Leah M. Nellis, Pamela A. Fenning - Systems Consultation and Change in Schools - Integrating Implementation Science Into Practice-Springer (2023)

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 Pamela A. Fenning
Indiana University Kokomo Loyola University Chicago
Kokomo, IN, USA 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 ratio-
nale 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 class-
rooms, 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: pfennin@luc.edu
L. M. Nellis
Indiana University Kokomo, Kokomo, IN, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

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
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 eco-
logical 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 litera-
ture, 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 con-
texts. 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 consulta-
tion (Meyers et al., 2012). Focusing change efforts on the systems rather than indi-
vidual children often requires a new way of thinking in many schools. Systems/
organizational consultants engage in consultation service delivery with school per-
sonnel. 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 sys-
tems/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, eco-
logically based organizational consultation can be a useful and systematic model to
follow in uncovering critical aspects of systems that are potential targets of inter-
ventions (Sullivan et al., 2015). Later in this chapter, we describe how implementa-
tion 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/organiza-
tional 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 insti-
tutions 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 imple-
mentation of a schoolwide (universal; tier 1) curriculum with embedded social emo-
tional 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 experi-
encing various forms of trauma and mental health concern. There were multiple
collaborators including school-based personnel who implemented the SEL
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 imple-
mentation 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 sys-
tems 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 influ-
enced 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
individuals within systems play (i.e., principals, teachers, school boards) in impact-
ing 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 adminis-
trators, teachers, lead teachers/coaches, community partners, school board mem-
bers, 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 sys-
temic 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 dissect-
ing 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 system-
wide 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 ini-
tiatives. 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 ana-
lyzing 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
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 condi-
tions” (p. 172). In their work, Bryk et al. have formed networked communities
(NC), which are a group of individuals with clearly defined expectations for work-
ing 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 organiza-
tional consultation perspectives (Sullivan et al., 2015). Systems/organizational con-
sultation 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 analy-
sis to evaluate, modify, and, as necessary, tweak innovative efforts through an itera-
tive 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 admin-
istrator, 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 com-
ponents 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 pre-
cious staff and administrative time. However, when systems change is implemented
in a planful manner by a group with a shared unified purpose, by prioritizing com-
mon goals to address a key concern and learning from implementation, then sys-
tems change has enormous potential to address the most enduring educational
challenges (Bryk et al., 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2015). As noted by Fullan and Quinn:
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 under-
stood sense of what needs to be done—and see their part in achieving that purpose—coher-
ence 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 receiv-
ing 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 busi-
nesses 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 sys-
temic 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 oth-
ers 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 imple-
ment the efforts well. It is important for systems/organizational consultants to under-
stand these nuances when approaching schools to engage in systems change efforts.
onnection of Systems Change Theory/Organizational

C
Consultation to Implementation Science
Regardless of whether systems change is internally initiated by the school or dis-

trict, or driven from entities outside of the school, such as federal legislative man-
dates 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 sus-
taining 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/organiza-
tional consultants to follow, as it shares many commonalities with systems/organi-
zational 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 vol-
ume; Fixsen et al., 2005; Meyers et al., 2012). Both models emphasize understand-
ing 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 consulta-
tion, 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/organi-
zational consultation and implementation science also have overlap at later stages in
which systems change practices are actually implemented in some capacity.

According to systems/organizational consultation, following data analysis, the con-
sultant and school team collaboratively begin implementing an intervention, all the
while considering systemic ecological variables (Meyers et al., 2012). The interven-
tion 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 implementa-
tion, 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 scien-
tific 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 jour-
nals (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 imple-
mentation 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 dis-
trict 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 peo-
ple 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 consul-

tants must engage in a delicate balancing act in supporting teams with implementa-
tion of EBPs as they were carried out in controlled scientific studies while also
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 chap-
ter 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 impor-
tant. 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.
Grapin, S. L. (2017). Social justice training in school psychology: Applying principles of orga-
nizational 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 sci-
ence 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
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 prac-
tice. 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 sec-
tors: 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 direc-
tions 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 out-
comes. 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; insuffi-
cient use of the practices as intended or with fidelity; insufficient resources for sus-
tainability; 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 “sci-
ence 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: sophia.farmer@unc.edu
D. Cusumano
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, NC, USA

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_2
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, implemen-
tation 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 implementa-
tion 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 dis-
semination of EBPs. A research synthesis by Meyers et al. (2012) revealed com-
monalities 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, coach-
ing, data systems)
• Using a stage-based approach to guide capacity and infrastructure development
• Monitoring and using iterative data cycles inclusive of bidirectional feed-
back loops
Most recently, the field of implementation science has been focused on the iden-
tification 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 strat-

egies to choose for different purposes and contexts as well as when to use the strat-
egy 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); adap-
tation, 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 lev-
els (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 ser-
vices, 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 imple-
mentation supports such as effective leadership, strong community partnerships and
training, coaching, and data systems are accessible. Such supports are more effec-
tive 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 implementa-
tion 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 sys-
temic 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 under-
standing 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 imple-
mentation (i.e., activities over time) or enabling contexts (i.e., hospitable environ-
ments 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 Effective Enabling

Practice Implementation Contexts
Improved
Outcomes
Fig. 2.1 Active implementation formula

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 understand-
ing 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 equita-
ble, 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 appli-
cation 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) driv-
ers 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 perpetu-
ates 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 con-
sidering the match of EBPs to the needs of the focus population; evidence of effec-
tiveness; 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 selec-
tion 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 col-
laboratively 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 proce-
dures 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 prac-
tices 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 imple-
mented practices, two categories of implementation drivers, competency and orga-
nizational, 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
Positive Outcomes
Consistent Use of Innovations
Fidelity
Systems
Coaching
Intervention
Or
s
er
ga
Facilitative
iv
Training
ni
Dr Administration
za
cy
tio
Integrated
en
n
Decision Support
t
Dr
Selection &
pe
Data System
iv
m
er
Compensatory
Co
s
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 culti-
vating 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 opportu-
nities 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 abili-
ties in context and building fluency (Fixsen et al., 2020). Collectively, the compe-
tency 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, orga-
nizational 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 prac-
tices 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, schedul-
ing trainings while maintaining coverage of classrooms) that confound new prac-
tices (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 communi-
cation structures both within and among teams internal to the school and district; (3)
adjusting and developing policies and procedures to support the practice; (4) allo-
cating 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 disagree-
ment. Sometimes, however, the challenges are more adaptive in nature or concern-
ing belief systems and feelings around the adoption of new ways of teaching and
learning. Attention to both is critical to ensure sustained implementation with fidel-
ity. 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 coach-
ing 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 effective-
ness in relation to student outcomes is needed (decision support data systems).
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 prac-
tice – policy feedback loops. That is, districts co-design and refine with school lead-
ers 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 prac-
tices. 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 prac-
tices 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
Initial Full
Exploration Installation
Implementation Implementation
Assess need; Develop and/or Initiate practice; Practice is

Examine fit and secure resources; use data to consistent;
feasibility and supports improve supports 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 exam-
ine 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 commit-
ment 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 sup-
ports 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 sup-
port 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 ele-
ments 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 pro-
cedures to identify and prevent potential barriers to equitable outcomes for all stu-
dents 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 pre-
liminary 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 regu-
larly 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
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 prac-
tice 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 perpetu-
ate the outcomes identified for change.
When the EBP becomes “the way of work,” the transition into full implementa-
tion (at least 50% of the practitioners meet fidelity standards for using the innova-
tion in practice) begins. Teams should maintain provision of needed training and
coaching supports, use of continuous feedback, and regular use of data for improve-
ment. 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 direc-
tion 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 formu-
las 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 indi-
vidual 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 specifi-
cally, 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 commu-
nity, decision-making authority, and hands-on experience with the implementation
of EBPs in districts and schools. This accountability structure facilitates the neces-
sary 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 primar-
ily 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 begin-
ning 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 sys-
tem. Diverse perspectives present on implementation teams ensure authentic
engagement in iterative improvement cycles by asking critical questions and col-
lecting 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, stra-
tegic placement at the state, regional (if available), local (i.e., district), and building
levels provides a network of cascading teaming structures across which informa-
tion, 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)
Practice Socially
Fidelity Significant
District Outcomes
Implementation Team
(DIT)
Regional
Implementation Team
(RIT)
State
Fig. 2.4 Cascading system of implementation teams

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 sys-

tems must operate in continuous cycles of improvement. This iterative process
requires ongoing data-driven analysis of facilitators and barriers examining usabil-
ity, 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 prac-
tices 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”
Act Plan
Study Do
Act Plan
CURRENT SYSTEM/ VISION OF FUTURE
PROCESS SYSTEM/PROCESS
Study Do
Act Plan
Study Do
Fig. 2.5 Iterative cycles of learning about systems change

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 implementa-
tion 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 orga-
nizational 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 fea-
sibility. 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 agen-
cies 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, gradua-
tion 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 aca-
demic 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
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 suffi-
cient 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, oper-
ationalize the practices so that they were “teachable, learning and doable,” and work
with identified subject matter experts of the practice to develop both fidelity mea-
sures 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 pro-
cesses 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 effec-
tive 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 ini-
tiatives, 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, operation-
alize, 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 uti-
lized at the classroom level, have been slow to realize improved outcomes for stu-
dents (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 repli-
cable or scalable (Ward et al., 2020).
28 S. Farmer et al.
In examining capacity building efforts around implementation teams, SISEP identi-

fied 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 stakehold-
ers to build a shared understanding of the need for selected practices and implemen-
tation 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 deci-
sions regarding personnel and resources without having to consult a higher author-
ity. Teams that lacked accountability and leadership structures struggled to make
any significant progress. To assist with team cohesiveness, consistency, and sustain-
ability 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 effec-
tiveness 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 implementa-
tion work. Finally, it was critical for teams to specify operating procedures includ-
ing roles and responsibilities, decision-making methods, and communication
protocols. Without these procedures, teams lacked focus and failed to make deci-
sions, 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).
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 dis-
tricts 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 out-
come data) to provide a comprehensive picture of implementation effectiveness and
inform decision making and improvement.
Organizationally, implementation teams have consistently struggled with lever-
aging 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 pro-
cesses 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 continu-
ous 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 exec-
utive leadership, changes in legislation, and competing demands for resources while
also trying to create readiness for expanding to additional implementers and con-
tinuing to support ongoing implementation efforts. At full implementation, a key
lesson was to continue measuring fidelity, maintaining high-quality support, evalu-
ating 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 sys-
tematically 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 effective-
ness of the practice itself but to inadequate attention directed at supporting the prac-
tice 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, imple-
ment, and sustain the essential ingredients described within the active implementa-
tion 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 per-
ceived value of direct assessment of students. The California School Psychologist, 10, 65–79.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340922
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 instruc-
tional 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 dis-
trict 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 improve-
ment 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 effi-
cacious 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 pre-
vention 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 administra-
tors. 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 innova-
tions 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 con-
ceptual 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 organi-
zational 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 innova-
tions. 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 sus-
taining 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.
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, collegi-
ality, 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 implementa-
tion 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 cod-
ing 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 health-
care. 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 assess-
ment. 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 instru-
mental 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 (*)
e-mail: lmnellis@iu.edu
B. J. Wood
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA
P. A. Fenning

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_3
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 rele-
vant 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 organiza-

tional capacity for change and innovation (Fixsen et al., 2005) and specifically
addresses the importance of people in the implementation process. Applying imple-
mentation 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 inten-
tional 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 criti-
cal 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 pro-
fessional 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., provid-
ing 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 indi-
vidual 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
central to any long-term change in practices as will those who are in supporting
roles, such as teacher leaders, instructional coaches, school counselors, psycholo-
gists, and social workers. Additional staff may need to be recruited and hired to
support implementation with an intentional focus on hiring to supplement the exist-
ing 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 iden-
tifying and prioritizing an area for change, as well as determining the kinds of infor-
mation, 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 mini-
mize 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 dif-
fers from teacher buy-in as it includes both a cognitive understanding of an innova-
tion and an emotional connection or feeling about the change initiative (Pierce et al.,
2003). Psychological ownership fosters intrinsic motivation that aligns with educa-
tors’ 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).
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 sys-
tems 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 them-
selves 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 dis-
tributed 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, commu-
nicating 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 implementa-
tion 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 teach-
ers may also be in a position to weigh in on the feasibility of larger-scale implemen-
tation 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 develop-
ment, coaching, and support may be necessary to support success, as well as recom-
mend 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 imple-
mentation efforts. In short, lead teachers/instructional coaches are important to sys-
tems change as they often bring technical expertise, professional development
experience, consultation skills, the trust of teacher colleagues, and an understanding
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 per-
sonnel (SISP), possess a diverse range of competencies suitable for supporting
school-based systems change. They are instrumental in the decision-making pro-
cesses related to supporting student mental and behavioral health, improving school
climate and safety, implementing meaningful assessment and accountability sys-
tems, 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 knowl-
edgeable 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 support-
ing 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 posi-
tive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) frameworks (Canter, 2006).
School counselors are trained to collaborate with students, families, communi-
ties, 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, imple-
ment, 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
may be especially helpful in aiding districts and schools with securing support from
local mental health providers, facilitating home-school collaboration efforts, coor-
dinating care across students’ environments, and identifying and securing commu-
nity 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 imple-
mentation. 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 under-
stood (i.e., supported by data), SISP can aid leaders with the identification and criti-
cal 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 collec-
tive knowledge about and awareness of internal support infrastructures and the
school’s available resources (e.g., time, personnel), may assist leaders with assess-
ing 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 facili-
tate the monitoring and analyzing of data periodically to ensure timely improve-
ments 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 con-
sultation, 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 communica-
tion 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
district-level administrators who may not be in a position to navigate and visit class-
room 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 responsi-
bilities 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 consul-
tation (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 differ-
ently 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 dis-
trict and benefit the students and families served and how resources will be allocated
and whether they are cost-effective and reasonable expenses. School board mem-
bers 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.
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 identi-
ties 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, stu-
dents 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 speak-
ers, 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 meet-
ings (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 com-
munity 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’ stake-
holder 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 implementa-
tion, goal attainment, and a shared sense of accomplishment. When leading or facil-
itating 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 admin-
istrators 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
be successful. Philosophical support is evident through administrators communicat-

ing 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 stakehold-
ers 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 sup-
port looks like. Building administrators, such as school principals and their admin-
istrative 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 over-
seeing professional development in their buildings. Simply put, they direct and
oversee the work of school personnel under their purview. There are numerous tan-
gible 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 plan-
ning and implementation meetings. If the building principal is not able to be person-
ally 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 admin-
istrator can prioritize and support implementation teams in assigning staff with tak-
ing 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
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 com-
munities 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 implementa-
tion science. Given that systems change is a multi-year effort that requires substan-
tial 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 imple-
mentation 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
organizations, our collective experiences over many years in schools leading, facili-
tating, 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 impor-
tant 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 recommenda-
tion 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 illustra-
tion 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
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 teach-
ing (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 col-
laborate with one another in analyzing their improvement efforts in “learning fast to
implement well” (p. 7). While the structures and systems vary, teachers are increas-
ingly 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 chal-
lenge 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 stu-
dents, 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 out-
comes. 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
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 stu-
dents] 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 alarm-
ing 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 pre-
senting 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 multidisci-
plinary 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 stake-
holders. 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 initia-
tive 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
members also agreed to individually and, when necessary, collectively, complete

assigned tasks between meetings.
Identifying and compiling UMHS implementation guidance, generating stake-
holder 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 stakehold-
ers 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 con-
ducting of a survey to assess support for the initiative and to better understand stake-
holder 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 guid-
ance 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 permissi-
ble 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 pos-
sible 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 infor-
mation, 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 coach-
ing 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 train-
ing students in the days before initial screening occurred. Among other elements,
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 stu-
dents by their risk profiles.
With a screening tool now selected, response plan articulated, logistics deter-
mined, 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 guard-
ians 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 addi-
tional 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 consul-
tation, 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 present-
ing with intense or secondary mental health needs were discovered to have signifi-
cantly 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
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 develop-
ment. 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 ser-
vices. 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,
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.
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 inter-
vention 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 account-
ability: 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 quali-
tative 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 com-
petencies 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 work-
ers 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
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 regard-
less 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 “system-
atic uptake of research finding and evidence-based practices.” Consultation ser-
vices, 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 poten-
tial to address the issue, with their work being guided by systems/organizational
L. M. Nellis (*)
e-mail: lmnellis@iu.edu
P. A. Fenning

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_4
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) empha-
sized 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 imple-
mentation 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 build-
ing. We contend that implementation science could be the larger umbrella that con-
nects the dots of the various initiatives being implemented, which may require
differing resources, timelines, data, and professional development, yet has an over-
all 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 imple-
mentation 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 prac-
tices. School administrators and leaders may reduce some of the challenges associ-
ated 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 innova-
tion’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 fea-
tured 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 imple-
mentation in a slightly different way, taking into consideration the implementation
model associated with the selected innovation and their own knowledge and exper-
tise 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 exclusion-
ary 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 interven-
tion 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 deci-
sions 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 aca-
demic 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 sys-
tems 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 pro-
vide a district-level example of universal design for learning (UDL) implementa-
tion, 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 fol-
lowed 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 stu-
dents. 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 chal-
lenges 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
research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la parte Florida
mental health institute, the National Implementation Research Network (FMHI publica-
tion #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 dis-
cipline is known to increase poor outcomes, such as decreased academic achieve-
ment, increased misbehavior, and potential future incarceration (Krezmein et al.,
2014). Research also demonstrates that punitive discipline is often used dispropor-
tionately with students of racial/ethnic minority groups in comparison to White stu-
dents (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
K. Reed
Prince George’s County Public Schools, Upper Marlboro, MD, USA

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_5
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 profes-
sional 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 dur-
ing 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 implementa-
tion of MTSS at Anonymous High School, there was one multidisciplinary inter-
vention 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 academi-
cally, 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 comprehen-
sive 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 negotia-
tions; 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 solv-
ing skills that can help prevent the occurrence of inappropriate behavior in the
future” (p. 24). Using restorative practices such as mediation allows for school pro-
fessionals 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 learn-

ing 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 teach-
ers 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 observa-
tions 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 set-
tings 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 opin-
ions, or provide solutions. Rather they are engaged listeners who facilitate com-
munication 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 effec-
tive. 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.
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 media-
tion 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 learn-
ing 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 chal-
lenges, 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 mutu-
ally 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 envi-
ronment, 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 relation-
ship; 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 oppor-
tunity 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 perspec-
tives. 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 pass-
ing 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 interac-
tions 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 medi-
ation 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 mul-
tiple 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 stu-
dents’ 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 stu-
dent 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 psy-
chologist 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 solu-
tions. 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 expe-
rienced and inexperienced teachers.
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 pro-
cesses 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 relation-
ship between teachers and students with an emphasis placed on creating an environ-
ment 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 psy-
chologist 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 ensur-
ing 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 class-
room. 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 posi-
tive feedback to one another. Indeed, the school psychologist observed in media-
tions 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 sys-
tems, and in the fall of 2012, after much collaboration between administrators, edu-
cators, and union representatives, the school implemented a new teacher evaluation
system. The system utilized a teaching framework that explicitly detailed expecta-
tions, including what constitutes ineffective to highly effective practices. More spe-
cifically, 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 imple-
mentation efforts. One administrator noted that mediation resulted in an improve-
ment 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 complain-
ing, 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 previ-
ously that were not effective in helping teachers with challenging relationships. In
some cases, teachers had already written disciplinary referrals, tried brief conversa-
tions 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.
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 psy-
chologist 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 success-
fully work with the new administration, and her ability to navigate the already pres-
ent 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 psycholo-
gists 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 implement-
ing 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 meet-
ing, 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 recogni-
tion tickets, quarterly celebrations, attendance incentives, and expectation lessons.
The following Tier II behavioral supports were introduced: teacher-student media-
tion, 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 media-
tion 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 ini-
tial 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 men-
tioned 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 sup-
port 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 dis-
cussed, selected representatives of community outreach organizations were also
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 interven-
tions. A PBIS consultant also provided support during the first 2 years of implemen-
tation, 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 estab-
lished 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 specifi-
cally 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 media-
tion, 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 disciplin-
ary 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 media-
tion 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 media-
tion implementation, the previously mentioned request form was used inconsis-
tently, 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
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 operat-
ing 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 moni-
tored 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 out-
come data. Process data consisted of the mediation date, referral source, and teacher
and student participant demographic information (e.g., grade, gender, race/ethnic-
ity). 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 administra-
tors (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)

Total Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
2011–2012 38 0 3 5 5 3 3 5 6 7 1
2012–2013 34 3 5 6 7 2 3 2 1 2 3
2013–2014 57 2 2 13 10 7 0 9 8 3 3
Table 5.3 Teacher demographicsa vs. teacher participant demographics by implementation year
Race Gender
White Black Asian Hispanic Male Female
Teacher demographics (%)
2011–2012 84.0 12.0 3.0 2.0 25.0 75.0
2012–2013 84.0 10.0 3.0 2.0 25.0 75.0
2013–2014 84.0 9.0 4.0 3.0 25.0 75.0
Teacher participant demographics (%)b
2011–2012 94.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 29.4 70.6
2012–2013 97.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5
2013–2014 91.2 1.8 1.8 5.3 26.3 73.7
a
Please note that some teachers participated in multiple mediations

b
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 media-
tion 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 media-
tion during the first year were Black, comprising 71% (27) of the participating stu-
dents. 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 com-
parison 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

Freshmen n (%) Sophomores Juniors Seniors
2011–2012 25 (66.0) 1 (3.0) 7 (18.0) 5 (13.0)
2012–2013 12 (35.0) 13 (38.0) 7 (21.0) 2 (6.0)
2013–2014 25 (44.0) 24 (42.0) 8 (14.0) 0 (0.0)
Table 5.5 Student enrollment demographicsa vs. student participant demographics by

implementation year (%)
Student enrollment demographics
Race
White Black Asian Hispanic Two or more
2011–2012 48.0 34.0 8.0 6.0 3.0
2012–2013 49.0 33.0 9.0 6.0 4.0
2013–2014 45.0 34.0 10.0 7.0 4.0
Student participant demographics
Race Gender
White Black Asian Hispanic Two or more Male Female
2011–2012 26.3 71.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 65.8 34.2
2012–2013 17.6 76.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 52.9 47.0
2013–2014 26.0 68.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 65.0 35.0
a
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 mak-
ing 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 imple-
mentation, 38% were sophomores (13 students), 35% were freshmen (12 students),
21% were juniors (7 students), and 6% were seniors (2 students). The racial compo-
sition 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 stu-
dents 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.
Summary
Throughout the first 3 years of mediation implementation, an average of 43 media-

tions 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 media-

tion 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 refer-
rals decreased most throughout all racial subgroups (−65%). Table 5.7 for a repre-
sentation 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

Total Effective n (%) Ineffective
2011–2012 38 32 (84.0) 6 (16.0)
2012–2013 34 26 (76.0) 8 (24.0)
2013–2014 57 49 (85.9) 8 (14.0)
Note. A mediation was deemed effective if the teacher did not issue any further disciplinary refer-
rals 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 Total White Black Hispanic Special Ed Free/reduced lunch
2010–2011 2406 476 1778 80 555 2010
2011–2012 1804 442 1171 100 285 1420
2012–2013 1152 268 755 50 185 935
2013–2014 1076 166 806 55 222 909
% Difference (±)a −55.0 −65.0 −55.0 −31.0 −60.0 −55.0
Note. The percentage difference calculation does not take into account enrollment and demo-
graphic 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 Total White Black Hispanic Special Ed Free/reduced lunch
2010–2011 290 44 228 10 68 233
2011–2012 252 39 168 12 43 190
2012–2013 177 42 113 7 32 144
2013–2014 174 29 106 9 43 127
% Difference (±)a −40.0 −34.0 −53.0 −10.0 −37.0 −45.0
Note. The percentage difference calculation does not take into account enrollment and demo-
graphic 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 will-
ing to participate in meetings with additional students. Furthermore, the majority of
teachers indicated that either themselves (40%) or an administrator (32%) had initi-
ated the mediation(s), with the remaining respondents reporting that either a coun-
selor/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
Table 5.9 Teacher survey results (%)

Strongly Strongly
Survey question agree Agree Disagree disagree
I was enthusiastic/eager about participating. 30.4 43.5 17.4 8.7
I learned about the student’s perspective. 12.5 50.0 33.3 4.2
The student learned about my perspective. 16.7 54.2 25.0 4.2
Mediator treated me with respect. 48.0 40.0 8.0 4.0
Mediator treated the student with respect. 52.0 40.0 0.0 8.0
Mediation improved my relationship with the 20.0 36.0 32.0 12.0
student.
I would recommend mediation to other 32.0 40.0 24.0 4.0
teachers.
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 relation-
ship 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 pre-
sented 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 exam-
ple, 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 teach-
ers 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 miscommu-
nication as to who was the actual referral source. This difference in data also pre-
sented 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 sys-
temic 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 pro-
cess. 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 benefi-
cial. In response to the first question, five student participants reported strong emo-
tions 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 stu-
dents 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 partici-
pated in teacher–student mediation did not receive additional disciplinary referrals
from their teacher following the mediation. In addition, the majority of both teach-
ers and students agreed that the teacher-student mediation benefited their educa-
tional experience and helped cultivate a positive teacher-student relationship.
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 ana-
lyzing 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 admin-
istrators. In sum, the implementation of MTSS at Anonymous High School is ongo-
ing. 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 medi-
ation program to all stakeholders to continue ensuring that staff utilize this support.
Furthermore, the team must continue adjusting the balance of delivery of interven-
tions 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 sci-

ence 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 dis-
trict 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 imple-
mented 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, sug-
gesting that its continued implementation may continue reducing gaps. More spe-
cifically, 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 sys-
temic change in schools (Fixsen et al., 2005). Along with the initial adoption, imple-
mentation, 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
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 high-
lights 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_con-
duct_april2007.pdf
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from https://
danielsongroup.org/
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 involve-
ment 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 edu-
cation. 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 inclu-
sion. 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 per-
formed 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 chil-
dren 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 experi-
encing the opportunity gaps for English learners (ELLs) that mirrored the national
data. Although there are multiple systematic issues that contribute to the opportu-
nity 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

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_6
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 learn-
ing 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 disabil-
ity, 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 stu-
dents 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 dis-
trict has 15 elementary schools, 4 junior high schools, and 1 preschool early child-
hood 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 systems-
level examination of how the needs of ELLs were being met, especially those that
were demonstrating an achievement gap with English-speaking peers.
Variable 2000 2014 2020

Low income (%) 17 42 39
ELL (%) 15 21 28
White (%) 71 43 39
Hispanic (%) 17 35 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 con-
siderations. 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 popula-
tion. 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 dispro-
portionate 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 explor-
ing 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 recommenda-
tions 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 pro-
vided 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 mea-
sures. 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 lan-
guage 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 inter-
vention with problem-solving teams, which led to high referrals for special educa-
tion 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 compre-
hension 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, begin-
ning 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 educa-
tional 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 stu-
dents’ 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 profi-
ciency 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 profi-
ciency 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 indi-
cates that limited English proficiency (LEP) is one of the three determinant factors
that must be considered for all disability categories. A student cannot meet eligibil-
ity requirements for any disability category if the determinant factor for the stu-
dent’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
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 ser-
vices 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 disabili-
ties, as well as supporting the academic growth of ELL students who were behind
academically. These included barriers with knowledge and practices at the univer-
sal, 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 instruc-
tional 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 instruc-
tional 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 sup-
port 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 stu-

dent 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 class-
room. 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 ser-
vice 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 lin-
guistically 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 stu-
dents 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 identifica-
tion 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 dem-
onstrated 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
the district. The purpose was to see whether or not ELLs were performing in a dis-
tinct 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, particu-
larly 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 non-
low income status, and this was found across grade levels and became wider over-
time. 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 deci-
sion making with tier 2 interventions, such as interventions in Spanish when appro-
priate, 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 stake-
holders continued to collaborate and communicate on success and barriers with the
problem-solving process for ELLs. Therefore, as the systems change evolved over-
time, 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 out-
comes 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 develop-
ment 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 lan-
guage achievement data, the stakeholders wanted to change the traditional assess-
ment 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 achieve-
ments 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 transpar-
ency 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
• 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 sys-
tems. 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 disabil-
ity.” 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, aca-
demic achievement and instructional factors, oral language and literacy factors, per-
sonal 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 recom-
mended 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 Learning 2 Academic 3 Oral

Achievement
Environment Language and
and Instructional
Factors Literacy Factors
Factors
4 Personal
5 Physical and 6 Previous
and Family Psychological Schooling
Factors Factors 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 pro-
gram evaluations of the overall MTSS system and approach. This updated evalua-
tion 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 analy-
sis 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 pro-
vided essential information to staff about the importance of looking at English lan-
guage 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 bilit-
eracy 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
Percent of ELL Students Above the 40th %ile by ACCESS Level

100% 100% 100% 100%
100%
90% 83%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50% % Logramos
40% % MAP
27%
30%
20% 13% 13%
10% 0% 0%
0%
0%
1 2 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%
90% 85%
80%
70%
60%
50% % Logramos
40% 33% % MAP
30% 20%
20%
10% 0% 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 anal-
ysis, 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 sup-
port 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 lan-
guage 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 devel-
opment 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 strate-
gies 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 assess-
ment, parent interview templates, and a clear description of each of the seven fac-
tors. 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 deter-
mined for ELLs. The important considerations for the decision rules was that there
Fig. 6.4 Tier 1 student support form

ELL Non-ELL
*This is typically an intervenon that is K: Early Reading Composite

most effecve for ELLs who have been in 15th %ile and below
the US and been exposed to academic Fall = 28
English for at least 2-3 years. Winter = 42
Spring = 56
*Consider W-APT screener score to help
guide decision-making *If you have too many children idenfied, start with the
number of slots you have and the provide intervenon
K: Early Reading Composite to the lowest in the group (e.g. 1st to 10th %ile)
15th %ile and below
Fall = 28 Addional assessment data should be ulized (Assess in
Winter = 42 October, January, and May):
Spring = 56 · BAS oponal assessments (3rd edion): Leer
recognion and Wring Picture Names (to
*If you have too many children idenfied, obtain leer sound knowledge)
start with the number of slots you have Guide: Weak overall
and the provide intervenon to the lowest AND
in the group (e.g. 1st to 10th %ile) · Phonemic Awareness Assessment
Guide: Weak overall
Addional assessment data should be AND
ulized (Assess in October and January): *Consider use of F&P Benchmark Assessment System
· BAS oponal assessments (3rd (BAS) if you need addional data in the *Winter only: If a
edion): Leer recognion, Leer modified A, then place a student in Fundaons. If A,
Sounds consider Fundaons, LLI or even Tier 1+ depending on
Guide: Weak overall skill deficits.
AND *Consider growth from the start of the year.
· Phonemic Awareness Assessment
Guide: Weak overall The following criteria can be ulized to help idenfy
AND children who are the most at-risk:
-Can idenfy fewer than 10 leers
*Consider growth from the start of the -No leer sounds
year. -No ability to rhyme
-Difficulty tracking print
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 inter-
vention 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 environ-
ment. “Learning environment” is a broad term that encompasses teachers’ prepara-
tion 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 consid-
ered 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 stu-
dent’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 sup-
port content learning (Hamayan et al., 2013). An essential component of under-
standing 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 contex-
tualized 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 lan-
guage in multiple settings contributes to student achievement.
Factor 4: Personal and Family Factors

This factor considers personal and family characteristics, including socioeconomic
status, family dynamics, expectations, student’s interests and motivation, experien-
tial 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 inter-
view 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 condi-
tions, impaired vision or hearing, malnutrition and chronic hunger, chronic pain due
to untreated medical conditions, post-traumatic stress syndrome, fear, psychologi-
cal stress, social and emotional development, and feelings of belonging. If chal-
lenges 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 stu-
dents’ previous schooling (Hamayan et al., 2013).
Factor 7: Cross-Cultural Factors
This factor is the impact of culture on learning. Because of the multiple determi-
nants 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 con-
sidered. 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 prob-
lem solving process was utilized in order to help inform disability and educa-
tional 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 prac-
tices 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 paper-
work 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 stu-
dent support teams to make the process more user-friendly for school staff.
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 senti-
ment 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 L. Swanlund
Appendices
Appendix A: Example of ELL Record Review

102 L. Swanlund
104 L. Swanlund
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.
–– 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 learn-
ers: 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 assess-
ments. 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 pub-
lic 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 prac-
tices 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 exacer-
bated 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: nladuke@thechicagoschool.edu
A. M. Mayworm
E. H. Connors
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_7
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 assump-
tions underlying trauma-informed approaches: (a) a realization of the widespread
prevalence and impact of trauma, (b) a recognition of the signs of traumatic expo-
sure 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 out-
comes, including lower grades, delays in reading, school dropout, and less likeli-
hood 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 social-
emotional 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 num-
ber 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 emo-
tional development into educational programming (Children’s Mental Health Act,
2003). Furthermore, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) emphasizes and pro-
vides 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 imple-
mented. 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 expo-
sure due to structural and systemic racism and factors, including lower income, less
education and greater unemployment, poor housing, citizenship status, and discrim-
ination 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 height-
ened 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
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, atti-
tudes, competing responsibilities), leadership factors (e.g., administrator and super-
visor 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 imple-
mentation strategies for any school will be based on their specific barriers and facili-
tators 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” imple-
mentation 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 implementa-
tion 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 prac-
tice is to select an organizing theory, framework, or model. For this case study, we
selected the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS)
model (Aarons et al., 2011) because it was developed for publicly funded settings
serving children and families and provides a structure to conceptualize implementa-
tion 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 sus-
tainable 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 con-
text refers to things such as the school environment, school-behavioral health sys-
tem 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, pro-
gram installation, initial implementation, full operation, innovation, and sustain-
ability (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: imple-
mentation. 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.
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 fam-
ily 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 eli-
gible for free or reduced lunch. The school supports many students with diverse
needs: 29% of students are English-language learners, and 9% have an individual-
ized 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 pro-
vide 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 sup-
port 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 for-
mal 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

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 man-
agement 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 min-
utes, 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 trau-
matic 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 pic-
ture: all students could benefit from increased schoolwide social-emotional support.
Specifically, these findings provided a rationale for shifting the focus from support-
ing 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
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 com-
prehensive social-emotional screening should be conducted to identify specific stu-
dent and schoolwide social-emotional needs. These screenings were intended to
inform selection and implementation of interventions and supports to meet identi-
fied 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 differ-
ent 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 sev-
eral 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 fac-
ulty 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 indi-
vidualized information about their students and classroom-based interventions
focused on their students’ social-emotional strengths and weaknesses.
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 (<1%) were opted out of the screening process
by their parents. A member of the Student Support Team called the parents, who
both indicated they did not feel comfortable with the school collecting social-
emotional health information on their children, regardless of its use. The content of
the passive consent form is available in the Appendix A.
A pilot administration of the survey was conducted in one classroom 1 week
before the allotted schoolwide screening day. The pilot revealed the following take-
aways: (1) the survey took students at least 25 min to complete; (2) teachers could
save time by having the survey link already up on the whiteboard when students
arrived; (3) students required help with some vocabulary, so it was helpful to circu-
late through the room while students were entering their responses; and (4) the
survey was completed only when students reached the final page that said “Thank
you”; if exited before reaching this page, the survey responses would not be
recorded. These takeaways were shared with all health and PE (Physical Education)
teachers who would be administering the survey the following week.
Students were screened in their health and PE classes in 1 day. Health and PE
teachers were provided with a script (Appendix B) to read to students before they
completed the survey. The Student Support Team was assigned to health and PE
classes to provide support, and the screener was provided to students in Spanish
when necessary. Students who were absent on the screening day were accounted for
on makeup days later in the week. In total, 99.7% of students were screened over a
1-week period.
Once all students had been screened, the psychologist utilized the screening data
to organize students into tiers based on their results. Students were eligible for Tier
3 services if they obtained an elevated T-Score (T = 70+) on the Psychological
Distress subscale. In year 1, 7% of students (N = 67) met the criteria for Tier 3 ser-
vices. Students were eligible for Tier 2 support if they obtained an At-Risk T-Score
Table 7.1 Interventions implemented at each tier

Year 1 Interventions (2018–2019)
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Classroom activities Family outreach Referrals to community partners
Partial pilot of SEL curriculum Think first group
Grief group
Girls group
Boys group
Check and connect
Family outreach
Year 2 Interventions (2019–2020)
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Formation of Tier 1 team Family outreach Referrals to community partners
SEL half days SPARCS group
Boys group
Gender identity support group
Stress management group
AP stress management group
Family outreach
(T = 60–70) on the Psychological Distress subscale. In year 1, 19% of students

(N = 189) met the criteria for Tier 2 support. Students remained in Tier 1 if they had
an average score on the Psychological Distress subscale (T = 40–59). In year 1, 74%
of students (N = 755) met the criteria for Tier 1. The Student Support Team used the
three tiers of support to describe the level of need of students. In the following sec-
tions, we will organize provided support based on the level of need of the student
(e.g., student eligible for Tier 3 support), not by the modality of the intervention
(e.g., group counseling). All interventions implemented throughout this process are
included in Table 7.1.
Tier 3 Implementation
The Student Support Team followed up individually with the 67 students identified as
potentially eligible for Tier 3 supports (i.e., high risk based on their Psychological
Distress T-Scores). In total, 10 staff members assisted with the follow-up conversa-
tions: 7 from the Student Support Team and 3 counselors from a partnering school-
based community agency. All follow-up conversations were completed within 2 weeks
of the initial screening date. The psychologist printed individual SEHS-S score reports
for the 67 students and divided them equally among Student Support Team members.
In a planning meeting beforehand, the Student Support Team agreed to structure meet-
ings with eligible students by establishing rapport, sharing screening results, and offer-
ing support based on their information. During year 1, these conversations were mostly
unstructured and were left up to team members’ discretion.
Based on the needs identified across all follow-up conversations, the Student
Support Team implemented various individual and small group interventions. Just
under 40% of the students eligible for Tier 3 services were supported through group
interventions. The counseling groups carried out by the Student Support Team dur-
ing the 2018–2019 school year included an anger management group (N = 5; Think
First; Larson, 2005), a grief group (N = 6), a female empowerment group (N = 7;
Girls Circle; One Circle Foundation, 2012), and a boys group (N = 8; The Council
for Boys & Young Men; One Circle Foundation, 2012).
Students eligible for Tier 3 support were also referred to individual interventions.
The Student Support Team assigned 10 students to a designated Check & Connect
(Christenson et al., 2012) mentor at the school. Check & Connect mentors signed up
voluntarily and included support team members, teachers, and administrators.
Check & Connect is a structured intervention focused on weekly check-ins that
include goal setting and progress monitoring of grades and behavior (Christenson
et al., 2012).
Additionally, four students were referred for individual counseling with a school-
based community agency. The agency provides social-emotional support via indi-
vidual and family counseling during the day within school. Students are referred to
this agency when they present with any of the following concerns: aggression
issues, trauma symptoms, runaway (recent history or threat), parental lock-out
(recent history or threat), severe family conflict, parent or sibling is incarcerated,
involvement with the juvenile justice system, and high-risk behaviors (gangs, com-
munity violence, drugs, and sexual behavior).
An additional 13 students were referred to a second school-based community
agency. This agency provides students with a dedicated mentor/advocate who offers
both academic and social-emotional support. The advocates are hired by an agency
but work within the school. The advocates have a range of training backgrounds,
including teaching, counseling, and social work. Advocates meet daily with stu-
dents and provide tutoring, one-to-one mentoring, social-emotional support, goal
setting, home visits, and wrap-around community support for families. Students are
referred to this agency when they demonstrate 2 or 3 of the following characteris-
tics: academic deficiencies, truancy concerns, and social-emotional difficulties.
Finally, during the follow-up conversations with students eligible for Tier 3 sup-
ports, five students reported suicidal ideation, which resulted in a parent meeting
and immediate outside support. Of the 67 students who were eligible for Tier 3 sup-
port, all were referred to either a small group or individual intervention. In total, 58
of the 67 students (86.5%) completed an intervention. The remaining nine students
refused the services offered by the Student Support Team.
Tier 1 Implementation
Tier 1 implementation was informed by the SEHS-S school-wide climate report,

which provides an aggregate summary of student responses on each of the subscales
and domains (Furlong et al., 2018). The summary report uses students’ strengths to
highlight recommended areas for targeted schoolwide intervention and support

(Furlong et al., 2018). Regarding social-emotional strengths, 78.74% of the students
responded positively to the Empathy subscale (e.g., perceiving, sharing, and consid-
ering others’ emotional states). Additionally, a majority of students responded posi-
tively to all three subscales from the Belief in Others domain: Peer Support (e.g., the
different friendships and bonds that students have; 73.77%), School Support (e.g.,
how much students think their teachers care about their academic success; 70.05%),
and Family Coherence (e.g., the feeling of family togetherness and encouragement;
69.66%).
Regarding areas to target for intervention, 66.68% of students identified
Perseverance (e.g., working diligently to accomplish one’s goals, including main-
taining interest in the face of adversity and failure) as a social-emotional weakness.
Additionally, 86.21% of students identified Optimism (e.g., expecting good events
and beneficial outcomes in one’s future) as a social-emotional weakness.
Based on the results of the schoolwide climate report, the Student Support Team
provided teachers with classroom-based interventions from the SEHS-S account.
These activities covered a range of options, from bell-ringers to longer lessons.
Each activity is aligned directly with one of the SEHS-S subscales. For example, the
Student Support Team provided activities related to Persistence and Optimism. The
Optimism activities included a “Happiness Scavenger Hunt,” a 15-min exercise that
walked students through how to envision their “Best Possible Self,” and a journaling
activity that asked students to track daily events and think through the causes of
their best and worst events (SEHS; Furlong et al., 2018). The Persistence activities
included goal setting strategies, “If-Then Thinking,” and progress monitoring
(SEHS; Furlong et al., 2018).
Additionally, four teachers agreed to pilot an SEL curriculum in their classes.
The SEL curriculum used in 2018–2019 was School Connect (Beland et al., 2015).
The psychologist worked with these teachers to select School Connect lessons that
related to Persistence and Optimism. Some of the lessons utilized from the School
Connect curriculum during 2018–2019 were “Lesson 1.15: Understanding
Mindsets,” “Lesson 1.16: Cultivating Curiosity & Grit,” “Lesson 1:17: Focusing &
Prioritizing,” “Lesson 2.3: Recognizing the Power of Thought,” and “Lesson 2:8:
Recognizing Character Strengths.” In total, 320 of 1189 students (26.9%) received
the SEL lessons.
In order to assess inner-context factors, the psychologist interviewed the four
teachers who implemented the School Connect (Beland et al., 2015) SEL lessons at
the end of the school year. These qualitative interviews revealed that teachers felt
the scripted lessons were too long and challenging to implement out of sequence.
Teachers reported that the content was not culturally relevant to their students, and
students had difficulty connecting with the material. For example, one teacher spoke
about a lesson that referenced students joining the school band, an extracurricular
activity that was not offered at the school. Teachers reported that students only
seemed to connect to the material when teachers shared about themselves, it was
relevant to their own lives, and complemented their classwork.
However, despite these limitations, teachers did enjoy having lots of materials to
draw from and appreciated the examples provided throughout the curriculum, indi-
cating that their attitudes toward the curriculum was positive and a potential facilita-
tor for ongoing implementation. Lastly, teachers suggested using half-days, which
were scheduled monthly at the school, to implement social-emotional lessons
school-wide.
Family Engagement
At the end of October 2018, individualized SEHS-S letters were mailed home to all
parents with the first quarter progress reports. The letter was provided in both
English and Spanish and outlined screening results for each child. Included in the
letter were resources for parents and contact information for the Student Support
Team. During parent-teacher conferences, parents of students who were eligible for
Tier 2 and Tier 3 support were directed to meet in-person with the Student Support
Team to have individualized conversations about their child’s social-emotional
needs. Parents reported feeling grateful for the screening information and appreci-
ated the school’s social-emotional support. This information sharing with parents
was a critical outer context factor to promote ongoing implementation.
Sustainment/Continued Implementation Phase
In lieu of comprehensive models of sustainment for school-based social-emotional

health practices, sustainment refers to the continued implementation of social-
emotional health screening and socio-emotional intervention supports that were
tested and implemented in year 1 (Aarons et al., 2011). Below, we describe specific
changes that were made based on lessons learned from the first year of implementa-
tion. Retrospectively identified gaps in the initial screening and intervention imple-
mentation processes informed adaptations in year 2. We also provide two examples
of Rapid Cycle Problem Solving (Plan, Do, Study Act [Taylor et al., 2014]; see
Chap. 2) to highlight how an implementation team can effectively address problems
with program roll-out as they arise (Table 7.2).
Continued Screening Implementation
In year 2 (2019–2020), the same consent and screening procedures were utilized to
survey the incoming freshman. In total, 98.1% of students were screened in
September 2019. The psychologist analyzed the data and organized students into
tiers based on the T-Score cutoffs outlined above from the previous school year. In
Table 7.2 Rapid cycle problem solving examples

Example 1 Example 2
Problem Student support team did not feel effective Teachers report lack of cultural
identification when interviewing students flagged for Tier 3 relevance of SEL curriculum for
intervention in year 1. student population.
Plan Goal: Improve consistency across individual Goal: Improve student
student interviews and team member feelings engagement with SEL content.
of effectiveness and preparedness in
conducting interviews.
Hypothesis: Support staff do not have a Hypothesis: Teacher
protocol to follow when interviewing students, perceptions of student
so each interview is different, which leads to engagement in SEL content is
inconsistent data and impinges decision- low due to lack of cultural
making processes. It also leads to lack of relevance of lessons to the
confidence and feelings of being “unprepared” student population.
by team members.
Plan: Create a structured interview protocol Plan: Create new SEL lessons
that will guide all individuals conducting specifically guided by SEHS-S
interviews. screening data and student
input.
Do Student support team holds a working meeting Create a “Tier 1 Team” that will
to create an agreed-upon, structured interview be responsible for creating new
protocol for the individual Tier 3 interviews. SEL content, that includes
student voices and is informed
by screening data.
Study The protocol is piloted within the student Measure the perceived
support team; team members practice effectiveness of these lessons by
conducting the interview with another team administering a brief survey to
member (role play) and report back to the teachers after SEL content
group on needed changes and ideas for implementation.
improvement.
Act Implement the structured protocol in Determine if the desired
interviews with students and report back to the outcome was achieved (greater
team to determine if the desired outcome student engagement in SEL
(improved consistency across interviews, content) based on teacher’s
increased feelings of preparedness, and report.
effectiveness by team members) was achieved.
Goal met – continue with structured protocol Goal met– continue
at the next screening time point. implementing these lessons in
the future and create additional
content using the same process
Goal not met – team revisits protocol and Goal not met – team revisits
makes a new plan. the SEL content and makes a
new plan.
year 2, the breakdown of schoolwide results was very similar to year 1: 5% of stu-
dents (N = 57) were eligible for Tier 3 supports, 17% of students (N = 192) were
eligible for Tier 2 supports, and 78% of students (N = 875) met the criteria for Tier
1 supports.
Continued Tier 3 Implementation
The Student Support Team made changes to the Tier 3 referral process in year 2.
Specifically, the team identified a need for more structured and consistent follow-up
conversations with students who were eligible for Tier 3 support. In preparation, the
Student Support Team collaboratively developed an interview questionnaire to
ensure consistent information was collected from all students who were eligible for
Tier 3 support. Content included questions about emotional management, coping
skills, and any past or present involvement without outside mental health providers.
Lastly, students were asked if they were interested in group counseling services and
were provided with a brief explanation of various groups that could be offered at the
school. See Table 7.2 for an example of how this change to the interview process
can be conceptualized within a Rapid Cycle Problem Solving process.
It was also determined that additional information was needed to identify stu-
dents with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Thus, it was decided that students
who met the criteria for Tier 3 support would be screened during the follow-up
conversations using the Trauma Exposure Checklist (Jaycox et al., 2018) and PTSD
Symptom Scale (Foa, 2001). Using trauma screeners allowed the team to accurately
place students into a trauma-focused intervention.
The Student Support Team used the newly developed structured questionnaire
and trauma measures to guide their conversations with all students who met the
criteria for Tier 3 support. During these conversations, 11 students met the criteria
for PTSD and were referred to a trauma-informed intervention facilitated by the
Studentu Support Team (Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to
Chronic Stress [SPARCS]; DeRosa et al., 2006). Additional groups were designed
based on students’ identified needs. The groups implemented during the 2019–2020
school year were a boys group (N = 9; The Council for Boys & Young Men; One
Circle Foundation, 2012), a gender identity support group (N = 7), and a stress man-
agement group (N = 12).
Students were also referred to individual interventions with the school-based
community partners. Two students were referred for individual social-emotional
support with the previously described school-based counseling agency. Ten students
were referred to the previously described school-based community agency that pro-
vides both academic and social-emotional wrap-around support.
During the follow-up conversations, one student reported suicidal ideation,
which resulted in a parent meeting and immediate outside support. Of the 57 stu-
dents who were eligible for Tier 3 support, all were referred to either a small group
or individual intervention. In total, 52 of the 57 students (91.2%) completed an
intervention. The remaining five students refused the services offered by the Student
Support Team.
The majority of Tier 3 supports offered in year 2 were informed by the individu-
alized follow-up conversations with students. However, the Student Support Team
also created an additional intervention based on data collected during the previous
school year. During year 1 (2018–2019), the Student Support Team discovered that
nearly half (55%, N = 37) of the students who met the criteria for Tier 3 support
were in Advanced Placement (AP) or Honors classes. In order to address this real-
ization in year 2, the Student Support Team worked with the Literacy Lab teachers
to develop a 3-week crash course in stress management and executive functioning
for AP students. Students were referred to this intervention through one of two
ways: either by their AP teachers or based on their SEHS-S screening results.
Students attended the school’s Literacy Lab for 3 weeks (1 h per day) during their
lunch/study hall. The topics covered in the course included psychoeducation around
stress and anxiety, triggers, stress management, coping skills, calming techniques,
deep breathing, mindfulness, grounding, organization, and self-care. Lessons were
delivered by the Literacy Lab teachers, the psychologist, and the school psychology
advanced practicum student. In total, 24 students completed the 3-week course.
Continued Tier 1 Implementation
Tier 1 was targeted as an area for improvement in year 2. In fact, some of the most
significant changes to the screening and implementation process happened at the
Tier 1 level during the 2019–2020 school year. Specifically, the Student Support
Team wanted to emphasize supporting all students’ social-emotional health, not just
those identified as high-risk. Thus, a “Tier 1 Team” was formed in the summer of
2019 to support students’ social-emotional health schoolwide. The Tier 1 Team was
composed of three administrators, two special education teachers, two general edu-
cation teachers, two counselors, two social workers, and a psychologist. The Tier 1
Team’s mission was to use screening data and other data sources (attendance,
behavior, and grades) to implement schoolwide initiatives that promote improved
social-emotional health outcomes for students.
The 2019–2020 schoolwide climate report revealed that most students reported
low levels of Optimism, Persistence, and Self-Efficacy. Only 11.8% of students
endorsed Optimism as a strength, 32.1% endorsed Persistence as a strength, and just
under half (48.6%) endorsed Self-Efficacy as a strength. The Tier 1 Team wanted to
address these concerns through schoolwide SEL lessons while also acknowledging
the comments from teachers who had piloted SEL lessons during the 2018–2019
school year. First, the team wished to create social-emotional lessons relevant to
students’ lived experiences. Cultural representation was essential. Second, the Tier
1 Team wanted to create lessons for teachers that were flexible enough not to feel
“canned” but structured enough to feel cohesive. Finally, the Tier 1 Team used
teachers’ suggestions to take advantage of the half days for social-emotional
learning.
The Tier 1 Team utilized the SEHS-S schoolwide data to drive the social-
emotional lessons that were implemented on half days throughout the 2019–2020
school year. The “SEL half days,” as they came to be known, focused on the follow-
ing topics: Persistence and Motivation (October 2019), Good Habits and Goal
Setting (November 2019), Stress Management and Mindfulness (December 2019),
Social Media (January 2020), and Empathy (February 2020).
The “SEL half-day” content was developed by support staff and teachers on the
Tier 1 Team. Members of the Tier 1 Team were given two release periods per month
to develop five 20-min lessons for the half-day. During some of these planning ses-
sions, a small group of student leaders were invited to join staff and create lessons.
In total, students created three of the activities which were implemented on half-
days. There was a range of interactive SEL activities created for half-days. For
example, students engaged in hands-on team building activities like building a
tower silently with only popsicle sticks, pipe cleaners, and construction paper. They
practiced mindfulness with elaborate coloring pages and played charades with
social media scenarios. Students also learned skills like developing a SMART goal,
breaking a bad habit, communicating with teachers, and studying for finals.
At the end of 2019–2020, teachers were asked to rank the SEL half-day’s effec-
tiveness. On a Likert scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being very effective, the average
score was 3.53. In the comments, teachers reported that they needed more time to
implement the lessons meaningfully. Teachers wanted more opportunities for stu-
dents to work in small groups and have more in-depth conversations around these
topics. Additionally, teachers wanted SEL to be delivered seamlessly with class-
room content, not out of context on half-days. Finally, teachers also wanted to incor-
porate more student voices in the lessons. See Table 7.2 for an example of how the
development of these new SEL lessons aligns with the Rapid Cycle Problem Solving
process.
Continued Family Engagement
In 2019, parents were again informed of their child’s screening results using the
SEHS-S letters mailed with the first-quarter progress reports. Similarly, parents of
students who were eligible for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports had the opportunity to
meet individually with the Student Support Team during parent-teacher conferences
to discuss their child’s screening results. In year 2, an additional strategy was imple-
mented to further promote home-school collaboration. The psychologist presented
the screener and information about social-emotional health at a parent event in
October (Coffee with the Principal). At this event, parents completed interactive
activities related to social-emotional health. For example, the parents learned each
SEHS-S subscale’s definition by completing a matching game with paper strips.
Parents also had the opportunity to ask specific questions about the schoolwide
screening results.
Discussion
In 2018, based on the anonymous schoolwide trauma screening data and the Student
Support Team’s anecdotal reports of being overburdened by crises, it became clear
to school leadership that there was a need to better understand and address students’
social-emotional concerns in order to properly support their academic achievement.
As a result, the Student Support Team engaged in an intentional, 2-year process of
improving the proactive identification of students in need of social emotional sup-
port and, subsequently, streamlined access to those supports. Initial implementation
of social-emotional health screening, as well as the linking of students to the appro-
priate levels of intervention, was tested in year 1.
Adaptations for continued sustainment efforts were implemented in year 2.
However, it should be noted that progress in year 2 and year 3 was disrupted by the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The team had to dramatically change course to
address the immediate, pressing concerns of students and their families, including
facilitating access to technology necessary for remote learning, access to health and
safety resources, and social emotional support related to the pandemic. The pan-
demic magnified an already pressing need for mental health supports in schools that
are trauma-informed. As schools continue to address the pandemic and respond to
the consequences of remote learning, proactive screening and appropriate provision
of social emotional interventions will be crucial to meeting the mental health needs
of students. The case study described above highlights the key components of this
process and can serve as a starting point for educators wanting to enact a new pro-
cess following a structured EPIS implementation process.
This real-world example does not provide a “textbook perfect” guide for change.
Still, we believe it accurately reflects the everyday challenges of engaging in sys-
temic change in the school setting while also highlighting the incredible progress
that can be made within a short period of time given supportive leadership, effective
teaming, and use of evidence-based change strategies, tools, and interventions. In
the following paragraphs, we will highlight the key success and challenges of this
work, along with future directions, which we hope will inform others in their efforts
to implement systemic, school-based social-emotional health change.
Successes
Prior to the SEHS screening in 2018 and 2019, students at the school had not been
screened systematically for social-emotional health or psychological distress.
Implementing school-wide screening was a novel and substantial undertaking that
required the development of new systems and processes. Over 2 school years, a
process was successfully developed and implemented to ensure almost all students
were screened and, when necessary, had contact with a support person quickly.
During 2018 and 2019, 98.9% of students were screened for social-emotional health
and psychological distress. Based on their psychological distress scores, all students
who were identified as high risk completed individualized follow-up meetings with
someone from the Student Support Team. Of these high-risk students, 100% were
referred to interventions, and six were provided with additional wraparound support
for suicidal ideation.
Along with creating a successful structure for screening nearly all students, the
screening initiative led to more robust interventions at Tier 1 and Tier 3. Utilizing
the screening data marked a shift in the way students were referred to Tier 3 inter-
ventions at the school. Previously, students had been referred to interventions after
significant issues arose, and their placement in these interventions was dictated
mainly by the programs on hand and available staff. That is, students were fit into
interventions that may not have been a perfect fit for their concerns, rather than
interventions being selected/designed to meet students’ specific needs. The referral
process changed in 2018 when screening data were intentionally used to design and
redesign services. Tier 3 supports implemented in 2018 and 2019 matched students’
specific social-emotional needs because they were created based on screening data
and the information that students shared in individual follow-up meetings. The
screening data also highlighted new opportunities to support all students at a Tier 1
level. The SEHS schoolwide climate report was used to drive many social-emotional
learning initiatives during the 2019–2020 school year.
The team was also successful in highlighting not only the unmet needs of the
student population but also their strengths and areas of resilience. In a school popu-
lation of primarily Latinx youth, who have historically been marginalized and are at
higher risk of experiencing discrimination, prejudice, trauma, and other adverse
risks due to systemic and structural racism, the school was proud to implement a
screening approach that emphasized a comprehensive approach to understanding
student social-emotional health; that is, the SEHS, which has been shown to have
strong psychometric properties when used with Latinx youth, gathered data on not
only youth psychological needs but also their areas of resilience and strength. By
capturing screening data in this way, the team was able to develop both Tier 3 inter-
ventions to address areas of risk and Tier 1 interventions that focused on student
wellness and the development of the “whole person.”
Finally, the Student Support Team successfully implemented many strategies to
involve families in the screening process. Screening data were shared at school
events with parents, and all parents received an individualized letter with their
child’s screening results. Furthermore, parents were invited to meet with the student
support team during parent-teacher conferences to ask specific questions about their
child’s results. Thus, parents learned more about the MTSS process and the school’s
support services than ever before.
In considering the process of systems change, as defined by the EPIS model, the
team experienced success and made significant progress in the areas of implementa-
tion and sustainment. However, in order to continually strengthen and refine the
school’s screening processes and MTSS structure, the team must continually return
to the EPIS model, specifically the exploration and preparation phases, in order to
successfully implement and sustain this project. By continually returning to the
exploration and preparation phases, the team can ensure that the process continues
to meet the demands of the school year and the varied needs of students from year
to year.
Challenges and Future Directions
Whereas interventions were strengthened for students at both the Tier 1 and Tier 3
levels, supports at Tier 2 were mainly left untouched. At this school, and frankly,
many schools, Tier 2 has long been hard to define, and the criteria for receiving
interventions at this level are nebulous (Moore et al., 2019). Currently, many of the
Tier 2 interventions at the school are academically focused. Thus, there are many
opportunities to strengthen and grow Tier 2 behavioral and social-emotional inter-
ventions. In the immediate future, the Student Support Team can increase the num-
ber of counseling groups running throughout the school year to allow for more
participation from Tier 2 students. One of the primary goals for the next several
years is to develop Tier 2 supports that do not overburden school staff and resources
but meet the important needs of students at risk for more severe difficulties.
As with all new initiatives, stakeholder buy-in takes time, patience, and profes-
sional development. Following the initial screenings in 2018 and 2019, school staff
were provided with a snapshot of the SEHS schoolwide climate report and a triangle
representing the number of students who met the criteria for each tier. These brief
presentations only allowed for the sharing of outcomes. There was little available
time to discuss and clarify the “why” behind schoolwide screening. Time restraints
meant that “big picture” details were left out, along with helpful information about
the screening process. Thus, when presented with only a piece of information, inevi-
table questions arose about the screener’s utility and validity. These concerns high-
lighted a need for broader professional development focused on screening
fundamentals. More comprehensive professional development that covers the big
picture and screening success stories will inevitably increase buy-in across staff and
families (National Center for School Mental Health, 2020). This is an example of
where returning to the preparation phase to ensure there is an adequate foundation
of shared understanding and buy-in among stakeholders is crucial throughout
implementation. Re-visiting earlier stages in the model can strengthen the process
and ensure continued implementation success.
Finally, active, shared leadership over the screening process continues to be an
area for growth and opportunity. Successful initiatives that are sustainable require a
shared understanding and commitment among various stakeholders, including lead-
ership, within the inner context of the school as well as in the outer context with
community and academic partners, families, and other related systems (Aarons
et al., 2016). The Student Support Team and school/district leadership plan to
improve their engagement of key stakeholders (1) through the cyclical process of
data sharing and disseminating information on program effectiveness and areas for
growth; (2) by systematically re-visiting the Exploration phase on a yearly basis to
ensure intervention planning is tied to data; (3) by extending the screening process
to partnerships with community agencies, families, and other team members in the
broader community context (Dowdy et al., 2010); and (4) by developing a process
for better including teachers in the Student Support Team and screening and inter-
vention process.
Relatedly, the Student Support Team can continue to refine all team members’
roles and responsibilities. In order to effectively implement systems change, all
members of the school-based social-emotional health team must effectively share
the various roles and responsibilities of the screening process. With backgrounds in
data analysis and evidence-based practice, school psychologists can take on a
unique leadership role when developing a new screening process. However, while it
is essential to have a point person to spearhead the screening process, all school-
based social-emotional health team members must have clearly defined roles and
responsibilities to feel ownership over the screening process. To achieve this, all
members of the team must understand how to use and manipulate screening data.
This ensures that team members feel a shared ownership of the process and allows
screening to become a sustained fabric of a team. Ideally, this also ensures that
screening procedures weather the inevitable changes in team composition, adminis-
tration changes, budget cuts, etc.
Conclusion
The Student Support Team and administration have a unique goal of supporting
freshman students in becoming prepared both academically, socially, and emotion-
ally for the demands of high school. School leaders recognized a need to better
support students’ social emotional health and engaged in exploration, planning,
implementation, and sustainment activities over a 2-year period in order to begin the
long-term process of developing reliable but flexible systems for determining stu-
dent social-emotional needs, providing interventions and supports specific to those
student needs, and supporting teachers and support staff in their work in a sustain-
able way. It is an imperfect and ongoing process that will likely require constant
refinement. However, we are hopeful that the approaches implemented and lessons
learned that have been shared here can be helpful to other schools looking to support
similar initiatives.
Appendices
Appendix A
Passive Consent Form for Screening
Dear Parents,
We are excited to announce that the Freshman Center will be surveying all students
for social-emotional strengths and weaknesses. Suppose your child responds to this
survey in a way that indicates possible risk for social-emotional difficulties that
could impact their school performance. In that case, they may be placed in an
intervention(s) to support their academic and personal success.
The measures used to screen students are short, entirely voluntary, and provide
us with an opportunity to ensure all students are on track for success. If you do not
want your child screened, please fill out this survey: (link to Microsoft form). If you
do not reply, your child will be screened along with the rest of the student body.
We look forward to a continued partnership with you! If you have any questions,
please contact our parent liaison (name and contact information).
Sincerely,
Principal
Appendix B
Teacher Script for Classroom Screening
At our school, we are committed to developing programs and supports to help you
learn better and feel better about your experiences in school. Today you are being
asked to answer some questions about how you feel and how you have felt over the
last few weeks. The results are private. Only a small number of staff members will
see your responses. Please be honest in your responses as the counselors and other
support staff at the Freshman Center will use this information to support students
like you. If the school counselors and support staff think you could benefit from extra
support services, we will ask you to meet with a support staff team member to deter-
mine what will be most helpful. This survey is not a test. There are no right or wrong
answers. Do you have any questions? You can begin the survey now.
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
Aarons, G. A., Green, A. E., Trott, E., Willging, C. E., Torres, E. M., Ehrhart, M. G., & Roesch,
S. C. (2016). The roles of system and organizational leadership in system-wide evidence-
based intervention sustainment: A mixed-method study. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43, 991–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10488-016-0751-4
Agnafors, S., Barmark, M., & Sydsjö, G. (2020). Mental health and academic performance: A
study on selection and causation effects from childhood to early adulthood. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01934-5
Allison, A. C., & Ferreira, R. J. (2017). Implementing cognitive behavioral intervention for
trauma in schools (CBITS) with Latino youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 34,
181–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-016-0486-9
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2021). AAP-AACAP-CHA declaration of a national
emergency in child and adolescent mental health. https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/
child-a nd-a dolescent-h ealthy-m ental-d evelopment/aap-a acap-c ha-d eclaration-o f-
a-national-emergency-in-child-and-adolescent-mental-health/
American Diabetes Association. (2004). The breakthrough series: IHI’s collaborative model for
achieving breakthrough improvement. Diabetes Spectrum, 17(2), 97–101.
Beland, K., Douglass, J., & Matheny, R. K. (2015). School-connect: Optimizing the high school
experience (3rd ed.). School-Connect.
Children’s Mental Health Act. (2003). Mental health and developmental disabilities (405 ILCS
49). https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?Actid=2481&chapterid=34
Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive student
engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. University of Minnesota, Institute on
Community Integration.
Connors, E. H., Schiffman, J., Stein, K., LeDoux, S., Landsverk, J., & Hoover, S. (2019). Factors
associated with community-partnered school behavioral health clinicians’ adoption and imple-
mentation of evidence-based practices. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 46(1),
91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-018-0897-3
Cook, C. R., Lyon, A. R., Locke, J., Waltz, T., & Powell, B. J. (2019). Adapting a compilation
of implementation strategies to advance school-based implementation research and practice.
Prevention Science, 20, 914–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01017-1
Copeland, W. E., Keeler, G., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2007). Traumatic events and post-
traumatic stress in childhood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(5), 577–584. https://doi.
org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.5.577
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009).
Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated
framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Science, 4, 50. https://doi.org/1
0.1186/1748-5908-4-50
DeRosa, R. et al. (2006). Structured psychotherapy for adolescents responding to
chronic stress. Unpublished manual. Retrieved from https://silo.tips/download/
sparcs-structured-psychotherapy-for-adolescents-responding-to-chronic-stress
Dowdy, E., Ritchey, K., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). School-based screening: A population-based
approach to inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. School Mental Health, 2(4),
166–176.
Duong, M. T., Bruns, E. J., Lee, K., Cox, S., Coifman, J., Mayworm, A. M., & Lyon, A. R. (2020).
Rates of mental health service utilization by children and adolescents in schools and other com-
munity service settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health and Mental Health Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01080-9
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/

bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
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). Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-
MonographFull-01-2005.pdf
Foa, E. B., Johnson, K. M., Feeny, N. C., & Treadwell, K. R. H. (2001). The child PTSD symptom
scale: A preliminary examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 30(3), 376–384.
Furlong, M. J., Dowdy, E., & Nylund-Gibson, K. (2018). Modification and standardization of
social emotional health survey-secondary – 2015 edition. University of California Santa
Barbara, International Center for School Based Youth Development.
Hoover, S., Lever, N., Sachdev, N., Bravo, N., Schlitt, J., Acosta Price, O., Sheriff, L., & Cashman,
J. (2019). Advancing comprehensive school mental health: Guidance from the field. National
Center for School Mental Health. University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Jaycox, L., Langley, A., & Hoover, S. (2018). CBITS: Cognitive behavioral intervention for
trauma in schools. RAND Corporation.
Johnson, L. (2019). Florida becomes third state to require mental health instruction in schools.
Mental Health Association in New York state, Inc. Retrieved from https://mhanys.org/
mh-u pdate-7 -2 4-1 9-f lorida-b ecomes-t hird-s tate-t o-r equire-m ental-h ealth-i nstruction-
in-s chools/#:~:text=The%20Florida%20State%20Board%20of,social%20media%20
impacts%20teenagers%20mentally
Kilgus, S. P., Reinke, W. M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2015). Understanding mental health intervention
and assessment within a multi-tiered framework: Contemporary science, practice and policy.
School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 159–165.
Larson, J. (2005). Think first: Addressing aggressive behavior in secondary schools. Guilford Press.
Lee, R. M., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2018). Health dissemination and implementation within schools.
In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation
research in health: Translating science to practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lyon, A. R., Cook, C. R., Locke, J., Davis, C., Powell, B. J., & Waltz, T. J. (2019). Importance
and feasibility of an adapted set of implementation strategies in schools. Journal of School
Psychology, 76, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.014
Moore, S. A., Mayworm, A. M., Stein, R., Sharkey, J. D., & Dowdy, E. (2019). Languishing stu-
dents: Linking complete mental health screening in schools to tier II intervention. Journal of
Applied School Psychology, 35(3), 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2019.1577780
Murphy, J. M., Guzmán, J., McCarthy, A. E., Squicciarini, A. M., George, M., Canenguez, K. M.,
Dunn, E. C., Baer, L., Simonsohn, A., Smoller, J. W., & Jellinek, M. S. (2015). Mental health
predicts better academic outcomes: A longitudinal study of elementary school students in
Chile. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10578-014-0464-4
National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Building capacity for stu-
dent success every student succeeds act opportunities: Comprehensive school
mental and behavioral health services. https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/policy-
priorities/relevant-l aw/the-every-s tudent-s ucceeds-a ct/essa-i mplementation-r esources/
essa-mental-and-behavioral-health-services-for-school-psychologists
National Center for School Mental Health (NCSMH). (2020). School mental health qual-
ity guide: Screening. NCSMH, University of Maryland School of Medicine. http://www.
schoolmentalhealth.org/media/SOM/Microsites/NCSMH/Documents/Quality-G uides/
Screening-1.27.20.pdf
National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Justice Consortium, Schools Committee, and Culture
Consortium. (2017). Addressing race and trauma in the classroom: A resource for educators.
National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/
addressing_race_and_trauma_in_the_classroom_educators.pdf
One Circle Foundation. (2012). Retrieved February 2021, from One Circle Foundation: https://
onecirclefoundation.org.
Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: Introduction to the special
issue. School Mental Health, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1
Porche, M. V., Costello, D. M., & Rosen-Reynosos, M. (2016). Adverse family experiences, child
mental health, and educational outcomes for a national sample of students. School Mental
Health, 8, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9174-3
Stephan, S. H., & Mayworm, A. M. (2017). The benefits of school mental health. In K. Michael
& J. Jameson (Eds.), Handbook of rural school mental health (pp. 3–16). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-64735-7
Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of
mental health in youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 52–68.
Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging research
and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 43(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024
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 health-
care. British Medical Journal of Quality and Safety, 23, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjqs-2013-001862
The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d.). ComplexTrauma. http://www.nctsn.org/
trauma-types/complex-trauma
United States Census Bureau. (2019). Data profiles. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/acs/
www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2019/
Vestal, C. (2018, June 23). States begin requiring mental health education in schools.
National Alliance on Mental Illness. https://namivirginia.org/states-begin-requiring-
mental-health-education-schools/
Whitney, D. G., & Peterson, M. D. (2019). US national and state-level prevalence of mental
health disorders and disparities of mental health care use in children. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(4),
389–391. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5399
Chapter 8
Districtwide Implementation of Universal
Design for Learning
George Van Horn, Rhonda Laswell, Jessica Vogel, and Tina Greene
Introduction
This chapter will review the journey of Bartholomew Consolidated School

Corporation (BCSC) in its exploration to optimization of Universal Design for
Learning (UDL). An explanation of why BCSC decided to use UDL as its district
framework, what steps were taken, and how actions led to full implementation of
UDL as the district framework for all students, curriculum, and the physical, social-
emotional, and instructional design of the learning environment, will be discussed.
Context for Change
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (BCSC) is located in Columbus,

Indiana, 45 miles south of Indianapolis, Indiana. In the 2019–2020 school year,
BCSC had approximately 11,500 students enrolled in our schools. The breakdown
in the student population during this time period was 0.3% American Indian, 2.2%
Black, 7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.3% Multiracial, 16.7% Latino, and 68.9%
White. At that time 45% of BCSC’s students received free or reduced meals, as well
as free or reduced book rental. BCSC is considered to have a diverse student popula-
tion with 11% English language learners speaking 62 different languages; and
13.9% receiving special education services. District students are educated at various
campuses throughout Columbus, and Bartholomew County, including an early
childhood center, 11 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 3 high schools, and an
adult alternative education center. Two of BCSC’s elementary schools are identified
G. Van Horn (*) · R. Laswell · J. Vogel · T. Greene

Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, Columbus, IN, USA
e-mail: vanhorng@bcsc.k12.in.us

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_8
136 G. Van Horn et al.
as project-based learning schools utilizing the New Tech Model. Also, an academic
team representing both seventh and eighth grades is housed within one BCSC mid-
dle school, as well as one of the three high schools, which are part of the New Tech
Network model (Pearlman, 2010). The New Tech model at these schools utilizes
project-based learning which incorporates group projects as an instructional
approach that supports student learning of skills needed in the business world, such
as collaboration, communication, and shared decision making while also addressing
state academic standards.
Similar to other communities, the demographics in Columbus have shifted over
the past several years. The time period between 2002–2003 and 2019–2020 was
marked by a significant growth in the number of students qualifying for free and
reduced lunches/books (31–43%), students from minoritized backgrounds
(9.7–30.9%), and English learners (EL). In 2002–2003, 16.4% of BCSC students
were identified to receive special services.
The Need for Change
Starting with a clearly identified need for change is critical for successful UDL implemen-
tation at a systemic level. (CAST)
BCSC’s journey to the adoption of UDL began in the early 2000s. The percentage
of students identified to receive special education services was high with many of
the students with IEPs receiving services outside of their least-restrictive learning
environment, and there was an increase in the number of students being referred for
special education evaluation. In 2002–2003, BCSC began a self-reflective process
of evaluating the service delivery plans for students identified with special needs.
Believing that there must be a better way for BCSC to support students’ learning
needs, Dr. George Van Horn, BCSC’s Director of Special Education, began working
on a project with Indiana University’s Center on Education and Lifelong learning.
This prompted conversations with general and special educators throughout BCSC
to learn how special education students were placed into general education class-
rooms, how teachers were trying to meet students’ needs, as well as how identified
services were provided during the school day to meet IEP goals. These conversa-
tions informed the creation of a BCSC instructional service delivery plan that
focused on providing special education services in the general education classroom
setting so all students would have equal access to the curriculum while working to
become proficient in BCSC’s learning objectives.
The district also took part in a book study of Teaching Every Student in the
Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002) with the
Promoting Achievement Through Technology and Instruction for all Students
(PATINS) project, a statewide resource center. The intersection of the service deliv-
ery evaluation, integration of instructional technology, and the UDL book study
created the perfect opportunity for BCSC to see the need for change and identify a
8 Districtwide Implementation of Universal Design for Learning 137
path forward. It was quickly realized that UDL was not just about serving students
with special needs or adding technology to the learning environment, but instead
provides a framework for designing learning environments that are accessible and
equitable for ALL students. The district’s problem of practice (Gomez et al., 2016) –
a need to adapt instruction in the general education setting to reach all students –
was determined by BCSC to be best addressed by adopting the UDL framework.
This shift in thinking and realization of UDL’s potential set the wheels of change
fully in motion. BCSC reached out and began a mutual relationship with the Center
for Applied Special Technology (CAST). As BCSC began a professional develop-
ment journey around their beliefs, knowledge, and practice of UDL, promising
results emerged in the state assessment results of students receiving special educa-
tion services and the number of students being referred to and identified for ser-
vices. Those outcomes will be discussed later in the chapter. Before describing our
process for systems change and implementation, a brief overview of UDL and
BCSC’s understanding of the framework is provided.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
The UDL framework unified the work being done within BCSC to meet the needs
of all students in the general education setting. UDL is a framework that informs
decision making regarding the design and delivery of instruction, curriculum, and
the learning environments for all students (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The UDL frame-
work consists of three overarching principles based on the three broad networks of
the brain involved in learning. They are Engagement (the Affective Network),
Representation (the Recognition Network), and Action and Expression (the Strategic
Network). Each principle is further partitioned into nine guidelines. These nine
guidelines help teachers design accessible learning options and scaffolding while
identifying and mitigating barriers to learning. Research in brain development
shows that learners’ abilities are multifaceted, and no one method of presentation,
instruction, learning activities, or evaluation can address every learner in a meaning-
ful way (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Fortunately, UDL provides a framework through
which educators can investigate or build any curriculum while designing learning
environments that support variability. The curriculum/standards are not altered but
rather enhanced through the teacher’s application of the UDL principles.
For example, a second grade teacher creates an introductory lesson about elec-
tricity. First and foremost, a goal linked to the state standards is determined: Students
will demonstrate their current knowledge of the flow of electricity. Next, the teacher
uses the nine guidelines to determine what strategies and technology to use. The
following example focuses on the principle of engagement and the first guideline of
“options for recruiting interest.”
When the teacher considers options for recruiting interest, he designs the lesson
so the topic is relevant and authentic to his students. He might use pictures, multi-
media (e.g., showing a brief child-centered video about electricity or an app
demonstrating how electricity is made), a group discussion to list what items utilize
electricity, and/or allow students to safely hold or touch items that utilize electricity.
The teacher knows, because of the defined guideline, that these activities must be
personalized and contextualized to his students’ lives while being relevant for dif-
ferent racial, ethnic, cultural, and gender groups. By addressing each of the nine
guidelines, the teacher can be confident that he is creating a learning environment
that is accessible to his learners.
BCSC’s Implementation and Change Process
BCSC continues to grow and evolve in our iterative UDL learning journey and
implementation of change. This section will outline the process that the district used
to guide the implementation process. The phases of UDL implementation devel-
oped by CAST were utilized to structure BCSC’s systems change efforts (Meo
et al., 2015). Each of the four CAST phases will be described below. While these
phases are different from Fixsen’s Four Stages of Implementation Science (IS;
Fixsen et al., 2005), they are modeled from IS with a specific focus on UDL. Therefore,
there are similarities in both models, as each has initial preparation/planning phases
to ensure readiness for change before preliminary and full implementation as well
as a focus on structuring systems for data collection, teaming, and ongoing profes-
sional development (Fixsen et al., 2005; Meo et al., 2015). We were not looking for
UDL, per se, we were looking for change. Therefore, a stage model of change was
what we initially looked toward. This need for change began as exploration, which
is Fixsen’s first stage of Implementation Science and the Pre-phase stage of Meo
et al.’s (2015) model adapted from it to support UDL systems work. For a broad
timeline of how the work evolved, please see Table 8.1. We next provide an over-
view of how the UDL work evolved across Meo et al.’s (2015) CAST stages of UDL
implementation.
Explore (Pre-phase)
In the earlier years of the UDL work, BCSC began to explore options and resources
to further support how to leverage it to support all students in the district, even
though the initial focus was on students in special education. This shift prompted
BCSC’s involvement with the PATINS project, as mentioned previously. The goal
of the project was to strengthen the organizational and professional capacity of
schools and school staff members to implement Universal Design for Learning prin-
ciples and the delivery of assistive technology services. BCSC’s participation,
though encouraged by BCSC’s Director of Special Education, was supported by the
district’s directors of elementary and secondary education.
Table 8.1 Timeline of UDL-related work in the district

Year Milestone
2002– Book study on UDL (Rose & Meyer, 2002) supported by state education agency
2003 (PATINS project)
Broad district reflection about special education services
George Van Horn and colleagues, in collaboration with Indiana University’s Center
on Education and Lifelong Learning, creates service delivery plan with focus on
supporting students with IEPs
District shift in thinking about UDL as support for “all students”
2003– District formed a partnership with Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST)
2004 which remains an ongoing partnership
District began seeing desired metrics among students in special education
(identification rates, more time in LRE, and stronger state assessment results)
Six schools developed UDL-focused technology action plan
Districtwide PBIS implementation
2004– BCSC leadership team identifies UDL as a framework for inclusive practices with
2005 all students, including curricular access for all students and not only students in
special education
UDL training provided to each building’s Continuous Improvement Committee
(CIC)
UDL Self-Assessment Instructional Rubric developed by district leadership team
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) explored; PBIS teams
created and taught behavioral expectations
2006– Trained building teams in UDL
2007 UDL goals part of school improvement plan
2007– Schoolwide training of UDL principles
2008 Began training and implementation of instructional consultation problem solving
process to support teachers’ implementation of UDL
2008– Hired part-time UDL consultant to support continued development and
2009 implementation
2011– Hired full-time district UDL Coordinator to support work in schools across the
2012 district
2012– Created and piloted teacher evaluation rubric which bases 50% on UDL, along with
2013 PBIS and other practices in lieu of state evaluation rubric
Summer UDL Summer Institute was initiated to train new and seasoned educators and has
2013 evolved over time with changing needs of BCSC staff
2013– ICT facilitator positions were converted into UDL facilitators in all buildings
present
2015– Districtwide focus on measuring schoolwide learning outcomes
present
Quite quickly on the heels of the service delivery plan evaluation developed dur-
ing the 2002–2003 academic year, and alongside district participation in the PATINS
Project at the same time, building teams across the district made up of administra-
tors and general and special education teachers engaged in a book study on Teaching
Every Student in the Digital Age (Rose & Meyer, 2002). These teams met through-
out the school year to discuss the UDL research and the potentially positive benefits
that implementing the principles and guidelines could have on student learning.
During the book study, it became evident to all participants that UDL was not just
about special education but about how to make learning accessible to all students.
These conclusions helped guide district leaders to consider UDL to become the
framework for the design of learning environments for all students. And because of
this exploration, BCSC’s leaders made a deliberate choice to ensure UDL would not
be viewed as a special education initiative, but as a systemwide initiative to change
the instructional delivery system.
Districts around the globe learn about many types of initiatives with the goal to
make student learning accessible. As BCSC was exploring UDL and the implication
that implementation of it could make learning accessible for all students, BCSC did
not want to adopt yet another initiative, or “random act of improvement.” Rather,
BCSC discovered how UDL was a way to align the random acts of improvement
and provide students and staff with a systemic change to support BCSC’s expecta-
tion that all learners may achieve at their highest levels. This is what drove this need
for change.
Prepare (Phase 1)
Similar to the installation phase of IS (Fixsen et al., 2010), in 2004 the BCSC lead-
ership team identified UDL as the framework to support the inclusive practices for
students with disabilities and enhance the access of curriculum for all students.
Training in UDL was provided to each building’s Continuous Improvement
Committee (CIC). The CICs were comprised of a building administrator as well as
general and special education teachers from across all grade levels and content
areas. Subsequently an UDL instructional self-assessment rubric was developed, by
district administration, to help teachers recognize their own level of implementation
and to help building leaders identify strong leaders in the implementation as well as
identifying professional development needs.
In addition to UDL implementation, district leadership realized a need for addi-
tional structures to support the work happening in buildings across the district.
Specifically, there was a need for structures to ensure that (a) teachers are being
supported in their ability to teach in diverse classrooms, and (b) all students are
being provided with the behavioral supports necessary to be successful within the
learning environment. The Instructional Consultation teams process (Gravois &
Rosenfield, 2006) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports model
(Horner & Sugai, 2015) were adopted and integrated into the district’s change
efforts.
The Instructional Consultation Teams (ICT) process (Gravois & Rosenfield,
2006) was identified as a method teachers could use to solve issues related to cur-
riculum and instruction. The problem-solving process is identified as contracting
(making teachers aware of the ICT process), problem identification (consists of
identifying the teacher’s initial concerns and assessing student performance to iden-
tify a teacher’s primary concern), strategy design, implementation of designed strat-
egies, and closure of the problem-solving process (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006). As
implemented in BCSC, the ICT model is grounded in the principles of UDL to assist
teachers in creating an instructional match for the student, which helps support
making learning accessible for the student. This process dictates that when there is
no match, no one is at fault; rather, a series of data collection steps needs to take
place so the teacher, child, classroom environment, and accessible technology needs
can come together to create an instructional match.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) was first explored in
2004–2005 as a process to address behavior in the classroom setting. PBIS, as rec-
ognized in IDEA (2004), is a systematic way to develop and implement schoolwide
behavioral expectations and “achieve socially important behavior change” (Sugai
et al., 2000, p. 133). These expectations are taught to students using both age and
culturally appropriate lessons. As the PBIS system was adopted for use within
BCSC, there was an intentional shift to focusing on “instructional” supports as
opposed to “intervention” as the I in the PBIS acronym. BCSC believes that behav-
ior is primarily an instructional issue and that behavior is a form of communication.
As a result, BCSC’s focus was placed on teaching students the behavior expecta-
tions as a proactive and asset-based approach to responding to behavior. When stu-
dents understand how they are expected to behave within a specific environment
(e.g., the classroom, hallways, lunchroom, or stairwells), students are more likely to
demonstrate those behaviors (Sugai & Horner 2002). Each BCSC campus created
PBIS teams and developed three to five behavior expectations. Those expectations
were then taught, modeled, posted, reinforced, and revisited as necessary each aca-
demic year.
Integrate (Phase 2)
Once PBIS and IC Teams were functioning across the district, UDL implementation
also began to expand across the district. As a result, professional development
needed to grow. The director of secondary education teamed up with the assistant
director of special education to create a UDL instructional self-assessment rubric to
gather data in determining the specific professional development needs of staff.
Staff engaged in the short, reflective rubric which, in turn, provided specific feed-
back of what training was needed. In response to this input, BCSC determined that
it would be prudent to hire a part-time UDL Consultant to broadly deepen the staff’s
understanding and implementation of UDL. This hire was made during the
2008–2009 academic year, which provided staff with support at both the building
and classroom level. During this period of time, BCSC continued to encourage staff
to reexamine themselves utilizing the UDL instructional self-assessment tool. As a
result, the more teachers began to really grasp and understand the implementation
of UDL, the more individuals began to rate their own understanding at a lower level.
This lower rating actually pleased BCSC’s administrators because the more educa-
tors began to know and understand UDL, the more they realized what they could
intentionally change in their learning environments in response to this new level of
comprehension. For example, in the past a teacher could assign students to read a
passage and expect the students to read independently. With the teacher’s new
knowledge of UDL, he could still assign a passage to read but could provide support
by having a recording of the reading available, allow students to choose a partner to
read with, or allow students to go sit with him as he reads the passage out loud.
These options make the reading passage accessible to all students while also provid-
ing a choice in how students may choose to engage.
As requests for professional development increased, it became clear that BCSC
needed to move from a part-time UDL Consultant to a full-time UDL Coordinator
position in order for the district to support the implementation of UDL. In
2011–2012, BCSC received a grant to support a UDL Coordinator to lead the imple-
mentation of UDL. During the grant year, the principals and staff in each building
worked with the coordinator to decide what workshops or presentations would best
suit the needs of their teachers. While some schools were experienced in applying
the principles of UDL, other schools were relatively new to applying UDL school-
wide. The principals reported that this was an effective way for their staff to become
more knowledgeable and comfortable with the application of UDL in their
classrooms.
Interestingly as the UDL Coordinator continued to serve the professional devel-
opment needs of the district, it was discovered that this individual was also begin-
ning to work somewhat closely with each building’s Instructional Consultation
Facilitator and the IC Team. This paralleling of two resources to support teachers in
the design and delivery of instruction caused BCSC to re-evaluate the professional
development needs and support of their classroom teachers.
Scale (Phase 3)
The transition from Integration to Scaling the implementation of UDL, similar to

the beginning of full implementation stage within implementation science (Fixsen
et al., 2010), moved seamlessly as the building ICT Facilitators were renamed to
building UDL Facilitators in 2013. This did not limit their ability to support staff,
but rather expanded. Now building UDL Facilitators were trained more extensively
in UDL, which broadened their toolkit of resources and strategies to support teach-
ing and learning. During this period of time, BCSC also began to look at ways to
mitigate barriers to learning for their staff just as they had been doing through the
implementation of UDL for their students. As a result, when the state began the
process of implementing a teacher evaluation system, BCSC began looking into
how they could provide their staff with a system that would support the value the
district placed on UDL. As an option from the Indiana Department of Education
(IDOE), BCSC chose to create their own evaluation system in lieu of simply adopt-
ing the state’s model, RISE. Therefore, an undertaking of creating a districtwide
teacher evaluation rubric began by bringing together BCSCs UDL Coordinator; the
elementary, secondary, and special education directors; union representatives; and
members of the District CIC team. Then along came a partnership with Indiana
University with this group, and they worked to create an evaluation rubric that
weights 50% of a teacher’s evaluation in the implementation of UDL. The other
domains of the rubric are PBIS (15%), Academic Citizenship (10%), and Student
Achievement, Growth, and Performance (25%). The rubric was initially piloted dur-
ing the 2012–2013 school year at three BCSC campuses.
Another key component that served to support the systemic implementation of
UDL was the design and facilitation of a week-long UDL Summer Institute. In the
Summer of 2013, the first UDL Summer Institute was launched. Nearly 150 BCSC-
certified staff and national experts in the field of UDL converged to participate in a
week-long professional development about UDL. This annual UDL Summer
Institute has become a crucial part of the support BCSC offers both to those “new to
BCSC” and “seasoned” educators. Just as BCSC’s UDL learning journey has
evolved and flexibly responded to the diverse needs of its students, the UDL Summer
Institute along with the building-level UDL Facilitators have done the same for its
staff. Today, both certified and non-certified staff, as well as volunteers, are pro-
vided with professional development with regard to UDL. This holistic approach
continues to steep BCSC’s learning culture with UDL.
Ongoing Optimization (Phase 4)
BCSC takes great care to ensure UDL is not viewed as “one more thing,” a “special
education thing” or merely “the addition of technology” but an integrated frame-
work that makes learning accessible for all children. At the onset of our journey, we
saw the need for system change and discovered the UDL framework. We saw how
UDL could help open the door to make learning accessible for all students and then
was identified as our guiding instructional framework; thus, we work diligently to
clearly connect various BCSC instructional curricula and assessments as well as all
other district initiatives (“random acts of improvements”) to the UDL framework.
The integration of initiatives helped to make UDL a districtwide effort. Three essen-
tial events helped bring UDL to scale in BCSC and are aligned with implementation
science competency drivers (sustained professional development) and organiza-
tional drivers (aligning data collection systems and strong and sustained leadership
within implementation science) (see Chap. 2). First, the collaboration of the Director
of Special Education, the Director of Elementary Education, and the Director of
Secondary Education was critical, and these key players conveyed the importance
of UDL as the framework of instruction throughout the district. Second, the hiring
of a dynamic instructional expert to coordinate the implementation of UDL through-
out the district was pivotal. Finally, practicing experts were identified who were
willing to share their classroom practices of UDL with other teacher colleagues
throughout the district.
We do not believe you “ever arrive” as the work of UDL is an ongoing, dynamic
iteration that ebbs and flows through every process associated with teaching and
learning. If we cannot make those connections, we question the value of the initia-
tive. We continue to assess UDL work as it continues to evolve.
We are encouraged by evidence that UDL is being embedded and integrated into
school practices and the positive impact on students. Implementation of UDL
Across BCSC:
• Schools implementing UDL ensure students experience a variety of learning
opportunities when being provided with Positive Behavior Instructional Support
strategies.
• UDL Facilitators are provided with instruction on how to help teachers recognize
and embed strategies in their lessons.
• English, math, social studies, and science textbook and resource adoption com-
mittees are guided by the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of UDL.
• In a social studies adoption, BCSC chose to adopt a portfolio of digital resources
versus a hardback textbook (Nelson et al., 2011).
Student Outcomes
A two-fold correlation was emerging that suggested more students were being suc-
cessful in the general education learning environment as UDL was impacting the
removal of barriers and the embracement of individual variability was quite aston-
ishing. As a result, fewer students (13.5%) were identified with special needs;
down from the previous 16.4%. In addition, 90% of students identified with IEP’s
were being served in general education 80% of their day. It was assumed that fewer
students being identified for special education services and being educated in gen-
eral education settings would result in weaker performance on state assessments.
However, these assumptions were wrong. As more students were being served in
general education, state assessment data showed growth in ELA and Math State
assessments for both special education and general education students over a 6-year
period. These data quickly confirmed that UDL was the framework needed to design
learning environments and deliver instruction that is more accessible and equitable
for ALL students. This trend continued until the number of students identified for
special services dropped to 11.5%. BCSC’s desire to meet the needs of more stu-
dents in the general education learning environment as a result of removing barriers
to learning through UDL, while supporting individual variability was clearly made
a reality.
The trend subgroups passing ELA and Math state assessment

80
75
74
71
70 Gen Ed
66
64
62 61.5
59.6
60
55.7
F/R
% Passing
50.4
50 48.4
46.3
43.9 ELL 44
44.3
43.5
42.2
40.8
40 38.9
D 35.5
30.9 SPE
30 28.7
20.9
20 17.9
10
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Graduation rates show a positive trend aligned with the adoption of UDL over
the years. Senior projects, a requirement for graduation, are designed to provide
students the opportunity to demonstrate their accumulation of knowledge and expe-
riences through a variety of options. Students’ use of technology has included self-
made videos, digitized musical productions, presentations utilizing on-line
resources, and PowerPoint presentations. This level of choice (principle of engage-
ment) and breadth of presentation style (principle of expression) help ensure an
exceptional rate of 95% completion of this required component, contributing to the
strong trends in graduation rate.
2009 2019 Graduation rate

2009 2019 Graduation rate
120
100
95.5 94.1 93.75 93.12 91.12
89.9
84.4 85.2
82.1 83.5
80.6 81.3 79.12
80 75.23
71 71.6
67.7
66.3 66.3
59.3 60.2
60
52.9
40
20
0
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Special Education General Education
BCSC is one of 367 public school districts in the nation honored by the College
Board and was placed on the 2nd Annual AP Honor Roll. A unique feature in BCSC
is any student can select to participate in an AP class. This selection process allows
for a more variable student population in AP classes. Since 2009, BCSC has
increased the number of students participating in AP from 256 to 630 while improv-
ing the percentage of students earning AP Exam scores of 3 or higher from 48% in
2009 to 63% in 2020. The framework of UDL has created a learning environment
where more and more students (special education, EL, lunch assistance, and race/
ethnicity) are academically successful based on 5-year trend data. This success is
translating into higher rates of participation in AP courses and on the AP exams.
Conclusion
The application of UDL and the implementation aspects of UDL take initial focus
and time and will always involve creativity, but the rewards for the student and
teacher are tremendous. BCSC’s focus on UDL to benefit all students has led to
published articles in peer-reviewed juried educational journals (Lord Nelson et al.,
2012; Nelson et al., 2011) and received recognition by organizations such as the
Center for Applied Special Technology (2009) and the Council for Exceptional
Children.
BCSC’s adoption of UDL has taken time, commitment, and persistence in an age
of constant educational change. We believe that UDL has placed us on a pathway to
improve services to all of our students. With its well-defined and flexible frame-
work, UDL has provided the necessary structure within which BCSC’s teachers can
plan and feel confident in their profession. UDL is a journey, not a destination.
Therefore, come what may, BCSC is equipped to continually grow and respond
with conviction regarding meeting the needs of all students.
References
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
Network.
Gomez, L. M., Russell, J. L., Bryk, A. S., LeMahieu, P. G., & Mejia, E. M. (2016). The right net-
work for the right problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(3), 8–15.
Gravois, T., & Rosenfield, S. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the dispropor-
tionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special
Education, 27(1), 42–52.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to general cur-
riculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17. https://
doi.org/10.1177/004005990203500201
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analy-
sis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 80–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Lord Nelson, L., Van Horn, G., Jensen, W., Vogel, J., & Garrity, K. (2012). Building school capac-
ity around the implementation of Universal Design for Learning: Using a rubric to guid and
investigate practices. Unpublished manuscript.
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
Nelson, L. L., Arthur, E. J., Jensen, W. R., & Horn, G. V. (2011). Trading Textbooks for
Technology: New Opportunities for Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 46–50. https://doi.
org/10.1177/003172171109200709
Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st skills. In J. A. Bellanca
& R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills rethinking how students learn (pp. 117–148). Solution
Tree. ISBN 9781935249900.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin,
C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000).
Applying Positive Behavior Support and Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131–143. https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.
com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1177%2F109830070000200302&data=05%7C0
1%7Clmnellis%40iu.edu%7C632b4d4a44384cd1656308dad94ed432%7C1113be34aed1
4d00ab4bcdd02510be91%7C0%7C0%7C638061229852667369%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l2v3%2BnU1zJnvTHZSR9S6w7rnq4cLx9iSEwEI2LKlT
OY%3D&reserved=0 https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070000200302
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002) The Evolution of Discipline Practices: School-Wide Positive
Behavior Supports, Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24:1–2, 23–50, https://nam12.safe-
links.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1300%2FJ019v2
4n01_03&data=05%7C01%7Clmnellis%40iu.edu%7C632b4d4a44384cd1656308dad9
4ed432%7C1113be34aed14d00ab4bcdd02510be91%7C0%7C0%7C638061229852667369
%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v10yMNpPfGgqk5Sow4v
pUB739hxtktFrStxJpsS80sY%3D&reserved=0 https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v24n01_03
Chapter 9
District-Based Application: Strategic
Planning for Continuous Improvement
Bradley V. Balch
The often-cited adage, “If everything’s a priority, then there are no priorities!” takes
on renewed meaning in today’s school districts with the many change forces bearing
down on them. This is particularly true for the school board-administrative team,
trying to effectively lead school districts in an ever-growing sea of change. To fur-
ther challenge the team’s efforts, change forces can be competing from the perspec-
tive that you may gain ground in one area, only to lose ground in another. Resource
and staffing cuts, choice and competition woes, pressure to comprehensively meet
the needs of every child, and a host of other persistent pressures force the grand tour
question, “What matters most if we are to continually improve?” Confounding the
many forces bearing down on school districts and their leadership teams is a waning
trust and confidence among stakeholders in a district’s ability to be successful
(Leedy, 2017; Spring, 2011). With public trust and confidence strained, stakehold-
ers often question decisions and underlying judgments of the school board-admin-
istrative team. When decisions hinge on information not readily known or
communicated, it often manifests as a perceived lack of transparency by those exter-
nal to the district. Absent a sound and well-communicated strategic plan for con-
tinuous improvement, school-district critics often prevail with a negative narrative
infused with distrust and a lack of confidence and transparency that is difficult to
challenge. However, school board-administrative teams with sound strategic plans
possess a powerful means by which their communications focus stakeholders on
what matters most with the added value of sharing how district resources, time, and
energy are directed to particular priorities. Decision-making, planning, and the
B. V. Balch (*)
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, USA
e-mail: Brad.Balch@indstate.edu

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6_9
150 B. V. Balch
purposeful deployment of district employees are all positively impacted when dis-
tricts are guided by a strategic plan (Balch & Adamson, 2018). In fact, Reeves
(2007) and a colleague analyzed several hundred strategic plans across 20 different
dimensions. Those ranking highest “had higher student achievement and signifi-
cantly great achievement gains” (para. 5). Simply stated, strategic planning pro-
vides a framework for deliberate improvement actions toward established and
agreed-upon priorities, minimizing other things that serve to distract an organiza-
tion from its key priorities.
Central to a school board-superintendent team’s strategic planning efforts is a
consideration for their role in continuous improvement. In fact, Kirst and Wirt
(2009) observed that “suspicion [exists] about the inability of school boards to pro-
vide academic leadership” (p. 147). Their findings are related to effective school
research, which placed great emphasis on school-based initiatives and school-based
stakeholders, often leaving the school board administrative team absent from mean-
ingful input. However, I posit that the team is best positioned to bring a unique
systems perspective to strategic planning for continuous improvement because the
team, as noted by Gemberling et al. (2000), “understands how everything is con-
nected to everything else” (p. 3).
Yet, the implications for the board-superintendent team as systems thinkers is in
no way are meant to marginalize the essential support and engagement other stake-
holders such as teachers, staff, parents, students, and community members have in
the planning process. Their contributions are tantamount to any sustainable suc-
cesses through a buy-in process that is highly participatory. These stakeholder con-
tributions help develop a common understanding and even a common language that
will be essential to effective implementation efforts. Further, it is hoped that broad
stakeholder participation enculturates strategic continuous improvement initiatives
in practical ways that are ultimately embedded in practical systems change efforts
(e.g., MTSS, RTI, PBIS, and accreditation).
Although a systems perspective can seem complex, approaching strategic plan-
ning from a two-phase perspective often yields a much clearer roadmap for the next
steps. Phase I includes the vision, mission, values/beliefs, and priorities. Phase II
includes measurable outcomes, objectives, key performance indicators (KPI’s),
person(s) responsible, and determinations of measuring success. Both phases will
be detailed in proceeding sections.
The Role of Implementation Science
Chapter 2 provided rich descriptions of the power of implementation science among

varying school and district stakeholders as well as the very organizations them-
selves. A thoughtful review to best inform this chapter is strongly encouraged.
Many models and adaptations of implementation science have evolved across
decades of work contributed by multiple scholars and practitioners. A recent search
of “implementation science” in ProQuest yielded well over two million scholarly
9 District-Based Application: Strategic Planning for Continuous Improvement 151
results noting the interest and power of this topic. Related to strategic planning,
implementation science is particularly salient when considering “the difference
between efficacy (outcome of an intervention under ideal conditions) and effective-
ness (outcome of an intervention under normal conditions) when translating evi-
dence-based research into practice in the real world” (para. 5). Local context matters
much and must be anticipated throughout the strategic planning process if Phase I
and Phase II implementation efforts are to be successful in the real world.
The Importance of Understanding Change
Before a school board-administrative team undertakes strategic planning, one fun-

damental assumption must be considered: Strategic plans are roadmaps for change.
Change can be difficult and not all change equals progress. Strategic plans embold-
ened with change often resemble a rubber band being stretched. Assume the tension
on the rubber band represents change. If the tension of change is too great, the rub-
ber band breaks. Similarly, if the pace of change is too quickened or if the breadth
of change is too great, people break too by resisting buy-in to the change agenda,
choosing not to participate, or only minimally participating out of compliance.
These negative reactions serve to threaten the sustainability of implementation
efforts and incidentally create the perception of “This too shall pass if we just push
back!” Consequently, effective leadership teams must not only be prepared for
change; they must embrace it. Yet, individual team members deal with change very
differently. As Scheetz and Senge (2016) noted, “Systemic change is deeply per-
sonal” (p. 24). Any change initiative may be benign for some team members (e.g.,
Let’s just try it!) and unfathomable for other members (e.g., I’ll never support this
change because I know what is best!). Divergent and competing individual views of
change may serve to undermine the team’s efficiency and effectiveness if they are
not anticipated prior to strategic planning.
Understanding change is tantamount to successful strategic planning. Importantly,
it must be assumed that the implications for change vary greatly among stakehold-
ers (Waters & Grubb, 2004). In many instances, systems are in place within the
district because it serves the needs of current individuals who desire to maintain the
status quo. When change is introduced, many welcome the change to the status quo
while others resist because the change represents a significant disruption to estab-
lished practices. This reaction is rooted in first- and second-order change (Waters &
Grubb, 2004). The common reactions associated with first- and second-order change
are detailed in Table 9.1. First-order change is not threatening and generally easy to
implement because it builds on the past and does not challenge individuals to let go
of what they know and believe in as a professional educator. Second-order change,
however, is much more difficult as it often necessitates that professional educators
let go of what they know to be good and true about education, potentially accepting
new norms, values, and beliefs. For example, if a strategic plan dictated the need for
increased district wide collaboration through ongoing Professional Learning
152 B. V. Balch
Table 9.1 First- and second-order change characteristics (as synthesized by Waters & Grubb, 2004)
First-order change Second-order change
An extension of the past A break with the past
Within existing paradigms Outside of existing paradigms
Consistent with prevailing norms, values Conflicts with prevailing norms, values
Incremental Complex
Linear Nonlinear
Implemented with existing knowledge and skills Requires new knowledge and skills
Implemented by experts Implemented by stakeholders
Communities (PLCs), some educators might view this as a break from the past (i.e.,
second-order change) as PLC time is now supplanting time that was dedicated to
individual preparation and planning. However, others may have already been seek-
ing out collaborative opportunities on a regular basis, and this change becomes a
welcomed extension of the past (i.e., first-order change).
To mitigate the effects of change when perceived as second order, consider the
following:
• Focus on building a culture supportive of change or life-long learning by always
communicating that “Change is an enduring feature of life” (Holmes, 2016, para.
5) throughout the district.
• Identify innovators to lead and support change. Within most groups, Rogers
(2003) noted there are innovators (i.e., love risk and change), early adopters (i.e.,
like risk and change but are opinion leaders who also consider their reputations
relative to adopting change), and laggards (i.e., resist change and generally adopt
only when all others have). By knowing the skill set and strengths among these
groups, change can be stratified to ensure there is sustained enthusiasm for
change, early successes, and later support. Innovators can serve as supporters for
the early adopters with both groups later supporting laggards.
• Be sensitive to the pace of change and remain aware of when support is needed.
Embracing change will vary among groups. It is always wise to pace the change
so that support is available for short-term successes with the broader goal of
ensuring sustainable change over the lifespan of the strategic plan.
• Allow for ample feedback regarding a particular change. Participation early in
the change setting process, even if in the form of criticism, facilitates buy-in. A
focus on listening can encourage meaningful dialogue. Questions such as “What
are the limitations of this change?” or “What barriers to this change should be
considered?” or “By choosing this change, what habits or practices may be dis-
placed?” allow those resisting change to safely share their perceptions of the
change. It also builds capacity to make adjustments that accommodate the change.
• Be prepared to express empathy and make extraordinary efforts to understand the
emotions of those resisting change. By listening, others feel valued. Sometimes,
processing with others helps to bridge the identification of a particular value or
aspect of the status quo that can then be redirected or redefined within the change.
The absence of this may serve to deepen resistance and thwart long-term buy-in.
• Additionally, Lancaster (2020) offers five easily implementable strategies for
managing change. These may be found at https://www.teachthought.com/
the-future-of-learning/5-strategies-for-managing-change-in-schools/.
Strategic Planning Basics
Basic strategic plans for continuous improvement share common elements.

However, local context will dictate differences and there is not a one-size-fits-all
template. For example, some districts with no strategic plan may choose to begin
with defining the very purpose of the district, while others with existing strategic
plans may choose to go through a validation/affirmation process with modifications
as opposed to starting with a blank slate. The following details what a basic strategic
plan might include:
Introductory Statement
A brief description of how the plan was developed, for what time period, and the
authors of the plan.
Background Statement
Brief information about the district is shared such as its history, demographics, dis-
tinctive qualities, and any supporting partners or agencies that are noteworthy of
mention. This section might also include the elevator pitch to concisely describe the
district, where it is headed, and what makes it distinctive.
Organizational Structure
This might be presented as a narrative or simple graphic that details how the district
operates and is structured from the governing board to staffing.
154 B. V. Balch
Foundational Statements
Purpose Statement (Optional)

This describes who the district is and who it serves. In many cases, discussion
around the purpose actually yields more of a promise statement (i.e., what we will
deliver) as the district’s purpose conversations morph into what will be promised.
However, it is noteworthy that purpose statements are more closely associated with
the foundational statements of vision, mission, and values/beliefs. Developing this
statement is often used when no vision or mission statement is in place to affirm or
when a majority of stakeholders developing the strategic plan are new to the district.
Developing this statement sets the tone for future conversations around the remain-
ing foundational statements and may or may not ultimately be included in the over-
all strategic plan.
Core Value and Belief Statements

These statements communicate what the district holds in the highest esteem and
will not compromise on. The statements often guide the organization culture and
adherence to them is a strong source of validity.
Vision. This is a brief description of what the district aspires to be. Often viewed as
the district dream.
Mission. This statement addresses the district’s purpose by answering questions
steeped in “Why we do what we do?” It is often viewed as a means to arrive at or
achieve the vision or dream.
Priorities. These statements are a short list that answers the question: “What is fac-
ing the District that is most important?” Prioritization should be strongly aligned
with the values/beliefs, vision, and mission statements and lays the foundation
for goal development.
Measurable Outcomes
Goals
These may be long-term (i.e., the full lifespan of the strategic plan) as well as short-
term (i.e., a year or less) goals as is appropriate for the number of priorities addressed
in the plan. Many plans refer to the goals as initiatives. It is recommended that a
term is selected that district stakeholders most recognize or relate to.
Objectives
These are measurable statements using the SMART (Doran, 1981) goal method in
support of a broader goal and broken down into actionable steps. SMART goals
include statements that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and
time-bounded. If the goals are referred to as initiatives, objectives are often referred
to as strategies to address the initiatives. Again, it is recommended that a term is
selected which district stakeholders most recognize or relate to. It is noteworthy that
many strategic plans only include goals without objectives. In this case, the SMART
method is applied to the goals. More on SMART goals may be found at https://
eschoolmedia.com/improving-district-level-goal-setting-with-smart-goals-part-i/.
Action Plan
Each goal would specify attendant objectives, who is responsible for implementa-
tion, a timeline for starting and ending, and how the goal/objective will be evalu-
ated. Often, the goal/objective is evaluated with key performance indicators (KPIs).
KPIs are sources of data, but data must be translated into useful information. As
such, keep KPIs to an absolute minimum so the translation from data to useful infor-
mation does not become a daunting task. Most states have dashboard metrics or
other indicators of success that districts are required to report on. These should be
considered as priority KPIs to minimize the creation of new metrics.
Evaluation
A description should be provided of how outcomes tracking will occur, when mile-
stones such as meetings or updates might occur and how this information will
be shared.
Executive Summary
This summary helps district stakeholders quickly understand the plan. It is often
shared at the district’s website as the first source of strategic planning information
with a hyperlink to the comprehensive plan.
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)
This is often added when districts want to demonstrate the diverse stakeholder input
that occurred throughout the plan’s development. Selected topics might be chosen
from planning committee minutes, surveys, or focus groups with students, faculty,
staff, administration, parents and community members.
156 B. V. Balch
Deciding on the What and How Phases of Strategic Planning
The preceding elements of strategic planning closely align with Fixsen et al.’s
(2010) stages of active implementation (i.e., exploration, installation, initial imple-
mentation, and full implementation). Chapter 2 provides rich detail of these stages.
Further, when considering the eight key preceding elements of strategic planning,
two distinct phases define the most important elements that require thoughtful
intentionality. Phase I is often considered the what phase. Typically, this phase rests
with the district’s school board. First, the school board, in consultation with the
superintendent, approves a strategic planning process, a general timeline for the
overall planning process, and the length of the actual strategic plan. It is noteworthy
that in the past decades strategic plans spanning up to 10 years in length were not
uncommon. However, the cycle of strategic planning is increasingly shorter in
response to the more frequently occurring policies, and legislative and social
changes impacting long-term outcomes within the district. Throughout any five-
year period of time, school districts face unanticipated challenges due to shifts in
federal, state, and local funding, additional mandates, changes to the local commu-
nity’s economics, shifts in student mobility, and local competition with open enroll-
ment, charters, and vouchers. These and other key drivers that impact the ability to
predict outcomes and cause planning cycles to be more frequently of three to 5 years
in duration. However, for a planning cycle, this is still considered a more long-term
effort. In contrast, improvement cycles, which may be found in Chap. 2 in
“Improvement Cycles” section, are much shorter in duration and more focused.
This prevailing choice for a planning lifecycle allows most districts to make fairly
reliable predictions about their 3- to 5-year foreseeable futures. Often part of the
early discussions are the levels of input desired from internal and external stake-
holders to the district. This varies greatly and should be based on situational context.
Some districts choose to begin with a basic climate/culture audit to assess the per-
ceptions of differing stakeholders. Common stakeholder groups include faculty,
staff, administration, students, parents, and community members. Each time draft
statements are developed in Phase I/II, and prior to sharing them with the school
board, feedback is often solicited via focus groups or surveying. Some means of
stakeholder involvement throughout the strategic plan’s development is suggested
to support buy-in prior to the plan’s adoption/endorsement.
Once the overall process and timelines are approved, the school board also takes
a lead role in the development of the foundational statements (i.e., core values/
beliefs, vision, and mission). Eventually, the fully developed foundational state-
ments should be approved as an official action item of the school board. Once the
foundational statements are approved, the final step of this phase is to develop and
approve the priority statements. These too should be approved as an official action
item of the school board. The official adoption of the foundational statements and
priorities has now answered on behalf of the district what is valued (i.e., values/
beliefs statements), what is the dream (i.e., vision statement), what must occur to
accomplish the dream (i.e., mission statement), and what the district priorities are
(i.e., priority statements).
A fundamental consideration of Phase I is determining what is meant by the

school board’s lead role in Phase I. Lead roles vary greatly in terms of how involved
school boards are in this phase. Some school boards elect to be directly involved in
most every step of Phase I. Direct involvement would suggest they participate in
every aspect of Phase I, including the development and codifying of the values/
beliefs, vision, mission, and priority statements. If, throughout this phase, feedback
is desired from district stakeholders both internal and external to the district, a
directly involved school board would interpret feedback for themselves to inform
their future iterations of the foundational statements and priorities. Alternatively,
school boards may choose to be indirectly involved. After approving a process and
timelines for the strategic plan, an indirectly involved school board may choose to
support a Strategic Planning Committee who is charged with developing drafts of
the foundational statements and priorities for the school board’s consideration and
adoption. Soliciting stakeholder feedback and interpreting feedback to inform
future iterations of the foundational statements and priorities would also be a func-
tion of the Strategic Planning Committee via an indirectly involved school board.
One key advantage to utilizing a committee in some capacity is the demonstration
of inclusiveness by involving many diverse stakeholders and allowing many voices
to influence the plan’s development. Sometimes the superintendent and/or represen-
tative school board members are part of the Strategic Planning Committee and
sometimes not. Sometimes, a consultant is utilized to facilitate the process, and on
other occasions, the district utilizes its own internal capacity. The combinations of
involvement are many and usually dictated by local context (i.e., size of district,
levels of trust, and experience with strategic planning). There is no best choice
regarding a lead role, except that this conversation should occur at the beginning of
Phase I and be influenced by local context and preferences.
Strategic emphasis now shifts from what to how (i.e., Phase I to Phase II). With
the what elements adopted, the superintendent and key internal stakeholders develop
a plan to best address how to fulfill the vision, mission, core values, and priorities
established by the school board. This is Phase II of the strategic plan’s development.
The first step is to determine draft goals, which are occasionally referred to as initia-
tives. Goals directly address the priorities and should also align with the founda-
tional statements. Some districts choose to have a one-to-one or discrete relationship
between goals and priorities (e.g., one goal statement only addresses one priority).
Others choose goals that might connect to one or more of the priorities. Experience
suggests that broader goal statements covering multiple priorities fit more naturally
with a district’s day-to-day operations. Much intentionality is required to keep goals
discrete to apply only to a single priority. Draft goal statements are generally devel-
oped with the superintendent assuming a lead role. As in Phase I, this lead role
could be direct or indirect. While direct involvement implies the superintendent is
writing the goal statements, indirect involvement might include consultation with
direct reports, such as deputies, assistant/associate superintendents, and principals
who write the goal for the superintendent’s consideration. Eventually, the draft
goals are presented to the school board with opportunities for feedback before mov-
ing forward. It is suggested that the superintendent’s direct reports present their
158 B. V. Balch
respective goals if the superintendent is more indirectly involved to demonstrate

broader buy-in within the district as well as serving in the role of expert authority
who is available to answer questions from the school board. Sometimes feedback
suggests that new iterations of the goal statements must be developed. Ultimately,
the school board should endorse them so the goals may be further developed to
include key performance indicators (KPIs), person(s) responsible, and how success
will be measured. It is noteworthy that endorsement, not adoption, is recommended.
If the goals are adopted by the school board as the foundational statements and pri-
orities, changing them requires a formal process. School board endorsement com-
municates a form of approval and suggests that if the superintendent needs to make
changes to the goals throughout the strategic plan’s life cycle, permission to do so is
approved via endorsement rather than adoption. This level of flexibility in Phase II
greatly supports the notion that strategic plans should be living documents and not
collecting dust on a shelf. Nonetheless, many governing bodies choose to adopt
goals in the same manner as adopting the Phase I outcomes.
With approved goals, the superintendent or a designee now forms goal commit-
tees to develop the remaining measurable outcomes for Phase II. It is extremely
important when considering goal committee composition, to observe fidelity to the
chain of command. This is especially true when selecting goal chairpersons or co-
chairpersons. That is to suggest that a majority of those on the committee should
have a direct professional stake in the goal and be within the established chain of
command dictated by the goal. Otherwise, alternative reporting structures can inci-
dentally be created throughout the life of the strategic plan when resources are later
allocated to the goal and new power structures develop as persons responsible for
fulfilling any or all parts of a goal are not within the established chain of command.
In addition to alternative reporting structures, committee members should be sensi-
tive to creating corrective action plans and data collection structures that are not
germane to district strategic plan, all of which contribute to goal creep.
Once goal committees are convened, sharing the goals committee composition
with the school board as well as throughout the district is recommended. Goal com-
mittees are charged with four primary deliverables. These include developing the
necessary objectives (i.e., sometimes referred to as strategies), key performance
indicators (KPIs), noting person(s) responsible, and the means to evaluate success
over the life of the strategic plan. The school board should have opportunities to
review draft measurable outcomes before final endorsement occurs. Goal commit-
tees should present the drafts directly to the school board as they have the best
context behind the drafts and serve as expert authority relative to the measurable
outcomes. When final outcomes of each goal committee are finally presented to the
school board and endorsed, Phase II concludes.
With Phase I/II completed, the eight elements of the plan as detailed in “Strategic
Planning Basics” section of this chapter are compiled and a plan for communication
is developed. The simplest mode to communicate the plan is to post it on the district
website and share the hyperlink broadly. Importantly, this allows immediate access
and sharing throughout the district, so all employees have the opportunity to find
where they fit into the plan. Important to the process is time to discuss the plan at all
levels throughout the district. In particular, the value/belief statements should be

discussed with all employees and the expectation shared that employees hold them-
selves accountable to them. Remember, that is what gives the values/beliefs their
validity. Another simple means of communicating is to keep the plan in the forefront
by committing to annual or biannual reporting to the school board and other stake-
holders. Many governing bodies and superintendents also create venues (i.e., town
hall meetings, service club presentations, or social media posts) to communicate the
plan. Larger districts with communications directors develop comprehensive com-
munications plans. A representative plan may be viewed at https://www.mvcsc.k12.
in.us/userfiles/2/my%20files/district/2017-2018/district/communications%20stra-
tegic%20plan%202018-2020%2011-12-2017.pdf?id=6051.
Step-by-Step Supports and Resources for Implementing

Strategic Planning
The preceding sections of this chapter provided the conceptual framework for stra-
tegic planning. The framework is intended to reinforce the foundational underpin-
nings to help ensure the school board-administrative team enjoy successful
implementation. This section is designed to offer a variety of practical how-to sup-
ports and resources for navigating Phase I/II. Included are question prompts for
group discussion, survey questions to solicit feedback on draft statements, and
activities to strengthen planning outcomes.
Introductory Activity
Whether working with a school board, strategic planning committee, or goal com-
mittee, setting the proper tone to work together is essential. That means building
into the group dynamics a degree of vulnerability in which everyone feels valued
and committed to engaging in meaningful and truthful dialogue. An opening activ-
ity can facilitate setting the proper tone. This activity generally takes about 2 min to
get started, then about 2 min per person. Someone needs to serve as the facilitator.
Begin by asking participants to ponder the following questions, picking one they
feel comfortable sharing with the larger group:
• If you were granted one wish for the district, what would it be?
• If you could change one thing in the district now, what would it be?
• If you were giving a tour of the district to out-of-town guests, what is the first
thing you would want to show them in the district? What might you try to hide
from them in the district?
160 B. V. Balch
Alternatively, you could ask each question of all participants and list their responses
on chart paper. Now reflect on everyone’s answers in general. Any surprise
responses?
Purpose Statement Exercise
This activity requires a facilitator. Depending on the size of the group, this exercise
can take from one to 2 h for the first brainstorming session and typically requires
two to four additional sessions as participants move toward consensus by reviewing
edited drafts during each additional session. To brainstorm keywords and phrases
related to the purpose statement, the following might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• It’s not the vision, mission, or core values/beliefs, which is intended to inform
and inspire stakeholders.
• It is what we do for others.
• It is motivational because it connects the head and the heart of the district (i.e.,
the philosophical heartbeat).
• It expresses the district’s impact on the lives of students, community, and other
school community stakeholders.
• Consider examples as noted in Table 9.2.
Using another PowerPoint slide, share the following:
• Take a few minutes to write out keywords and phrases related to the following:
–– For whom does the district exist to benefit?
–– What is the benefit the district aims to provide for them?
• Now take a few minutes to compare keywords and phrases with a neighbor.
Together, respond to the following prompt (you may add an additional sentence
if necessary to complete the purpose statement.): The purpose of the dis-
trict is to….
Table 9.2 Example purpose statements

The purpose of the district is to ensure all students learn and become productive members of
society
The purpose of the district is to work with the school community on behalf of the students we
serve
The purpose of the district is to meet the educational needs of our region and beyond
The purpose of the district is to enhance the lives and futures of our students and their families
The purpose of the district is to ensure all students learn and become productive members of
society
The purpose of the district is to work with the school community on behalf of the students we
serve
Have pairs write their combined statements on chart paper. It should be noted
that if the group is large, pairs may need to be small groups of four to five, but
should not be larger so everyone has the opportunity to participate. Next, share out
as a whole group with all statements on chart paper to review by all participants.
Ask participants if there are any statements that can be combined or removed and do
so. Now give each participant two sticky dots and ask them to roam the room, plac-
ing their dots on their top statements. They may spread their dots out (i.e., two dots
across two statements), or if they like one particular statement, they may place both
dots on the single statement. Use this activity to begin to develop a draft statement
and use subsequent iterations until there is group consensus around a draft state-
ment for the school board’s consideration.
Core Values/Beliefs Exercise
can take from 1 to 2 h for the first brainstorming session and typically requires two
to four additional sessions as participants move toward consensus by reviewing
related to the core value/belief statements, the following might be used as a
PowerPoint visual:
–– Core values/beliefs are what we esteem most highly and what we will not
compromise.
–– Generally, adherence to the core values/beliefs is not optional – this gives them
validity.
–– They are the heart of what we stand for.
–– Consider examples as noted in Table 9.3.
–– Take a few minutes to write out the top core values/beliefs for the district.
Once individual efforts have been made to list some keywords and phrases, pair
individuals together and have them share, finding the means to develop a unified set.
Have pairs write their combined statements on chart paper. It should be noted that if
the group is large, pairs may need to be small groups of four to five, but should not
be larger so everyone has the opportunity to participate. Now share out as a whole
group with all statements on chart paper in view for participants. Have each pair
present their statements to the larger group. For the next several minutes, ask par-
ticipants to consider the following questions:
Table 9.3 Example core values/beliefs

Commitment to honesty
Supporting a safe district
We believe in respect for all
162 B. V. Balch
• On a scale of 0–10, how much of a priority is this core value/belief to the district
(i.e., 0 being not at all and 10 being the highest priority)?
• What does this core value/belief look like in practice?
• Who does this core value/belief most represent (e.g., student, staff, community)?
• What are the biggest obstacles to honoring this core value/belief?
Have a large group discussion regarding the three questions across all statements.
so. Now give each participant five sticky dots and ask them to roam the room, plac-
ing their dots on their top statements (i.e., one dot per statement only so every par-
ticipant picks five statements). Use this activity to begin to develop draft statements
and use subsequent meetings until there is group consensus around a set of state-
ments for the school board’s consideration. Typically, no more than five to eight
statements are adopted. These need not be in complete sentences, but should be
complete thoughts with no keywords or phrases that need explaining (i.e., any dis-
trict stakeholder should be able to read and understand what is being communi-
cated). It is recommended these be organic and inspired by group discussion rather
than working backward from an existing name or acronym. For example, discussion
may be thwarted when working backward from a district moniker such as the
Vikings, or a preferred acronym such as B.E.S.T. This presents a limiting challenge
of picking a B-word, or a V-word to represent a core value/belief.
Vision Statement Exercise
edited and more refined drafts during each additional session. To introduce the
basics of a vision statement, the following might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• It’s about creating a movie of the mind that carries us from our present “what is”
into a future of the best we can imagine… “what ought to be.”
• It’s our dream!
• A vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a waste of time.
• Elements:
–– Written in present tense, but future oriented.

–– Include sensory images – feeling, sight, and sound.
–– Broad in scope – see the big picture.
–– Doable, worthy, and achievable.
–– Consider the vision examples in Table 9.4.
Place the preceding examples on a separate slide. Ask participants what patterns
they see in the example statements. Ask if the examples sufficiently describe a
Table 9.4 Vision examples

ABC schools: Achieve, learn, lead, and inspire
Preparing all students for success in a global economy – P.A.S.S.A.G.E.
The XYZ School District will be a premier educational institution, source of pride and
innovation, and the cornerstone of emerging economic opportunities producing a twenty-first-
century workforce
All learners believe in their power to embrace learning, to excel, and to own their future
dream. Ask if they are future oriented, but written in present tense. Ask participants
what they like or dislike about the statements. Finally, ask if they align with the
shorter vision statement or the longer ones. Typically, strong vision statements use
the fewest words possible.
To brainstorm keywords and phrases related to the vision statement, the follow-
ing might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• What keywords or phrases describe a dream for the district?
• What keywords or phrases provide clear insight into where the district is headed?
• What keywords or phrases help the district focus on what matters most?
• What keywords or phrases will connect on a personal/professional level with
district stakeholders?
Now have participants take a few minutes to write out their responses to the pre-
ceding questions. Once individual efforts have been made to list some keywords and
phrases, pair individuals together and have them share, finding the means to develop
a unified statement(s). It should be noted that if the group is large, pairs may need
to be small groups of four to five, but should not be larger so everyone has the
opportunity to participate. Sometimes in the initial meeting, it may be overwhelm-
ing to reduce thoughts to a single statement, so give participants permission to
brainstorm several statements if needed. Have pairs write their combined statements
on chart paper. Now, share out as a whole group with all statements on chart paper
in view for participants. Have each pair present their statements to the larger group.
so. Now give each participant five sticky dots and ask them to roam the room, plac-
ing their dots on their top statements. They may spread their dots out (i.e., five dots
across five statements), they may place all dots on a single statement, or they may
use any combination they choose. Use this activity to begin to develop draft state-
ments and use subsequent iterations until there is group consensus around a state-
As participants reduce their work to fewer draft statements, the following ques-
tion prompts might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• Does the draft statement describe a dream for the district?
• Does the draft statement provide insight into where the district is headed?
• Does the draft statement help the district focus on what matters most?
164 B. V. Balch
• Does the draft statement connect on a personal/professional level with district

stakeholders?
Use these activities to begin to develop draft statements and use subsequent
meetings until there is group consensus around a set of statements for the school
board’s consideration.
Mission Statement Exercise
related to the mission statement, the following might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• A straightforward, clear, and concise statement that defines who we are, who we
serve, what we do, and why we do it.
• A statement identifying the priorities and/or educational values and beliefs with
regard to the district and its stakeholders.
• Global enough to capture the larger purpose with specific keywords to provide
direction.
• A statement that provides the parameters for decision-making.
• Consider the mission examples in Table 9.5.
Place the preceding examples on a separate slide. Ask participants what they like
or dislike about the statements. Ask if they align with the shorter mission statement
or the longer ones. Ask what patterns they see in the statements. Ask if they are easy
to understand. Ask if the statements provide parameters for decision-making. Ask if
the statements describe who the district serves.
Table 9.5 Mission examples

XYCSC is a safe, dynamic educational environment empowering students to become educated,
productive, responsible citizens
ABC school corporation ensures that students acquire knowledge and skills, build self-reliance,
exhibit positive attitudes, and value life-long learning and achievement
The ABC School District, by embracing the unique needs and using the strengths of our diverse
community, is dedicated to preparing ALL students to become lifelong learners, caring
individuals, and responsible citizens
The mission of the ABC School District is to become a district of educators working
collaboratively to create an educational environment that fulfills the diverse needs of students.
We want to achieve an environment that fosters critical thinking, encourages creativity, values
learning, and equips students with the skills to become successful members of the global
community
To brainstorm keywords and phrases related to the vision statement, the follow-
ing might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• What keywords or phrases describe why we are in business?
• What keywords or phrases describe our customer?
• What keywords or phrases describe our intended level of service to the profession?
• What keywords or phrases help us differ or be distinctive from other districts?
Now have participants take a few minutes to write out their responses to the pre-
ceding questions. Once individual efforts have been made to list some keywords and
phrases, pair individuals together and have them share, finding the means to develop
a unified statement(s). It should be noted that if the group is large, pairs may need
to be small groups of four to five, but should not be larger so everyone has the
opportunity to participate. Sometimes in the initial meeting, it may be overwhelm-
ing to reduce thoughts to a single statement, so give participants permission to
brainstorm several statements if needed. Have pairs write their combined statements
on chart paper. Now, share out as a whole group with all statements on chart paper
in view for participants. Have each pair present their statements to the larger group.
so. Now, give each participant five sticky dots and ask them to roam the room, plac-
ing their dots on their top statements. They may spread their dots out (i.e., five dots
across five statements), they may place all dots on a single statement, or they may
use any combination they choose. Use this activity to begin to develop draft state-
ments, and use subsequent iterations until there is group consensus around a state-
As participants reduce their work to fewer draft statements, the following ques-
tion prompts might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• Does the draft statement describe why we are in business?
• Does the draft statement describe the customer?
• Does the draft statement describe our intended level of service to the profession?
• Does the draft statement help us differ or be distinctive from other districts?
Use these activities to begin to develop draft statements, and use subsequent
Priority Statements Exercise
related to the priority statements, the following might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
166 B. V. Balch
• Review – Priorities are what the district needs to focus on and pay attention to in
order to achieve its mission and vision.
• What have you learned from previous strategic planning initiatives?
• What does the district do best?
• What advantages do you have over other school districts?
• Where do you want to go from here?
• What are your greatest challenges/weaknesses?
• Based on responses to the preceding questions, list what you believe to be the top
three to five priorities for the district to focus on over the lifecycle of the strate-
gic plan.
Now, have participants take a few minutes to write out their responses to the last
bulleted statement. Once individual efforts have been made to list draft priorities,
pair individuals together and have them share, finding the means to develop a uni-
fied statement(s). It should be noted that if the group is large, pairs may need to be
small groups of four to five, but should not be larger so everyone has the opportunity
to participate. Have pairs write their combined statements on chart paper. Now
share out as a whole group with all statements on chart paper in view for partici-
pants. Have each pair present their statements to the larger group. Ask participants
if there are any statements that can be combined or removed and do so. Now give
each participant five sticky dots and ask them to roam the room, placing their dots
on their top statements. They may spread their dots out (i.e., five dots across five
statements), they may place all dots on a single statement, or they may use any
combination they choose. Use this activity to begin to develop draft statements, and
use subsequent iterations until there is group consensus around a statement for the
school board’s consideration. As participants reduce their work to fewer draft state-
ments, the following question prompts might be used as a PowerPoint visual:
• Considering the draft vision and mission statements, do the draft priorities help
the district achieve its vision and mission?
• Considering the draft priority statements, should any be omitted or combined?
• Are there additional priorities that should be considered?
• Considering the preceding questions, edit the draft statements and reorder them
so there’s a sense of priority among them. Make sure each priority is a complete
thought!
Use these activities to begin to develop draft statements, and use subsequent
Survey or Focus Group Feedback Template
Please see Appendix 1 for a survey template that may be used to solicit stakeholder
feedback regarding draft foundational statements before the statements are consid-
ered for final approval and adoption by a governing body. The survey is appropriate
for students (sixth grade and above), faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, and oth-
ers as is appropriate. Appendix 2 contains a survey template for stakeholder feed-
back related to the district’s priorities. It is also appropriate for the same stakeholder
groups as the foundational statements survey (see Appendix 1).
Conclusion
This chapter detailed the basics of strategic planning for continuous improvement
and the close alignment to implementation science. A two-phase process answered
questions of “What matters most?” and “How do we best address what matters
most?” Based on the assumption that strategic plans are roadmaps for change, read-
ers were cautioned to ponder change implications within the district before under-
going planning. Finally, a variety of how-to supports and resources for navigating
Phase I/II were presented. These included question prompts for group discussion,
survey questions to solicit feedback on draft statements, and activities to strengthen
planning outcomes.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Foundational Statements Survey
You are invited to participate in a survey designed to better understand your percep-
tions and ideas related to the district’s foundational statements (i.e., vision, mission,
and core values). This data is being collected by XYZ. If you have any questions
about this survey, please contact XYZ by e-mail at XYZ@schooldistrict.edu or by
phone at (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ.
Your input is very important. You may participate in this study by clicking on the
survey link. Thank you in advance for participating.
1. What is your relationship to the district? (You may select more than one if
applicable.)
_____Student
_____Faculty
_____Staff
_____Administrator
_____Alumni
_____Other.
2. Assume the Core Values statements of the district are what we respect greatly
and will not compromise. Examples might be a “creating a safe district” or a
168 B. V. Balch
“commitment to honesty.” Often, the Core Values are considered the heart of
what the campus stands for.
Closely connected to Core Values is the Mission statement. The Mission statement
is straightforward, clear, and concise statement that defines who we are, who we
serve, what we do, and why we do it. It also has some parameters for decision-
making. Example phrases from Mission statements might include “improve the
quality of life for our students” or “helping students better understand and appre-
ciate the complex worlds they live in.” To assist in the development of draft Core
Values and Mission statements, please answer the following questions:
(a) What keywords or phrases describe why we are in business?
(b) What keywords or phrases describe whom we serve?
(c) What keywords or phrases describe our intended level of service to the
profession?
(d) What keywords or phrases help us differ or be distinctive from other
schools/districts?
(e) What do these keywords or phrases look like in practice?
(f) What might get in the way of implementing or honoring these keywords
and phrases?
3. Assume the Vision statement of the district is our dream. The Vision is broad in
scope (i.e., big picture), but doable worthy and achievable. Typically, a Vision
describes a dream we hope to accomplish in the next 3 to 5 years. Examples
might include “we are committed to serving programs of excellence to meet the
needs of our students” or “we will have a transformative impact on society.”
(a) In a single sentence, describe your dream for the district. Your sentence
should help the district focus on what matters most and provide clear
insight into where it is headed.
4. Thanks for your participation in the development of the district’s Foundational
Statements.
Appendix 2: Priority Statements Survey
You are invited to participate in a survey designed to better understand your percep-
tions and ideas related to the district’s foundational statements (i.e., vision, mission,
and core values). This data is being collected by XYZ. If you have any questions
about this survey, please contact XYZ by e-mail at XYZ@schooldistrict.edu or by
phone at (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ.
Your input is very important. You may participate in this study by clicking on the
survey link. Thank you in advance for participating.
1. What is your relationship to the district? (You may select more than one if
applicable.)
_____Student
_____Faculty
_____Staff
_____Administrator
_____Alumni
_____Other.
2. Assume the Priorities are what the District needs to focus on and pay attention
to in order to achieve its Mission and Vision (place the draft mission and vision
statements on this slide as well or allow participants to scroll to a page with the
vision and mission statements.). Consider the following draft Priorities/Goal
Statements:
• Sample Priority #1: Literacy – We will advance students’ literacy levels.
• Sample Priority #2: Equity – We will honor our diverse community by pro-
moting equity.
• Sample Priority #3: Financial Stability – We will practice stewardship by
responsibly managing our fiscal.
• Do the draft Priorities/Goal Statements represent what the district most needs to
focus on?
• Will the draft Priorities/Goal Statements help the district achieve its mission
and vision?
• Can you visualize what success for each Priority/Goal Statement would look like
at the individual, classroom, building, and district levels?
3. Thanks for your Participation in the Development of the district’s Foundational
Statements.
Feedback from Pam: Second round:
I think this chapter is wonderful and very informative for folks on the ground
doing this work. I really like the integration of real-world practical exercises and
experiences and this will be an excellent contribution to the book. I only had minor
edits throughout. Thank you for your work on it!
References
Albers, B., Shlonsky, A., Mildon, R. (2020). Implementation science 3.0. Springer.
Balch, B., & Adamson, M. (2018). Building great school-board-superintendent teams: A system-
atic approach to balancing roles and responsibilities. Solution Tree Press.
Doran, G. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management goals and objectives.
Management Review (AMA Forum), 70(11), 35–36.
Gemberling, K. W., Smith, C. W., & Villani, J. S. (2000). The key work of school boards guide-
book. National School Boards Association.
170 B. V. Balch
Holmes, E. (2016, August 31). Coping with and responding to change in your school. The Optimus
blog. https://blog.optimus-education.com/coping-and-responding-change-your-school
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Lancaster, L. (2020, October 21). 5 strategies for managing change. Teachthought. https://www.
teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/5-strategies-for-managing-change-in-schools/
Leedy, B. (2017, June 24). How school leaders can foster community trust. School Webmasters.
https://www.schoolwebmasters.com/Blog_Articles?entityid=375999
Reeves, D. (2007). Leading to change/making strategic planning work. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/
making-strategic-planning-work
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
Scheetz, M., & Senge, P. (2016). Systemic change and equity. In S. Petty & S. Shaffer (Eds.),
Equity-centered capacity building: Essential approaches for excellence & sustainable school
system transformation (pp. 24–33). Retrieved from https://capacitybuildingnetwork.files.word-
press.com/2016/02/eccbn_volume_feb2016_final.pdf
Spring, J. (2011). The politics of American education. Routledge.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of
standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Index
A L
Active implementation framework (AIF), 16, Language development, 87, 89, 90, 94, 96
17, 26, 30, 36
M
C Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), 4,
Capacity, 7–9, 14, 18, 19, 22–24, 27–29, 36, 48–51, 56, 57, 59, 61, 67, 68, 71, 75,
37, 49, 69, 88, 116, 152, 157 79–81, 88, 90, 92–94, 97, 98, 111, 116,
Conflict resolution, 62, 67 128, 150
Continuous improvement, 17, 20, 27–30, 36,
47, 55, 58, 139, 140, 149–169
Continuous improvement cycles, 56 O
Organizational consultation, 1–10, 55–56
D
Disproportionality, 3, 59 R
District administrators, 5, 6, 39, 43–45 Research to practice gap, 9–10
District implementation, 4, 19, 21, 46, Restorative practices, 56, 61
91, 135–146
S
E School boards, 5, 7, 15, 36, 37, 42–46, 57, 58,
English language learners, 86, 91 60, 150, 156–159, 161–166
Exploration, preparation, implementation and School case examples, 57, 58
sustainment (EPIS), 57, 112–113, School change, 21, 35, 36, 56, 57, 79
127, 128 School climate, 40, 46, 59, 80, 113
School collaboration, 41, 126
School discipline, 67, 78
I School improvement, 16, 36, 45, 47, 56, 89, 139
Implementation drivers, 18–21, 29, 46, 56 School professional roles, 35–51
Implementation science, 1, 3, 8–10, 13–30, Social-emotional health, 57, 109–130
36–51, 55–58, 80, 85, 111–112, 138, Social-emotional screening, 117
142, 143, 150–151, 167 Special education, 3, 42, 58, 61, 79, 84–91,
Implementation stages, 21–23, 29–30, 96–98, 116, 125, 135–144, 146
45, 142 Strategic planning, 58, 149–169
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 171
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21381-6
172 Index
System-change, 1, 2, 4–9, 14, 18, 23, 26, Teaming, 24, 28, 30, 46–48, 56,
35–50, 56–58, 83, 84, 86, 90, 91, 96, 127, 138
98, 99, 111, 113, 128, 130, 138, 143 Tier II implementation, 68–69
Systems change theory, 8–9
Systems consultation, 3, 8, 37
U
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), 56,
T 58, 135–146
Teacher-student mediation, 57, 59–81 Usable innovations, 17–18, 26–27
Teacher student relationships, 59, 66, 78

Leah M. Nellis, Pamela A. Fenning - Systems Consultation and Change in Schools - Integrating Implementation Science Into Practice-Springer (2023)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leah M. Nellis, Pamela A. Fenning - Systems Consultation and Change in Schools - Integrating Implementation Science Into Practice-Springer (2023)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leah M.

Systems Consultation and

ISBN 978-3-031-21380-9 ISBN 978-3-031-21381-6 (eBook)

Pamela A. Fenning and Leah M. Nellis

Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

Defining Features of Systems/Organizational Consultation

While there is no one definition of systems/organizational consultation, there are

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

of zone of proximal development, in which individuals learn best when consultants

 ystems/Organizational Consultation and Thinking

 hy Is Thoughtful Systems Change/Organizational

 onnection of Systems Change Theory/Organizational

Regardless of whether systems change is internally initiated by the school or dis-

which systems change practices are actually implemented in some capacity.

Research to Practice Gap

We concur with the recommendations of Forman (2019). Organizational consul-

Sophia Farmer, Caryn S. Ward, and Dale Cusumano

I mplementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice

The goal of educational systems is to create environments in which student learning

S. Farmer (*) · C. S. Ward

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

An Introduction to Implementation Science

Implementation science has emerged as a transdisciplinary line of research that

practitioners such as educators and leaders understand which implementation strat-

Implementation Science and Systemic Change in Education

As a field, implementation science frameworks and strategies have recognized that

Defining the Factors of High-Quality Implementation

Active Implementation Formula

Effective Effective Enabling

Fig. 2.1 Active implementation formula

Consistent Use of Innovations

Fig. 2.2 Implementation drivers

Assess need; Develop and/or Initiate practice; Practice is

Fig. 2.3 Stages of active implementation

students. Successful implementation teams with supportive leadership embrace this

Fig. 2.4 Cascading system of implementation teams

implementation teams creates a symbiotic accountability structure across the entire

To accelerate student success and be responsive to contextual needs, education sys-

Fig. 2.5 Iterative cycles of learning about systems change

I mplementation in Practice to Support Systems Change:

In examining capacity building efforts around implementation teams, SISEP identi-

Implementation Drivers and Improvement Cycles

For implementation drivers and improvement cycles, SISEP identified lessons

Time is a valuable resource. To effectively and efficiently use a stage-based

Leah M. Nellis, Brandon J. Wood, and Pamela A. Fenning

 oles of School Professionals and Stakeholders

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 35

Application of Implementation Science

Implementation science offers a framework for creating and sustaining organiza-

infrastructure of processes and structures that enable the chosen innovation to be

Identifying, Selecting, and Developing School Staff

Key Educator Roles in Systems Change

All classroom teachers in a building take on an important role in systems change.

Specialized Instructional Support Personnel

School Board Members

be successful. Philosophical support is evident through administrators communicat-

Teaming to Support Implementation

Teaming within schools and specifically implementation teams is another important

learning communities (PLCs) are common collaborative teaming structures that

necessary ingredients of a healthy systems change process. The following case

 ase Illustration: Engaging Staff and Stakeholders

members also agreed to individually and, when necessary, collectively, complete

Leah M. Nellis and Pamela A. Fenning

Systems/Organizational Consultation: Defining Features

Defining Features of Systems/Organizational Consultation

ystems/Organizational Consultation and Thinking

hy Is Thoughtful Systems Change/Organizational

onnection of Systems Change Theory/Organizational

Research to Practice Gap

I mplementation Science: Foundations and Applied Practice

An Introduction to Implementation Science

Implementation Science and Systemic Change in Education

Defining the Factors of High-Quality Implementation

I mplementation in Practice to Support Systems Change:

Implementation Drivers and Improvement Cycles

oles of School Professionals and Stakeholders

Application of Implementation Science

Identifying, Selecting, and Developing School Staff

Key Educator Roles in Systems Change

Specialized Instructional Support Personnel

School Board Members

Teaming to Support Implementation

ase Illustration: Engaging Staff and Stakeholders

onnecting Implementation Science and School-Based

School-Based Applications and Case Examples

Description of the School

Impetus for the Change

Purpose of Teacher-Student Mediation

Exploration and Installation

Buy-in from Key Stakeholders

Introducing Mediation to School Staff

Tier II Implementation and Operation

Teacher-Student Mediation Operation

Administrator Teacher Counselor _____

Student ____________ Parent _ Other _______________

Sustainability and Innovation

Implications for the Field

This case study provides evidence in support of the implementation of teacher-student