instructional strategies, using data to evaluate efforts, and being positioned in systems where administrators support this work as well as have leadership skills themselves (See Knight, 2007 and the Instructional Coaching Group, which houses several resources and books he has written on the topic, https://www.instructionalcoaching.com/seven-­success-­factors/). It makes intuitive sense that instructional coaches need to have leadership skills when interacting with and supporting teachers and must work within a system where building and district administrators also support the work. The use of a distributed leadership model when thinking through the role of teachers, lead teachers, and instructional coaches can be useful (Bush, 2013). Instructional coaches/lead teachers may naturally fit into a structure of receiving input from teachers, communicating with them, and serving as a liaison to administrators who lead systems change efforts. They can play a critical role in coaching their colleagues in the real-­ world practice of systems change components throughout the stages of implementation science, particularly in the earlier phases of Installation and Initial Implementation (see Chap. 2). Practically speaking, instructional coaches/lead teachers typically have reduced or no classroom instructional responsibilities, which free them up to engage in systems change work. Teachers in such leadership roles often have a unique opportunity to see multiple classrooms and, therefore, have a sense of what classroom issues are arising within the school building and at the district level, depending on the scope of their role. Instructional coaches/lead teachers may also be in a position to weigh in on the feasibility of larger-scale implementation efforts given the time they likely spend in classrooms and the likelihood that they interact with many teachers in providing instructional support. Due to their on-the-ground presence in classrooms, they can also help assess the degree to which systems change efforts are implemented as planned, what professional development, coaching, and support may be necessary to support success, as well as recommend changes and adaptations to implementation as needed. Depending on their expertise and background, they could also contribute directly to coaching, technical assistance, consultation, and professional development to directly support implementation efforts. In short, lead teachers/instructional coaches are important to systems change as they often bring technical expertise, professional development experience, consultation skills, the trust of teacher colleagues, and an understanding

40

L. M. Nellis et al.

of classroom instruction and systems, which support their salient role in supporting systems change from inception throughout roll-out on an ongoing basis (Desimone & Pak, 2016). Specialized Instructional Support Personnel School psychologists, school counselors, and school social workers, defined in The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) as specialized instructional support personnel (SISP), possess a diverse range of competencies suitable for supporting school-based systems change. They are instrumental in the decision-making processes related to supporting student mental and behavioral health, improving school climate and safety, implementing meaningful assessment and accountability systems, and enhancing the coordination of comprehensive service delivery to help students succeed (NASP, 2016). Collectively, SISP have significant expertise in assessment, on data-based decision making, and about problem-solving processes, which are all essential to effective systems change implementation. They are knowledgeable about evidence-based practices (EBPs) in academic, social, emotional, and behavioral domains, skillful in consultation and interdisciplinary collaboration, and uniquely trained to function within a multi-tiered system of support. While these specialists each bring unique expertise, knowledge, and areas of focus to the school setting, they provide a sometimes untapped resource for leading and supporting systems change efforts. Further, because they are not in the classroom, they have flexibility to serve on systems change teams and to support implementation efforts across a variety of classrooms and between multiple schools in a district. Each also comes with profession-specific expertise. For example, school psychologists are viewed as uniquely qualified for assisting schools and districts with the design, implementation, and evaluation of multi-tiered systems of support, which includes academically focused response to intervention (RTI) and behaviorally focused positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) frameworks (Canter, 2006). School counselors are trained to collaborate with students, families, communities, administrators, and others to ensure student success (American School Counselor Association; ASCA, 2019). In addition, a primary area of expertise that school counselors hold is to design, implement, and evaluate a school counseling program that has many attributes in common with systems reform efforts, such as determining a need and focus, as well as collaborating with others to plan, implement, evaluate, and modify the program (ASCA, 2019). School counselors’ training and expertise also position them well to assist buildings with efforts aimed at taking inventory of, monitoring, intervening with, and creating accountability systems for quality indicators such as school climate, student attendance, social-emotional learning, and K-12 student career-focused experiences. School social workers also have essential skills to support systems change efforts, which include expertise in coordinating services across systems, including schools, communities, and families through multi-tiered systems of support (National Association of School Social Workers [NASW], 2012). Further, school social workers’ training and expertise

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

41

may be especially helpful in aiding districts and schools with securing support from local mental health providers, facilitating home-school collaboration efforts, coordinating care across students’ environments, and identifying and securing community resources and extracurricular programming opportunities that may be beneficial to a variety of educational stakeholders. Broadly speaking, SISP can help systems change leaders identify targets for change; explore new, alternative practices to install; and plan for successful implementation. Utilizing a problem-solving framework, SISP may initially aid leaders in pinpointing a problem, compiling and organizing data to determine the severity of the problem, and exploring hypotheses and factors contributing to the problem. A review of the problem and its baseline conditions and data can help leaders (a) meaningfully convey, to others, a sense of urgency for change and (b) articulate a vision for future improvement (i.e., goal for change). When a problem is well understood (i.e., supported by data), SISP can aid leaders with the identification and critical evaluation of EBPs or innovations that may, when implemented with fidelity, result in established goals and/or desirable outcomes. When new practices are being explored, SISP, given their individual and collective knowledge about and awareness of internal support infrastructures and the school’s available resources (e.g., time, personnel), may assist leaders with assessing and estimating the probability of success of new practices being considered. They may also help leaders be mindful of and consider (a) what resources would be required to support a new practice and (b) if and how the new practice aligns with other school initiatives and policies. The conducting of needs assessments and engagement in resource mapping may be two activities, in particular, performed by SISP, to help leaders both assess and generate stakeholder readiness. Following the selection of a new practice, SISP can help leaders establish a data system and create a descriptive stage-based implementation plan. After determining which data to collect and establishing decision-making rules for assessing both implementation (i.e., fidelity) adherence and new practice success, SISP can facilitate the monitoring and analyzing of data periodically to ensure timely improvements are made, when and as necessary, throughout the change process. Such routine monitoring allows SISP to aid leaders in identifying and breaking down barriers to implementation, along with identifying areas where fidelity to the new practice may need to be increased and better supported. SISP-generated or SISP-­ supported implementation plans may serve as a roadmap to the full implementation of a new practice. Ongoing training, professional development, coaching, and consultation, which may be the responsibility of SISP to provide, may be embedded within the implementation plan to ensure the success of the new practice. Engagement with other stakeholders via offering training, PD, coaching, and/or consultation also presents SISP with a critical opportunity to initiate and maintain communication and feedback loops concerning the new practice. Such communication and feedback, when viewed in conjunction with routine monitoring of outcome and fidelity data, can help leaders navigate the fluid progression through systems change phases. Additionally, SISP can be important conduits between classroom teachers who they frequently consult with and administrators, particularly with

42

L. M. Nellis et al.

district-­level administrators who may not be in a position to navigate and visit classroom spaces. Further, SISP, by the very nature of not being administrators, do not have an evaluative role over teachers and therefore can serve in a supportive role and better understand and convey their perspectives with administrators. Despite SISP having much expertise to contribute to systems change work, it is important to recognize that their roles are often focused on very specific responsibilities such as administrative tasks (e.g., counselors being tasked with course scheduling). Relatedly, school psychologists are frequently tasked with spending substantial time engaged in assessment centered on special education eligibility determinations (Farmer et al., 2021). While SISP, like school psychologists, report wanting to engage in more prevention-oriented comprehensive services like consultation (Guiney et al., 2014), these desires appear to be more aspirational and not translated as much as desired to daily practice (Newman et al., 2018). For example, ratios of school psychologists to students appear to have an impact, as higher ratios are associated with less time to engage in activities aligned with the comprehensive training of school psychologists such as the delivery of mental health supports (Eklund et al., 2020). School Board Members Engagement with key stakeholders that are external to the school is necessary for systems change efforts to move forward. School boards, while configured differently depending on the local context and state, approve school and district budgets and make key decisions about school practices. While the process in which they are elected may vary, they represent the interests of the community. Unless they also happen to have a background in education, school board members are not educators, and it should not be assumed that they will be familiar with educational jargon and language. As such, the role of administrators and implementation teams that are engaged in supporting the practices that are being delivered as part of the systems change effort need to clearly describe the rationale for the systems change idea, how it will be carried out, what resources are needed for it to be successful, what data will be collected, and how it will be used to evaluate outcomes and make changes as necessary. School board members have a role in making informed decisions about the likelihood that the systems change effort will address a key priority of the district and benefit the students and families served and how resources will be allocated and whether they are cost-effective and reasonable expenses. School board members have a role in being stewards of educational decisions made and in representing the interest of the community and the students/families that are currently enrolled in the school.

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

43

Students The students themselves are the reasons why systems change efforts are designed and implemented. They should be at the core of the decisions made about them. It is particularly critical to consider students who have historically minoritized identities in this work. As noted in Chap. 2, equity should be embedded in implementation science efforts that are intended to direct change. Unfortunately, all too often, students who are historically harmed by school policy and practices, and their families, are prevented from having an equal voice in systems change work. It is critical for school leaders, implementation teams, and external partners to work collaboratively with families to dismantle historical systems that have privileged white middle-­ class families. Students and families who hold historically minoritized identities, such as youth who identify as racial/ethnic minorities, are not native English speakers, and are recent immigrants, students with disabilities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+ or hold multiple intersected oppressed identities are often completely left out of the conversation or are tokenized when invited to participate in school meetings (Ladson-Billings, 2006). When forming and sustaining any team at the school-, district-, or school board level engaged in systems change, school leaders and team facilitators need to be thoughtful about the conditions and logistics under which parent/family and community representation is sought. Families who represent all forms of diversity and those who do not hold social power and privilege in the community should not only be “included” but have their voices sought out through all stages in a manner that is accessible to them, which includes offering meeting times that are possible for families who have commitments during school hours, providing child care, and addressing language barriers. Seeking feedback from families about parent engagement efforts should occur through all stages of the systems change effort to mitigate power differentials. Administrators The school staff who serve in various roles and the district’s and schools’ stakeholder groups are all important in the planning, leading, implementing, and ongoing monitoring of systems change initiatives. Further, the collective and collaborative work of all of these groups and individuals is essential for high-quality implementation, goal attainment, and a shared sense of accomplishment. When leading or facilitating any complex process and particularly one as challenging as school systems change, the relationships among and between all involved and the trust that is needed to engage in this work is critical. The role of the district and school administrators is central to the success of change and the collaborative functioning of the school staff and stakeholder groups. Much has been written about the role of leaders in any systems reform effort whether these efforts take place in schools, healthcare settings, or in the business world (Bryk et al., 2017; Senge et al., 2012). Without the philosophical and tangible support of both building and district administrators, a systems change effort will not

44

L. M. Nellis et al.

be successful. Philosophical support is evident through administrators communicating a message with school staff, fellow administrators, families, the community, and school board that they believe in the core aspects of the systems change effort (McIntosh et al., 2016). For example, one of the chapter authors was involved with school districts that were implementing positive behavior supports. Without the presence of administrators formally and informally communicating with stakeholders a philosophical belief that behavior is best taught and not punished, the systems change effort would not likely have reached the desired outcome. Administrators set the tone that the systems change effort is important and aligned with the priorities of the school. Administrators also provide tangible support that is not only visible to the school community but necessary for the work to be carried out in a practical way. The role of building and district administrators may vary somewhat in what this tangible support looks like. Building administrators, such as school principals and their administrative team (i.e., assistant principals), are the instructional leaders of the building. While there are many external demands on them (Sarason, 1996), principals also have a great deal of autonomy in making staff assignments and in sharing decision-­ making authority with their direct reports, like teachers, lead teachers, instructional coaches, and SISP. They also have responsibility for setting priorities for and overseeing professional development in their buildings. Simply put, they direct and oversee the work of school personnel under their purview. There are numerous tangible ways that building administrators can show support, which would include providing resources like time for implementation teams to meet, allocating time for lead teachers/instructional coaches to support implementation efforts of teachers and others involved with delivering the systems change effort, hiring external coaches, and paying for necessary professional development. Engaging teachers early and often in the process of change, in ways that are intentional and respectful of their time, will support implementation and sustained changes in practice over time. In addition, the building administrator can show support by being visible in planning and implementation meetings. If the building principal is not able to be personally present at every team meeting, they can designate an assistant principal and/or the team facilitator to make decisions that range from relatively small ones, such as funds to purchase refreshments at a professional development event, to larger ones, such as designating team leads and allowing for substitutes to cover classes during a year-long professional development. Through distributive leadership (Bush, 2013), discussions can be held about the types of decisions that are distributed to others and those that the principal may want to retain. Further, the building administrator can prioritize and support implementation teams in assigning staff with taking on various roles that align and capitalize on their training and expertise, which is a critical competency driver within implementation science (Fixsen et al., 2005). In addition, the building administrator can support specialists, like SISP, to engage in practices that are aligned with the comprehensive training they have, such as allocating their time to support systems-level work like team facilitation, coaching, delivering professional development, and collaborating with others to build

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

45

competencies and expertise of implementers. SISPs can also have data collection and analysis skills, which are useful at all stages but particularly critical during the initial implementation stages of implementation science (see Chap. 2; Fixsen et al., 2005). Further, building administrators are key to serving as a conduit to the communities and families they serve. District-level administrators are critical in showing their support for systems change efforts just like building-level administrators. However, they frequently take a bigger picture view and, while they may not frequently be involved in day-to-day implementation efforts, are critical to offering district-level resources, such as the time required for building-level professionals to engage in all stages of implementation science. Given that systems change is a multi-year effort that requires substantial planning and time, but is not likely to result in immediate student outcomes, the district-level administrator is key to communicating support for the systems-change effort not only with internal stakeholders but also community partners, families, school board members, and other constituents. District administrators are also key to collaborating with implementation teams in ensuring alignment of the systems change effort with the school improvement plan and the priorities of the district so the work is integrated and aligned. Too often, building-level innovations are not connected with district-level priorities; there are multiple and sometimes competing initiatives and a lack of integration that creates work overload, stress, and a lack of direction. The district administrator is key to understanding the “big picture” and creating connections of the systems change effort to not only internal priorities but external mandates, such as state/federal laws (i.e., ESSA, IDEA) and regulations. District administrators are essential in connecting the dots between systems-level innovations and what is required of districts in terms of meeting the required accountability metrics they are responsible for. They are critical across all implementation science stages, with a heavy role in the earlier stage of installation (see Chap. 2) as they make key decisions about allocation of resources, professional development, the full-time equivalent of key implementers, hiring practices, release time, etc. as the systems change effort gets off the ground. In studying the application of implementation science in the human service field, Metz et al. (2021) share findings suggesting that high-quality relationships between those engaged in systems change implementation are a crucial element to success and overcoming challenges and barriers. Clearly, administrators set the tone for relational quality and foster collaboration through those that they engage in the systems change work and the structures and processes they embed into the culture of the school and district. Coining the term “implementation support practitioners,” who can be either external or internal to an organization, Metz et al. (2021) reported that these individuals dedicate as much time to “brokering connections, addressing power differentials, and building relationships as they do needs assessments or improvement cycles” (p. 18). Metz et al. asked an important question about prior systems change efforts – whether there has been an overemphasis on technical skills (e.g., problem identification, innovation selection, data collection, and utilization) at the “expense of recognizing the equal importance of relational skills in supporting implementation” (p.18). While their research was centered on human service

46

L. M. Nellis et al.

organizations, our collective experiences over many years in schools leading, facilitating, and supporting systems change work have led to the same question. How do relationships impact who is involved in systems change efforts (and who isn’t), how do certain individuals get invited into the work (and how do others get left out), how does this change the trajectory and potential of change, and what impact does this have on school climate and individuals’ job satisfaction, retention, and sense of self-­ efficacy? While we do not have answers to these questions, we offer these as important considerations especially for school administrators who set the course of change and researchers interested in this work.

Teaming to Support Implementation Teaming within schools and specifically implementation teams is another important aspect within the application of implementation science theory and research. Implementation teams apply the principles of implementation science to support the widespread use of evidence-based programs and practices. In writing about the efforts to scale positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in over 20,000 schools across the USA, Horner et al. (2017) provide their strongest recommendation to “define and invest in implementation of relevant ‘organizational systems’ as well as actual day-to-day practices” (p.29) when attempting to effect district-wide implementation of a new evidence-based practice or program. The organization implementation drivers focus on data systems, policies, procedures, structures for teaming and communication, and collaboration with external partners to secure the resources needed to implement the innovation. Horner et  al. (2017) noted that schools are seldom able to implement and scale PBIS with fidelity without strong school- and district-level teams. When forming a team to plan, deliver, and evaluate a systems change effort, it is important to think about how to structure teams so they are efficient and embed multi-tiered systems of support. An example of a multi-­ tiered teaming structure which supports the implementation of behavioral, social-­ emotional, and mental health prevention practices and interventions is the interconnected systems framework (ISF; Splett et al., 2017). ISF offers an illustration of how a school district can use resources more effectively and clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and coordination of multiple teams in schools and at the district level (Splett et al., 2017). Drawing on research conducted by numerous scholars, Jackson et  al. (2018) emphasized the critical role of skilled teams who focus on implementation by citing data showing that districts who utilize effective and efficient teaming structures “can expect 80% successful use of effective practices in about 3 years,” but districts without such structures “might achieve 14% successful use of effective practices after 17 years” (p.1). There are several structured and unstructured collaborative opportunities for teachers and other school professionals to be engaged in and contribute to systems reform efforts (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). As one example, professional

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

47

learning communities (PLCs) are common collaborative teaming structures that have been found in schools for some time (DuFour, 2004). Each professional in a building participates in a PLC with a key focus on student learning instead of teaching (DuFour, 2014). DuFour described three critical questions which guide what happens in a PLC as follows: “[1] What do we want each student to learn? [2] How will we know when each student has learned it? [3] How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?” (p. 2).

There are several parallels of PLCs to systems change efforts, given the focus on student learning outcomes, continuous improvement, meaningful use of data, and a focus on systems rather than individual teacher practices to solve issues that arise. Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018), drawing upon decades of school improvement work in Ontario, described the idea of “collaborative professionalism” among teachers, which they define as being in place when there is both high trust among colleagues and organizational structures in place to practically carry out the work and get things done (i.e., procedures, measures/data improvement tools, technical support). They draw upon leadership Theory X (structures to carry out tasks) and Theory Y (trust/relationships) (McGregor, 1960). Bryk et al. (2017) in their systems work over many years have formed networked communities (NC) in which teams work together, all with established roles, to collaborate with one another in analyzing their improvement efforts in “learning fast to implement well” (p. 7). While the structures and systems vary, teachers are increasingly participating on collaborative teams focused on instructional practices. Still, it often remains the case that teachers are not fully included in teaming efforts. The practicality of covering teachers’ time in the classrooms is sometimes a barrier to their participation in collaboration around systems @change efforts. This is a challenge that can be overcome with planning and creative scheduling of meeting times and adequate support of teachers through prioritizing their involvement in district and building priorities. The role of teachers in this process by sharing their expertise as experts of their classrooms, learning environments, and understanding of students, curriculum, teaching pedagogy and being at the table when systems change decisions are made is truly invaluable. Systems change is challenging and complex, often requiring the focused and meaningful engagement of diverse stakeholders over a sustained period of years. The time required to carefully and effectively plan for systems change is frequently daunting for schools who face a great deal of pressure to demonstrate student outcomes. Implementation science, described in Chap. 2, offers teams a framework for knowing when to move forward with actual practice with students. Organizational drivers are critical to change, yet understanding the people who take on the varied roles to enact a systems change effort and the skills required for administrators to lead the work is paramount (Castillo, 2020). Castillo (2020) remarks “...research focused on structures and processes can unintentionally detract from the human component of systems change critical in social systems” (p. 4030). Team members with a clear purpose, thoughtful leadership, and the right people at the table are

48

L. M. Nellis et al.

necessary ingredients of a healthy systems change process. The following case illustration provides one example of such a change process in action in a school during a time that has been especially challenging due to the effects of the pandemic.

 ase Illustration: Engaging Staff and Stakeholders C for Systems Change The following case example describes the participatory design and implementation of a comprehensive universal mental health screening (UMHS) initiative at Chase High School (CHS). CHS is in an urban, low-resource setting. CHS services a diverse population of approximately 1100 students, with more than half [of all students] qualifying for free and reduced lunch. CHS has a history of troubling data trends. For the past 3 years, a review of school data showed a significant and alarming rise in absenteeism, office discipline referrals, and suspensions, in addition to significant decreases in cumulative grade point averages and yearly credits earned among its students. Mrs. Jones, CHS principal, has long suspected that some of these trends may be partially attributed to and explained by the unmet mental health needs among a sizable proportion of students. CHS, like many other schools, has traditionally relied on teacher nominations and student accrual of ODRs to identify students potentially experiencing or exhibiting signs of mental health distress. Initiating the routine conducting of UMHS at CHS was viewed by Mrs. Jones as one alternative approach for more readily and proactively identifying students presenting with mental health concerns. While the conducting of UMHS aligned well with CHS’s current MTSS efforts emphasizing prevention and early intervention, Mrs. Jones knew this systems change initiative would require increased multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration, a lengthy commitment of time and resources, and steadfast leadership. To further explore the prospect of conducting UMHS at CHC, Mrs. Jones began by creating and assembling a UMHS team. The UMHS team assembled by Mrs. Jones included internal and external stakeholders. UMHS team members were selected by Mrs. Jones based on their unique expertise and skill set, role(s) at the school, and general interest in the initiative. In addition to Mrs. Jones, internal UMHS team members consisted of the building’s school psychologist, lead counselor, and MTSS coordinator. External members on the UMHS team included an external consultant, who was a faculty member at a neighboring university, and a representative from CHS embedded behavioral health partner. During the first meeting of the UMHS team, initial activities to support the initiative were identified, and individual team member roles and responsibilities were discussed. The UMHS team established a timeline for the initiative and committed to a bi-monthly meeting schedule over the course of one school year. Mrs. Jones took responsibility for ensuring the availability of UMHS team members for all scheduled meetings. To ensure momentum for the initiative, all UMHS team

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

49

members also agreed to individually and, when necessary, collectively, complete assigned tasks between meetings. Identifying and compiling UMHS implementation guidance, generating stakeholder readiness, and assessing the current infrastructure to support the initiative were initial activities identified for completion by the UMHS team. Given their research and procedural expertise, the external consultant took responsibility for creating an implementation plan and shared it with UMHS team members. Mrs. Jones and the lead counselor engaged in intentional outreach with CHS stakeholders to aid in securing buy-in and generating readiness for the initiative. This was achieved by routine newsletter communication about the initiative. It also entailed organizing professional development for staff and hosting a community town hall for parents and guardians of CHS students to attend. They also facilitated the conducting of a survey to assess support for the initiative and to better understand stakeholder concerns. The school psychologist, MTSS coordinator, and representative from the embedded behavioral health partner collaborated to conduct a needs assessment and engage in resource mapping to best determine suitable targets for screening and estimate the current service capacity in response to the conducting of UMHS. Informed by stakeholder feedback and needs assessment data, along with guidance by the external consultant, the UMHS team reached consensus in desiring to select a screening instrument that (a) captured both internal and external signs of mental health distress and (b) could be completed by student self-report. With this in mind, the school psychologist and external consultant worked collaboratively to identify suitable measures. They presented their findings to the UMHS team and facilitated conversation about each measure’s strengths and limitations. Once the UMHS team agreed on the instrument to use, several tasks were completed prior to engaging in a pilot of the instrument with the freshman class. Mrs. Jones and the external consultant collaborated with one another to establish consent language. A passive consent approach was chosen. Mrs. Jones consulted with district administration to ensure the consent form and approach was permissible before distributing it to parents and guardians of CHS stakeholders. All UMHS team members worked collaboratively to draft and finalize a response plan. The MTSS coordinator and school psychologist shared information about possible screening scores and risk profiles that would be yielded using the selected screening instrument to help guide response plan creation. As a result of this information, services available to students, along with the roles of internal and external providers, in response to screening, were clearly delineated and established. Individual team members, such as the lead counselor and embedded community behavioral health partner representative, took responsibility for sharing and coaching their respective colleagues on the response plan, including their individual roles and actions in the plan. The lead counselor also established a training plan and script for students that was offered before screening. Counselors, as a group, took responsibility for training students in the days before initial screening occurred. Among other elements,

50

L. M. Nellis et al.

training involved instruction about how to complete the screening tool and offered students a chance to practice instrument completion. Given their knowledge and experience with assessment, the school psychologist, lead counselor, and MTSS coordinator were chosen as stakeholders for proctoring, collecting, and immediately scoring screening instruments. Once scored, the MTSS coordinator was solely responsible for inputting data, by student ID, into the school’s data-based management system. The MTSS coordinator, in using screening data and in viewing such data in conjunction with other student-level data (e.g., grades, attendance, discipline incidents), was then responsible for initially categorizing students by their risk profiles. With a screening tool now selected, response plan articulated, logistics determined, and consent collected, the UMHS team was poised for an initial pilot of their instrument with the CHS freshman class. In preparation for the pilot, the embedded behavioral health partner representative ensured proper staffing on the day of the pilot in case their services and support were required beyond initial expectations. Only freshmen who were not opted out of the screening by their parents and guardians were given the screening tool for completion. Following the pilot, the UMHS team reconvened to assess their efforts, review results, and plan for additional implementation. While the UMHS team determined their response plan was mostly well executed, UMHS team members all agreed that they underestimated the need for ongoing coaching and consultation with internal members (e.g., teachers) responsible, in some cases, for implementing individual and class-wide interventions. In response to this, Mrs. Jones (a) organized additional professional development, provided by the external consultant, for staff on the implementation of EBIs and (b) ensured more time for the school psychologist, counselors, and MTSS coordinator to be available to EBI implementers for consultation, coaching, and performance feedback. These revisions to the response plan and reallocation of resources to support the initiative were viewed favorably among staff. Full implementation (i.e., screening of remaining grades) occurred approximately 1  month following the pilot. The MTSS coordinator and embedded behavioral health partner representative, with support from the external consultant, took responsibility for assessing results of the UMHS team’s efforts. Approximately 15% of the total sample of students had risk profiles necessitating tier 3, intensive support. Another 20% of the total sample of students had risk profiles necessitating tier 2, secondary supports. Students presenting with intense or secondary mental health needs were discovered to have significantly higher absentee and discipline rates and significantly lower GPAs compared to students falling within normal limits on the screening tool. Only 10% of students screened were receiving any type of mental health and/or social-emotional support before the conducting of UMHS occurred. The conducting of UMHS was determined to be a success by the UMHS team, as the number of students identified that may benefit from additional mental health, behavioral, and/ or social-emotional support(s) increased exponentially. With the information learned from the pilot and initial implementation, the UMHS team strongly desired continuing with UMHS in future school years. With input from the external

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

51

consultant, the UMHS decided to conduct UMHS an average of three times per school year in the future. The UMHS team, led by the MTSS coordinator, agreed to continue to monitor both student- and school-level outcomes in between screening occurrences. The UMHS team suspects that improvements in student-level data (response to intervention, treatment, and services) may also be evident in reversing the course of historically troubling data trends observed school-wide.

References Abelmann, C., & Elmore, R. (1999). When Accountability Knocks, Will Anyone Answer?. CPRE Research Reports. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/93 Adelman, H.  S., & Taylor, L. (2007). Systemic change for school improvement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047441 0709336590 American School Counselor Association. (2019). ASCA School Counselor Professional Standards & Competencies. Author. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2017). Learning to improve. How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. Bush, T. (2013). Distributed leadership: The model of choice in the 21st century. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 543–544. https://doi. org/10.1177/1741143213489497 Canter, A. (2006). Problem solving and RTI: New roles for school psychologists. Communiqué, 34, 5. Castillo, J.  M. (2020). The intersection between systems change, implementation science and human beings: A call to investigate people and context in future systems-level consultation research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 30(4), 402–411. https://doi. org/10.1080/10474412.2020.1728283 Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2016). Instructional coaching as high quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947 DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11. DuFour, R. (2014). Harnessing the Power of PLCs. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 30–35. Eklund, K., DeMarchena, S. L., Rossen, E., Izumi, J. T., Vaillancourt, K., & Rader Kelly, S. (2020). Examining the role of school psychologists as providers of mental and behavioral health services. Psychology in the Schools, 57, 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22323 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177. (2015). Farmer, R. L., Goforth, A. N., Kim, S. Y., Naser, S. C., Lockwood, A. B., & Affrunti, N. W. (2021). Status of school psychology in 2020, part 2: Professional practices in the NASP membership survey. NASP Research Reports, 5(3). Feirsen, R. (2022). Why teacher buy-in is overrated. Educational Leadership., 79(6), p48–p52. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F, Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (no. FMHI publication #231). University of South, Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E.,Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield, S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000019 Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.

52

L. M. Nellis et al.

Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M.  D., Yoon, I.  H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371497 Guiney, M. C., Harris, A., Zusho, A., & Cancelli, A. (2014). School psychologists’ sense of self-­ efficacy for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24, 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.870486 Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., & Luh, H. J. (2020). Treatment fidelity in school-based intervention. In A.  Reschly, A.  Pohl, & S.  Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­37285-­9_4 Hargreaves, A. & O’Connor, M.T. (2018). Leading collaborative professionalism. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper # 274. ISBN: 978-1-925654-14-1. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 978-0133351927 Hickey, G., McGilloway, S., O’Brien, M.., Leckey, Y., Devlin, M. & Donnelly, M. (2018). Strengthening stakeholder buy-in and engagement for successful exploration and installation: A case study of the development of an area-wide, evidence-based prevention and early intervention strategy. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2018.06.008 Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Fixsen, D. L. (2017). Implementing effective educational practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20, 25–35. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10567-­017-­0224-­7 Jackson, K.  R., Fixsen, D., & Ward, C. (2018). Four domains for rapid school improvement: An implementation framework. National Implementation Research Network University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/ four-­domains-­rapid-­school-­improvement-­implementation-­framework. Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85–97. Knapp, M. S., & Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: Challengefor urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249862 Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN 978-1412927246 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S.  Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.310 2/0013189X035007003 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of Enterprise, (the penguin business library). McGraw-Hill. McIntosh, K., Kelm, J. L., & Canizal Delabra, A. (2016). In search of how principals change: A qualitative study of events that help and hinder administrator support for school-wide PBIS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715599960 Metz, A., Albers, B., Burke, K., Bartley, L., Louison, L., Ward, C., & Farley, A. (2021). Implementation practice in human service systems: Understanding the principles and competencies of professionals who support implementation. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2021.1895401 National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Leveraging essential school practices, ESSA, MTSS, and the NASP practice model: A crosswalk to help every school and student succeed. Author. National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2012). National association of social workers standards for school social work services. https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick. aspx?fileticket=1Ze4-­9-­Os7E%3d&portalid=0 Newman, D. S., Hazel, C. E., Hazel Barrett, C. A., Das Chaudhuri, S., & Fetterman, H. (2018). Early-career school psychologists’ perceptions of consultative service delivery: The more things

3  Roles of School Professionals and Stakeholders in Systems Change

53

change, the more they stay the same. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 28(2), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2017.1378106 Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. Poole, S.  M. (2011). The Relationship Between External Accountability Policy and Internal Accountability: A Cross-State Analysis of Charter and Traditional Public Schools. Journal of School Choice, 5(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2011.604225 Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “the culture of the school and the problem of change”. Teacher College Press. ISBN 0–8077–3544-2. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. Crown Business. Sergiovanni, T.  J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson. Splett, J.  W., Perales, K., Halliday-Boykins, C.  E., Gilchrest, C.  E., Gibson, N., & Weist, M.  D. (2017). Best practices for teaming and collaboration in the interconnected systems framework. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 33(4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15377903.2017.132862 Ward, C.  S., Farmer, S., Ryan-Jackson, K., & Ihlo, T. (2021). Supportfor School Change and Improvement. In McLeskey, J., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., & Waldron, N.L. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of Effective Inclusive Elementary Schools: Research and Practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9780367486778 Yim, J. S.-C., Moses, M., & Azalea, A. (2018). Effects of psychological ownership on teachers’ beliefs about a cloud-based virtual learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(13), 1–19.

Chapter 4

Connecting Implementation Science and School-Based Initiatives: Considerations for Practice Leah M. Nellis and Pamela A. Fenning

 onnecting Implementation Science and School-Based C Initiatives: Considerations for Practice As discussed in Chaps. 1 and 2, systems-level/organizational consultation and implementation science (IS) (Chap. 2, this volume) are applicable to a broad range of innovations, disciplines, and settings with both research and practice examples in various fields, including public health, child welfare, and education. We position implementation science as an overarching framework for systems change that schools can utilize to guide continuous improvement and change processes regardless of the specific practice, intervention, or strategy being explored, implemented, and monitored. As Farmer et  al. stated in Chap. 2, the implementation science framework, strategies, and measures can be used by schools to support the “systematic uptake of research finding and evidence-based practices.” Consultation services, through the lens of systems/organization consultation (Meyers et al., 2012; see Chap. 1) provided by consultants who are either internal or external to a given school district, can facilitate and support the change process through intentional consideration and use of the IS strategies and tools in a way that accounts for the school district’s culture and context while also following essential components of the change process. Consultants can work with school teams to understand the issues of importance to them, work with them in gathering key information to help them drill further into the problem at hand, and then identify an EBP that has potential to address the issue, with their work being guided by systems/organizational

L. M. Nellis (*) Indiana University Kokomo, Kokomo, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. A. Fenning Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_4

55

56

L. M. Nellis and P. A. Fenning

consultation (Meyers et al., 2012) and the systems change effort being guided by implementation science (Fixsen et al., 2005, Chap. 2, this volume). Most education systems change innovations (e.g., PBIS, MTSS, UDL, etc.) are developed and disseminated through research and implementation models that are specific to a particular set of practices and theoretical frameworks. As one example, PBIS is grounded in multi-tiered systems of supports, which includes a focus on defining and teaching behavioral expectations on a universal/schoolwide basis as one of the key core components (Horner et al., 2017). Horner et al. (2017) emphasized that the PBIS blueprint which guides implementation work has many parallels to the stages of implementation science. Implementation guides that are centered on the innovation being delivered are useful for school leaders and practitioners who seek to initiate and sustain implementation over time and with fidelity. Those implementation processes are sometimes presented as, and/or perceived as, being part of the innovation or practice itself when in fact many of the components (e.g., teaming structures, data utilization, establishing buy-in, professional development) are ones that would apply to any innovation or practice. When a new practice is implemented in such a way that paints it as a substantial change or overhaul of current practices, it often feels overwhelming and like “just another initiative,” which can limit buy-in and subsequent implementation. A key role of systems/organizational consultants and the team that is being supported is to find common ground between the nuanced systems and practices that comprise the initiatives being implemented in the building. We contend that implementation science could be the larger umbrella that connects the dots of the various initiatives being implemented, which may require differing resources, timelines, data, and professional development, yet has an overall focus on school improvement and contributing to desired student outcomes. If schools had a framework in place for considering the need for change, using continuous improvement cycles to introduce a new practice, when needed, or adjust an existing practice to better meet goals, then new practices might be adopted in a more intentional and natural part of an ongoing improvement process. This could lead to fewer instances of “one more initiative” and less redundancy or siloed implementation of important practices. IS can be that framework. The components often embedded into implementation models are also evident in the IS framework, which also offers tools and measures that can be applied to multiple innovations or practices. School administrators and leaders may reduce some of the challenges associated with school change and see improved implementation from an approach that holds IS as the general, program-agnostic process for ongoing work in the district through which specific innovations are applied to address specific needs and desired outcomes. The implementation models of specific innovations (e.g., PBIS, UDL, MTSS, restorative practices, etc.) could then be considered within the context of the IS framework and implemented in such a way that is both consistent with the innovation’s parameters and the implementation drivers that are recognized as important for sustained change. Systems and structures (e.g., teaming, data, administrative leadership, and oversight) would be considered regardless of the specific innovation being adopted. Consultants (internal and external) could assist with the review of

4  Connecting Implementation Science and School-Based Initiatives: Considerations…

57

innovation models and identify any additional considerations, strategies, and phases that might be needed to support successful adoption and innovation from an IS lens.

School-Based Applications and Case Examples Nearly everyone who has worked in and with P-12 schools will acknowledge that change is messy and does not always go smoothly or lead to the desired results. Yet, when school leaders and school boards maintain a focus on the direction, mission, and vision of the district, foster shared understandings, and maintain a commitment to a continual improvement process, schools are able to respond when internal and external demands for change arise. The school-based application case studies featured in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8 are real-world examples of school change in the P12 setting. Chap. 9 focuses on the nature and course of continual improvement through the lens of superintendent school board partnerships. These examples are authentic and reflect both short- and long-term change initiatives. Each approached implementation in a slightly different way, taking into consideration the implementation model associated with the selected innovation and their own knowledge and expertise in leading and facilitating change. The chapters contain connections to the IS framework to illustrate the alignment. In Chap. 5, Gross, Healy, and Reed share an illustration of how a teacher-student mediation intervention called “Restore the Respect” was used to reduce exclusionary discipline in the high school setting. The chapter provides an example of how a need was identified, and it was determined that the intervention would best be implemented as a tiered intervention rather than a stand-alone individual intervention to align with the existing MTSS practices in place at the school. The Restore the Respect Intervention was aligned with IS from the inception of the intervention through full implementation, yet there were clear nuanced implementation decisions that fit with the existing structures in place at the school. In Chap. 6, Swanlund describes procedural and practice changes at the district level to support the academic progress of English-language learners. Her chapter follows an IS framework while incorporating nuanced expertise and professional development aligned with MTSS structures and systems. She specifically illustrates how data was carefully analyzed over time to help teams distinguish whether needs for academic support of ELs were driven by a language/cultural issue or a suspected disability. Chap. 7, authored by LaDuke, Mayworm, Mullen, and Connors, provides an in-depth look at the implementation of social-emotional health screening and intervention in an urban secondary school setting. They framed social-emotional health supports within a MTSS system. They applied the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment Model (EPIS; Aarons et al., 2011) due to its alignment with systems change work in public schools. LaDuke and colleagues showed the alignment of EPIS with implementation science in their chapter and drew upon MTSS systems and supports within the social-emotional health domain. In a fashion similar to the other chapters, LaDuke and colleagues illustrate how practices and structures are

58

L. M. Nellis and P. A. Fenning

adapted within a larger IS framework. Van Horn, Laswell, Vogel, and Greene provide a district-level example of universal design for learning (UDL) implementation, which has continued for over a decade and served a pivotal role in improved outcomes for all students, including students receiving special education services and English-language learners. They followed the phases of UDL implementation, which is a framework developed by CAST (Meo et al., 2015). Their framework followed the steps of UDL across a multi-year UDL implementation effort with steps that broadly aligned with IS.  Their chapter is an example of how school leaders followed a structured process and steps that were aligned with a systems reform effort implemented to make curriculum and instruction more accessible for all students. Finally Balch shared how he leads districts in structured strategic planning as part of continuous improvement. We conclude with a chapter on continuous improvement because Balch reminds us that systems change work is never done as school administrators, teachers, teacher leaders, school psychologists, specialized instructional support staff, school boards, external consultants, and all stakeholders are working in an ever-evolving changing system where implementation must be continually evaluated, considered, and tweaked, along with new and renewed challenges that undoubtedly emerge in the service of children, families, and communities.

References Aarons, G.  A., Hurlburt, M., & Horowitz, S.  M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-­based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-­010-­0327-­7 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la parte Florida mental health institute, the National Implementation Research Network (FMHI publication #231). Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Fixsen, D. L. (2017). Implementing effective educational practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-­017-­0224-­7 Meo, G., Currie-Rubin, R., & Professional Learning. (2015). CAST’s UDL implementation Phases. https://www.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/cast/downloads/overview_implementation.pdf Meyers, A.  B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E.  C., Proctor, S.  L., & Huddleson, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(12), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10474412.2011.649649

Chapter 5

Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary Discipline Ondine Gross, Emma Healy, and Kelsie Reed

Introduction Despite years of data analysis and discussion, racial disproportionality in discipline remains one of the highest threats to equity in schools (Huang, 2018). Punitive discipline is known to increase poor outcomes, such as decreased academic achievement, increased misbehavior, and potential future incarceration (Krezmein et  al., 2014). Research also demonstrates that punitive discipline is often used disproportionately with students of racial/ethnic minority groups in comparison to White students (Losen, 2015). Specifically, Black students are suspended or expelled from school at approximately twice the rate of White students (Lipscomb et al., 2017). Like many other schools, Anonymous High School found itself needing to address its racial discipline disproportionality while also battling high staff turnover and implementing a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) model. This chapter will outline how one high school implemented one particular intervention to address both the racial disproportionality in their discipline data as well as promote positive teacher-student relationships and the school climate overall.

O. Gross (*) ROE Schoolworks and Ondine Gross Solutions, LLC, Champaign, IL, USA E. Healy Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA K. Reed Prince George’s County Public Schools, Upper Marlboro, MD, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_5

59

60

O. Gross et al.

Description of the School Anonymous High School is one of two public high schools in a midsize city in a midwestern state. In the years prior to the program implementation described in this chapter, the school experienced rapid change. In 2002, the presiding school board signed a consent decree that required Anonymous High School’s district to reduce the disparities in academic achievement, discipline, and graduation rates among White students and students from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. Over a period of 7 years, administrators and the community spent extensive time planning professional development activities, reviewing existing policies, and putting in place more equitable ones. Anonymous High School also had frequent changes in leadership during this time. Whereas from 1972 to 2004, there were two principals, between the years of 2004 and 2010, there were four different principals. On top of administrative turnover, Anonymous High School was required by federal and state regulators to submit a restructuring plan in 2010 because the school failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 5 years in a row under the No Child Left Behind Act (PL 107–110; NCLB). The restructuring at Anonymous High School involved state monitoring, specific meetings to examine and revise practices, and the removal of several certified staff members. In addition to changes in policy and restructuring, Anonymous High School also experienced rapidly shifting student demographics over the 2002–2014 school years. In 2002, approximately 76% of the students were White, 18% were Black, 0.8% were Hispanic, 5% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1% were identified as Multiracial. Additionally, 15.9% of the student population was considered low income (i.e., applied for and granted free and reduced price lunch). By 2014, Anonymous High School had approximately 1425 students: 45% White, 34% Black, 10% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Hispanic, and 4% Multiracial. Approximately 51% of the students were considered low income (ISBE, n.d.-b). Table  5.1 for a visual representation of such student demographic changes. Notably, while the racial demographics of students have changed drastically, the racial demographics of teachers have remained predominantly White. Anonymous High School was faced with the challenge of meeting the needs of a diverse student body, improving academic achievement scores, implementing new policies, and working under new leaders. Table 5.1  Student demographic changes at anonymous high school (%) White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races Free/reduced lunch 2002 76.0 18.0 0.8 4.9 0.1 16.0 2014 45.0 34.0 7.0 10.0 4.0 51.0 % Difference (±)a −30.8 +15.6 +6.2 +5.1 +3.9 +35.1 Retrieved from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com a The percentage difference represents the percent change in demographic composition from 2002 to 2014. For example, there was a 30.8% reduction in White student enrollment from 2002 to 2014 at Anonymous High School

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

61

Impetus for the Change After grappling with the frequent administrative turnover that had taken place during the years of 2004–2010, the racially disproportionate rates of suspensions and expulsions, and the state and federal mandates put in place at Anonymous High School, school leaders began to focus on systemic change. Prior to the implementation of MTSS at Anonymous High School, there was one multidisciplinary intervention team of seven professionals (an administrator, the school psychologist, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a social worker, a counselor, and a truancy interventionist). Referrals for students who were struggling academically, socially, or emotionally were made to the team by a teacher, administrator, or parent. Parents of the referred students were then invited to attend the team meeting to provide background information and discuss current functioning. With more than 1400 students at the school, the team found they were unable to effectively meet the needs of the many students in need, and they looked to establish a more comprehensive system to do so. While the team discussed what necessary changes needed to be made, the school psychologist thought about ways to incorporate what she knew; teacher-student misunderstandings or conflicts create barriers to learning, current disciplinary procedures are inadequate to promote improved teacher and student relationships, and students perform best when they think their teacher cares about them. The school psychologist thought teacher-student mediation may be a valuable addition to help address some of the current needs.

Mediation Mediation is described as a process to help people in conflict reconcile differences, settle a dispute, or come to a compromise. It is used in a variety of settings, both informally and formally. It may refer to the complex and legal process performed by professionals in situations of disputes including divorce, contracts, and negotiations; however, not all mediations are complex. In fact, the mediation utilized in school settings is a voluntary and efficient process that can be implemented between teachers and students, students and other students, and between adults. With the rise of restorative practices in schools, the utilization of mediation with students has become increasingly popular in schools (Hopkins, 2002). Restorative practices, or “non-punitive disciplinary responses that focus on repairing harm done to relationships and people, developing solutions by engaging all persons affected by a harm, and accountability,” (USDOE Guiding Principles, 2014, p. 24) are used “to address the harm committed and enhance responsibility and accountability, build relationships and community, and teach students empathy and problem solving skills that can help prevent the occurrence of inappropriate behavior in the future” (p. 24). Using restorative practices such as mediation allows for school professionals to acknowledge that children make mistakes, and it is the responsibility

62

O. Gross et al.

of the surrounding community to help them understand their mistakes, the impact on others, and how to make amends. Mediation is structured so that the mediator provides direction and facilitates the exchange between different parties. Both parties have the opportunity to share their experience with the result leading to both parties feeling heard, understood, and affirmed. Mediation strives to improve the effectiveness of the teacher and student. Mediation also aims to bridge racial and cultural divides and to help build trust. Teacher-Student Mediation When implemented correctly, teacher-student mediation can improve student learning and teacher morale, foster an environment of caring and respect, improve racial understanding, and model conflict resolution skills. The goal of teacher-student mediation is to replace frustration or resistance with understanding and rapport to ultimately restore respect and improve relationships. It will ultimately allow teachers to teach and students to learn in a more positive environment. The teacher-student mediation at Anonymous High School involved a teacher, student, and trained mediator and took place in a private office during a 50-minute class period. Meetings open with a review of the rules and principles of mediation. The teacher and student are asked to speak only to the mediator as they separately explain what brought them to the mediation. The mediator uses reflective listening skills, asks clarifying questions, and infuses the mediation with thanks and praise to both parties for their participation. The mediator also elicits any positive observations the teacher and student have about one another. The mediator summarizes each participant’s viewpoint during the first part of the 50-minute mediation. Then, the teacher and student are invited to speak directly to each other and to develop a plan to move forward. There are four principles of mediation useful in school settings adapted from the 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators created in collaboration with the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution, and the Association for Conflict Resolution: I. Mediators are neutral facilitators. They do not take sides, impose personal opinions, or provide solutions. Rather they are engaged listeners who facilitate communication to ensure the equal rights and dignity of both parties. II. Maintaining the mediation as confidential, while complying with mandated reporting requirements gives people confidence in the process. III. Self-determination empowers the participants and helps them feel more effective. This means that participants choose to talk about whatever topics they wish within the structure and safety of the mediation process. IV. Participants come to mediation voluntarily and stay voluntarily.

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

63

Purpose of Teacher-Student Mediation Mediation is helpful for teachers. No one training program can adequately prepare a teacher for the wide and varied behavioral challenges that students present. There are nonstop physical, emotional, and organizational demands and there are going to be instances in which interactions could have gone better. Mediation can help rebuild relationships with students and allow teachers to learn new approaches and skills to use when facing challenging behaviors. Many teachers who come to mediation are highly skilled, are sensitive, and have excellent classroom management techniques, but those techniques may not be effective with all students. Teachers who are willing to engage in mediation should be recognized as being open to learning new insights in order to engage effectively with their students. Mediation is also helpful for students. Students may gain insights from hearing a teacher’s perspective. Also, students can benefit from learning how to appropriately share their perspective and express their feelings. Students face a variety of challenges, and many are impacted by forces outside of their control. Mediation can provide an outlet for them to bring to light some of the challenges they are facing. Because students are heard in a nonjudgmental way, they feel validated, respected, and treated with dignity. In addition to independently benefitting teachers and students, both parties mutually benefit from mediation. A mediation meeting may also provide a model of appropriate problem-solving behavior for both parties. Teachers and students see each other every school day, and ongoing interpersonal conflict can impact them in the following ways: stress and tension for both parties, removal of the joy from teaching and learning, the exertion of additional mental and emotional energy, a reduction in learning and effective teaching, production of a negative learning environment, and increased negative outcomes for the individual student (e.g., decreased academic performance, truancy, behavioral problems, disciplinary consequences). However, there is also an incentive for both parties to want to improve the relationship; a student may do better in the class, and a teacher may be a more effective, affirming educator if they process the issue together. Mediation may also provide an opportunity for students to problem solve in a mutually respectful and appropriate manner with teachers. It can also be an opportunity for the teacher to have an earnest, intentional, problem-solving conversation with a student. Importantly, mediation may also provide an opportunity for an in-­ depth cross-cultural dialogue and exposure to different backgrounds and perspectives. Thus, mediation can promote more positive relationships, respect, and cultural sensitivity for involved parties. Furthermore, mediation provides the means for a better suited interaction between the teacher and student, as compared to interactions that occur during passing periods or during class time when other students are present. One reason for this improvement is the involvement of the mediator. The mediation begins with the teacher and student only speaking with the mediator; Because they are not directly speaking to each other, the student and teacher often speak to the mediator with a calmer tone and volume, which may not often be the case in more heated interactions when they are speaking directly to each other.

64

O. Gross et al.

Exploration and Installation The school psychologist at Anonymous High school had completed a 40-hour mediation training in 2009 and since then had been looking for opportunities to adapt mediation skills for school use. It dawned on her that teacher-student mediation might be worth exploring to help address some of the known concerns in the school. In the summer of 2011, the school psychologist participated in a planning meeting with the two administrators to brainstorm interventions for students who had multiple disciplinary infractions. Students at Anonymous High School with multiple behavioral incidents often received the same ineffective consequences repeatedly. School professionals did not routinely seek to understand the root cause of the students’ misbehavior nor did they explicitly teach students how to meet the behavioral expectations at the school. Some students received social-emotional support, and others did not, but there was no consistent process to monitor which students received supports, and racial and socioeconomic disparities were evident. At the same time that school leaders were examining disciplinary practices, the administrators were also in the beginning stages of implementing a multi-tiered system of schoolwide positive behavioral supports (SWPBS) with the ultimate goal of improving student behavior and effectively addressing disciplinary problems. With the administrators already brainstorming and preparing for systemic change, the school psychologist suggested piloting teacher-student mediation as a possible Tier II intervention. The school psychologist was able to identify some factors that would help facilitate the implementation and others that may be barriers.

Facilitators In 2010, a new principal and administrator joined the team at Anonymous High School. They both noted the lack of systemic intervention delivery, and they, along with service providers and teachers, reported feeling exhausted trying to meet student needs by constantly extinguishing fires and attempting to be equitable without a formal process. This recognition allowed for them to seek out and be open-minded to new systems and interventions that may help alleviate the need. The school psychologist knew that with administrative support, piloting teacher-student mediation would be more readily accepted among the faculty. Additionally, some teachers at Anonymous High School did not need mediation to resolve conflicts or improve relationships with students. In fact, many were adept and comfortable with having difficult conversations to help identify the root of the problem and develop solutions. Some teachers also regularly reflected on their own backgrounds, biases, and practices that either promote or hinder equity and fairness. Because these teachers were already working in the system, the teacher-student mediation appeared to be a viable intervention for implementation within the school to be used with both experienced and inexperienced teachers.

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

65

Perhaps invaluable to Anonymous High School’s implementation efforts was the implementation of sweeping policy reform in the ways in which educators were to be evaluated throughout the country. In 2010, statewide legislation was enacted which required significant reforms to teacher evaluation systems, including processes for dismissing tenured teachers (Illinois Public Act 096-0861). Thus, Anonymous High School proceeded to adopt a new teacher evaluation system that was adapted from The Framework for Teacher Evaluation Instrument (Danielson, 2013). The framework utilizes an explicitly detailed continuum to evaluate teacher practices, spanning across four levels: ineffective, developing, effective, and highly effective. Notably, some components of the new framework pertain to the relationship between teachers and students with an emphasis placed on creating an environment of respect and rapport. In order to be evaluated in the highly effective range in this area, teachers were to engage in classroom interactions with students that were “highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth, caring, and sensitivity to students as individuals” (Gross, 2016, p. 21). Thus, teacher incentivization to participate in the teacher-student mediation process likely increased due to the understanding that they would be evaluated based on their participation in such practices.

Barriers In addition to the factors that facilitated the implementation, there were also barriers to the initial stages of teacher-student mediation implementation. The school psychologist identified teacher buy-in as the biggest potential barrier. She suspected that some teachers might view mediation as undermining their authority. She knew many teachers likely believed that they had made the rules clear and that students should receive consequences for not following them. However, while this belief may be reasonable for approximately 80% of students, mediation would be intended for situations in which the universal methods to correct student performance were not effective. Therefore, the school psychologist identified the importance of ensuring that teachers knew that teacher-student mediation could be appropriate for the approximate 15–20% of students who needed more attention, care, concern, or structure than the Tier 1 supports provided. In addition, the school psychologists felt that some teachers may have believed that to be effective, they needed to remain in charge. Teachers decide how to use class time, ways to interact with students, and how to engage students who need more support. However, because there is no singular teaching style or classroom management technique that is 100% effective in the classroom or in developing positive relationships with students, it is possible that some students may not respond to some teacher approaches. Moreover, while teachers are the authority figure, it is important to remember that students also exercise power in the classroom. It can be positive or negative and often reflective of their relationship with the teacher.

66

O. Gross et al.

Another area of teacher resistance may be attributed to a teacher feeling that participating in a mediation will expose them to being blamed by a student. Of note, mediation is not a blame game nor an investigation to determine right or wrong. Rather, mediation is about sharing and validating different perspectives, boosting empathy between teachers and students, and also giving them a way to express positive feedback to one another. Indeed, the school psychologist observed in mediations that many conflicts derived from small, misread situations and often teachers took responsibility for their role in a misunderstanding.

Buy-in from Key Stakeholders School districts were required by the state to develop new teacher evaluation systems, and in the fall of 2012, after much collaboration between administrators, educators, and union representatives, the school implemented a new teacher evaluation system. The system utilized a teaching framework that explicitly detailed expectations, including what constitutes ineffective to highly effective practices. More specifically, the framework cited the need for educators to create a learning environment rich with respect and rapport. Thus, the introduction of this framework is believed to have helped foster buy-in for teacher-student mediation as a way to improve the teacher-student relationship. Having administrator buy-in was vital to the school psychologist’s initial implementation efforts. One administrator noted that mediation resulted in an improvement of both student and teacher behavior. She appreciated that both parties were asked to hear and understand the other’s perspective. The principal considered it one of the most effective strategies for resolving interpersonal conflict between students and teachers. Despite the school psychologist’s anticipated fears, she found that with administrative encouragement, teachers were largely open to the idea of teacher-student mediation meetings. Not only did the school psychologist never receive word of teachers complaining, but also many teachers welcomed mediation as a new way to learn about their students. Teacher buy-in may have been due to the systems that were in place previously that were not effective in helping teachers with challenging relationships. In some cases, teachers had already written disciplinary referrals, tried brief conversations with the student, sent the student out of class, or called home and seen no change in student behavior. Because they did not know what else to try, they were open to participating in mediation. One teacher commented that she was specifically drawn to the opportunity that teacher-student mediation allowed for her and her students to step out of their prescribed roles and hierarchy to share concerns and work toward a resolution. She believed that in using mediation in place of a punitive practice, it would make her a happier and more effective teacher. Overall, the school psychologist felt that she was able to successfully gain buy-in from the necessary stakeholders.

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

67

It is important to note that the current case study likely represents a “best case scenario” in terms of facilitators, barriers, and gaining staff buy-in. Oftentimes, there is a lack of administrative support, and it is much harder to garner buy-in from school staff. Thus, one cannot minimize the importance of the time the school psychologist spent cultivating positive relationships with school staff and serving as a supportive professional throughout the many years she served in the building before taking on the difficult task of implementing a schoolwide program. The recognition she held as a trusted leader in the building, her ability to use that power to successfully work with the new administration, and her ability to navigate the already present positive relationships with school staff definitely furthered implementation efforts and should not be underestimated.

Initial Implementation As mentioned previously, Anonymous High School staff were simultaneously beginning to implement a tiered system of positive behavior supports intended to replace punitive discipline with the teaching of social, communication, and conflict-­ resolution skills. Administrators had begun an assessment of the supports currently being offered by staff, the resources and time needed for successful implementation, the staff that would need to be involved, and any additional resources or financial components needed to proceed. Counselors, social workers, and school psychologists were already frequently intervening with teachers and students at Anonymous High School, but the school psychologist hoped to incorporate the structure and principles of mediation to teacher-student meetings. As previously mentioned, the school psychologist saw an opportune time to implement teacher-student mediation due to systemic changes to school discipline in schools throughout the country along with efforts by Anonymous High School administrators to begin implementing tiered behavioral supports for students. To begin the installation process, she posed three questions to herself and the school team: 1. Would conducting teacher-student mediations be feasible? 2. Would teachers accept the idea? 3. Would mediations be effective? To answer these questions, the school psychologist decided to implement teacher-­ student mediation and collect data to measure its effectiveness. While teacher-­ student mediation can be implemented as a stand-alone intervention using trained school staff members as mediators, it can also be used as a tiered intervention embedded into the MTSS, and fortunately, Anonymous High School had recently begun holding Tier II meetings at this time. The school psychologist agreed to be the sole provider to implement teacher-student mediations and received assistance in data collection and analysis during the Tier II meetings. She found that she did have time to conduct teacher-student mediations despite her busy schedule; teachers did accept the idea, and according to the data, meditations were effective. Once

68

O. Gross et al.

there was preliminary data and the school psychologist confirmed the feasibility of the intervention, she was able to confidently move forward with continued implementation. Introducing Mediation to School Staff Teacher-student mediation was formally introduced to the staff at Anonymous High School during the first staff training day of the 2011 school year. During this meeting, staff learned about the MTSS initiatives that would begin that school year along with the processes and decisions involved in each level of support. The following Tier I behavioral supports were introduced at this time: positive behavior recognition tickets, quarterly celebrations, attendance incentives, and expectation lessons. The following Tier II behavioral supports were introduced: teacher-student mediation, check-in/check-out (CICO), skill-building groups, intensive skill-building groups, weekly checkups, and Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS). The school psychologist introduced teacher–student mediation via a presentation. It is important to note that while the implementation of teacher-student mediation within Anonymous High School occurred simultaneously with the implementation of MTSS, teacher-student mediation can also be implemented as a stand-alone intervention using existing trained school staff members as the mediator(s). The implementation steps that follow will be presented within the context of MTSS with emphasis on the Tier II and teacher-student mediation aspect. The initial implementation of MTSS/SWPBS and teacher-student mediation at Anonymous High School began during the fall of 2011 with the establishment of the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III teams. Such teams were intended to augment the previously mentioned multidisciplinary intervention team. It will be important for schools to assess the facilitators and barriers of implementing teacher-student mediation as a stand-­ alone intervention (i.e., within the context of an already existing MTSS/SWPBS system, or as a completely independent intervention) or as part of a larger school reform strategy such as the current example. Such a decision will ultimately differ depending on contextual factors, resources, and needs of the school. Tier II Implementation and Operation The intended purpose of the Tier II program at Anonymous High School was to support the 15–20% of students who were not successfully responding to the universal interventions and supports being implemented at the Tier I level. Tier II committee members included relevant administrative and student support staff members involved in implementing the Tier II interventions. At Anonymous High School, this included four school counselors, two social workers, one school psychologist, three assistant principals, one supervised study room supervisor, and one truancy intervention specialist. Because interventions and not individual students were discussed, selected representatives of community outreach organizations were also

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

69

invited to attend Tier II committee meetings on an as-needed basis. For example, during the first 2 years of implementation, the school benefitted from a collaborative relationship with a nonprofit mental health agency, and two therapists from that organization regularly attended meetings and participated in the SPARCS interventions. A PBIS consultant also provided support during the first 2 years of implementation, by attending some of the initial Tier II committee meetings and providing valuable input on the selection of a computer program to facilitate the collection and monitoring of Tier II data. Before implementing interventions, the PBIS consultant and administrators at Anonymous High School encouraged the selection of Tier II interventions that would tap into the school’s existing resources and strengths. Furthermore, emphasis was continuously placed on adapting interventions to the school context using data-­ based decision making. Upon identifying interventions, the Tier II team next established referral criteria, exit criteria, data tracking methods, and response criteria for each intervention. Further logistics such as interventionists, training, and capacity building also occurred at this time. The remainder of this chapter will focus specifically on the implementation and outcomes of teacher-student mediation. Teacher-Student Mediation Operation As previously mentioned, the school psychologist, who voluntarily served as the mediator, led the teacher-student mediation process at Anonymous High School and Tier II team colleagues assisted with data collection and analysis. The intended purpose of teacher-student mediations at Anonymous High School was to eliminate problems occurring in a specific classroom with a staff member. The Tier II team at Anonymous High School established that if a student received three discipline referrals from the same teacher, both the student and teacher were eligible to be referred for participation in a teacher-student mediation. However, it is important to note that three disciplinary referrals were not a firm prerequisite to hold a mediation, but rather served as a general guideline when intervention might be requested. Furthermore, participation was entirely voluntary, and teacher-student mediations could also occur upon teacher, staff, administrator, or student request. In the initial stages of introducing mediation at Anonymous High School, a Teacher-Student Mediation Request Form was to be filled out to provide background information on the concern and document the referral criteria. Figure 5.1 for an example of this request form. The final outcome of the mediation process was an agreed-upon plan created by the teacher and student to improve the effectiveness of their interactions. Following each mediation, a summary and follow-up email was sent to the teacher and student with documentation of the developed plan and a space to share feedback about the mediation process. Figure  5.2 for a sample follow-up email. A mediation was deemed effective if the teacher did not issue any further disciplinary referrals to the student. A mediation was deemed ineffective if the teacher issued further disciplinary referrals to the student. For step-by-step details of how to serve as a mediator for the teacher-student mediation process, please reference Gross (2016).

70

O. Gross et al.

Sample Mediation Request Form Teacher–Student Mediation Request Form Student name: _________________________________________________________________________ Date of referral: _______________________________________________________________________ Teacher name: _________________________________________________________________________ Referring party:________________________________________________________________________ Reason for request: ____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Who is asking for mediation? Please circle and/or provide name: Administrator ________________ Teacher __________________ Counselor ___________________ Student ______________________ Parent ___________________ Other _______________________ Teacher is aware of request

Yes

No

Student is aware of request

Yes

No

Parent/guardian is aware of request

Yes

No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The person conducting the mediation will complete this portion and return it to the referring party: Name of mediator: ____________________________________________________________________ Date of mediation: ____________________________________________________________________ Additional information: ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Restore the Respect: How to Mediate School Conflicts and Keep Students Learning by Ondine Gross. Copyright © 2016 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. All rights reserved.

Fig. 5.1  Sample mediation request form

Full Implementation Within a few years, new initiatives or interventions gradually become embedded into the culture of the school. Throughout the first 3 years of teacher-student mediation implementation, the Tier II team continuously monitored the data and made adjustments to fit the needs of key-stakeholders while maintaining the integrity of the intervention to facilitate this process. For example, after the first year of mediation implementation, the previously mentioned request form was used inconsistently, as many individuals preferred to request mediations via email or in person. However, regardless of whether or not the forms were formally filled out, data were collected to track the request, teacher and student names, student demographic data, mediation date, and outcomes. As staff at Anonymous High School continued to adjust to the systemic changes, a mediation protocol was established. Typically, mediation referrals were made after students were sent to the administrator with a disciplinary referral for an infraction such as disobedience, disrespect, disruptive behavior, obscenity, or verbal abuse toward staff. After calling home and delivering the consequence from the

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

71

Sample Mediation Follow-up Email Dear Ms. Bailey, Please print this email and provide a copy for James. Thank you again for participating in the mediation. Here are the plans you developed: 1. James agrees to put away his phone and give Ms. Bailey his full attention when she is giving instruction. 2. If James is having a bad day that affects his mood, he will let Ms. Bailey know about it. 3. Ms. Bailey will change James’ seat to be closer to the front to help him focus. 4. If James needs to be redirected, Ms. Bailey will come to his desk and gently tap it rather than calling out his name. Please share feedback below and note if you would like additional follow-up: ___ Meeting to debrief about the mediation or discuss next steps ___ Follow-up check in:

1 week

2 weeks

quarterly

(please circle)

___ Another mediation Additional comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adapted from Gross (2016)

Fig. 5.2  Sample mediation follow-up email. (Adapted from Gross (2016))

code of conduct, administrators may have suggested a Tier II intervention such as teacher-student mediation. Once teacher-student mediation and other Tier II interventions had been operating successfully within the school, the purpose of Tier II meetings continued to involve a review of the current intervention systems, discussions of strengths and/or concerns with current interventions, as well as the discussion of data that allowed for modifications and improvements to interventions. Each intervention was monitored via a data tracking tool which was reviewed at every meeting to guide the conversation.

Evaluation Collecting and analyzing data and making improvements based on the data are ongoing practices when implementing RTI within MTSS. The Tier II team was responsible for collecting as much information as possible on the effectiveness of teacher-student mediation in order to evaluate and improve the intervention in an ongoing way. Thus, the school psychologist collected both process data and outcome data. Process data consisted of the mediation date, referral source, and teacher and student participant demographic information (e.g., grade, gender, race/ethnicity). Outcome data consisted of the effectiveness of the mediations each year in preventing future disciplinary referrals. In addition, teacher and student survey data were collected to further assess the outcome and impact of the mediations.

72

O. Gross et al.

Process Data Year One The first year of teacher-student mediation occurred during the 2011–2012 school year with 1454 students enrolled at Anonymous High School. During the first year of implementation, 38 mediations were held, and 32 mediations (84%) were deemed effective per the agreed-upon criteria of zero further disciplinary referrals post-­ mediation. On average, there were 3–5 mediations per month taking place during one 50-minute class period. Mediations were heaviest during the months of April (7 mediations) and March (6 mediations). Table 5.2 for a visual representation of the number of mediations held throughout each year of implementation. The majority of the 38 referrals from the first year of implementation were made by administrators (26 referrals; 68%). The remainder were referred to by teachers (6 referrals; 16%), students (3 referrals; 8%), and student services staff (3 referrals; 8%). During the first year of mediation implementation, along with both subsequent years, the majority of teachers at Anonymous High School were White and female. Furthermore, throughout all 3 years, the majority of teacher mediation participants were also White and female. Table 5.3 for a visual representation of overall teacher demographics in comparison to teacher mediation participant demographics throughout all 3 years of implementation. Of the students that participated in mediations during the first year, the majority were freshmen (25 students; 66%), with juniors comprising the next largest group of student participants (7 students; 18%). While seniors (5 students; 13%) and Table 5.2  Teacher-student mediations by year (N) 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

Total 38 34 57

Aug 0 3 2

Sep 3 5 2

Oct 5 6 13

Nov 5 7 10

Dec 3 2 7

Jan 3 3 0

Feb 5 2 9

Mar 6 1 8

Apr 7 2 3

May 1 3 3

Table 5.3  Teacher demographicsa vs. teacher participant demographics by implementation year Race White Black Teacher demographics (%) 2011–2012 84.0 12.0 2012–2013 84.0 10.0 2013–2014 84.0 9.0 Teacher participant demographics (%)b 2011–2012 94.7 2.6 2012–2013 97.1 2.9 2013–2014 91.2 1.8

Asian

Hispanic

Gender Male

Female

3.0 3.0 4.0

2.0 2.0 3.0

25.0 25.0 25.0

75.0 75.0 75.0

2.6 0.0 1.8

0.0 0.0 5.3

29.4 23.5 26.3

70.6 76.5 73.7

Retrieved from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com Please note that some teachers participated in multiple mediations

a

b

73

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

sophomores (1 student; 3%) made up the minority of participants this year, it is important to note that there was a new administrator assigned to the sophomore grade level for the first year. Table 5.4 for a visual representation of student mediation participants by grade throughout all 3 years of implementation. During the first year of mediation implementation, the racial composition of students enrolled at Anonymous High School was 48% White, 34% Black, 8% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% two or more races (ISBE, n.d.-a). The majority of students referred for mediation during the first year were Black, comprising 71% (27) of the participating students. The remaining students were White (10 students; 26%) and Asian (1 student; 3%). Furthermore, male students made up the majority of referrals during the 2011–2012  year of implementation, comprising 66% of student participants. Table 5.5 for a visual representation of student enrollment demographics in comparison to student mediation participation demographics throughout all 3 years of mediation implementation. Year Two There were 1459 students enrolled at Anonymous High School during the 2012–2013 school year. During the second year of implementation, 34 mediations were held and 26 mediations (76%) were deemed effective per the agreed-upon criteria of zero further disciplinary referrals post-mediation. Mediations were heaviest during the Table 5.4  Student mediation participants by grade 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

Freshmen n (%) 25 (66.0) 12 (35.0) 25 (44.0)

Sophomores 1 (3.0) 13 (38.0) 24 (42.0)

Juniors 7 (18.0) 7 (21.0) 8 (14.0)

Seniors 5 (13.0) 2 (6.0) 0 (0.0)

Table 5.5 Student enrollment demographicsa vs. student participant demographics by implementation year (%) Student enrollment demographics Race White Black 2011–2012 48.0 34.0 2012–2013 49.0 33.0 2013–2014 45.0 34.0 Student participant demographics Race White Black 2011–2012 26.3 71.0 2012–2013 17.6 76.0 2013–2014 26.0 68.0

Asian 8.0 9.0 10.0

Hispanic 6.0 6.0 7.0

Two or more 3.0 4.0 4.0

Asian 3.0 0.0 0.0

Hispanic 0.0 5.9 4.0

Two or more 0.0 0.0 2.0

Retrieved from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com

a

Gender Male 65.8 52.9 65.0

Female 34.2 47.0 35.0

74

O. Gross et al.

months of November (7 mediations) and October (6 mediations). Again, the largest source of referrals was from administrators (22 referrals; 65%), with teachers making up the second largest referral source (7 referrals; 20%). Student services staff (3 referrals; 9%) and students (2 referrals; 6%) made up the remainder of referrals. Of the students that participated in mediations during the second year of implementation, 38% were sophomores (13 students), 35% were freshmen (12 students), 21% were juniors (7 students), and 6% were seniors (2 students). The racial composition of students enrolled at Anonymous High School during the 2012–2013 school year was 49% White, 33% Black, 9% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 4% two or more races (ISBE, n.d.-b). The majority of students referred for mediation during the second year were Black, comprising 76% (26) of the participating students. The remaining students were White (6 students; 18%) and Hispanic (2 students; 6%). Male students made up a slight majority of the referrals during the second year, comprising 53% of referrals. Year Three There were 1425 students enrolled at Anonymous High School during the 2013–2014 school year. During the third year of implementation, 57 mediations were held and 49 mediations (86%) were deemed effective per the agreed-upon criteria of zero further disciplinary referrals post-mediation. Mediations were heaviest during the months of October (13 mediations) and November (10 mediations). Similar to the first 2 years of implementation, administrators continued to be the largest referral source for mediations (39 referrals; 68%). The remaining referrals were made by teachers (11 referrals; 7%), students (4 referrals; 7%), and student services staff (3 referrals; 5%). Throughout the third year of mediation implementation, the majority of student participants were either freshmen (25 students; 44%) or sophomores (24 students; 42%). The remaining participants were juniors (8 students; 14%). Notably, no seniors were referred for mediation during the third year. The racial composition of students enrolled at Anonymous High School during the 2013–2014 school year was 45% White, 34% Black, 10% Asian, 7% Hispanic, and 4% two or more races (ISBE, n.d.-a). Similar to the first 2 years of implementation, the majority of students referred for mediation during the third year were Black, comprising 68% (39) of the participating students. The remaining students were White (15 students; 26%), Hispanic (2 students; 4%), and Multiracial (1 student; 2%). Male students again made up a large majority of the referrals for the third year, comprising 65% of referrals. In the third year of implementation, staff at Anonymous High School also began tracking the socioeconomic data of participating students. Ultimately, 79% of the student participants from the third year of implementation were receiving free or reduced price lunch.

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

75

Summary Throughout the first 3 years of mediation implementation, an average of 43 mediations per year occurred at Anonymous High School. Throughout all 3  years of implementation, administrators were the primary referral sources. Freshmen and sophomores made up a larger proportion of student participants each year. Male and Black students also comprised the majority of participants each year. Notably, the growth in the use of mediation is most apparent during the third year of mediation implementation.

Outcome Data Overall, data revealed that the concurrent implementation of teacher-student mediation and MTSS at Anonymous High School significantly reduced the number of student disciplinary referrals and suspensions across student demographics. More specifically, for 3 years straight, approximately 80% of students who participated in teacher-student mediation did not receive any additional disciplinary referrals from their teacher post-mediation. Table 5.6 to review the effectiveness of teacher-student mediation throughout all 3 years of implementation. In addition, the number of overall disciplinary referrals reduced dramatically from 2010–2011 (pre-implementation) to 2013–2014 (−55%). White student referrals decreased most throughout all racial subgroups (−65%). Table 5.7 for a representation of disciplinary referral data from the 2010–2011 school year through the 2013–2014 school year. The number of overall suspensions reduced dramatically as well (−40%), with Black student suspensions decreasing the most (−53%). Table 5.8 for a representation of suspension data by race from the 2010–2011 school year through the 2013–2014 school year. Teacher Response In order to assess teachers’ response to mediation, teacher participants voluntarily completed anonymous surveys in December of 2013. Such a method allowed for respondents to express their impressions, viewpoints, and personal takeaways, Table 5.6  Effectiveness of mediations by year 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

Total 38 34 57

Effective n (%) 32 (84.0) 26 (76.0) 49 (85.9)

Ineffective 6 (16.0) 8 (24.0) 8 (14.0)

Note. A mediation was deemed effective if the teacher did not issue any further disciplinary referrals to the student. A mediation was deemed ineffective if the teacher issued further disciplinary referrals to the student

76

O. Gross et al.

Table 5.7  Student disciplinary referrals by year Year 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 % Difference (±)a

Total 2406 1804 1152 1076 −55.0

White 476 442 268 166 −65.0

Black 1778 1171 755 806 −55.0

Hispanic 80 100 50 55 −31.0

Special Ed 555 285 185 222 −60.0

Free/reduced lunch 2010 1420 935 909 −55.0

Note. The percentage difference calculation does not take into account enrollment and demographic changes a The percentage difference represents the percent change in disciplinary referrals from pre-­ intervention (2010–2011) to year three of mediation intervention (2013–2014). For example, there was a 55% reduction in student disciplinary referrals from the 2010–2011 school year to the 2013–2014 school year Table 5.8  Suspension data by year Year 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 % Difference (±)a

Total 290 252 177 174 −40.0

White 44 39 42 29 −34.0

Black 228 168 113 106 −53.0

Hispanic 10 12 7 9 −10.0

Special Ed 68 43 32 43 −37.0

Free/reduced lunch 233 190 144 127 −45.0

Note. The percentage difference calculation does not take into account enrollment and demographic changes a The percentage difference represents the percent change in suspension totals from pre-­intervention (2010–2011) to year three of mediation intervention (2013–2014). For example, there was a 40% reduction in suspension totals from the 2010–2011 school year to the 2013–2014 school year

allowing for the identification of areas for improvement. Ultimately, 25 out of the 35 teachers who had participated in mediations completed the questionnaire. Of the 25 teachers, 44% indicated that they had 10+ years of teaching experience, 40% had 2–10 years of teaching experience, and the remaining 16% reported having 0–1 years of teaching experience. Approximately 38% of teacher respondents indicated that they had participated in one mediation, 29% reported having participated in two mediations, 21% participated in three, and the remaining 13% had participated in 4–5 mediations. Thus the majority of teachers participated in multiple mediations, implying that teachers found the mediations effective and/or useful and were willing to participate in meetings with additional students. Furthermore, the majority of teachers indicated that either themselves (40%) or an administrator (32%) had initiated the mediation(s), with the remaining respondents reporting that either a counselor/social worker/psychologist (24%) or student (4%) initiated the mediation. When asked whether the mediator treated themselves and the student with respect during the mediation, the majority of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed with both statements (themselves: 88%; students: 92%). The majority of teachers (74%) either agreed or strongly agreed that they were enthusiastic and eager to participate in a mediation. The majority of teachers also

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

77

Table 5.9  Teacher survey results (%) Survey question I was enthusiastic/eager about participating. I learned about the student’s perspective. The student learned about my perspective. Mediator treated me with respect. Mediator treated the student with respect. Mediation improved my relationship with the student. I would recommend mediation to other teachers.

Strongly agree 30.4 12.5 16.7 48.0 52.0 20.0

Agree 43.5 50.0 54.2 40.0 40.0 36.0

Strongly Disagree disagree 17.4 8.7 33.3 4.2 25.0 4.2 8.0 4.0 0.0 8.0 32.0 12.0

32.0

40.0

24.0

4.0

either agreed or strongly agreed that participation in the mediation(s) allowed them to learn something new about the student’s perspective (63%) and for the student to learn something new about their perspective (71%). Furthermore, the majority of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that the mediation improved their relationship with the student(s) (56%), and the majority of respondents indicated that they would recommend a teacher-student mediation to other teachers (72%). Finally, 87% of respondents reported that the addition of teacher-student mediation was a positive step toward improving student behavior and learning. Not only did this result encourage continuing with mediation, but it also provided an endorsement that mediation was worthwhile to key participants. These survey results were presented to all faculty and discussed at Tier II meetings. Table 5.9 to view the full survey results. Notably, survey results also revealed some challenges such as difficulty with staff buy-in and/or communication about the mediation referral process. For example, one teacher reported feeling as if they did not have a say in their participation in the mediation. In this instance, it is possible that the student had met the criterion of three or more disciplinary referrals, and the administrator did not adequately convey to the teacher that mediation is voluntary. Because the mediator ascertains voluntary participation before proceeding with the mediation, one takeaway from this instance was that it was imperative for the administrator to emphasize to teachers that mediation is always voluntary. Furthermore, this feedback underscored that administrators needed additional training on how to propose mediation to teachers so as to promote collaborative problem-solving. In addition, survey data revealed that 40% of teachers believed that they were the source of mediation referrals, which was inconsistent with referral data that indicated administrators as the main referral sources. In these instances, it was likely a joint referral and/or miscommunication as to who was the actual referral source. This difference in data also presented an opportunity to clarify the referral process to staff and modify future surveys to be consistent with the process in order to ensure that the data accurately captured referral sources. In addition, one teacher also expressed concern that a mediation may be seen as replacing a disciplinary consequence. This feedback underscores a heavily debated

78

O. Gross et al.

topic in the school discipline literature. As education leaders seek to advance systemic change, it is important to consider and address the deeply held beliefs that staff may hold about such changes. In the current case study, it was important to reiterate to staff that while teacher-student mediation was an available support for students, the discipline code of conduct would still be followed when warranted. In addition, it may be necessary to provide consistent training with staff about the importance of addressing the root cause of student misbehavior rather than solely punishing students when misbehavior occurs. Ultimately, addressing the beliefs of key stakeholders is a key tenet of successful systemic chance in schools. Student Response Student survey data were collected in the spring of 2014. A sample of 14 students completed a written survey where they were asked to reflect on the mediation process. Overall, 100% of the student participants responded “yes” that they said what they needed to say, felt that they were understood, felt that they were treated with respect, and learned more about the teacher’s feelings and thoughts. Furthermore, when asked if they felt that the teacher learned more about their feelings and thoughts, the majority (12 students; 80%) of student participants responded “yes,” while the remaining (2 students; 20%) responded “a little.” The final two items were open-ended, asking students (1) how they initially felt coming into the mediation and (2) if after participating, they found it to be beneficial. In response to the first question, five student participants reported strong emotions that conveyed hesitancy to participate (e.g., “irritated,” “a little frustrated,” “upset,” “nervous,” and “thought I would regret saying something”). Three student participants reported emotions that conveyed little hesitancy to participate (e.g., “good,” “calm,” and “I get the opportunity to be listened to”). The final three students conveyed that they were not looking forward to the mediation (e.g., “get it over with,” “didn’t need it,” “didn’t think it would work”). In response to the latter question, all 10 students who participated indicated that the mediation did help them in class. For example, some students mentioned that they could better communicate with their teacher, that they hadn’t gotten in trouble, or that their established plan was working. Ultimately, the student feedback provided a clear endorsement that despite some initial skepticism and/or reluctance to attend, mediation proved to be an effective way for students to be heard and understood. Summary Overall, outcome data indicated that approximately 80% of students who participated in teacher–student mediation did not receive additional disciplinary referrals from their teacher following the mediation. In addition, the majority of both teachers and students agreed that the teacher-student mediation benefited their educational experience and helped cultivate a positive teacher-student relationship.

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

79

Ultimately, the outcome data indicated that teacher-student mediation had been a very successful intervention for participating teachers and students at Anonymous High School.

Sustainability and Innovation The use of mediation continues to grow as an intervention at Anonymous High School and has since spread throughout the larger school district. In addition to training staff at the secondary levels, during the 2014–2015 school year, the school psychologist at Anonymous High School provided mediation training to preschool through young adult special education staff. To continuously improve, the Tier II team is tasked with maintaining the fidelity of the intervention. In addition, data must continue to be collected and monitored to assess student progress and response to the intervention. Anonymous High School also sought to strengthen communication with parents, staff, and students regarding the Tier II supports available to continue advocating for such supports. Though it is sometimes difficult to obtain responses and surveys are not always returned, it is important to invite participants to provide feedback whenever possible so that appropriate adjustments can be made to the mediation process. Collecting and analyzing data is an ongoing agenda item in Tier II meetings to help identify areas for improvement and future needs. Finally, a hallmark of successful sustainability is the creation of opportunities for ongoing training, particularly for new staff and administrators. In sum, the implementation of MTSS at Anonymous High School is ongoing. With the continued reliance on both process and outcome data, the Tier II team can successfully monitor the effectiveness of interventions and make changes as the needs of the school change.

Challenges to Sustainability Although the Tier II team discussed a plan to encourage sustainability, there were also barriers that needed to be considered. Such challenges included training for staff to continue expanding the use of teacher-student mediation, tracking of data to continue obtaining meaningful feedback, and publicizing the teacher-student mediation program to all stakeholders to continue ensuring that staff utilize this support. Furthermore, the team must continue adjusting the balance of delivery of interventions with other job responsibilities. Finally, a challenge that many school systems will always need to consider is the maintenance of fidelity when there is staff or administrator turnover. One huge facilitator to the successful implementation of teacher-student mediation was staff and administrator buy-in and the persistence of the school psychologist. Teams must always consider the challenges that may arise when such buy-in and/or persistence is reduced with the influx of new staff.

80

O. Gross et al.

Innovation As mentioned throughout this chapter, a hallmark of successful implementation science in schools is data-based decision making. After year 1 of implementing teacher-student mediation at Anonymous High School, the Tier II team decided to pilot an adult-led mediation intervention between students based on an identified need to systematically address problematic student conflict. This process involved trained school staff holding a mediation for two students who had demonstrated conflict at school. Data collection for the adult-led student mediations began during the 2013–2014 school year and demonstrated that 88% of students who participated in a mediation had no further conflict with the other student involved. In addition, the school psychologist at Anonymous High School was invited to meet with district leaders to discuss the possible pilot of adult mediations. These two examples provide evidence for the fact that school-wide interventions can be successfully adapted and expanded when dedicated professionals are willing to be innovative. For a more detailed account of these examples, reference Gross (2016).

Implications for the Field This case study provides evidence in support of the implementation of teacher-­student mediation in one diverse high school. Teacher-student mediation at Anonymous High School successfully reduced further disciplinary referrals for student participants throughout all 3 years of implementation. As the data demonstrate, and the research suggests, the mediation process can be extremely helpful in resolving teacher-student conflict and in providing a venue for positive relationship building. When implemented with fidelity and flexibility, teacher-student mediation can positively impact school climate, especially within the context of a larger MTSS system. While the implementation of MTSS at Anonymous High School has shown promise in reducing disparities in student outcomes, closing gaps among student groups continues to be difficult. In this particular case study, Black male students comprised the largest group of participants in the teacher-student intervention, suggesting that its continued implementation may continue reducing gaps. More specifically, this case study provides support for the importance of disaggregating student intervention data by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic data. Monitoring such data allows for key-stakeholders to hold each other accountable in their attempts to assess the effectiveness of interventions in meeting the needs of all students and closing any gaps that prevent certain subgroups of students from succeeding. Research indicates that it takes approximately 4–7 years to fully implement systemic change in schools (Fixsen et al., 2005). Along with the initial adoption, implementation, and commitment, this case study provides support for the important role that leadership involvement plays in the successful implementation of a new system (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Notably, Anonymous High School had many strengths and facilitators that allowed for the successful implementation of teacher-student

5  Schoolwide Application of Teacher-Student Mediation to Reduce Exclusionary…

81

mediation. Such facilitators included administrative support, active participation from administrators, consistency and accountability, data-based decision making, and flexibility. In addition, the simultaneous implementation of a larger MTSS/ SWPBS likely supported the success of the teacher-student mediation as well. Therefore, this case study also provides support for the successful implementation of tiered behavioral supports in a diverse high school. Finally, this case study highlights the impact that one passionate individual can make in a larger school system when given the support and structure necessary to do so.

References American Arbitration Association, American Bar Association, & Association for Conflict Resolution. (2005). Model standards of conduct for mediators. https://www.americanbar.org/ content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/dispute_resolution/model_standards_conduct_april2007.pdf Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from https:// danielsongroup.org/ Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Gross, O. (2016). Restore the respect: How to mediate school conflicts and keep students learning. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17(3), 144–149. Huang, F. L. (2018). Do Black students misbehave more? Investigating the differential involvement hypothesis and out-of-school suspensions. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(3), 284–294. Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). (n.d.-a). Illinois report card. Retrieved from https:// www.illinoisreportcard.com Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). (n.d.-b) Illinois report card 2013–2014: Centennial High School. Retrieved from www.illinoisreportcard.com/School.aspx?schoolId=090100040260001 Illinois Public Act 096-0861 (2010). Performance Evaluation Reform Act. https://www.ilga.gov/ legislation/publicacts/96/PDF/096-­0861.pdf Krezmein, M. P., Leone, P. E., Zablocki, M. S., & Wells, C. S. (2014). Juvenile court referrals and the public schools: Nature and extent of the practice in five states. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 273–293. Lipscomb, S., Haimson, J., Liu, A. Y., Burghardt, J., Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 1: Comparisons with other youth: Full report (NCEE 2017–4016). : U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174016/pdf/20174016.pdf Losen, D. (Ed.). (2015). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive inclusion. Teachers College Press. Sugai, G., & Horner, R.  H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving school climate and discipline. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-­discipline/guiding-­ principles.pdf

Chapter 6

District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners Laura Swanlund

Introduction English learners (ELLs) have been among the fastest-growing populations in our nation’s schools comprising nearly 10% of the student population nationwide (Snyder et al., 2019). Despite being a highly diverse and fast-growing population, ELLs face significant opportunity and academic achievement gaps compared with their non-ELL peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). As per the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, while 30% of native English speakers in fourth grade performed in the below-basic range, 71% of ELLs performed in the below-basic range (U.S.  Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress, Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007a). High stakes standardized achievement tests are in English and highly dependent on language, which also results in limited research on the bilingual framework for assessing students (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014; Solano-Flores, 2008). It is unrealistic to expect children who do not speak English to do as well on English achievement tests as those who speak English (Escamilla et al., 2005). This case analysis involves a large suburban district in the Midwest that has a significant English learner population. Students in this case example were experiencing the opportunity gaps for English learners (ELLs) that mirrored the national data. Although there are multiple systematic issues that contribute to the opportunity gaps, such as instructional practices, culturally responsive practices, supports to address language acquisition, and other system-wide school supports, the focus of this systems change was on addressing the needs of ELLs that were demonstrating significant academic deficits and who were identified as long-term ELLs.

L. Swanlund (*) Community Consolidated School District #15, Chicago, IL, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_6

83

84

L. Swanlund

Specifically, the system’s issue was that ELLs were more likely to be referred to for a case study for special education. The purpose of this systems change was to address the considerations noted by Burr et al. (2015): 1. whether an English learner student’s academic difficulties are caused by a learning disability, second-language acquisition, a combination of these two factors, or some other issue; 2. properly identify the types of data that are useful in determining whether an English learner student’s academic difficulties are caused by a learning disability, second-language acquisition, a combination of these two factors, or some other issue; and 3. address practices that lead to inconsistent identification of English learner students with learning disabilities (Burr et al., 2015, US office of civil rights (OCR); Parrish, 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005).

Demographics of Community The system for which the change process for supporting ELLs took place is a large elementary pre-K-8th grade school district serving over 12,000 students. The district has 15 elementary schools, 4 junior high schools, and 1 preschool early childhood center and an alternative public day school. The student population is diverse, with over 75 languages or dialects spoken in the homes of students. Over 20% of District 15 students’ home language is other than English, and the majority of that percentage speaks Spanish in the home. Of the students, 43% are White, 35% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and 3% Black. In addition to English, instruction is provided in Spanish, Japanese, Polish, and Tagalog within the schools. Approximately 42% of students qualified for free and reduced lunch status, 22% are limited English proficient, and 12% receive special education services. The district experienced a significant change in the student demographics over the past 8 years. For example, in 2000 there were 17% of students of low-income status, 15% who were ELLs, 71% who were white, and 17% who were Hispanic. The rapid change in student characteristics was an important catalyst for a systemslevel examination of how the needs of ELLs were being met, especially those that were demonstrating an achievement gap with English-speaking peers. Variable Low income (%) ELL (%) White (%) Hispanic (%)

2000 17 15 71 17

2014 42 21 43 35

2020 39 28 39 35

With the demographic shifts in the district came a need to further examine the practices, especially with regard to intervention supports and special education considerations. The district was seeing a higher proportion of ELLs referred for

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

85

intervention and for special education practices when compared with the population. This led to the need to examine the extent to which the system was being responsive to the needs of ELLs and what could be done to help address the disproportionate intervention and special education identification practices. The process for examining the needs of ELLs through a multi-tiered system of support and more equitable evaluation process for special education began in 2013. The practices that the community engaged with will be examined through Fixsen’s states of implementation science: exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation.

Exploration This process was first driven by the high rate of referrals for special education for students who were ELLs. The exploration phase involved a needs assessment and data analysis of ELLs across the district. First the facilitators and barriers to exploring this change are discussed, followed by the initial needs assessment information and the stakeholders involved.

Facilitators The community recognized that the practices should be adjusted so that the needs of students who were ELLs were better met. At the time there were no recommendations for how services were provided for ELLs within the intervention system, and there were no suggestions for school psychologists and child find teams about how to appropriately examine whether ELLs’ academic needs were due to a difference or disability. It was around 2010 when the state was beginning to implement the Response to Intervention model, which was also being delivered within this community. By looking at the outcome data such as the Measures of Academic Performance (MAP) and Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM), the schools were seeing that students who were ELLs were not making the same level of progress as monolingual peers and were showing large achievement gaps. Both of these assessments examined reading and math skills. The MAP was for grades 2–6 and is an adaptive test taken 2–3 times a year that shows students’ literacy proficiency, and it provides detailed information about growth (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2009). The MAP test was provided in English; however, in the past few years, the Spanish version has been given for students as needed. The CBMs used were from Aimsweb, which was a platform that provided access to early literacy, reading, and math curriculum-based measures. All measures are provided within a minute and track correct and errors within that timeframe of the assessment. They are used to gather benchmark information about the child’s level of proficiency and to monitor their growth in that area. These

86

L. Swanlund

examined early literacy and math skills, as well as reading fluency for grades K-6. CBMs were provided in English or Spanish depending on the student’s native language and academic instruction. At the time that the exploration phase began, there was a significant discrepancy between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs on these assessments. This resulted in a disproportionate amount of ELL students being referred to for intensive intervention with problem-solving teams, which led to high referrals for special education evaluation. For example, the proportion of students who were ELL was about 20%; however, over 60% of students who had intensive intervention plans through individual problem solving were ELL students. These mainly involved intensive direct instruction in reading for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension outside of the classroom with a reading specialist. Another facilitator for a systems change was the consideration of the federal requirements under Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and state requirements for Specific Learning Disability identification. According to Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 2002, and Reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 2015: Each State plan shall demonstrate that local educational agencies in the State will, beginning not later than school year 2002–2003, provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency (measuring students' oral language, reading, and writing skills in English) of all students with limited English proficiency in the schools served by the State educational agency…

In order to address this requirement in IL, the ACCESS for ELLs (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners) is a secure large-scale English language proficiency assessment given to Kindergarten through 12th graders who have been identified as English-language learners. It is given annually in WIDA Consortium member states to monitor students’ progress in acquiring academic English. ACCESS for ELLs is only available to Consortium member states. According to the Illinois State Board of Education ACCESS FAQ document from 2015, the ACCESS for ELLs™ is a criterion-­ referenced test anchored in and representative of the WIDA English language proficiency standards. The test targets academic language proficiency rather than general social English. In addition, items are grouped around themes rather than presented in isolation. The ACCESS allows for measuring English growth from year to year and so that schools can accurately measure the progress and attainment of proficiency of their ELLs (Illinois State Board of Education, 2012). The Federal requirements under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 also addresses English Proficiency. IDEA indicates that limited English proficiency (LEP) is one of the three determinant factors that must be considered for all disability categories. A student cannot meet eligibility requirements for any disability category if the determinant factor for the student’s difficulties is “limited English proficiency” (34 C.F.R. Section 614(b)(5)(C)). Additionally, evaluations should be conducted in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

87

information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to do, provide, or administer (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(1)–(3), 1412(a)(6)(B)). Finally, the 1974 Supreme Court case Lau V. Nichols states that LEP students must be provided with adequate second-­language supports. At the state level, there are Illinois requirements for educational services and SLD identification of ELLs. For example, students who are eligible for ESL services based on the W-APT are then required to take the ACCESS assessment yearly until they reach the minimum required scores to exit from ELL services, which is a composite score of 4.8. The IL School Code 105 Article 14c requires Transitional Bilingual Programs for schools with more than 20 students who speak the same second language, and if there are below-20 students, the district chooses how to provide local instructional supports based on the language assessments. Students who are eligible for ESL services based on the W-APT are then required to take the ACCESS assessment yearly until they reach the minimum required scores to exit from ELL services (IL School Code 105 Article 14c). The Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures Guide for RtI (2012) provides guidance for school districts about addressing LEP.

Barriers With the onset of RtI and the practices to support ELL students, the District was coming across multiple barriers in appropriately identifying students with disabilities, as well as supporting the academic growth of ELL students who were behind academically. These included barriers with knowledge and practices at the universal, targeted, and intensive levels of support. First, at the building level, there was a high degree of staff change within the multilingual program, and the program was also undergoing curriculum and instructional changes that focused on more language development and ELL supports within the classroom. These changes were to address the adjustment to the higher number of ELLs and followed the state mandate. Multiple schools had cohorts of more than 20 students who spoke the same language, meaning that more instructional support in the native language was being provided for the students. It was challenging, however, to find staff who had the appropriate certification and who were bilingual to support the growing need. The community recognized that while the teachers received a great deal of support with the Common Core standards for English, Math, and Social Studies, it was difficult for the staff to implement strategies that aligned to the WIDA English Language Development (ELD) Standards. This means that the staff did not quite understand how to address the communication and language needs of students within tier 1 instruction. The staff especially had a hard time with differentiating instruction to meet the needs of ELLs. Emerging research demonstrates that

88

L. Swanlund

differentiated instruction, when fully implemented, can significantly improve student achievement (Goddard et al., 2007). At the district level, the process for considering the needs of ELLs through a multi-­tiered system that included special education eligibility considerations was further propelled for many reasons. First, by fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, ELL students were not making progress on standardized achievement tests (e.g., Measures of Academic Progress), and they were performing poorly in the classroom. Data analysis showed that the students, as a group, were not making progress on CBM measures in English. Therefore, a process was needed that looked at dual discrepancy compared with the correct peer group. In addition, the professional development needs of teachers in order to adequately differentiate for students who were ELLs was significant. It was challenging to have the time and resources in order to bridge these knowledge gaps for staff. The same was found for related service areas, such as psychologists and special education teachers. The community needed to examine instructional practices and assessments, at the core, secondary, and tertiary levels, ensuring they, too, were culturally and linguistically responsive (CLR) (Hollie, 2012). A component of this CLR approach was to not only closely examine students’ English language proficiency, using ACCESS scores, but to also insist on consideration of skills in the students’ native language. Another barrier was student mobility. The mobility rate for ELL students was above 10%, which impacted consistency of instruction. Overall, the facilitators and barriers led to a district-level commitment to strengthen the MTSS system for ELL students, with a focus on how to better identify and address the needs of students requiring intensive intervention at tier 3. These barriers led to a disproportionately high number of ELL students that were demonstrating educational need, and the buildings did not have the capacity to address this at the universal level. Instead, buildings were attempting to address the ELL needs at the individual level. This was time-consuming and required a great deal of resources and often resulted in a referral for special education services. Once referred, teams often did not know how to respond to the request, which led to the child qualifying for special education. The outcome of special education identification was not supportive for many students. For example, ELLs with the least amount of language support are most likely to be referred to special education (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002). Furthermore, when the instruction was only in English, they are three times more likely to be referred. Frighteningly, ELLs with a learning disability demonstrated lower verbal and full-scale IQ scores after placement in special education when compared to before receiving services (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002).

Needs Assessment The Exploration process of determining a change in practice for supporting ELLs who were struggling began with a needs assessment in 2013. The district leadership conducted an in-depth analysis to better understand how ELLs were performing in

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

89

the district. The purpose was to see whether or not ELLs were performing in a distinct pattern, thus constituting their own unique peer group (Lee et al., 2007b). The community recognized that the assessment of ELLs entails a number of challenges related to the integration of students’ language, culture, and psychometrics of the assessment (Solano-Flores, 2008). Given that the practices were embedded within the Multi-tiered Systems of Support, universal screening was a consideration and a guide for how we identified students’ needs and corresponding intervention (Glover & Albers, 2007). This process requires additional considerations for ELLs, particularly with regard to their English language proficiency (ELP) (Albers & Martinez, 2015). We defined ELLs as those whose ELP was at or below a composite of 5.0 on the ACCESS assessment. The analysis overall indicated that the ELLs performance on CBM and MAP was significantly different from non-ELLs overtime, and this was independent of low-income status and home language. Specifically, gaps between ELL and non-ELL were wider than the gap between those of low-income and nonlow income status, and this was found across grade levels and became wider overtime. The analysis from both CBM and MAP showed that the yearly expected growth rate for ELLs was not different from monolingual peers. Given that there were differences in achievement between ELLs and non-LLs for all grade levels, local norms for ELLs were created on both the CBM measures and MAP English assessments. The needs assessment information was used to update the problem-solving decision-­making process for ELLs who required intensive intervention support.

Stakeholders The change work included a multidisciplinary approach within the district. Before 2013, collaboration between the multilingual department and school psychology was useful in implementing assessment practices for bilingual students. In 2013 a district-level bilingual task force was created that involved collaboration with district-­ level leadership in general education, special education, and bilingual school psychologists. Specific individuals included the Deputy Superintendent, Director of School Improvement, Director of Second Language, Special Education Director, Psychologist Coordinator, Building Principals, Bilingual School Psychologists, and Bilingual Teachers. This group worked on implementing more systematic processes that were multi-tiered for students. This means that the group worked on implementing more targeted curriculum within core instruction that focused on supporting language development, including the local norms for decision making with tier 2 interventions, such as interventions in Spanish when appropriate, and finally having more language factors explicitly tied to tier 3 and special education eligibility criteria. After a couple of years, in 2017 more stakeholders were involved in the practices as the committee worked to further improve the systems. This included more

90

L. Swanlund

teachers, speech and language pathologists, and administrators that held bilingual certification. From this, the group worked with bilingual community liaisons and the Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee to further connect practices with the home and community school. Most recently, over the past few years, the process for supporting ELLs through problem solving and special education considerations has maintained. The stakeholders continued to collaborate and communicate on success and barriers with the problem-solving process for ELLs. Therefore, as the systems change evolved overtime, more stakeholder groups became involved in the change process. The work of addressing all levels of the multi-tiered system and special education eligibility practices will be discussed in more detail with each implementation phase.

Program Installation After the data analysis of CBM, MAP, and overall achievement by ELLs in 2013, the Bilingual Task Force was created in order to determine how to utilize the outcomes from the needs assessment. The primary focus of this group was to examine practices in determining “difference versus disability” (Collier, 2011) for ELLs and the necessary evidence-based practices required in order to address the needs of ELLs. The group involved the stakeholders mentioned above and would connect a few times a year. This committee used the local norms developed from the needs assessment and appropriate peer comparison group for decision making. Additional assessment practices for tier 1, 2, and 3 considerations for ELLs were part of the installation process from the task force. For example, this group utilized the needs assessment, along with current knowledge of literacy development for ELLs, to focus on the importance of oral language and on native language development within the core curriculum. This was done by having explicit instruction using language-based curriculum as part of the literacy block. This decision was made to analyze test data, specifically the ACCESS scores in conjunction with achievement in the child’s native language. For students who spoke Spanish, the Logramos, an assessment of reading achievement in Spanish, was administered for third graders, and decision rules were created for ELLs for tier 2 intervention. This included using the local norms as well as a reading measure in Spanish, such as CBMs or Logramos. In addition to using local norms, English language proficiency, and native language achievement data, the stakeholders wanted to change the traditional assessment for eligibility for special education. The group’s goal was to change the following: the over-referral to tier 3, the lack of consideration of English language proficiency levels, tier 1 and 2 instructional practices, and the use of IQ and achievements tests to determine student need. Through the creation of the Bilingual Task Force, stakeholders could start to discuss visions of what an MTSS system that was culturally and linguistically responsive would look like. A high level of transparency was required so that stakeholders could address, challenge, and change belief systems, which would be imperative to change practices. Some of these myths, common to most school systems, that the task force addressed included

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

91

• Myth 1: If we label an ELL as having special education needs, at least he or she gets some help; • Myth 2: We have to wait 3 to 7 years for ELLs to develop their English Language skills before we can rule out language as a cause for the student’s difficulty; and • Myth 3: When an ELL is identified as having special education needs, instruction should be only in English so as not to confuse the student (Hamayan et al., 2013). The Bilingual Task Force quickly realized providing teams with data tools that were CLR and teaching teams how and when to use these tools would push the systems change process along. At this point the district was ready to address the goals and begin the initial implementation.

Initial Implementation Initial implementation was targeted at the universal, secondary, and tertiary systems. At this time the Task Force created tools for schools to use such as the local norm information and a common record review that incorporated the seven steps to separating difference from disability (Collier, 2011; Hamayan et al., 2013). First, data digs for tier 1 were introduced to support grade level teams in understanding the needs of all ELLs. At these meetings, teacher grade level teams examined the screening data such as MAP and utilized the WIDA Standards and the Instructional Planning Form to help define universal practices. At the secondary level, teams were provided with tools to help determine how to intervene for an ELL who was struggling. Much of the effort with the initial implementation was at the tertiary level in order to better support students who required intensive intervention. These building-­ based teams were provided with training and resources for how to conduct record review and problem solving for ELLs to help determine “difference versus disability.” The initial implementation of the systems of support for ELL students requiring intensive intervention focused on the seven factors that may influence an ELLs’ linguistic and academic development. These include learning environment, academic achievement and instructional factors, oral language and literacy factors, personal and family factors, physical and psychological factors, previous schooling factors, and cross-cultural factors. The following visual was utilized from the WIDA Consortium (2013) Developing a Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Approach to Response to Instruction & Intervention (RtI2) for English Language Learners (Fig. 6.1). As part of the initial implementation of the updated Record Review for tier 3 problem solving, district school psychologists and building administrators were trained on how to apply the seven factors to individual problem solving as recommended by the WIDA Consortium. The seven ecological factors and the means to which the system determined these are discussed later in this chapter under tier 3.

92

L. Swanlund

Seven factors that may influence ELLs’ linguistic and academic development Rectangular Snip

1

4

Learning Environment Factors

Personal and Family Factors

2

3

5 Physical and

6

Academic Achievement and Instructional Factors

Psychological Factors

Oral Language and Literacy Factors

Previous Schooling Factors

7

Cross-Cultural Factors

Figure 2. Adapted from: Hamayan, Marler, Sanchez-Lopez, & Damico (2013) Fig. 6.1  Seven factors influencing ELLs’ linguistic and academic development. (Adapted from Hamayan et al. (2013))

Full Implementation Data-Based Decision Making During the full implementation, the district leadership continued to conduct program evaluations of the overall MTSS system and approach. This updated evaluation found that student’s English MAP scores showed academic proficiency at roughly the same point of having an ACCESS score level of 5.0 or above. An analysis was done using the ACCESS composite, Logramas, and English MAP scores. The following two graphs were provided to district tier 2 and 3 teams, which provided essential information to staff about the importance of looking at English language proficiency levels when understanding the academic achievement of ELLs. This information helped to change beliefs that English achievement scores were always valid sources of understanding an ELL academic achievement. Profile of a school with high Hispanic population, high poverty, and strong biliteracy support in school (Fig. 6.2): Profile of a school with high numbers of non-Hispanic second language learners, low poverty, and strong native language support outside of school (Fig. 6.3): Following this analysis, the Spanish MAP test for math became available and was piloted in second grade, and initial findings were that students whose English language was developing (ACCESS between 2 and 5.0) performed at the same level on the Spanish assessment. Students whose ACCESS was below 2 did strong on Spanish assessment, and students who had ACCESS above 5 were strong in English. This supported the notion that students who were ELLs were best understood

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

93

Percent of ELL Students Above the 40th %ile by ACCESS Level 100%

100% 90%

100%

100%

83%

80%

80%

100%

70% 60% % Logramos

50% 40% 20% 10% 0%

% MAP

27%

30% 0% 0%

0%

1

2

13%

13%

3

4

5

6

Fig. 6.2  Bar graph percentage of ELL students above the 40th percentile by access level

Percent of ELL Students Above the 40th %ile by ACCESS Level 100%

85%

90% 80% 70% 60%

% Logramos

50% 33%

40% 30%

20%

20% 10% 0%

% MAP

0%

0%

0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 6.3  Line graph percentage of ELL students above the 40th percentile by access level

through a bi-literacy perspective, meaning that their skills were developing in both languages and that their academic skills can be best understood by utilizing both native language and English assessments. During the full implementation, the bilingual task force was split into two groups, one focusing on the core and tier 2 instruction and the other continuing to work on the tier 3 difference versus disability practices. During this time, the multilingual department purchased the ELLevation platform, which provided tools for data analysis, instructional planning, differentiation to support student’s English language proficiency levels, and options to track individual student instructional practices. Teams were trained on the use of this platform overtime in order to continue to support the MTSS practices.

94

L. Swanlund

Tier 1 Practices Innovation to the MTSS model, specifically with the problem-solving process for ELLs, began around 2018 after the full operation was occurring for a few years. This work involved tier 1 core implementation of oral language-focused curriculum (e.g., Let’s Talk About It and Words Their Way). One of the elements for tier 1 that emerged over time was to have a format for which teachers could address the language needs of ELLs within the classroom. Figure  6.4 outlines an example of a form that was used to support general education teachers with the language development for ELLs within core instruction. This was typically done with an English language specialist, and the forms would define the learning target, the alignment with the WIDA Can-Do descriptors, vocabulary, how language would be supported in the classroom through differentiation, Ellevation Strategies, the daily routine for practice, and finally how the student’s progress would be monitored on the learning target. The purpose of this was to help have more clarity for teachers on the strategies that can be implemented within the classroom to support groups of students or individual students. Tier 2 Practices There was a development of a tier 2 matrix of decision rules for ELLs, and finally a specific ELL record review was created that provides an in-depth look at L1 and L2 considerations following the seven ecological factors for bilingual evaluation. The overall intention was to embed the second-language status considerations at all tiers of MTSS. Specifically, at both tiers 2 and 3, the teams were provided with data indicators such as native language assessments, an oral language formative assessment, parent interview templates, and a clear description of each of the seven factors. The decision rules were adjusted and updated over time to reflect program evaluation on how students responded to intervention, as well as the intervention options received. Figure  6.5 gives an example of how decision rules were determined for ELLs. The important considerations for the decision rules was that there

Fig. 6.4  Tier 1 student support form

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

ELL *This is typically an intervenon that is most effecve for ELLs who have been in the US and been exposed to academic English for at least 2-3 years. *Consider W-APT screener score to help guide decision-making K: Early Reading Composite 15th %ile and below Fall = 28 Winter = 42 Spring = 56 *If you have too many children idenfied, start with the number of slots you have and the provide intervenon to the lowest in the group (e.g. 1st to 10th %ile) Addional assessment data should be ulized (Assess in October and January): · BAS oponal assessments (3rd edion): Leer recognion, Leer Sounds Guide: Weak overall AND · Phonemic Awareness Assessment Guide: Weak overall AND *Consider growth from the start of the year. The following criteria can be ulized to help idenfy children who are the most atrisk: -Can idenfy fewer than 10 leers -No leer sounds -No ability to rhyme -Difficulty tracking print

95

Non-ELL K: Early Reading Composite 15th %ile and below Fall = 28 Winter = 42 Spring = 56 *If you have too many children idenfied, start with the number of slots you have and the provide intervenon to the lowest in the group (e.g. 1st to 10th %ile) Addional assessment data should be ulized (Assess in October, January, and May): · BAS oponal assessments (3rd edion): Leer recognion and Wring Picture Names (to obtain leer sound knowledge) Guide: Weak overall AND · Phonemic Awareness Assessment Guide: Weak overall AND *Consider use of F&P Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) if you need addional data in the *Winter only: If a modified A, then place a student in Fundaons. If A, consider Fundaons, LLI or even Tier 1+ depending on skill deficits. *Consider growth from the start of the year. The following criteria can be ulized to help idenfy children who are the most at-risk: -Can idenfy fewer than 10 leers -No leer sounds -No ability to rhyme -Difficulty tracking print

Fig. 6.5  Decision rules for ELLs

were multiple sources of data utilized, that the students language proficiency was taken into consideration, local peer comparison norms were utilized when available, and the overall structure was comparable to the non-ELL decision rules. The language of the intervention provided was the same as the language that the student received in their core literacy instruction. The intervention delivery method was the same as for non-ELLs such as time, by whom, for how long, and how exit and non-response decisions were made.

96

L. Swanlund

Tier 3 Practices The most intensive part of the systems change initiative for supporting ELLs from the school psychology department was within the tier 3 practices. The team looked closely at the seven ecological factors as outlined by WIDA citation, as well as best practices for second language assessment in order to create a system that addressed individual student need, and looked at all of these factors in-depth. The Tier 3 intervention practices involve more time, intensity, and targeted skill development for the identified area of need when compared to the Tier 2 interventions. The way in which the teams determined these, as well as considered whether or not case study evaluations were warranted for special education, was through the use of the English Learner record review. The record review was organized by the seven ecological factors. See Appendix A for the full record review. Factor 1: Learning Environment Factors The first characteristic of a student’s home and school life that should be considered in understanding the difficulties these students encounter is the learning environment. “Learning environment” is a broad term that encompasses teachers’ preparation and presentation of materials, the resources available, the program design, the range of services offered, the value placed on the native language and culture, and the characteristics of instruction and assessment. The interventions developed from this integral factor are systemic and may improve the learning environment for all students (Hamayan et al., 2013). When looking at supporting an ELL student who is struggling and developing a plan for future success, data sources such as previous schooling, ELL program received, parent interview of development and language use, standardized and classroom assessment, and other sources need to be considered when developing the student’s schedule and interventions supports. Factor 2: Academic Achievement and Instructional Factors This factor focuses on academic achievement, a comprehensive term for the student’s performance in all content areas. Because of the close relationship between academic concepts and the language used to process those concepts, interventions must be closely tied to what the student is learning in the classroom and must support content learning (Hamayan et  al., 2013). An essential component of understanding this factor is to examine how the student is performing in L1 and L2 among multiple sources of achievement data. Factor 3: Oral Language and Literacy FACTORS This factor considers the student’s oral language and literacy development in both native and second languages. Because of the nature of bilingualism and language development, interventions that focus on oral language and literacy must be contextualized in a way that is meaningful to the student, must make developmental sense, and must support literacy in the student’s native language (Hamayan et al., 2013). The parent interview is a critical component to understanding how the use of language in multiple settings contributes to student achievement.

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

97

Factor 4: Personal and Family Factors This factor considers personal and family characteristics, including socioeconomic status, family dynamics, expectations, student’s interests and motivation, experiential background, and parental involvement. If these factors are creating challenges, interventions may be needed to support or mediate events occurring in the home (Hamayan et al., 2013). Like with factor 4, this factor must include the parent interview is a critical component to understanding how personal and family factors may be impacting the student in the learning environment. Factor 5: Physical and Psychological Factors This factor consists of physical and psychological factors, including medical conditions, impaired vision or hearing, malnutrition and chronic hunger, chronic pain due to untreated medical conditions, post-traumatic stress syndrome, fear, psychological stress, social and emotional development, and feelings of belonging. If challenges are emanating from this factor, physical and psychological support needs to be offered (Hamayan et al., 2013). Factor 6: Previous Schooling Factors This factor considers the amount and quality of previous schooling in both English and the student’s native language, as well as the congruence of educational approaches the student has experienced. Interventions developed from examining this factor try to take advantage of prior experiences and make up for gaps in students’ previous schooling (Hamayan et al., 2013). Factor 7: Cross-Cultural Factors This factor is the impact of culture on learning. Because of the multiple determinants of culture and its dynamic nature, and because students are in the process of adapting to a new set of norms and values, interventions must be culturally relevant to the student (Hamayan et al., 2013). All of these factors were examined in terms of how the student was functioning across multiple areas: academic, functional, social/emotional, cognitive, motor, and communication. The entire MTSS system utilized a checklist in order to help the teams address student need from tier 1 through tier 3 before a case study was considered. See Appendix B for an example of the MTSS checklist for ELLs. After the team completed the ELL record review, they would go through the problem solving process in order to determine appropriate support. This included problem identification, problem analysis, plan development, and plan evaluation. The team would engage in multiple rounds of tier 3 problem solving in order to best address the student’s needs. If a case study was warranted for a special education evaluation, the information gathered from the ELL record review and from the problem solving process was utilized in order to help inform disability and educational needs.

98

L. Swanlund

Sustainability Supporting ELLs through the MTSS process in order to address student needs was a continual process that continues to be addressed. Sustainability required on-going use of the problem-solving model for systems change at the district level, meaning that at least annually the departments examined problem identification, problem analysis, implementation, and evaluation. This practice required that teaching and learning, multi-lingual, and student services individuals worked together in order to support the needs of ELLs. Below is a timeline chronicling the changes that occurred within the district over time. 2007–2010: Practices were not aligned to MTSS and relied on special education identification 2010–2011: Started CBM. District started working on norming. 2011–2012: Bilingual CBM norms provided 2012–2013: Bilingual considerations was added to the individual problem-solving process that followed the seven ecological factors 2013–2014: Bilingual taskforce was created 2014–2015 - MAP norms provided, more teaching on language-based instruction 2015–2016 - ELLevation started to be used 2016–2017  - Tier 2 Literacy Matrix for interventions developed; ELL record review started 2017–2018 - Dept. Level trainings and Piloting of enhanced Tier 3 forms 2018–2022 - Consultation provided to schools to aide school teams; further revision of enhanced forms to simplify the process Overall, this showed that the systems change took time and that sustainability was also continuously monitored and adjusted in order to address the student need. Future priorities continue to focus on the tier 1 curriculum and instructional practices for ELLs that are culturally responsive and address the social and emotional needs of students.

Lessons Learned The lesson learned was that sustainability is an on-going practice. Action research is essential to maintaining systems change practices so that it maintains over time. Through collaboration with building-level teams, it was discovered that the paperwork and processes at tier 3 needed to be simplified and more clearly defined. As a result, paperwork was refined, and a 1-page guide was created and shared with student support teams to make the process more user-friendly for school staff.

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

99

Additionally, it is essential to keep up the state of the field and research (biliteracy models, dual language, OLA, ELP, etc.), including how this impacts instruction, assessment, and identification of “difference verse disability.” The process was never “finished” due to the ever-changing nature of the student need and research from multiple fields of study. Lastly, connections with the community need to strengthen in order to continue to have all families, regardless of language status, become active members of the school community.

Implications for the Field The entire process outlined in this chapter was created by school psychologists working within schools. This means that practitioners are able to make meaningful and long-lasting changes to systems practice. School psychologists are uniquely positioned with their expertise in diverse learners, consultation, interventions, and data-based decision making. If school psychologists utilize the consultation skills necessary to support individual students at the systems level and utilize a known model such as the problem-solving model, they can change practices. The school psychologists in this district not only created most of the paperwork and examples and engaged in the program evaluation noted here but also successfully collaborated with multiple departments in order to support the needs of ELLs. Overall, the sentiment that “together we know a lot” truly was a play in this systems change. The expertise that the multi-lingual department and educators within the district brought to this system was essential. Overall, this was an example of merging two fields together in a very collaborative manner in order to build a concrete system to address diverse and complex student needs.

100

Appendices Appendix A: Example of ELL Record Review

L. Swanlund

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

101

102

L. Swanlund

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

103

104

L. Swanlund

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

105

106

L. Swanlund

Appendix B: Example of an MTSS 1 Page Checklist for ELLs TSS for ELLs Checklist Checklist to support implementation of MTSS for ELL Tier 1 Use the ELL Academic Strategizing form (start this form at Tier 1+) • The following should be addressed within the ELL Academic Strategizing Form: –– Tier 1 instruction has clear alignment with English Language Development Core Standards. –– Child was not pulled from Core Standard Instruction for intervention.

6  District-Level Process and Procedure for Support of English-Language Learners

107

–– Evidence is provided for how student was instructed and responded to core instruction aligned to the Core Standards. –– Evidence is provided on how differentiated instruction was given (e.g., ELLevation, WIDA, Fairbarn, and Jones-Vo text). –– Questions for sound literacy and math instruction are addressed. –– Target for essential standard was chosen and literacy continuum was used. Tier 2 and 3 • Tier 2 decision rules were appropriately followed. This includes placement, progress monitoring, and decision making (slide 21-22). –– There is clear evidence of ALL the Tier 1 considerations noted above. Possible exclusionary factors have been addressed at Tier 1, or at the latest, Tier 2 problem-solving paperwork should trigger Tier 1 considerations. • If the child requires Tier 3 supports, the ELL Record Review was completed, including CBE. –– All areas of record review are completed, including the full parent interview. –– There is a Bilingual Specialist on the team whom also understands Child Find (e.g., psychologist, SLP). –– Multilingual department is consulted. –– Student Services Coordinator is consulted.

References Albers, C. A., & Martinez, R. S. (2015). Promoting academic success with english language learners: Best practices for RtI. The Guilford Press. Artiles, A.  J., & Ortiz, A.  A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special education needs. Center for Applied Linguistics/National Library of Education (ED/OERI). Burr, E., Haas, E., & Ferriere, K. (2015). Identifying and supporting English learner students with learning disabilities: Key issues in the literature and state practice (REL 2015–086). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Collier, C. (2011). Seven steps to separating difference from disability. Corwin Press. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781452219424 Escamilla, K., Chavez, L., & Vigil, P. (2005). Rethinking the “gap”; high-stakes testing and Spanish-speaking students in Colorado. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 132–144. Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 117–135. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. A. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.

108

L. Swanlund

Hamayan, E. V., Marler, B., Sanchez-Lopez, C., & Damico, J. S. (2013). Special considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA. Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom practices for student success. Shell Education. Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2014). Struggling reader or emerging biliterate students? Reevaluating the criteria for labeling emerging bilingual students as low achieving. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 68–89. Illinois State Board of Education. (2012). Illinois special education eligibility and entitlement procedures guide for RtI individuals with disabilities education act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, P. (2007a). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007. (NCES 2007 - 494). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007b). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007. (NCES 2007 494). U.S.  Department of Education, Institute of education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013: Trends in 4th- and 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and reading average scores, by status as English language learners (ELL). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www. nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/ gains-­bygroup Northwest Evaluation Association. (2009). Technical manual for Measures of Academic Progress™ and Measures of Academic Progress for primary grades™. Author. Parrish, T. (2002). Disparities in the identification, funding and provision of special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 15–38). Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S., & Ortiz, S. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students. A practical guide. The Guilford Press. Snyder, T.  D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.  A. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2017 (NCES 2018–070). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners. Educational Researcher, 4(37), 189–199. WIDA Consortium. (2013). Developing a culturally and linguistically responsive approach to response to instruction & intervention (RtI2) for english language learners.

Chapter 7

Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based Interventions: Lessons Learned in an Urban High School Natalie LaDuke, Ashley M. Mayworm, Wendy Mullen, and Elizabeth H. Connors

I mplementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based Interventions: Lessons Learned in an Urban High School There is growing emphasis on the importance of supporting students’ social-­ emotional, behavioral, and mental health well-being within schools to optimize their academic success and healthy development. Such calls have only been exacerbated by a global pandemic and increased awareness of the unmet mental health needs of today’s youth. Despite increased calls for comprehensive, school-based mental, emotional, and behavioral health supports, schools frequently encounter barriers to successful implementation. The present case study describes the process that one freshman-only, urban high school followed during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 academic years to address their students’ unmet social-emotional health needs through systems-level change. We aim to provide a “real-world” example of how to identify the need for better school-based social-emotional supports, gather data on student/school needs, create a plan, and incrementally implement change to address school and student-specific needs and resources. The chapter concludes with insights into the facilitators and barriers to change and next steps for this school community. N. LaDuke (*) · W. Mullen Morton Freshman Center, J. Sterling Morton High School, Cicero, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. M. Mayworm Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA E. H. Connors Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. M. Nellis, P. A. Fenning (eds.), Systems Consultation and Change in Schools, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_7

109

110

N. LaDuke et al.

Social-Emotional Health in Schools For the purposes of this project, we have chosen to use the term social-emotional health to describe the focus of our screening and intervention efforts, which includes mental, social, emotional, and behavioral health indicators that encompass a dual-­ factor model of health (Suldo & Shaffer, 2008), that is, both student well-being and resilience (strengths) and externalizing and internalizing symptoms (difficulties) are measured and addressed. We use this broad definition of social-emotional health, as we find that in practice, there is much overlap between student needs in each area, and interventions often target more than one area simultaneously. Our work is also guided by the trauma-informed schools movement, which reflects “four key assumptions underlying trauma-informed approaches: (a) a realization of the widespread prevalence and impact of trauma, (b) a recognition of the signs of traumatic exposure and (c) a response grounded in evidence-based practices that (d) resists re-­ traumatization of individuals” (Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016, p. 1). In recent decades, there has been expanding recognition of the impact of student social-emotional health on educational outcomes. Indeed, students experiencing social-emotional health difficulties are more likely to have poor educational outcomes, including lower grades, delays in reading, school dropout, and less likelihood of attending college (e.g., Agnafors et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2015; Porche et al., 2016). Student mental health difficulties are undertreated, with fewer than half of students receiving the needed treatment (Whitney & Peterson, 2019). Schools are one of the most common places for students to receive needed socialemotional health support (Duong et  al., 2020) and can offer increased access to services for marginalized populations (Stephan & Mayworm, 2017). As research has supported the reciprocal relationship between academics and social-emotional health (Agnafors et al., 2020), school policies have incorporated greater support for student social-emotional health needs. For example, universal social-emotional learning and/or mental health education are mandated through legislation in a number of states (e.g., New York, Virginia, Florida; Johnson, 2019; Vestal, 2018). In Illinois, where the current case study took place, the Children’s Mental Health Public Act (93–0495) mandates that the Illinois State Board of Education develop and incorporate specific standards for social and emotional development and that every school district in Illinois develop a plan for incorporating social and emotional development into educational programming (Children’s Mental Health Act, 2003). Furthermore, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) emphasizes and provides funding for social-emotional health supports in schools in a way that previous federal education legislation did not (National Association of School Psychologists, 2016). In many communities, including the one outlined in the current case study, a trauma-informed lens will be critical to any social-emotional health supports implemented. There is growing recognition of the prevalence of trauma in youths’ lives and the negative impact of unresolved trauma, multiple or prolonged traumas (“complex trauma”), and historical and intergenerational trauma on student well-­ being (The National Child Traumatic Stress Network [NCTSN], n.d.). Historical

7  Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based…

111

trauma is particularly critical to address within minoritized student populations who have experienced “major intergenerational losses and assaults on their culture and well-being” (NCTSN, 2017, p. 2). Particularly relevant to the current case study, Latinx populations in the USA are at higher risk for victimization and trauma exposure due to structural and systemic racism and factors, including lower income, less education and greater unemployment, poor housing, citizenship status, and discrimination and prejudice (Allison & Ferreira, 2017). Latinx youth exposed to traumatic events frequently experience academic, social, and psychological difficulties but can benefit from participation in trauma-specific interventions in schools (Allison & Ferreira, 2017).

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Social-emotional health supports in schools are ideally provided within a multi-­ tiered system of supports (MTSS), which is based on public health models and emphasizes supporting the entire school population through universal supports for all students (Tier 1), targeted supports for students at risk for difficulties (Tier 2), and intensive supports for students exhibiting social-emotional health problems (Tier 3; Hoover et al., 2019; Kilgus et al., 2015). Ideally, programs and interventions delivered at each tier should be evidence-based, culturally appropriate and relevant, individualized to the needs of the student population (Tier 1) and individual students (Tier 2 and 3), promote family participation/involvement, and be cost-effective and feasible to implement. The global pandemic that emerged in 2020 has only exacerbated student social-­ emotional health difficulties and trauma (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021). It has also complicated school efforts to support student social-emotional well-­ being, as services had to be adapted to virtual settings, some students and families were difficult to reach, and families and students dealt with additional stressors (i.e., economic, health, personal, etc.). The current project highlights systems change efforts that took place before the pandemic began and will not specifically address pandemic-related difficulties and barriers, but we hope that the steps followed and lessons learned can be useful to schools as they cope with and address the heightened social-emotional needs of students in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and related hardships.

I mplementation Science for School-Based Social-Emotional Health Despite best intentions to deliver high-quality social-emotional health promotion, early intervention, and treatment services in schools, school and district teams face a multitude of barriers and challenges with the realities of implementation. Factors

112

N. LaDuke et al.

that can greatly influence implementation success in schools include student and parent factors (e.g., needs, preferences, engagement), implementer factors (e.g., educator, mental health provider, or other school staff training, experience, attitudes, competing responsibilities), leadership factors (e.g., administrator and supervisor supports), and broader systems factors (e.g., funding and resources, education and mental health policies, school setting/culture, school calendar; e.g., Connors et  al., 2019). As implementation processes are inherently multi-level and multi-­ phase, it makes sense that challenges (and, in turn, opportunities or facilitators) to implementation exist throughout the school-community system and over time. Importantly, the implementation strategies or solutions applied to improve school social-emotional health quality and achieve the desired implementation outcomes (such as adoption of a new practice, using it to fidelity, etc.) should also be multi-­ level, multi-phase, and selected to match the unique implementation challenges that present in the school setting. For example, if an implementation barrier is parent involvement in a new service being provided, the school should work directly with parents to determine how to address that barrier. Alternatively, if funding and other resources are a factor, the school should try to effect change by expanding to another funding stream or changing the cost reimbursement policies. Effective, scalable implementation solutions for schools are still emerging. However, recent research engaging stakeholders in the field has started to identify top-rated approaches for evidence-based practices in schools specifically (Cook et al., 2019; Lyon et al., 2019). Ultimately, the most appropriate and effective implementation strategies for any school will be based on their specific barriers and facilitators in their school community, making the implementation effort locally specific. Thus, opportunities to learn from case studies – such as the one presented in this chapter – to build a cadre of practice-based evidence around “real-world” implementation efforts offer valuable contributions to this burgeoning knowledge base. In addition to ensuring implementation strategies are applied based on locally specific barriers and facilitators, schools are encouraged to use an implementation theory or framework to guide their efforts. At this point there are over 60 different implementation theories or frameworks, but there is a recent review paper with helpful guidance for selecting one that matches the goals of the school and the implementation effort (Tabak et al., 2012). There is also a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that represents the stages and levels of implementation included in other theories, models, and frameworks (Damschroder et al., 2009).

 xploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment E (EPIS) Model One of the central tenets of applying implementation science to research and practice is to select an organizing theory, framework, or model. For this case study, we selected the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS)

7  Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based…

113

model (Aarons et al., 2011) because it was developed for publicly funded settings serving children and families and provides a structure to conceptualize implementation efforts over time and at multiple levels of the school system. The Exploration Phase refers to the awareness of a specific quality improvement priority or need to implement a new practice or intervention in the system. In schools, this can be thought of as a “needs assessment” phase in which a team is identifying an issue, building buy-in, gathering stakeholder input, and exploring options to inform their implementation approach. The Preparation Phase is when a school team makes a decision about what evidence-based practice or innovation they are going to adopt and try to implement. This is usually the result of influential forces at all levels of the system, including but not limited to those involved in the Exploration Phase, and includes developing a detailed plan for change based on available data. The Implementation Phase refers to testing new or different practices or policies that were decided upon, at any size or scale that is relevant for the local school or district team. Of note, best practices in quality improvement strongly recommend testing implementation on very small scales to inform rapid-cycle learning and more sustainable scale-up (American Diabetes Association, 2004). The Sustainment Phase refers to the continued use of the new practices or policies, which include putting structures in place to maintain the consistency of the effort over time. Targeting multiple levels of change is key in school-based implementation (Lee & Gortmaker, 2018). Therefore, the four EPIS phases are helpful for distinguishing the implementation process over time, and within each phase, factors pertaining to the “outer context” and “inner context” are detailed. In school terms, the outer context refers to things such as the school environment, school-behavioral health system interactions, and broader community support for social-emotional health efforts in schools, and the inner context refers to school factors such as school climate and implementer (e.g., leadership and teacher, school staff or clinician) characteristics. The EPIS model has many similarities to Fixen’s stages of implementation (as presented in Chap. 2). Each model emphasizes similar aspects of implementation but conceptualizes what comprises a distinct “stage” in different ways. Fixen describes systems change as occurring in six stages: exploration and adoption, program installation, initial implementation, full operation, innovation, and sustainability (Fixen et  al., 2005). Fixen’s exploration and adoption stages overlap with two of the EPIS stages: exploration and preparation. The Fixen and EPIS models describe similar aspects of program implementation, with Fixen’s model breaking these out into three different stages (program installation, initial implementation, and full operation) and the EPIS model conceptualizing this all as one stage: implementation. Finally, the sustainment stages in each model highlight similar concepts related to sustaining work over time and across changes in staff and resources. In terms of model divergence, Fixen includes the innovation stage, which is unique to this model and not explicitly described within the EPIS model. Overall, whereas the models label the stages differently, there are many parallels across the two models: both take a stage approach with a focus on progressing through the steps in order to achieve the systems-level change outcome.

114

N. LaDuke et al.

Case Study School Context and Demographics The following case study was implemented in an urban school bordering a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. According to the United States Census Bureau (2019), 89.7% of the school community’s population is Hispanic or Latinx, with 80.2% of its citizens identifying as Mexican. In 2019, the median income for a family in this community was $47,487 (United States Census Bureau, 2019), which falls within poverty limits for a family of four or more. The school serves approximately 1200 students. The racial/ethnic diversity of the school is the following: 94% Latinx, 2% Black, 3.1% White, 0.02% Asian, 0.02% American Indian, and 0.06% Two or More Races. Of these students, 94% are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The school supports many students with diverse needs: 29% of students are English-language learners, and 9% have an individualized education program. The school’s social-emotional health team is composed of a school psychologist, two social workers, and four school counselors. This team is referred to as the Student Support Team. Along with the core school-based team members, the Student Support Team also works closely with two community agencies that provide Tier 3 academic and social-emotional wraparound support. These agencies have employees who work at the school and provide direct services within the school building. The interventions provided by these agencies include group and individual counseling, intensive academic tutoring, home visits, and academic credit recovery. Social and economic factors such as language, income, immigration status, access to healthcare and education, employment, community safety, and social support continue to have a long-lasting adverse effect on the school community. Many students reside in multi-generational, mixed-immigration status households that experience significant barriers to preventive healthcare and education. Cultural and linguistic barriers are also factors that contribute to the experiences of families in this community. Due to the nature of their roles and the difficulties some families face when accessing mental health care, the Student Support Team has always been at the forefront of providing school-based social-emotional health services to adolescents in the community. Consequently, the Student Support Team has distinct knowledge and insight into their students’ significant social-emotional needs. Before any formal data were collected, the Student Support Team knew through experience and anecdotal stories that increased systemic social-emotional support was needed for their students. A timeline outlining the entire implementation process outlined below is detailed in Fig. 7.1.

Fig. 7.1  Timeline of key implementation activities

7  Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based…

115

116

N. LaDuke et al.

Exploration Phase For some time, the lack of schoolwide screening data meant that the Student Support Team frequently had no choice but to provide reactive services, such as crisis management and individual counseling, instead of proactive services (i.e., MTSS that included prevention and wellness promotion efforts at the schoolwide tier 1 level). When students required unexpected, individualized support, the team acted quickly and prioritized student who required immediate care. However, this cycle strained the team’s day-to-day capacity, particularly at points in the school year when the team was also busy completing their other regularly assigned duties (academic scheduling, completing special education evaluations, providing social work minutes, etc.). Mired in the revolving door of responding to individual crises, the team frequently felt overburdened and under-resourced. In 2016, the school’s students were anonymously surveyed using the Trauma Exposure Checklist (Jaycox et al., 2018) and PTSD Symptom Scale (Foa, 2001). These screenings indicated that 97% of students had experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime. The results were significant and higher than expected. For national context, 66% of students across the United States report experiencing at least one traumatic event before the age of 16 (Copeland et al., 2007). On the PTSD Symptom scale, the school’s students self-reported an average score of 15; scores of 14 or above on the PTSD symptom scale indicate moderate to severe PTSD (Foa, 2001). These results were essential to better understanding and communicating the social-emotional health of the school’s students. The data painted a powerful picture: all students could benefit from increased schoolwide social-emotional support. Specifically, these findings provided a rationale for shifting the focus from supporting students intensely at Tier 3 to proactively teaching students’ social-emotional skills at Tier 1. However, despite the significant implications for Tier 1, the trauma data lacked specific, actionable information for individual students. Furthermore, the data highlighted only one aspect of students’ social-emotional health and as such did not reflect the community’s resiliency and students’ strengths, or specific information about other areas of need. Therefore, while Tier 1 supports were an essential priority, it was also determined that the school-based social-emotional health team needed a way to proactively detect and provide support to students with significant social-emotional needs.

Preparation Phase In the Fall of 2018, the Student Support Team and administration began preparing for the next steps to address the results of the trauma screenings. Based on the high prevalence of trauma exposure discovered during the Exploration Phase, as well as

7  Implementing Social-Emotional Health Screening and Scaling Up Evidence-Based…

117

the inner context facilitators, such as the Student Support Team’s motivation and supportive school and district leadership, it was decided that a broader, more comprehensive social-emotional screening should be conducted to identify specific student and schoolwide social-emotional needs. These screenings were intended to inform selection and implementation of interventions and supports to meet identified needs. The school’s principal and psychologist met with a local university partner to discuss screening options during the second week of school. After reviewing different options, the team chose the Social Emotional Health Survey–Secondary (SEHS-S; Furlong et  al., 2018). The SEHS-S is a 36-item screening tool that assesses a range of social-emotional factors and focuses on students’ strengths and resiliency (Furlong et al., 2018). The SEHS-S was selected because it assesses a child’s complete mental health by measuring both the negative and positive aspects of their life experiences (Furlong et al., 2018). This program was enticing for several reasons. First, the cost was affordable and fit within the school’s budget. Second, scoring was computer-automated, providing both an individual student profile report and a school-wide climate report. Finally, the SEHS-S can be administered electronically on phones, tablets, or computers and appeared feasible and efficient for use in a large-scale screening of over 1000 students. The SEHS-S provides individualized data on students’ positive social-emotional well-being via 12 subscales: Self-Awareness, Persistence, Self-Efficacy, Peer Support, Teacher Support, Family Coherence, Empathy, Emotional Regulation, Self-Control, Gratitude, Zest, and Optimism (Furlong et  al., 2018). The SEHS-S also produces scores for four domains and a total Covitality (CoVi) score. The four domains are Belief in Self (BIS), Belief in Others (BIO), Emotional Competence (EC), and Engaged Living (EL; Furlong et al., 2018). The Covitality (CoVi) T-score represents students’ overall social-emotional health and is calculated using the sum of all domain scores. Covitality T-scores can be interpreted as follows: High: if TS ≥ 60; High Average: if 50 ≤ TS ≤ 59; Low Average: if 40 ≤ TS ≤ 49; and Low: if TS ≤ 39 (Furlong et al., 2018). Along with providing data on social-emotional health, the SEHS also includes information on students’ psychological distress levels. The Psychological Distress (PD) scale has 12 items and produces a T-Score for all students. The Psychological Distress (PD) score can be interpreted as follows: Elevated: if PD-TS ≥ 60; At-Risk: if 50 ≤ PD-TS ≤ 59; and Normal: if PD-TS ≤ 49 (Furlong et al., 2018). Additionally, the psychologist presented the schoolwide climate report at a faculty meeting within 2  weeks of the initial screening date. Following this faculty meeting, the Student Support Team invited teachers to attend optional sessions to learn more about the screening results. Of the teaching staff invited to these optional informational sessions, 63% signed up and attended either a lunch or breakfast meeting. At these meetings, the Student Support Team provided teachers with individualized information about their students and classroom-based interventions focused on their students’ social-emotional strengths and weaknesses.

118

N. LaDuke et al.

Implementation Phase Support Team Training Before screening students, the Student Support Team was trained via a webinar facilitated by the SEHS publishing company. The Student Support Team completed the 45-minute live webinar, which included information on using and interpreting SEHS-S data. Additionally, support staff were provided with opportunities to ask questions about the screener. Each team member was assigned a SEHS-S account to access individual student profiles and schoolwide data. Screening Implementation The psychologist distributed a passive consent form to parents utilizing the message center from the school’s Student Information System (SIS). Parents could opt out of the screening for their students by completing a Microsoft form embedded in the body of the message. Two students (