This article is about a school–district–initiated partnership with university faculty and their effort to implement a mathematics multi–tiered system of support (MTSS). In addition to reporting research about MTSS implementation, we describe how this district translated research into practice. We also share the perceptions of key stakeholders about implementing mathematics MTSS in their district. We found that stakeholders identified time and human capacity as barriers to implementation, while the primary facilitator to implementation was identified as the acquisition of concrete strategies and tools supporting instruction. These stakeholder perceptions have implications for other districts with limited resources attempting to implement mathematics MTSS in their buildings through professional development and coaching.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AladjemD. K., & BormanK. M. (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
2.
AnyonY., NicoteraN., & VeehC. A. (2016). Contextual influences on the implementation of a schoolwide intervention to promote students’ social, emotional, and academic learning. Children and Schools, 38, 81–88.
BormanK. M., CarterK., AladjemD. K., & LeFlochK. (2004). Challenge to the future of comprehensive school reform. In Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
5.
BurnsM. K., & GibbonsK. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific–based practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BurnsM. K., ZaslofskyA. F., KaniveR., & ParkerD. C. (2012). Meta–analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single–case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185–202.
7.
BushR. N. (1984). Effective staff development. Making our schools more effective: Proceedings of three state conferences. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.
8.
Castro–VillarrealF., RodriguezB. J., & MooreS. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about response to intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112.
9.
CoddingR., VanDerHeydenA. M., MartinR. J., & PerraultL. (2016). Manipulating treatment dose: Evaluating the frequency of a small group intervention targeting whole number operations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 208–220.
10.
CookB. G., & CookS. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence–based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–82.
11.
CookB. G., & OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence–based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.
12.
CresswellJ. W., & PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Darling–HammondL., HylerM. E., & GardnerM. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
14.
Darling–HammondL., WeiR. C., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Palo Alto, CA: The School Redesign Network.
15.
DoablerC. T., NelsonN. J., KostyD. B., FienH., BakerS. K., SmolkowskiK., et al. (2014). Examining teachers’ use of evidence–based practices during core mathematics instruction. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 99–111.
16.
DulaneyS. K., HallamP. R., & WallG. (2013). Superintendent perceptions of multi–tiered systems of support (MTSS): Obstacles and opportunities for school system reform. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 10(2), 30–45.
17.
DurlakJ. A., & DuPreE. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350
18.
FixsenD. L., NaoomS. F., BlaseK. A., FriedmanR. M., & WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
19.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., CraddockC., HollenbeckK. N., HamlettC. L., & SchatschneiderC. (2008). Effects of small–group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at–risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509.
20.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & KarnsK. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer–assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., YazdianL., & PowellS. R. (2002). Enhancing first–grade children's mathematical development with peer–assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.
23.
FuchsL. S., PowellS. R., CirinoP. T., SchumacherR. F., MarrinS., HamlettC. L., et al. (2014). Does calculation or word–problem instruction provide a stronger route to prealgebraic knowledge?Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 990–1006.
24.
GerstenR., ChardD. J., JayanthiM, BakerS. K, MorphyP., & FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.
25.
AverillHiggins, O., & RinaldiC. (2011). Multi–tier system of supports (MTSS). District Administration, 48, 91–95.
26.
HooverJ. J., BacaL., Wexler–LoveE., & SaenzL. (2008). National implementation of response to intervention (RTI): Research summary. Special Education Leadership and Quality Teacher Initiative, 1–14.
27.
HughesE. M, PowellS. R., LembkeE. S., & Riley–TillmanT. C. (2016). Taking the guesswork out of locating evidence–based mathematics practices for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31, 130–141.
28.
JitendraA. K., & StarJ. A. (2011). Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in inclusive mathematics classrooms: The role of the schema–based instruction on mathematical problem–solving. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 12–19.
29.
JoyceB., & ShowersB. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for learning. In JoyceB. & ShowersB. (Eds.), Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed., pp. 69–94). Crozet, VA: Virginia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
Keller–MargulisM. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 342–352.
31.
KretlowA. G., & HelfS. S. (2013). Teacher implementation of evidence–based practices in Tier 1: A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 167–185.
32.
LembkeE. S., HamptonD., & BeyersS. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 257–272.
33.
LittleJ. W., GerritzW. H., SternD. S., GuthrieJ. W., KirstM. W., & MarshD. D. (1987). Staff development in California: Public and personal investments, program patterns, and policy choices. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (Policy Paper #PC87–12–15–CPEC).
34.
MarrsH., & LittleS. (2014). Perceptions of school psychologists regarding barriers to response to intervention (RTI) implementation. Contemporary School Psychology, 18(1), 24–34.
VanDerHeydenA., McLaughlinT., AlginaJ., & SnyderP. (2012). Randomized evaluation of a supplemental grade–wide mathematics intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1251–1284.
40.
VanDerHeydenA. M., & BurnsM. K. (2005). Using curriculum–based assessment and curriculum–based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 15–31.
41.
VanDerHeydenA. M., WittJ. C., & GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi–year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
42.
WertsM. G., CarpenterE. S., & FewellC. (2014). Barriers and benefits to response to intervention: Perceptions of special education teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(2), 3–11.
43.
WhitworthB. A., & ChiuJ. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: The missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 121–137.
44.
YoonK. S., DuncanT., LeeS. W.–Y., ScarlossB., & ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
