Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jenny Gieselman
Andy Phillips
Shelly Schantz
Oakland University
EA 7995
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………..……………………....4
Abstract………………………………………………………………………...………………….…...5
Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………..………………………....6
Background
Research Questions
Introduction
Selection of Subjects
Description of Instruments
Data Analysis
Summary
Triangulation of Data
Recommendations……………………………………………………..28
Overview
Conclusions
Recommendations
References……………………………………………………………………...……………………...31
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………….…33
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank many people for their support, insights, and knowledge as
we completed this research. First, we would like to thank our families for their support and patience
as we worked diligently on this two year action research project. The extra duty each of them took on
while we worked was priceless. Next, we would like to give many thanks to Dr. Lindson Feun, for the
hours of teaching us to conduct action research, as well as the countless hours he spent reviewing our
research and suggesting ways for us to make it both meaningful and of the highest quality. His
insights and knowledge in research design took our research to levels we could not have imagined two
years ago. We would also like to thank the staff, administration, and students of the Brandon School
District for their time and willingness to provide open and honest feedback about the MTSS process in
our district. Finally, we would like to thank the members of our Clarkston Cohort, including Dr.
Christine Abbott, for all of the support and feedback provided throughout the phases of our research.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 5
Abstract
The Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) process has undergone significant change in the
Brandon School District within the last 10 years. The researchers conducted interviews, surveys, and
student data analysis. Literature on best practices in MTSS also was reviewed by the researchers. The
research team set out to determine if the current process was contributing to growth of at-risk students
in the elementary schools within the district. The researchers’ findings indicated pockets of success
with student achievement, however these findings were sporadic. Findings also indicated that there
were differences in the process at Brandon’s elementary schools as well as significant disparities in
attitudes of teachers toward the process. The team suggested that the process needed to be revisited
and refined such that interventions and processes are more uniform within the district as a whole. The
researchers recommend that additional research be conducted to determine specific interventions and
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
“In 2004, Congress made many changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA 2004) and RTI was a big one” (Hale, 2008, p.1). The Brandon School District began the
Response to Intervention (RTI) process during the 2007-2008 school year. This process was brought
in by Brandon’s director of special education because prior to this, there was not a clear process for
recommending students for testing for learning disabilities or emotional impairments. RTI includes
three tiers. Tier 1 is considered high quality general instructional practices that all students receive.
Tier 2 is targeted small group intervention involving underperforming students. Tier 3 is intense
intervention at an individualized level. Also, the percentage of students in Brandon Schools who had
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) was disproportionately high, when compared to the state
average. The RTI process was primarily monitored and run by special education teachers and mental
health staff. These meetings were short in length, held primarily before school. General education
teachers would initiate the meetings by sending requests to discuss individual students to the special
education team.
The district hired the husband of the director of special education to run a professional
development session on the importance of meeting mechanics. This signified Brandon Schools’
kickoff into the RTI process, though the RTI process wasn’t mentioned as much during this “training”
as the importance of starting on time, staying on time, ending on time and some dialogue strategies.
The RTI process struggled along for the next two years. General education teachers came to see it as a
roadblock to getting students the help that they needed from the special education department in the
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7
form of IEPs. Special education teachers felt attacked, especially during the meetings, as general
education teachers were frustrated about being asked to collect more data, try more strategies, and so
on, instead of moving forward with the special education testing process. At this time in the district’s
history, the primary (most of the time only) academic interventionist was the classroom teacher. The
district had a few primary reading programs for students in first grade (Reading Recovery in two
schools and Leveled Literacy Interventions in one school), but aside from that, there was little to no
At the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, the district hired a new director of special
education. During her first year in that position, she identified the need to revamp the RTI process. In
the fall of 2013, she pulled together a work group of 31 staff members from all schools, grade levels,
and departments. This team was given the task of creating a new RTI process, along with new forms
that would be used for tracking purposes. Around this time, the Michigan Department of Education
chose to rename RTI. It was now to be called “Multi-Tiered Systems of Support” (MTSS). The
special education director also preferred this newer terminology in referring to RTI. This work group
was known as the MTSS Work Group and the new process was to be called the “MTSS Process”.
Hurst states that “Basically, RTI is an integral part of MTSS but MTSS is more cohesive and
comprehensive in the goal of meeting the needs of all learners” (2014, p. 1). The MTSS work group
met regularly for several months and came up with some basic processes and many new forms and
handbooks in an effort to become uniform with the MTSS processes used across the district.
There had been much turnover administratively in the district in recent history. Only one
person who was a district administrator at the time of this study was in an administrative role during
the first iteration of RTI. Since the rollout of MTSS, only five administrators who were part of that
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 8
process were still with the district. All but one (the special education director) were serving in
different capacities or schools at the time of the study. The district employed 10-11 administrators at a
time. Of the 31 people who worked on the district MTSS handbook, 60% remained with the district at
Brandon Township is a relatively small rural community in northern Oakland County, just
south of Genesee and Lapeer Townships. The school district was comprised of two elementary
schools (prek- 3rd grades), an intermediate school (4th-6th grades), a public school academy (k-8th
grades), a middle school (7th-8th grades), and one high school. The district services approximately
2,700 students per year. The community was primarily caucasian, approximately 90%. There was
The RTI/MTSS process has a long history in Brandon Schools. Since it began as a special
education initiative, and was one that was led primarily by the special education director, the
researchers assumed that special education teachers would have a different view of MTSS than general
education teachers. The researchers also assumed that the attitudes of most teachers toward the MTSS
The authors of this study were working in three different schools within the district. The
authors knew that the MTSS processes were different in all three buildings. The buildings focused on
different groups of students, ran meetings differently, used different forms, and generally had different
processes. The authors assumed that the differences were causing additional frustration among not
only teachers but administrators as well. Researchers also assumed that because of this disconnect, the
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 9
MTSS process was not meeting the needs of as many students as it could have if it were either run the
same way or ran as well as the school or schools that ran it most efficiently. Finally, if the MTSS
process was streamlined, and made consistent across schools, the assumption was that the attitudes of
the professionals that were in those meetings and part of those processes would have improved.
Because students received interventions and supports as part of the MTSS process, the authors
assumed that students that were part of the MTSS process would have had a positive gain from the
interventions provided and the study of their achievement data on a regular basis.
The authors surveyed students and staff (teachers, administration, interventionists). There was
an assumption that the timing of participation in these surveys would have allowed respondents to be
living the process prior to providing feedback and would provide accurate perceptions of MTSS. One
limitation of the study is that it was conducted in one school district. Therefore, the results cannot be
Research Questions
1. What is the MTSS process in the elementary schools in the Brandon School District and how
2. What are the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs by district elementary staff about the district's
MTSS?
3. To what degree does placement in the elementary MTSS process improve student
achievement?
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 10
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Introduction
As the researchers began a review of the literature, they realized that they would need to
narrow the topic down within RTI or MTSS, as those particular acronyms yield too large of a variety
of scholarly articles. The researchers decided to focus on professional development and its role in the
MTSS process, leadership attitudes toward MTSS, teacher attitudes toward MTSS, and accountability
to outside agencies related to performance. These particular areas rose as areas of interest as surveys
In analyzing the history of the MTSS (RTI) process within the Brandon School District, the
research team recognized that one thing that teachers had negative perceptions about was the lack of
training and professional development upon the rollout of the system. There was only a little training
Perceptions of Responsiveness to Intervention” (Regan, Berkeley, Hughes, & Brady, 2015). The
screening and early intervention for students at risk for academic failure through the use of
research-based educational practices and assessments” (Regan et al., 2015, p. 234). This study was
conducted in one district and included all grade levels. For the purposes of this study, the researchers
focused on the findings from the elementary level only. The authors point out that, “the ‘wickedness’
of RTI lies in the details of the procedural implementation” (Regan et al., 2015, p. 235). Regan et al.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 11
(2015) also point that RTI should include core components such as “universal screening, continuous
fidelity of instructional interventions” (Regan et al., 2015, p. 234). The majority of respondents of the
Regan et al. study reported that practices that were common to RTI were feasible and effectively
implemented in their school. However, time was indicated as an issue, as well as not having the
specific knowledge or training to implement the practices themselves (Regan et al., 2015, p. 239). The
second phase of the Regan et al. (2015) study focused on teachers’ perceptions of support and
preparation for RTI and why they didn’t feel prepared for implementation. These same teachers
indicated that they felt it was feasible and effectively used in their school. “When considering
preparation and support for RTI implementation, most teachers referenced professional development
(or lack thereof) and how time impacted their efforts for implementation (either positively or
negatively)” (Regan et al., 2015, p. 241). There was also a feeling among teachers that there was a
lack of training in the use of assessment tools or programs for intervention. Teachers also identified
lack of time as a barrier; in professional development, assessment, planning and collaboration. (Regan
et al., 2015, p. 241). The study indicated that while teachers had a basic level of understanding of
RTI, they lacked clarity regarding decision making, responsibility (of who would implement), and
confidence in execution of interventions. Regan et al. (2015) state, “a convincing need for
professional development and support was evident.” They recommend instructional coaches for
Perceived Skills Relative to RTI,” Castillo, March, Tan, Stocklager, Brundage, McCullough and
Sabnis studied a school district in the southeast United States that used an interesting and professional
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 12
development intensive (and seemingly expensive) system to roll out its version of the RTI process.
The model they studied was one in which districts employed RTI coaches who spent several days in
each of the first three years of RTI implementation and then took that training to school-based
leadership teams (SBLTs). Those teams then helped with training school staff. They go on to say,
“Although differences in PD foci likely exist, it is clear that identifying critical skills relative to the
RTI model being implemented and evaluating how they change as a function of PD is important when
educators with expertise in the content being trained, in effective PD practices, and in the use of
interpersonal and communication skills facilitate skill application through modeling of skills,
opportunities for learners to practice, and collaborative reflection regarding skill development… in
fact, greater exposure to effective PD processes is linked to greater increases in educators’ knowledge
and skills” (Castillo et al, 2016, p. 895). Also in the Castillo et al. article, the researchers found it
interesting that the personnel in the studied districts had a fairly high turnover rate, similar to what the
Brandon School District experienced. “Approximately 54% of the SBLT members who participated
in the first training session participated in the final session due to attrition from the school and
administrative changes to teams” (Castillo et al, 2016, p. 901). There were 13 training sessions over a
Opportunities for School System Reform” (Dulaney, Hollam, and Wall, 2013), the authors point out
that accountability in U.S. public schools has increased due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 13
Because of this, RTI and MTSS have been used interchangeably in education (Dulaney et al.,2013, p.
1). “MTSS brings the practices and promises of RTI and PLCs together into one system: a system
designed to support and serve everyone involved in continuous school improvement through ongoing
collaboration” (Dulaney et al., 2013, p. 2). This reiterated for the researchers that professional
learning and student improvement work hand in hand, especially as it relates to MTSS. The article
pointed out that MTSS should be part of a system that supports high-functioning professional learning
communities (PLC).
Dulaney et al. interviewed several superintendents. A common theme that emerged was the
need for a universal framework within a district for MTSS. One superintendent that was interviewed
said, "I've learned that the framework is very important because it is the common language. The
culture of what you're trying to create comes from the district level. We've tried to establish the
guidelines, and then from within the culture of their own schools ... [principals] use those guidelines to
structure what they do. So we don't control at the school level, but we create that framework for them
to follow, and it seems to work quite well." (Dulaney et al., 2013, p. 8). This reiterated to the
researchers the importance of the question in their survey for teachers about MTSS being conducted
the same in the buildings throughout Brandon Schools. The districts studied in the article emphasized
the importance of collaboration. Many even implemented late starts or early release for this very
thing. The researchers knew that there was opportunity for Brandon, because of the six half days
Another question from the Dulaney et al. article focused around obstacles to full
implementation of MTSS within their districts. An obstacle noted by the authors was that
superintendents were struggling to understand MTSS language, such as MTSS, RTI, and PLC,
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 14
emphasizing the need for a common framework. It was mentioned that small districts also face bigger
obstacles, because of funding, which is something that is a very real obstacle in the Brandon School
District. It was suggested in the article that a state-wide framework might help alleviate this problem.
One way districts in the Dulaney et al. article were finding ways to sustain MTSS was by
building capacity. They created teacher leaders who helped ensure the framework was followed.
Superintendents also noted the importance of basing PLCs around MTSS. One superintendent said
“You cannot stay neutral. You've either got to be progressing or you're regressing” (Dulaney et al.,
2013, p. 10).
Alan Blankstein (2013) states that effective schools, “Are committed to the success for all
students systematically identify struggling students. They identify problems early as possible- well
before students have a chance to fail. The timely identification of problem is what distinguishes
interventions from remedial strategies (p.133).” Interestingly all of the articles discussed that building
capacity within a school district (and even within a school) and a common framework (complete with
common language and acronyms) are a must. The researchers also worry about funding. The
Brandon School District has had instructional coaches for a number of years and is finding it hard to
sustain the funding for them. The researchers agree that the coaching model is one that is optimal to
follow, especially for the authentic job-embedded professional learning that it provides, but we
wonder if the high cost is worth the investment. The Brandon School District needs to invest some
Chapter 3
Method of Study
According to the U.S. Department of Education, all public schools must have processes to
identify and evaluate students who may require extra services, be they services for at-risk students or
services for students with special education needs (US Department of Education). These extra
services are present at public schools so to that they can be utilized by students that need them. The
processes to get students aligned with appropriate interventions need to be clear. The processes need
to include ways for students to qualify for the services and ways for students to “graduate” from the
services (when applicable). The processes must also include opportunities for data analysis at regular
intervals to judge whether appropriate progress is being made as well as to judge effectiveness of
The purpose of this study was to determine how well the processes in place in the Brandon
School District met the requirements mentioned above. Results and recommendations were shared
with Brandon’s administrative team, and especially with the special education director.
Researchers conducted surveys of students in the MTSS process, as well as surveys of staff
members, including administration, teachers, and intervention staff. The consent form from the
interviewed administrators new to the process since it became MTSS instead of RTI as well as
administrators new to the process altogether. Interviews were also conducted with some of the 60% of
the original MTSS committee members that still worked within the Brandon School District. Surveys
Selection of Subjects
The selection of subjects revolved around those that were or had been involved with the MTSS
program within the Brandon School District. At the elementary level, there are two pre-kindergarten
through third grade schools, one intermediate school that houses in students that are in grades four,
five, and six, and one non-traditional public school academy that houses a small population of
kindergarten through eighth grade students. The district is a declining enrollment district. In the
spring of 2013 one elementary school was closed. In the spring of 2017, it was decided to close the
intermediate school and the non-traditional academy and to restructure the two elementary schools.
The district is made up of the ethnic makeup of the student population is primarily caucasian. The
second highest population of students is hispanic, but it is less than 10% of the overall population.
Overall free and reduced lunch percentages of the district is about 35%. The two elementary schools
Researchers interviewed three administrators to see how the MTSS process was run in their
schools. A survey was administered to all elementary general education teachers and special
education staff as well as to MTSS students in third and fourth grades. Student achievement data were
studied using NWEA conditional growth percentile. Researchers identified each kindergarten
through third grade student as either a student who received MTSS interventions, or a student who did
not. Researchers then compared average conditional growth percentiles of various subgroups using a
beginning of the year NWEA test and an end of the year NWEA test.
Researchers began with conducting surveys and interviews in April 2017. The survey was
administered electronically after MTSS meetings at the respective schools. Interviews were
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 17
conducted with the director of special education and building administrators. This information was
used to inform them of the processes that were currently being used in each building. Researchers
analyzed the academic performance of students in the MTSS process in kindergarten through fourth
grades in both elementary schools. In particular, researchers analyzed the conditional growth
percentile of those students. According to NWEA, “This metric shows how student growth compares
to the growth of students across the nation, and allows for growth comparisons to be made between
students performing at different points on the achievement distribution, and across different grades and
subject areas” (2012, p. 1). This data was broken down by quartile. Researchers shared the data with
administrators. The researchers then provided administrators with a series of recommendations that
Description of Instruments
researchers used NWEA test scores of students in the MTSS process, using the average conditional
growth percentile of various subgroups. NWEA test scores were evaluated from fall 2016 to spring
2017. Scores on growth were compared using tools available through NWEA. Surveys and interview
questionnaires were used to gather perceptions of the staff of the MTSS process and perceptions of
effectiveness in closing achievement gaps. Researchers reviewed academic literature on best practices
in MTSS and compared those practices to the MTSS practices within the Brandon School District in
The teacher survey consisted of fourteen Likert scale questions, eight open ended questions,
and four demographic multiple choice questions. The student survey consisted of eight simple
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 18
multiple choice questions and two open ended questions. Researchers also conducted interviews.
Questions that were asked in the interviews were the same questions asked of all interview subjects.
Data Analysis
Researchers used qualitative and quantitative data in this study. Interview and survey data
were used to gather perceptions on the process of MTSS. These results were graphed when
applicable. Survey and interview questions related to perceived benefit/ growth of students in MTSS
NWEA test data was analyzed. Researchers analyzed growth made on the test from the fall of
2016 to the spring of 2017. Conditional growth percentile was averaged and compared in kindergarten
through third grade at both Harvey-Swanson Elementary and Oakwood Elementary (both K-3 schools
during the 2016-2017 school year) for analysis. A comparison was made between the NWEA
conditional growth percentiles of students in MTSS with students not in MTSS to determine if MTSS
students were making positive growth at least at the same rate as students not in MTSS. Fall 2016
NWEA scores were used as a baseline Fall 2016 NWEA data was used as a one indicator for student
placement in MTSS. Spring 2017 NWEA data was used as posttest data to determine growth rate.
Researchers looked for differences, if any, between students in the MTSS process versus the growth
Summary
Using surveys and interviews of staff and students, researchers drew conclusions regarding
perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of the MTSS process and perception of its impact on students who
received interventions through the MTSS process. Researchers used average conditional growth
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 19
percentile of MTSS students and compared them with students not in MTSS using the NWEA
assessment in the areas of reading and math to draw conclusions of the impact of MTSS interventions.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 20
Chapter 4
Results of the Study
Triangulation of Data
The researchers compiled the data from surveys, interviews and NWEA student growth from
fall 2016 to spring 2017. To triangulate the data, there were four data sources conducted and analyzed
in this study which were; teacher survey, student survey, administrative interviews, and NWEA data.
Consent was received from the superintendent to survey all staff and students involved in MTSS.
The NWEA test was a reliable data source. From Technical Manual for Measures of Academic
Much of the documented validity evidence for NWEA tests comes in the form of concurrent
validity. This form of validity is expressed in the form of a Pearson correlation coefficient
between the total domain area RIT score and the total scale score of another established test
designed to assess the same domain area. It answers the question, “How well do the scores
from this test that reference this (RIT) scale in this subject area (e.g., Reading) correspond to
the scores obtained from an established test that references some other scale in the same
subject area?” Both tests are administered to the same students in close temporal proximity,
roughly two to three weeks apart. Strong concurrent validity is indicated when the correlations
are in the mid- .80’s. Correlations with non-NWEA tests that include more performance test
items that require subjective scoring tend to have lower correlations than when non-NWEA
The question that seemed to have the most agreement was when 14 out of the 24 respondents
strongly agreed that the MTSS process should look the same across the district. The majority of the
surveys also showed that people felt there is not enough time devoted to planning interventions.
Teachers agreed that they were aware of what the interventionists were doing or could offer.
Out of the 24 respondents every grade was represented k-5, with the exception of 2nd. A social
worker, interventionists, and a special ed teacher also responded. A total of 75% of the respondents
felt that MTSS mostly addressed the academically at-risk. A small portion of respondents, 16.7%, felt
it mostly addressed bubble students and 8.3% felt it mostly addressed behavioral issues.
There was overwhelming positive support towards the collaboration that MTSS provided. It
was also addressed that the monthly meetings between teachers was a positive. The interventionists
we had were seen as helpful, and respondents tended to agree that progress does happen.
The frustration seemed to come from not enough support and the feeling of not being able to
address all students who may be considered at-risk. One teacher wrote, “Some students are left out
because their NWEA scores are too high, but they aren’t successful in school.” Others felt that MTSS
meetings often tended to turn into a gripe session. It was also brought up that some left the meetings
feeling like they had more to do with not enough time for reflection or planning.
There also were 13 out of 24 teachers that disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement,
“I have a clear-cut understanding of the process for moving a child through the tiers in MTSS.” This
The survey was administered to students with one of the researchers asking the students the
questions and recording the responses on the survey. Twenty surveys were collected from students
who were in the MTSS process during the 2016-17 school year. Eleven students were from Harvey
Swanson Elementary school and nine were from Oakwood Elementary School. There were twelve 3rd
Eighty percent of students indicated that they felt like they got enough help in math. One
student did not feel he received enough help in math, one was not sure, and two indicated that they did
not receive help in math. Thirteen of the students were pulled out out of the classroom and they all
felt that it helped them. Student comments, though general in nature, indicated that learning strategies
Seventy-five percent of students surveyed indicated they received enough help in reading. One
felt he did not get enough help, one was not sure, and three did not receive help in reading.
Seventy-three percent of students who did receive reading supports felt they helped them. Twelve
students went to another room for reading instruction, all but one felt that was helpful to them. For
reading interventions, students indicated that the kinds of things that helped included being able to
focus and get more help from the teacher, learning various strategies for reading (figuring out hard
The overall responses received from the sampling of students in the MTSS process indicated
that students felt they were being helped. They indicated that the strategies and help received helped
them in both areas: reading and math. While students were able to be more specific in the types of
Interviews were conducted with the superintendent, an elementary principal, the special
education director, and the elementary and middle school curriculum coordinator. For a historical
perspective, the principal and curriculum coordinator have been with the district more than 15 years.
The special education director has been in Brandon for 6 years (the 2nd of which, she oversaw the
creation of the MTSS process by leading a large committee). The superintendent was beginning his
Researchers asked interview subjects to define what MTSS meant to each of them. All but the
superintendent saw it as an ongoing process, with answers in some way, shape, or form revolving
around differentiating instruction for all students, and especially those that need more support. The
superintendent saw the MTSS process as the process used in meetings. He defined MTSS as,
“Teachers meeting, talking and strategizing on ways to improve learning for all students,” and “set
collaboration time including opportunities to review data and to discuss what is working and not for
students.” The principal’s response varied as well. He saw one of the main targets of MTSS as being
identification of special education students for testing, using in-house data. He noted, “For MTSS to
have buy-in with teachers, they need to see that their professional opinions matter. This means that if
members of the team notice a student has extreme struggles, there is a system for having that student
evaluated so that the student can get the support that he/she needs in the form of an Individualized
Education Plan. When I was a teacher in our district, it was nearly impossible to have a student
When asked about what systems are in place currently, answers varied. The principal and
special education director talked about intervention systems in place in partnership with collaboration
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 24
meetings, while the curriculum coordinator’s answer focused on teachers receiving professional
development from instructional coaches in the area of differentiating learning. As mentioned, the
superintendent’s answers tended to focus on the MTSS process as being a series of meetings for
teachers to collaborate.
Researchers asked if it was important that MTSS be systematic across all schools. The
superintendent responded that it was important to him. The curriculum coordinator and principal
agreed, although their answers focused more on it being systematic within programs at the same grade
level. The special education director didn’t feel as though it needed to be the same. She noted, “I
think the systemic MTSS process is important across the district’s school buildings but the forms and
structure may be different depending upon the culture of the building and the specific supports each
building may have in place. In the end, student growth and success with identified successful
When asked about teacher perception of MTSS in Brandon, all agreed that it varied, with many
seeing teachers as feeling less than positive about it. The curriculum coordinator stated, “It’s a mixed
bag. Some see it as useful because they utilize the time to tap into the human resources and plan for
differentiated instruction. I think those that don’t do that bring down the crowd and muddle the
process.” The superintendent said that MTSS is seen as, “A chore by many and as opportunity by
others.” The elementary principal said, “The more that we can show teachers that their effort in the
MTSS process is valued, the better. This means that we are celebrating success of struggling students,
and maybe even discontinuing them from MTSS. At the same time, it means that if no growth or
negative growth is the case after sustained intervention, there is a path to special education through
MTSS.”
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 25
All interview subjects answered without hesitation that the MTSS process in the Brandon
School District needs to be revisited. The special education director said, “It’s time to see what part of
the process should be changed, eliminated, what’s really being used, what needs to be used, where we
Based on the interviews, researchers suggested that administration come together to identify
and define what it wanted the MTSS process to be before it was revisited. This group, perhaps in
collaboration with survey data from teachers across all schools, determined what the vision of the
process was, and perhaps created a simple document to be shared with teaching staff annually. The
curriculum coordinator agreed with this when she said, “Having a vision” improved the MTSS
process. She said we needed to “Sit together and decide what our bottom line end target is and then
create a mission (steps) to reach that vision.” She also saw the need for teachers to have time, separate
from MTSS meeting time to analyze student data. Researchers agreed that time needed to be set aside
for teachers to analyze data of students who are not necessarily at risk and in need of tier-two supports,
The research team analyzed conditional growth percentile (CGP) averages in both Harvey-Swanson
Elementary (HSE) and Oakwood Elementary School (OES) for students in kindergarten through third
grades. The following represents what the team found. A table for the NWEA scores are shown in
Appendix B.
● At both HSE and OES, kindergarten MTSS students in math and reading had a lower average
CGP than students who were not identified as being in MTSS. The difference was much
● At HSE, in first grade, average CGP of math and reading was much higher for MTSS (63.3 to
53.6 for reading and 61.8 to 50.7 for math) than non MTSS. This was not true for OES first
grade students. At OES, average CGP was lower in reading for MTSS students than students
not in MTSS and higher in math for MTSS students than for students not in MTSS.
● At both HSE and OES, in second grade, CGP was higher in math for MTSS students than for
● At OES in third grade, students in MTSS had a higher average CGP than those that were not in
MTSS. In reading at OES, the opposite was true. At HSE, average CGP was lower for MTSS
● When comparing schools by grade level in reading, HSE students, both those who were in
MTSS and those that were not, had a higher average CGP in kindergarten through second
grades, with the only exception being HSE MTSS students in kindergarten. The difference
was largest in first grade MTSS students (difference of 30.7). The opposite was true in third
grade, with OES students having a higher average CGP in both MTSS students and students
not in MTSS.
● When comparing schools by grade level in math, HSE students, both those who were in MTSS
and those that were not had a higher average CGP in all areas except 2nd grade students not in
It was pointed out in chapter two that a consistent framework should be a part of the MTSS
process in a district. It appeared that Brandon teachers agreed, 14 out of the 24 teachers surveyed
strongly agreed that MTSS should look the same across the district. Administrators also agreed with
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 27
that fact, the superintendent, curriculum director and principal agreed. The researchers were aware
that this was not necessarily the case in Brandon School District.
Student perception data indicates that students who have struggled in math or reading felt that
interventions and supports provided were helpful to them. The researchers realized that while this
information did not directly relate to the literature review, they felt student perceptions were important
One of the areas that researchers discovered as a limitation was that 4 of 6 Oakwood teachers
indicated that the MTSS focus was on the bubble (academically almost there) students. While all of
Harvey Swanson teacher responses indicated the focus was on the most academically at risk students.
Administrators in the Brandon School District felt that it was important for the MTSS process
to be uniform across the grade levels and the district. Teachers did not seem to have a clear
understanding of how to move a child through the process of MTSS. Responses indicated the need to
clarify the procedures and process of MTSS. This was consistent with Regan’s (2015) study where
teachers felt unprepared and trained for implementation and the process.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 28
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview
The researchers conducted this study to determine how well the process of MTSS was in place
in the Brandon School District. The researchers used the following questions to guide their research:
1. What is the MTSS process in the elementary schools in the Brandon School District and how
2. What are the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs by district elementary staff about the district's
MTSS?
3. To what degree does placement in the elementary MTSS process improve student
achievement?
The researchers reviewed data collected from interviews of administrators, surveys of teachers
and students, and student achievement data to make conclusions, recommendations, and to consider
It was found that the MTSS process in Brandon wasn’t consistent. Student achievement data,
using conditional growth percentile as the specific measure studied, was sporadic and didn’t support
that the process in place consistently reduced the achievement gap between students who were
considered MTSS students and those that were not. Theoretically best practices were in place, but in
Conclusions
The first major finding was that in general there was not a common understanding among staff
members on the process of moving students through MTSS. The MTSS process in Brandon
elementary schools was not found to be consistent across buildings in the district. While one school,
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 29
HSE, focused their MTSS attention on the most struggling students, MTSS at OES focused primarily
on the students who were performing just below meeting the grade level expectations.
The second major finding was that student growth within the MTSS students was not
consistent in closing the achievement gap. NWEA results were sporadic, with some pockets of
significant growth of MTSS students as opposed to non-MTSS peers, while other areas showed the
opposite.
The third major finding was that, according to research related to best practices in MTSS,
Brandon had some of those best practice pieces in place, while others were not. Staff and
administrators responded that data-driven collaboration was provided to support groups of learners.
However, there was not a strong systemic approach with follow-through and systems of support.
Recommendations
Through research and data collection, researchers found that Brandon Schools needed a more
systemic and systematic approach for MTSS. Systems varied from school to school. Definitions and
opinions of MTSS varied from teacher to teacher and even administrator to administrator throughout
Brandon Schools. These results indicate that Brandon Schools should create a common definition
procedure for the MTSS process. Professional development time should then be provided at the
beginning of each school year to ensure that all staff understand the common process and procedures
for MTSS.
Researchers found that not having a clearly defined definition of MTSS was a point of
frustration for teachers. This is an area that Brandon Schools needs to revisit. It is the researchers
recommendation that a committee be formed that includes teachers, support staff, and administration
to clearly define and map out procedures for MTSS to be implemented across the district.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 30
Researchers found that more systematic interventions across grade levels are wanted by
teachers. Sporadic gains in student achievement also suggest that stronger interventions need to be in
place for small groups of students with high needs. Therefore, this would be something researchers
would recommend Brandon Schools address with the committee they form. This could possibly help
to improve the sporadic student achievement data that the researchers found.
This research has generated additional questions that need further investigation.
sustainability?
4. How can elementary academic coaches be used to better prepare teachers and support
References
Castillo, J. M., March, A. L., Tan, S. Y., Stockslager, K. M., Brundage, A., Mccullough, M., &
Professional development and RtI skills. Psychology in the Schools, 53(9), 893-910.
school system reform. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 30 (10.2) retrieved March
Hale, J. B. (2008) Response to Intervention: Guidelines for Parents and Practitioners. Wrights Law.
Hurst, S. (2014, January 6) What is the Difference Between RTI and MTSS? Reading Horizons.
http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-rti-and-mtss
Metcliff, T. (n.d.) What’s your plan? Accurate Decision MAking within a Multi-Tier System of
Supports: Critical Areas in Tier 1. RTI Action Network: A Program of the National Center for
http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tier1/accurate-decision-making-within-a-
multi-tier-system-of-supports-critical-areas-in-tier-1
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2012, October). Frequently asked questions: Conditional growth
https://support.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/Conditional%20Growth%20Index
%20FAQ_0.pdf
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2012, October). Technical Manual for Measures of Academic
Progress -&- Measures of Academic Progress for Primary Grades
Regan, K. S., Berkeley, S. L., Hughes, M., & Brady, K. K. (2015). Understanding practitioner
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Building the Legacy: Idea 2004.
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 33
Appendices
Administrator Interview
Staff Survey
Student Survey
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 34
We are part of an educational specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action research on the
effectiveness of our MTSS process. Our research questions are: What are the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs
by district elementary teachers about the district's MTSS and To what degree does placement in the elementary
MTSS process improve student achievement.
We are seeking permission to survey both staff and students involved in the MTSS. The students and staff from
Brandon Fletcher Intermediate, Brandon Academy of Arts and Science, Harvey- Swanson, and Oakwood would
be the focus of our research. We would like to conduct surveys in March 2017. Prior to conducting the survey
we will be getting consent from parents, students and staff. Their participation will be voluntary and all
information will remain anonymous. There is no risk in taking this survey. Refusal to participate will involve
no penalty or loss of benefits and subjects may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits.
When the research is complete, the findings will be made public but no student information will be identifiable
as the survey is being completed anonymously. The information from our research will benefit future students
and staff as we plan on improving the MTSS process to benefit under-achieving students. We would appreciate
your approval for this project. Please indicate your permission on the form below and return it to Andy Phillips.
If you have specific questions regarding this research project please contact Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty
Sponsor, Oakland University, (248)623-9233.
Sincerely,
I give permission for the cohort group from Oakland University to conduct a survey of students and staff
involved with the MTSS process in the spring of 2017.
________________________________________________ ____________________________
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 35
MTSS 56.60% 41.20% 71.40% 63.20% 50.00% MTSS 41.70% 47.40% 40.00% 37.00% 60.10%
Non-MT
Non-MTSS 60.30% 67.30% 51.20% 63.00% 59.10% SS 54.60% 54.30% 44.00% 42.90% 74.40%
Harvey Swanson Elementary Oakwood Elementary
Math Average Conditional Growth Percentile Math Average Conditional Growth Percentile
Percentage that Met Growth Projection Percentage that Met Growth Projection
MMTSS 61.90% 53.30% 68.80% 84.20% 23.50% MTSS 45.30% 40.00% 60.00% 46.40% 39.10%
Non-MT
Non-MTSS 58.30% 70.80% 47.60% 72.90% 45.50% SS 51.90% 63.80% 73.50% 25.90% 23.1
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 36
● Administrator Interview
● Student Survey
● Teacher Survey
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 37
2. In an ideal world what would an intervention system look like in your building?
A. The best teachers who differentiate, progress monitor, share data, reflect on their practice and revise
for the individual students assigned to their class.
B. Collaborating support professionals to work alongside the most excellent teachers in collaboration to
support all learners in small groups and individually, differentiating and meeting the needs of the various
learning styles in their classroom. Documenting progress monitoring assessment data to share with others to
brainstorm other ideas and interventions.
C. Intervention professional staff , who work with the collaborating professionals to intensely instruct the most
struggling/least progressing students to share the interventions and data that were successful and how the data
supports it.
4. What are systems that are in place that have a positive impact on student learning?
A. MTSS process in all Preschool – 8th grade and moving towards it in the high school.
B. Collaboration of General Ed., Special Ed., ELA and Math Coaches have supported all student to grow
and skill improvement.
C. Collaboration of General Ed., Special Ed., ELA, Math and Tech Coaches have supported the sharing of
best practices of intervention strategies for struggling learners.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 38
D. Review and reflection on the data of all students and focus upon those students who show little
progress/growth.
E. The use of behavioral data and interventions from Teacher Consultants, Psychologists, SSW and
Behavior Interventionists to collaborate with student teams to support behaviorally struggling students.
In an ideal world what would an intervention system look like in your building? Set collaboration time including
opportunities to review data and to discuss what is working and not for students.
Do you think it’s important that MTSS is systematic across schools? Yes
What are systems that are in place that have a positive impact on student learning? Working on it on a larger
scale, but the elementary MTSS meetings are excellent for our bottom tier students.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 39
What do you feel would improve the MTSS process? More time, focus and buy-in. Also, more emphasis on
students beyond the bottom tier.
How do you feel teachers perceive MTSS? A chore by many and as opportunity by others.
In an ideal world what would an intervention system look like in your building? Ideally, it would look
like teachers intervening through differentiated instruction first. If we can get all teachers solid on
differentiating their instruction (many still do not know what this really means) then that would be solid
intervention for all kids (high, med, low) and would help uncover the true tier 2 and 2 kids. Also,
having the tier two interventions be in the classroom with a solid bridge of communication and
planning between the classroom teacher and interventionists would be optimal (we are almost there
and I have to say this is pretty cool!).
Do you think it’s important that MTSS is systematic across schools? Absolutely! I say this because if
it’s not, that implies we don’t have a vision and without a vision for MTSS, it is set up to fail. A strong
vision with a mission will determine where we put our energy and will make sure all stakeholders are
informed accordingly. I can’t imagine not having it be systematic.
What are systems that are in place that have a positive impact on student learning? Coaches helping
teachers learn how to differentiate instruction in small group, monthly/six weeks meetings to come
together to look at data and update progress.
What do you feel would improve the MTSS process? Having a vision. Sitting together and deciding
what our bottom line end target is and then creating a mission (steps) to reach that vision. Also,
implementing the RPM meetings in order to provide all students with the instruction they need from
the most qualified person in the classroom (the teacher) and then making sure that when we come
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 40
together monthly/six weeksish, we are ready to bring the tier two/three kids to the table so we can
utilize the resources of special ed professionals. We need to use that time to seriously brainstorm
and get busy planning. Definitely think it shouldn’t be only used to input data. That is not lifting
instruction in any way!
How do you feel teachers perceive MTSS? Right now, I think it’s a mixed bag. Some see it as useful
because they utilize the time to tap into the human resources and plan for differentiated instruction. I
think those that don’t do that bring down the crowd and muddle the process. I think that teachers that
don’t have direction or need help succumb to this and then it’s a losing battle. I don’t think teachers
really understand the purpose of MTSS and I think they don’t realize that it is truly an ongoing
process that starts with them. I don’t blame them because they genuinely need help professional
development in differentiation, data reflection and planning. They just need support.
Do you feel the MTSS process in Brandon should be revisited? Yes. We are so close and on the way
to getting it right (well at least as right as it can be now) and we should take time to do this because, if
done right, it can really pay off for our students.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 41
Student Survey
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 42
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 43
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 44
How can our school or teachers help you more with reading?
How can our school or teachers help you more with math?
Help me focus.
I can't think of a way.
Think about the questions.
Doing more math.
I'm good at math...
Math is going good. I don't really need any help.
Can't think of anything.
Don't have an opinion
Give me lots of challenges.
Learn more.
Doing math strategies.
Use flash cards
I don't really know.
I don't know help learn facts
help us solve stuff
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 46
Staff Survey
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 47
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 48
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 49
If you would like to explain any of your answers from above, please do so
here.
I feel like the MTSS process should be more of a team approach. There needs to be more auxiliary staff
members available to push in and help students.
I feel as though that there is no one who really understands the MTSS process and how it should be conducted.
I have taken into consideration the different principals and buildings in which I have worked for my responses. I
have seen the best format, meetings, process, and results from my current administrator, Andy Phillips.
I feel MTSS has it place but I have a hard time with those students that have been in the program for years and
there is little or no improve in the student (s) achievements. I do not understand why other methods are not
looked at when those students are not showing growth.
We have recently changed formats to be more consistent across the district. We are still getting to know this
new format.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 50
I'm not sure the process needs to look the same in all buildings, each building has unique situations and admin
handles the situations differently?!?!?
Since this is my first year in elementary, and my first year with MTSS, I am not really sure of the process,
benefits...etc.
MTSS is a good format for teachers, resource personnel, administration, etc to come together and discuss
students. It is and should be a system for tracking data and student progress over time and throughout school
transitions. MTSS should also incorporate a team approach to helping teachers problem solve and implement
intervention plans. MTSS should be a process/system for keeping an eye on students who may otherwise fall
through the cracks.
MTSS is to help at risk students and to be able to keep track of them depending on academic or behaviors. It is
a way to keep an eye on students we are concerned about.
MTSS should be a team of people who are available to help give assessments and push into the classroom to
help with interventions.
Where the team can get together and come up with a plan and solutions so the student can be successful. The
plan should include the people involved, the time when things should take place, etc.
MTSS should be a chance to discuss strategies and plans for at-risk (academic or behavior) students with a
team of professionals to get suggestions.
MTSS should be a program that supports at risk students with their specific needs. Teachers and support staff
should be able to meet and have meaningful discussions about progress or challenges.
MTSS should be a time set aside to discuss and put a plan in place about students showing academic and
behavioral issues.
MTSS should be a process where team teachers share info about a student, collaborate, and create a plan for
that student to be as successful as possible.
discussion on students that need more help
A screening process that intervenes to support teachers and help students.
MTSS should be the process by which we identify at-risk students who are struggling, identify in which area they
are in the most need of support, then create a plan to support that area. The goal should be to give them the
support they need. If the supports of one tier have been attempted and are successful, then they should
continue there. If not, more intense intervention is necessary.
A process of identifying students in need of extra support for academics and behaviors. Additional support
staff should be in place for interventions to be successful.
Support for students in need that allows them to increase knowledge or behavior.
I can only share my views but I see MTSS as away to collect data and help the student (s) to continue to show
grow and improve academically.
MTSS should be specific problem identification based on data, planning interventions and reviewing data to
determine student progress/ how plan is working.
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 51
MTSS should be a way to identify students who are at risk academically and behaviorally and create a plan to
help them be as successful as possible in school.
MTSS should be a system where at risk or bubble students are talked about and interventions are put in place
to support them behaviorally or academically. These interventions should be well-researched and tracked to see
if there is a positive outcome using them. It is another layer of support for those groups or individuals that are
not moving forward based on the current classroom instruction.
A way to share concerns about students and receive feedback and ideas from educators, coaches, and other
interventionists. It should also be a place that interventions are monitored and shared so that decisions can be
made about possibly taking concerns to the next level (which may require testing, if necessary).
Systems of support that help students improve academically or behaviorally.
MTSS should be the process that aids those students at the dangerously low end of the spectrum, both
behaviorally and academically. There should be people in place that help facilitate the plans needed to be
placed into action to assist these students' needs.
Data should already be put in and the meeting should be spent talking about next steps and interventions for
the students.
MTSS should be a time to talk about small groups of children who are struggling, come up with a strategic plan
to help those kids reach their next one thing and understand how this is all going to happen
A way to come together as a team to help support kids.
A clear series of logistics, that a student must go through and a teacher must present evidence for, to receive
intervention or support in an academic area or with behavior.
Please explain your perception with what is good about our MTSS
process.
I feel our MTSS incorporates a systematic team approach, good data collection process and support for
students who struggle. ,
My perception is that is a good way to come together and share out about students we are concerned.
We have time in the school day to talk about students.
getting together, although the whole team is not present ( interventionists, etc.) through discussion, seeing the
whole picture
feeling validated that your student is having a hard time, and it's not just you!
I appreciate the time to input data. I also like the focus on one or two students per teacher.
Meeting with teachers who have the same students to discuss what has worked and what hasn't worked.
Monthly meetings.
I like collaboration among teachers. We often notice the same things, but may have different/creative ways to
address them.
the interventionists are wonderful
It may move slowly but we do have progress.
One good aspect of our process is having the ability to discuss students with a variety of colleagues.
This year, I have seen plans and progress for students that I have never seen before thanks to Mr. Phillips.
Collaborative process,
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 52
I like the way we all come together and discuss the issues to help the students.
Colleagues sharing their expertise and experience, data to determine at risk students and progress monitoring
intervention, supporting all students are not taught one way and classrooms include differentiation practices
It gives us a chance to work as a team, get input from different people, and to see how a child is (or is not)
progressing.
I feel that we are starting to have some consistency across the district with the process. It seems that the
forms used are the same and folders not implemented are staying with CA60s so students have their data that
follows them. I appreciate that our district gives us time to meet for this process.
I feel that we are given enough time to share and discuss our concerns and data. We have also been able to
share the students that we are most concerned with.
Monthly meetings, when we had Hevel it helped address the needs,
I like working with the grade group as a team. This is a team effort that is able to discuss what is and is not
effective.
It's good that we have time together and have the resources of multiple teachers and support staff to discuss
the students.
Coming together to talk about students.
The team work and that all of the team has worked with each of the children.
Look at specific groups of students and work to provide those groups with intervention. We try to use our
intervention teachers wisely.
Please explain your perception with what is frustrating about our MTSS
process.
Some students just don't fit into any of the processes or systems that we have in place. There is not enough
support for behaviorally challenged students. Some students exist in the MTSS system for years before testing
or anything is formerly for them. Testing is not for every students but when it an apparent need in some cases,
the process takes too long.
It is frustrating when I have students that I am very concerned about and feel that more needs to be done with
them.
There is not enough help available for the students that truly need it.
that there is no follow through...some on my part, I admit
MTSS meetings seem to evolve into a gripe session about students. We only complain, and rarely are solutions
or plans discussed. MTSS push-in support from interventionists is irregular.
There is no consistent plan and students are continuing to be shuffled through year after year with no changes.
I feel that more students should get support than what's available. Only a select few are getting supported.
More kids need support!
some students who need help are not discussed due to a higher NWEA score that is not in single digits
Not enough staff to support all the needs. Some issues are not resolved year after year...because there isn't
support.
One frustrating aspect occurs when everyone agrees that a student should be receiving the most intense
interventions available, but is excluded due to factors beyond our control (family disagrees, absenteeism, etc.).
MTSS AT BRANDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 53
The same students with the same issues are discussed from Kindergarten through 6th grade with very little
done to support the student and the teacher. The support that is supposed to accompany these students is
lacking resulting in students falling through the cracks.
When students move to other schools the MTSS process is not always picked up and continued.
There are times when I leave the meets, that I feel the time was not well spent on the students issues or what
was in best interest for that student's growth. Example .. When there is a student that has been in MTSS for
years and just continues on with MTSS without any other support to help with that students growth.
Need additional certified staff to support classroom teachers w/ small group interventions.
The data does not show the whole picture of what a student needs. It is not always easy to identify exactly what
the needs are and how to move forward. Additionally, some students are not brought up in MTSS who could
benefit from it.
I feel that we are always making up interventions and I don't know if these are the best interventions to move
our students forward. I also feel that it is the same low group of students being talked about each and every
time and progress might be seen with them but it is slow. I wonder if focusing on the bubble kids might move
them forward. I think the forms are a little difficult to use and I don't know if I see carry over from the
elementary buildings up with interventions that worked for students still then being used.
If we spend too much time on one class's concerns, time is sometimes cut short for others. It sometimes
seems that data is collected and recorded, and that there is not a purpose for it, if testing is not deemed
necessary.
Not enough people to perform given interventions and track data. It should not all be put on the classroom
teacher. Both academically and behaviorally. We need more bodies here to help and more time for them to help.
Sometimes it's frustrating collecting data after data and you feel like you are spinning your wheels and getting
nowhere.
I am not sure yet. I am sure next year I will have a better understanding of what I am thinking.
The expectations from the principals differ from building to building. Even when expectations are clearly
communicated, teachers don't come prepared with the information/data that they need.
Administration being pulled from the meeting, all parties involved not in attendance, teachers using the time
away from their room to handle other things, meeting being cancelled due to the lack of subs, constantly
collecting data and still not having enough "proof" that a child needs help and getting great ideas but not having
the support to implement the ideas.
Leaving feeling like you have more to do and not enough time to get it done.
Not enough time to be reflective and make a plan of action. I would definitely like to see the process be more
clear and more visual. Also this year we focused on our "bubble" students because that is what we were told we
were doing and our very at risk students fell way behind.