Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation
ISSN: 1047-4412 (Print) 1532-768X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20
Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of
Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School
Psychologists and Administrators to Promote
Systems-Level Change
John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth Gibbons
Holtzman
To cite this article: John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth
Gibbons Holtzman (2015) Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS):
Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level
Change, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:2-3, 160-177, DOI:
10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Published online: 22 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3788
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 26 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hepc20
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:160–177, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online
DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of
Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between
School Psychologists and Administrators to
Promote Systems-Level Change
JOHN W. EAGLE, SHANNON E. DOWD-EAGLE,
ANDREW SNYDER, and ELIZABETH GIBBONS HOLTZMAN
Rhode Island College
Current educational reform mandates the implementation of schoolbased models for early identification and intervention, progress
monitoring, and data-based assessment of student progress. This
article provides an overview of interdisciplinary collaboration for
systems-level consultation within a Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) framework. The roles of school psychologists and schoolbased administrators are presented in relation to the implementation of MTSS practices within an implementation science model.
The training and expertise of each discipline are highlighted related to respective aspects of implementation drivers (i.e., competency, organization, leadership). Functions of principals and
school psychologists during team-based, problem-solving MTSS practices are described based on a problem-solving framework consistent with school-based consultation. Future directions for graduate
training of school psychologists and principals and directions for
consultation research are provided.
Educational policy has explicitly recommended the need for models that
promote early identification and intervention, employ progress monitoring,
and use data to assess student progress (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). These mandates have served as a catalyst
for educational reform, resulting in the emergence of school-wide problemsolving frameworks such as Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive
Correspondence should be sent to John W. Eagle, PhD, Department of Counseling,
Educational Leadership, and School Psychology, Rhode Island College, 600 Mt. Pleasant
Avenue, Providence, RI 02908. E-mail: jeagle@ric.edu
160
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
161
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). However, these approaches
have often been delivered in ‘‘silos’’ in which one system was devoted to
academic difficulties and another to behavioral concerns. Given the strong
alignment of several key features of RTI and PBIS (Sugai, 2009), increasing
attention has been placed on the need for an integrated model that braids
initiatives for academic, behavioral and social-emotional needs (McIntosh,
Goodman, & Bohanon, 2010) into a single Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS). MTSS can be defined as ‘‘an evidence-based model of education that
employs data-based problem-solving techniques to integrate academic and
behavioral instruction and intervention’’ (Gamm et al., 2012, p. 4).
Rationale for MTSS
The basis for MTSS reform efforts is multifaceted and predicated upon theoretical, empirical, and practical considerations. The conceptual framework for
RTI and PBIS mirror one another, with both models emphasizing prevention,
data-based decision-making, problem solving, evidence-based interventions,
and implementation fidelity (Sugai, 2009). This, coupled with the recognition
that academic and behavioral difficulties are often interconnected (Nelson,
Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004), provides a theoretical basis for merging RTI
and PBIS initiatives. Preliminary research has helped establish an empirical
foundation for MTSS. Specifically, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that integrated approaches are associated with greater improvements
in both academic and behavioral outcomes (Ialongo, Poduska, Werthamer,
& Kellam, 2001; Lane & Menzies, 2003; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner,
2006; Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007). Finally, there
are pragmatic justifications for reform efforts. The current climate in education is often characterized by waning financial resources and overburdened educators. As such, viewing RTI and PBIS as competing initiatives
is counterproductive and may unduly stress an already strained educational
system. Further, implementation of two parallel systems-change initiatives
may hinder sustainability (McIntosh et al., 2010).
Implementation Science as a Framework for
Systems-Level Change
The scientific study of effective processes for implementing evidence-based
interventions into practice with fidelity and sustainability, otherwise known
as implementation science, is at the forefront of systemic-change initiatives
in education, psychology, and health (Eccles & Mittman, 2006; Forman et al.,
2013; Green, 2012). Although there are variations of implementation science
models, this paper will follow a widely used model developed by Fixsen
and Blase (2008). This model is currently used by the majority of states
and supported by the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) State
162
J. W. Eagle et al.
FIGURE 1 Implementation drivers. Source: Fixsen & Blase (2008).
Personnel Development Grants program to implement a MTSS framework
within schools.
Facilitating meaningful and sustainable systems-level change as related
to MTSS is a complex process. It requires an understanding of the components associated with the evidence-based program (e.g., MTSS), effective implementation practices (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005),
and an interdisciplinary approach. Implementation science provides a framework for thinking about organizational change and bridging the ‘‘research
to practice’’ gap often found in the field of education. Within this framework, implementation is viewed as a process with distinguishable stages
including (a) exploration, (b) installation, (c) initial implementation, (d) full
implementation, (e) innovation, and (f) sustainability. This continuum of
implementation development extends over a period of 2–4C years. Further,
successful implementation incorporates a common set of core components
referred to as implementation drivers. These are categorized (see Figure 1) as
(a) competency drivers (i.e., selection, training, coaching, and performance
evaluation), (b) organization drivers (i.e., systems intervention, facilitative
administration, and decision support data system), and (c) leadership drivers
(i.e., technical and adaptive; Fixen et al., 2005).
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
163
All three forms of implementation drivers are critical to changing the
behavior of adults who provide evidence-based practices within schools. Effective and sustainable implementation of MTSS practices occurs through the
building of staff competencies and system capacity for school-wide reform.
This competency development requires the careful selection of staff who
provide professional development training and ongoing coaching. However,
change is unlikely to occur without the presence of organizational components to support implementation over time. Organization supports are developed by facilitative administrators (e.g., principals, superintendents) who
provide the leadership and structure needed to implement MTSS practices.
Effective leadership represents the third component needed to successfully
implement systems-level change. Two types of leadership are identified
within implementation science: technical and adaptive. Technical leadership,
akin to management, uses an established procedure to respond to straightforward issues (e.g., managing time and budgets). Adaptive leadership refers
to guiding others through complex changes and times of uncertainty, which
may include issues related to motivation, consensus building, and changing
roles among staff.
School-based consultation can apply implementation drivers to support
change at multiple levels, including the individual student (client-centered),
classroom (consultee-centered), building, or district (systems-level). For example, a consultant may consider several implementation drivers, including
selection (competency driver), systems intervention (organizational driver),
and performance assessment, through a systems-level/organizational consultation approach (Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huttleston, 2012). In
developing the competency drivers related to training and coaching of school
staff, a consultant might engage in consultee-focused consultation (Knotek,
Kaniuka, & Ellingsen, 2008). And, a client-centered consultation (Bergan &
Kratochwill, 1990) focus may be emphasized in evaluating individual student
outcomes related to MTSS services.
This article focuses on an interdisciplinary approach between school
psychologists and administrators to promote the implementation of MTSS
practices. Each discipline is uniquely positioned to support necessary implementation drivers, offering distinct yet complementary skills critical to
successful large-scale reform. School psychologists provide content expertise
in the core components of MTSS, including data-based decision making,
curricular and instructional methodology, evidence-based interventions, and
systematic problem-solving procedures. This knowledge base is essential
for developing staff competency in the use of intervention practices (i.e.,
competency drivers). Educational leaders such as superintendents and principals exhibit expertise in fostering hospitable organizational and systems
environments that support effective and sustainable implementation of MTSS
practices (i.e., organizational drivers). Both principals and school psychologists may possess knowledge of technical and adaptive leadership and
164
J. W. Eagle et al.
may utilize social influence strategies (French & Raven, 1959; Cialdini, 1984)
to achieve meaningful change (i.e., leadership drivers). It is essential that
these respective disciplines cultivate a collaborative relationship by sharing
common values and perspectives, as well as leveraging their expertise to
maximize MTSS reform efforts.
Successful reform efforts in schools require the development of a collaborative culture and strong leadership (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). In
systems-level change, district leadership needs to be knowledgeable, aware,
and involved in the scaling-up process (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012). Knowledge about the systemic change initiative is essential, but it is as important to
be aware of the personnel skills and capacities existing within the system to
strategically utilize staff. As the understanding of other professions increases,
collaborative partnerships become more effective, as does the ability to
provide more comprehensive supports to students and families (Winitzky,
Sheridan, Crow, Welch, & Kennedy, 1995). To effectively implement systemslevel change initiatives, it is also critical to leverage the expertise of the respective disciplines to promote competency in intervention practices, ensure
organizational support, and establish effective leadership.
Promoting Competency Development Within MTSS
School psychologists play an integral role in promoting and supporting
competency development within the core components of MTSS, including data-based decision making, evidence-based interventions, implementation fidelity, and systematic problem solving. In MTSS, data-based decision making includes universal screening of all students, implementation
of evidenced-based interventions at multiple tiers, and ongoing progress
monitoring to inform the decisions at each tier. A problem-solving process
supports ongoing evaluation of the data in order to make timely and ongoing
informed decisions (Gresham, 2007). The National Association of School
Psychologists (NASP) has identified (a) data-based decision making, and
(b) consultation and collaboration as two school psychology practices that
permeate all aspects of service delivery (NASP, 2010).
In addition to having training and knowledge related to the core components of MTSS, school psychologists have the capacity to support effective implementation practices. In an indirect service capacity, school psychologists can promote and support the development of the competencies
needed for MTSS to be effective. This can be accomplished through specific
competency drivers, such as selection, training, coaching, and performance
assessment.
In MTSS, it is important to understand who is best able to provide
screening/assessment, intervention, progress monitoring, and evaluation procedures in promoting the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral health
of all students. The selection of team members who will lead by example
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
165
as well as promote the value of the approach is integral to the success of
the system change. The critical aspect for selection is to focus upon the
individual’s ability to fulfill the functions of the role, not the person’s current
position or title. Thus, school psychologists play an important role in the
selection of appropriate personnel for positions as coaches and/or members
on MTSS teams.
Due to their knowledge base, expertise, and educational background,
school psychologists often serve as providers of professional development
content to school staff. This training is essential in building infrastructure and
is often done in a gradated manner, with designated individuals receiving
outside, in-depth training and then using the trainer’s model (Castillo et al.,
2012).
Once trained, for implementation to be successful, ongoing support
and coaching is necessary. School psychologists are well positioned to serve
in the role of coach in areas of assessment and intervention. Many skills
required in MTSS are new to school-based personnel and ongoing support
allows for scaffolded application of new learning. It has been shown that
when there is sustained support for new practices, the fidelity of implementation increases significantly (Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Merrell, 2008).
Often fulfilling roles as problem-solving team facilitator, professional
development trainer, and/or ongoing coach, school psychologists utilize their
knowledge of evaluation to assist in the final competency driver, performance assessment. Related to the delivery of MTSS practices, performance
assessment is provided at a variety of different levels: student progress and
outcomes, fidelity of instruction and/or intervention supports, fidelity of
problem-solving process within teams, and staff perceptions of the effectiveness and acceptability of MTSS supports.
Ensuring Organization Support for MTSS
It is widely regarded that the actions of a building principal play a key role
in effective systemic change within schools (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Stollar
et al., 2008). In a complementary role to school psychologists, principals
often utilize their training and expertise to function within schools to promote
MTSS practices from an organizational driver perspective. Organizational
drivers include (a) systems intervention, (b) facilitative administration, and
(c) decision-making data systems. Clearly, principals establish organizational
support for MTSS implementation by providing facilitative administration,
but administrators also play major roles in providing a systems intervention orientation and selecting, financing, and utilizing decision-making data
systems.
In general, facilitative administrators provide support in the form of
proactive, enthusiastic, and dynamic attention to the barriers and organizational climate related to effective implementation of MTSS by school staff.
166
J. W. Eagle et al.
This support addresses needs related to the effective implementation and
sustainability of competency drivers through policy decisions, allocation of
resources, procedural considerations, and addressing system culture issues.
Organizational support also includes actively seeking input and feedback
(particularly related to staff satisfaction) from different systems within the
organization and using the information to make appropriate modifications
to organizational activities.
Within the control of the school leader is the decision-making authority around the allocation of resources, including those related to finances,
building space, and personnel. How a principal divides up resources among
competing interests and needs impacts the potential investment of faculty
and staff toward MTSS initiatives. Financial resources allocated by principals
related to MTSS include (but are certainly not limited to) professional development funds, cost of core curricula and supplementary interventions,
purchase of data management systems (e.g., School-Wide Information System, AIMSweb, STAR), supplies related to MTSS activities, and financing
substitute teachers during times of staff professional development. Space
in school buildings remains a premium, and building administration can
systemically support MTSS implementation by providing adequate locations
for staff professional development, dedicated areas for student support (both
at the targeted group and individual levels of support), dedicated and technologically sufficient areas for MTSS team meetings, and additional space
needed for MTSS activities (e.g., check-in/check-out, data entry). Additionally, MTSS initiatives require the allocation of personnel to engage in different activities than their traditional position. For example, school psychologists might be utilized in roles related to professional development
trainings.
District- and building-level administrators are in positions that can enhance MTSS implementation and provide structures within school schedules that can assist the sustainability of systems-level change. Among these
are establishing specified intervention periods (or blocks) to allow targeted
group-based supports or individualized intensive supports to be provided to
students. Principals can also establish consistent schedules for common team
planning and MTSS team meeting times. The consistency of these meetings
establishes a routine that promotes communication, collaboration, and the
fidelity of team-based, problem-solving processes. Further, building administrators need to provide adequate time for staff competency development,
via training and ongoing coaching.
Effective Leadership in MTSS Reform Efforts
Today’s educational leaders operate in a post-A Nation at Risk (1984) and
post-No Child Left Behind (2001) environment. Of paramount importance
in this system are high-stakes testing results that demonstrate marked im-
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
167
provement on a yearly basis and the increased accountability of the school
principal. This all occurs amidst meager budgets, lower teacher morale,
and increased teacher turnover, and increased numbers of at-risk students
(Tucker & Codding, 2003).
New paradigms of school leadership (several born out of the business
literature) abound. Most reference and promote these overlapping terms:
‘‘shared leadership’’ (Sergiovanni, 2005), ‘‘distributed leadership’’ (Spillane,
2006), and ‘‘leverage leadership’’ (Marzano, 2005). All of these models see
the principal akin to a symphony concertmaster, ensuring that everyone
is doing his/her job just right—not too fast, not too loud—in harmony
with the other players. Integral to this model is the principal’s ability to
leverage the expertise (e.g., knowledge, skills, and dispositions) of those in
the building. Their primary leadership functions include setting the direction,
then identifying those who can share in the work of improving teaching and
learning. Indeed, distributed leadership embodies the collaborative nature in
which principals and school psychologists provide leadership drivers for the
implementation of MTSS.
In order to be successful in the current educational climate, a paradigm
shift within educational leadership training and practice has occurred related
to the conceptualization of the roles and responsibilities of a principal. A
distinction has been made between ‘‘leadership’’ and ‘‘management’’ and
an understanding that they both represent distinct knowledge, skills, and
dispositions. In short, ‘‘leadership’’ refers to the bigger-picture, strategic,
visioning domains (who, what, and why), while ‘‘management’’ deals with
operations and tactics (how and when). In a similar manner, implementation
science views leadership drivers in two categories: adaptive and technical.
Adaptive leadership is synonymous with the above ‘‘leadership’’ denotation
and represents the facets of leadership related to the direction of the school
through systemic reform via adherence to vision, motivation, enthusiasm,
and establishing building consensus. Technical leadership is tantamount to
‘‘management’’ and is centered upon the procedures required to implement
innovations effectively at the practice level. In MTSS reform many of the
aspects of adaptive and technical leadership are fulfilled by the roles of both
principals and schools psychologists.
One of the most critical roles for adaptive leadership is to manage
expectations and ‘‘keep the plane flying while it is being built.’’ In his
groundbreaking book, ‘‘Leading in a Culture of Change,’’ Michael Fullan
(2001) presents a model depicting leadership’s function within an institution
and the favorable results that come when the role is successfully carried out.
Fullan acknowledged that 100% approval ratings and success measures are
impossible in times of competing interests and limited resources. Instead,
he established the following goal: ‘‘More good things happen; fewer bad
things happen.’’ Through energy, enthusiasm, and hope and the commitment
from school faculty/staff and external stakeholders (e.g., parents and com-
168
J. W. Eagle et al.
munity members), leadership can maintain the system’s persistence toward
the school’s vision.
This framework for establishing realistic expectations within system
change is consistent with adaptive leadership in implementation science
that promotes leadership to manage expectations and ‘‘manage the awkwardness’’ (Blase & Goodman, 2013) of the implementation stages of MTSS
reform. Effective leadership understands that systemic change is a slow,
deliberate process and that even though it won’t always go smoothly, it
will get better over time as staff gain more competencies, experience, and
efficiency with the process.
Many school staff participating in the implementation of MTSS may find
their professional roles modified to a certain degree. Principals and school
psychologists are in prime leadership roles to encourage, facilitate, and
reinforce staff for altering their previous, traditional responsibilities. They also
have the ability to provide staff with additional professional development
opportunities to assist them in building capacity for their new roles.
Implementing MTSS Within a Consultation Process
School-based consultation provides a structured approach for the delivery of
prevention-based interventions (Meyers, Meyers, & Grogg, 2004). Within the
school consultation literature, several models offer important implications
for primary prevention and the delivery of services within a tiered framework, including mental health consultation (Caplan, 1970), school-based
problem-solving consultation (Kratochwill, 2008), organizational consultation (Meyers et al., 2012), and team-based approaches such as pre-referral
intervention teams (PITs; Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). Notably,
the focus of consultation within these models may vary to inform decisions across multiple tiers. For example, a client-centered approach may
inform decisions at an individual student level, a consultee-centered approach at a classroom level, or systems-centered approach at a schoolwide level. Although there are some nuanced differences between problemsolving activities emphasized in the school consultation literature and those
in tiered frameworks such as MTSS (Erchul, 2011), a key similarity is the
systematic use of a stage-wise process consisting of problem identification, problem analysis, plan development, plan implementation, and plan
evaluation.
Given the shared use of structured problem-solving procedures and a
growing body of evidence suggesting a multi-tiered system can be implemented through a consultation process (Kratochwill, 2008), the authors propose that school-based, problem-solving consultation offers one approach
that can be used to collaborate with other key stakeholders when implementing systems-level reforms. The following fictional case study is intended
to illustrate best practices by depicting the roles of school psychologists and
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
169
principals in implementing MTSS within a consultation process, as well as
the connections between those roles and implementation science.
Background Information
John Doe High School is located in a large urban district, serving 1,900
students in ninth through 12th grade. Approximately 14% of the students
receive special education services and 2% of the population is English Language Learners (ELLs). The school is currently in its third year of implementing MTSS reforms. The building-level team is comprised of the principal, school psychologist, two general education teachers and one special
education teacher. The team meets on a monthly basis to review data related to implementation and outcomes associated with MTSS practices. The
school psychologist serves as the team leader, facilitating the problem-solving
process.
Problem/Needs Identification
During a monthly problem-solving meeting, the building-level team discussed a growing concern related to high rates of student absenteeism and
disengagement. Several team members expressed that poor attendance may
increase students’ risk for dropping out and poor learning outcomes due to
missed instructional opportunities. To determine the extent of the problem,
the MTSS team examined several sources of school data that may be related
to disengagement, including students who (a) attend school less than 80% of
the time, (b) averaged 3 or more office discipline referrals (ODRs) per month,
or (c) were failing one or more classes. A review of the data revealed that
approximately 80 students met all three criteria. Of those students, almost
half were currently receiving special education services. The team decided
to target a reduction in ‘‘disengagement,’’ which it defined as students who
attended less than 80% of the time, averaged 3 or more ODRs, and were
failing at least one class. To make the process more manageable, the team
decided to focus on a pilot group of students who met the above listed
criteria and were currently receiving special education services. The team
planned to track students’ level of disengagement via ODRs, attendance
records, and course grades via the school information management system (IMS).
Roles supporting implementation. Systems-level consultation within a
tiered framework requires both knowledge of MTSS intervention components
and effective implementation practices. During the initial phase of problem
solving, the school psychologist provided content expertise by facilitating
the problem-solving process with fidelity, operationally defining the target
concern, establishing systematic selection procedures to identify students
that will receive the intervention, and using data to validate the problem
170
J. W. Eagle et al.
and establish baseline levels of performance (competency driver: performance assessment). Similarly, the principal played a key role in providing
organizational support by ensuring the team had sufficient time to meet,
substitute teachers to cover team members’ classes during meeting times
(organizational driver: facilitative administration), and had access to data
to inform the team’s decisions (organizational driver: decision support data
system).
Problem/Needs Analysis
Analysis phase. During the problem analysis phase, a multisource and
multi-informant process was used to identify factors that may be influencing
attendance rates and engagement levels for the group of students targeted for
the intervention. Data sources included academic data (e.g., grades, course
failures, credit accrual) and interviews with case managers/special education
teachers. Factors believed to trigger high rates of absenteeism and disengagement included (a) limited connections to the school (e.g., not involved
in any extracurricular activities), (b) limited positive interactions between
the students and building staff, (c) instructional mismatch between students’
skills and tasks presented to them, (d) low levels of student motivation,
and (e) low levels of family involvement in the students’ education. Consequences associated with high absenteeism and disengagement included
missed instructional opportunities, failing grades, and low levels of work
completion.
The school psychologist shared several evidence-based interventions
targeting increased student attendance and engagement. The team discussed
several factors that may influence intervention selection and implementation,
such as (a) time to implement the intervention, (b) personnel with the
expertise needed to implement the plan, (c) cost of intervention materials,
and (d) strategies to assess progress and monitor fidelity. Based on these
criteria, the team selected Check & Connect (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl,
2012) as the Tier 2 intervention.
Plan development phase. Check & Connect is a comprehensive intervention model designed to promote students’ engagement with school. The
key components of the intervention include (a) ‘‘Check,’’ which refers to
systematic monitoring of a student’s educational and behavioral progress via
alterable variables, such as absences, behavioral referrals, and grades; and
(b) ‘‘Connect,’’ which refers to building the capacity for problem solving
within the student in an individualized and timely manner. This is achieved
through establishing a trust-based, mutual relationship between a student
and a mentor and providing a persistent source of motivation. After selecting the intervention, the team decided to modify their original data collection strategy. Rather than reporting on the three sources of data via
the IMS system, the team opted to monitor progress using the ‘‘Check &
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
171
Connect High School Monitoring Form,’’ which tracks several additional
alterable indicators of student engagement, such as academic data (i.e.,
number of Ds and Fs, number of missing assignments, cumulative grades,
credit accrual), behavior data (i.e., unexcused absences, tardies, office discipline referrals), and communication data (i.e., contact with students and
families).
As part of the plan development phase, the team reviewed the roles and
personnel required to implement the intervention. The school psychologist
agreed to be the intervention coordinator, responsible for selecting and
training the mentors, overseeing fidelity, and monitoring progress toward
goals. Given the emphasis on enhancing relationships with adults in the
building, several of the students’ case managers/special education teachers
were asked if they would be willing to serve as mentors. Mentor responsibilities included weekly checks of data using the monitoring form and
weekly meetings with the student to share the data, support problem solving,
and discuss the importance of school. An Excel file based on the Check
& Connect monitoring form was developed by the school psychologist to
support data collection efforts. The tool was also used to monitor the fidelity
of intervention implementation, as mentors were required to check off the
days of the week that specific activities occurred.
Roles supporting implementation. During the problem analysis stage,
the school psychologist supported effective implementation by facilitating
the problem-solving process with fidelity, suggesting an intervention that has
a strong evidence base, and using alterable indicators of student engagement to monitor progress (competency driver: performance assessment).
The principal facilitated implementation by providing funds for the ancillary
costs associated with intervention implementation, and leveraging existing
personnel resources to serve as the intervention coordinator and monitors.
Specifically, the building administrator released the special education teachers from other duties (e.g., bus duty) and agreed to provide a small stipend
to the Check & Connect coordinator and mentors (organizational driver:
facilitative administration).
Plan Implementation
During the plan implementation stage, the school psychologist operated
as a consultee-centered consultant when the consultation focus shifted to
developing the skills and competencies of the mentors in Check & Connect
intervention procedures. This was accomplished by (a) jointly (with the
MTSS team) selecting case managers/special education teachers with the
personal characteristics and willingness to serve as monitors (competency
driver: selection); (b) providing training to the mentors that was skills based
and incorporated adult learning principles (competency driver: training);
(c) offering ongoing coaching and technical assistance by observing the
172
J. W. Eagle et al.
mentors, providing feedback on their performance, and assisting with the
development of intervention materials (competency driver: coaching); and
(d) participating in weekly meetings to review student outcome data and
fidelity data collected via the monitoring form (competency driver: performance assessment).
In addition to jointly selecting staff as mentors (competency driver:
selection), the principal also ensured adequate time for the school psychologist to provide training to the mentors (organizational driver: facilitative
administration). In addition, the principal eased concerns related to changing
roles of the staff serving as monitors (leadership driver: adaptive).
Plan Evaluation
During the plan evaluation phase, the team collaboratively evaluated the
outcomes related to the MTSS Tier 2 intervention: Check & Connect. First,
the team assessed the fidelity of implementation for the Check & Connect
intervention. A synthesis of data from the Check & Connect Monitoring Sheet
was presented at the meeting. Specifically, the team determined that mentors
met with their students to check in at least 80% of the time. Second, the team
reviewed the Monitoring Sheet to evaluate student progress, assess patterns
of risk, and establish decision rules to determine if particular students would
benefit from more individualized supports. Results indicated that the majority
of students met their individual goals on the indicators (e.g., grades, ODRs,
attendance). However, 5 students did not respond to the basic level of
intervention and were considered high risk and in need of a more intensive
intervention. In these cases, the intensive version of ‘‘Check & Connect’’ was
implemented. Each of the five students received additional supports, depending upon the area of need. Examples included more intensive problem
solving with families and staff, facilitation of goal setting, and/or referral to
mental health supports outside of the school. Finally, the team then discussed
how to share and disseminate the results with key stakeholders (e.g., larger
school staff, families, students).
Roles supporting implementation. The school psychologist had previously provided the Check & Connect monitoring sheet to staff implementing
the intervention, compiled the datasheets over time, synthesized the data,
and presented the data to the team (competency driver: performance assessment). The principal gave the team access to the data management systems
needed (organizational driver: decision-making data system) so that the team
was able to review outcome data related to the alterable outcome variables
targeted by the intervention. The school psychologist facilitated team discussion pertaining to specific decision rules regarding particular students’
response or nonresponse to the Check & Connect intervention. The school
psychologist then informed team members of the school’s procedures related
to informing families about their child’s performance and educational policy
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
173
related to obtaining parental consent for the provision of more intensive
supports (leadership driver: technical).
DISCUSSION
The continued philosophical, political, and practical impetus for MTSS reform has brought renewed interest in systems-level consultation and the
roles that educational personnel undertake within these initiatives. School
psychologists and educational leaders provide critical content knowledge
and leadership for effective implementation of MTSS practices. Founded on
a problem-solving framework, systems-level MTSS implementation is guided
by both a problem-solving framework (consistent with a behavioral consultation model), and an implementation science framework. Within an implementation science paradigm, principals and school psychologists provide distinct expertise in competency (school psychologists) and organizational (principals) drivers and complementary and collaborative skills within
leadership drivers. These professions also serve essential and pivotal roles
throughout problem-solving practices within MTSS. The problem-solving
practice within behavioral consultation and the systemic development provided through implementation science are not exclusive of one another, just
as the roles and functions of principals and school psychologists complement
each other throughout MTSS reform.
Implications for Training
Both principals and school psychologists play a significant role in MTSS
reform. It would be beneficial for each discipline to have a stronger knowledge base related to each other’s training, areas of expertise, and professional roles. By training in interdisciplinary environments, future school
psychologists and principals can gain better perspectives of their potential
complementary and collaborative activities. It would be most beneficial if this
training occurred within the framework of systems reform, as both disciplines
would significantly benefit from more comprehensive content knowledge,
training, and experience in implementation science.
The background of school psychologists in facilitating team-based,
problem-solving activities with fidelity is necessary for the effective implementation of MTSS practices. School psychology courses in consultation
should emphasize not only the problem-solving process of a behavioral
consultation model, but other process variables related to providing consultative services in teams. This would include content such as developing
collaboration among a variety of individuals, moderating relational variables
among team members, and effective use of social influence to build team
consensus. A comprehensive approach to consultation training including
174
J. W. Eagle et al.
systems-level, consultee-focused, and client-focused consultation models
would be preferential to support effective preservice training for school
psychologists working in schools implementing a MTSS framework.
Principal and educational leadership training would be enhanced if
graduate programs extended the amount of content related to both the
structure of MTSS practices and aspects of effective implementation and sustainability. Although principals are able to delegate different responsibilities
within MTSS reform, deeper knowledge of competency drivers as pertaining
to MTSS practices will enable them to make effective adaptive leadership
decisions.
Implications for Future Research
A systems perspective of MTSS reform, via implementation science, has
significant implications for future research in the area of consultation. Although developed from a problem-solving framework, consultation practices
within MTSS implementation provide unique environments and challenges.
As much of the problem-solving structure within MTSS is team-based, future
research should focus on the aspects of group dynamics (particularly related
to collaboration and team leadership) that lead to effective outcomes. Much
of MTSS team-based practices are based upon the efficient use of time
and resources, indicating that future research should address streamlining
the problem-solving process while maintaining fidelity of the process and
intervention implementation. Further, a large part of consultation within
MTSS involves building capacity within school staff to implement practices
or interventions with fidelity. Thus, it would be important to assess whether
the provision of professional development trainings, based on adult learning
principles, within MTSS provide changes in staff behavior, and if those
changes are sustainable over time.
REFERENCES
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Blase, K., & Goodman, S. (2013). Stages of implementation: Initial implementation.
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.signetwork.org/event_calendar/
events/728.
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in
elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., Minch, D.,
& Hines, C. (2012). Problem solving: Response to intervention evaluation tool
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
175
technical assistance manual (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.floridarti.
usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/ta_manual_revised2012.
Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive
student engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York,
NY: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1.
Erchul, W. P. (2011). School consultation and response to intervention: A tale of
two literatures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21,
191–208.
Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A. (2008). Drivers framework. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina, The National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No.
231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.
Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield,
S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and
school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 77–100.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a time of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gamm, S., Elliott, J., Halbert, J. W., Price-Baugh, R., Hall, R., Walstron, D., Uro, G., &
Casserly, M. (2012). Common core state standards and diverse urban students:
Using multi-tiered systems of support. Washington, DC: Council of the Great
City Schools.
Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Exceptional Children, 51, 377–
384.
Green, J. (2012). Editorial: Science, implementation, and implementation science.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 333–336.
Gresham, F. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical
foundations and recent developments. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice
of assessment and intervention (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Springer.
Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of
two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in
early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146.
Knotek, S. E., Kaniuka, M., & Ellingsen, K. (2008). Mental health consultation and
consultee-centered approaches. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of
research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 127–
145). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consultation: Applications in prevention and intervention systems. In A. Thomas & J.
176
J. W. Eagle et al.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1673–1688). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2003). A school-wide intervention with primary and
secondary levels of support for elementary students: Outcomes and considerations. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 431–451.
Marzano, R. J. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration
of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146–154.
McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanon, H. (2010). Toward true integration of
academic and behavior response to intervention systems, Pt 3: Tier 3 support.
Communiqué, 39, 30–31.
Meyers, A. B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., Proctor, S. L., & Huttleston, L. (2012).
Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in
educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
22, 106–124.
Meyers, J., Meyers, A. B., & Grogg, K. (2004). Prevention through consultation: A
model to guide future developments in the field of school psychology. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 257–276.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Standards for graduate preparation of school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. L., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K–12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional
Children, 71, 59–73.
O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–
310.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinal
report.pdf.
Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A
classwide consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive
behavior. School Psychology Review, 37, 315–332.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together
in schools. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Threetier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive
Interventions, 9, 239–252.
Stollar, S. A., Schaeffer. K. R., Skelton, S. M., Stine, K. C., Lateer-Huhn, L., & Poth, R. L.
(2008). Best practices in professional development: An integrated, three-tiered
model of academic and behavior supports. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 875–886). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS
177
Sugai, G. (2009). Reaching all students: RTI & SWPBS. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from http://www.pbis.org/pbis_resource_detail_page.aspx?Type=1&PBIS_
ResourceID=807.
Tucker, M., & Codding, J. (2003). The principal challenge: Leading and managing
schools in an era of accountability. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture
through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 58–74.
Winitzky, N., Sheridan, S., Crow, N., Welch, M., & Kennedy, C. (1995). Interdisciplinary collaboration: Variations on a theme. Journal of Teacher Education, 46,
109–119.
John W. Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode
Island College. He serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode Island
State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of
Supports frameworks.
Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at
Rhode Island College. She serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode
Island State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered
System of Supports frameworks.
Andrew Snyder, EdD, directs the Educational Leadership Program at Rhode Island College.
A former middle school principal, Dr. Snyder teaches courses in change leadership, ethics,
and community partnerships.
Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program
at Rhode Island College. Her interests include interdisciplinary training in assisting school staff
to provide effective supports in educational settings.
Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated
institutions have financial relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions,
decisions, or work presented in this article.
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
Howard S. Muscott
Stacy Szczesiul
Becky Berk
Kathy Staub
Jane Hoover
Paula Perry-Chisholm
Schoolwide positive behavior supports
(SWPBS) is a culturally responsive set
of systems, practices, and data-based
decision-making features designed to
achieve socially important behavior
change. One important feature of
SWPBS is the evidence-based practice of
engaging families as partners in schooling. Statewide initiatives, early childhood education programs, and K-12
schools engaged in SWPBS can establish and use home-school
partnerships
as leverage for school improvement.
How can schools foster family engagement in developing, implementing, and
sustaining SWPBS? What are the challenges associated with such engagement? What barriers do schools face?
What effective state- and school-level
strategies enhance family engagement
and home-school partnerships?
6
COUNCIL FOR EXCEH'IONAL CHILDREN
Creating HomeSchool Partnerships
by Engaging Families in Schooiwide
Positive Behavior Supports
Our nation's schools are faced with
complex and deep-rooted challenges
such as poverty, discrimination, weak
school-family relationships, low student motivation, and high student
mobility. These challenges must be
overcome if children and youth are to
meet their needs for belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity
(Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern,
1990}; experience social competence
and academic achievement in school;
and ultimately enjoy a high quality of
life. To support families, schools must
utilize evidence-based approaches to
teaching and learning. Moreover, these
approaches must he embedded in efficient systems that allow practitioners
to implement them with fidelity and
cross the research-to-practice divide,
which historically serves as a deterrent
to school reform efforts.
One promising approach to school
reform that is gaining significant traction across the country is schooiwide
positive behavior supports (SWPBS), a
culturally responsive set of evidencebased interventions designed to
achieve socially important behavior
change and improve academic achievement [U.S. Department of Education,
2000). SWPBS involves creating a set
of universal behavior support features
for proactively and systematically (a)
identifying, teaching, and reinforcing
valued social behaviors and Cb) identifying and responding effectively to
challenging behaviors that undermine
teaching, learning, and social relationships {Sugai & Horner. 1999). Using
systems to support adults, practices to
support students, and data for decision
making. SWPBS arguably has grown in
popularity like no other school reform
effort in educational history [Sugai &
Horner, 2006). Research and program
evaluations have shown that schools
implementing SWPBS with fidelity
experience improvements in school
climate; reductions in problem behaviors that would have led to office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions;
increased opportunities for academicengaged time; and gains in student
achievement (Bradshaw, 2006; Homer,
Sugai, Eber. Phillips. & Lewandowski.
2003; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, in
press).
Barriers to Family Engagement
and Home-School Partnerships
ln Playing Their Paris [Public Agenda.
1999), a national survey of parents and
public school teachers revealed that
most parents considered their children's teachers as accessible and caring, and teachers were more likely to
be complimented than criticized.
However, when it came to engagement
in decision making. Public Agenda
found most parents uncomfortable in
leadership roles and most teachers
uncomfortable having parents in those
roles. In fact, despite federal policy
[the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
NCLB; Individuals With DisabUity
Education Improvement Act of 2004,
IDEA) that clearly mandates family and
community engagement, most teachers
and administrators "still think of themselves as individual leaders of classrooms, schools, or districts with little
attention to the Importance of teamwork and collaboration with parents
and community partners" [Epstein &
Sanders, 2006, p. 82). As noted by the
National Association of State Mental
Health Program Directors and the
National Association of State Directors
of Special Education, "Successful interagency partnerships make every effort
to include family members In the decisions and actions that affect their own
children. Parents and family members
are tbe experts on their own children,
and insofar as possible, they must be
allowed, encouraged and supported to
participate actively in every aspect of
decision making regarding their families' children" [2002, p. 25).
Major barriers include [a] one-side
power relationships between schools
and famihes [Nogera, 1999); [b) inadequate teacher preparation regarding
establishing and sustaining relation-
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
JULY/AUC
2008 7
Additional Resources
Alliance for School Mental Health. (2006). PBIS school-family-communitypartnership toolkit. Long Island, NY: Author. Available from the Office of
PB!S, District 75, NYC Public Schools, 400 First Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Beach Center on Disability. [2007). Family research instruments and toolkits.
Available at http://www.beachcenter.org/families/family_researchjoolkit.
aspx
Bouffard, S. M., & Stephen. N. (2007). Promoting family involvement in middle and high schools. Principal's Research Review, 2(6), Reston, VA: NASSP.
Available at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/
research/nassp.html
Caspe, M., & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Lessons from family-strengthening interventions: Learning from evidence-based practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family
Research Project. Available at http://vvww.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/
fine/resources/research/lessons.html
Kentucky Commissioner of Education's Parents Advisory Council. (2007).
The missing piece of the proficiency puzzle: Recommendations and a rubric
for involving families and community in improving student achievement.
Lexington, KY: Department of Education.
National Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships at Johns
Hopkins University: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/P2000/center.htm
Nationai Parental Information Resource Center Coordination Center:
h ttp: //www. nationaipirc. org/
Public Education Network (2004). School-parent compact: Action guide
for parent and community leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
PBIS-NH School Contacts
For more information about how schools implemented the programs
described in this article, contact:
Dublin Consolidated School
Main St., Box 1006
Dublin, NH 03444-1006
May Clark, Principal
(603) 563-8332
mclark@conval.edu
East Derry Memorial School
18 Dubeau Drive
Derry. NH 03038-4807
Sue Devine, Third Grade Teacher
(603) 432-1260
sdevine@derry,kl2.nh.us
Hillside Middie School
112 Reservoir Avenue
Manchester, NH 03104
Stephen Donohue, Principal
(603) 624-6352
sdonohue@mansd.org
8
COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Lakes Region Community Child
Services Center
22 Strafford Street, Unit 4
Laconia. NH 03246
Marti Ilg, Program Coordinator
(603) 524-1235
martiilg@hotmail.com
Mastricola Lower Elementary
School
7 School Street, Merrimack, NH
03054
John Fabrizio, Principal
(603] 424-6218
john.fabrizio@merrimack.kl2.nh,us
Southem New Hampshire Head
Start
P.O. Box 5040, 40 Pine Street
Manchester, NH 03108-5040
Pam Lane. Family Services Manager
(603) 668-8010
plane@snhs.org
ships with parents (Epstein & Sanders,
2006); (c) limited time and material
resources for engaging parents; and
(d) pressure from underresourced
national and state accountability measures. Finally, teachers' and administrators' attitudes about parent engagement are often shaped by the cultural
filter of White, middle-class values,
assumptions, and experiences and do
not align with those of some families
and the neighborhood (Henderson,
Johnson, Mapp, & Davies, 2006).
When these barriers cannot be
addressed satisfactorily, regression to
blaming and scapegoating is common,
and the likelihood of disengagement
increases significantly.
Families that are challenged by
poverty, single parenthood, language
and literacy barriers, and cultural differences are no longer likely to be dismissed outright by school personnel as
dysfunctional (Leistyna, 2002). However, unless schools make concerted
efforts, family engagement is more likely to occur with some families—those
from more educated, more economically stable backgrounds—than with others—those from less educated, working
class backgrounds (Sheldon, 2003).
The result of such circumstances is
predictable: parents who understand
the system act on a sense of entitlement and make requests for scarce
resources. In turn, teachers and administrators satisfy the active parents'
requests to diminish the potential for
confrontation, leaving the students of
less savvy and empowered parents
with fewer advantages.
Schools that answer the call to purposefully reenvision the role of parents
in creating better learning environments for children strive to empower
all parents—regardless of their educational or socioeconomic backgrounds—
to be active partners in their children's
school experience. Such schools productively channel the advocacy efforts
of typically active parents and effectively mitigate feelings of marginalization, inferiority, or uncertainty in parents who have traditionally felt less
empowered. In both cases, parents are
recognized as important members of
the school community, increasing the
Schools [can] productively channel the advocacy
efforts of typically active parents and effectively mitigate
feelings of marginalization, inferiority, or uncertainty in
parents who have traditionally felt less empowered.
likelihood of improvements in academic achievement and social competence
for all children.
Toward a Partnership
Model
Expanding the definition of "family
engagement" is the first step for
schools in creating more inclusive, productive places of learning for students
and adults. Engagement is predicated
on building trusting relationships with
family members; that is to say, relationships in which teachers and parents respect one another, believe In
each other's ability and willingness to
fulfill their responsibilities, have high
personal regard for one another, and
trust each other to put children's interests first (Bryk & Schneider, 2005;
Henderson et al., 2006). Relationship
building is enhanced when schools use
family centered practices that respect
the uniqueness and personal circumstances of all families (Keenan, 2004),
including those who have children
with disabilities (Muscott, 2002), and
provide opportunities for leadership
(Epstein, 2002).
Epstein (2002) provides an expansive framework through which educators must think deeply about how they
support and facilitate parenting, learning at home, communicating, volunteering, participating in decision making, and collaborating with community.
Schools on the path to meaningful
inclusion of families recognize parents
(and grandparents or guardians) as
being engaged in their children's educational experiences when they provide
for their child's basic physical and psychological needs, promote the child's
learning at home, volunteer in the
classroom, advocate on behalf of the
child with teachers and administrators,
participate on decision-making committees, become active in community
organizations that promote the work of
schools and the welfare of all children,
or some combination thereof (see box,
"Additional Resources"].
Many New Hampshire schools
involved in SWPBS, via the Positive
Behavioral Interventions and SupportsNH (PBIS-NH) initiative, have begun
using Epstein's [2002) framework to
shift how teachers and families think
about partnerships related to students'
academic and social-emotional growth
(see box, "What Does the Literature
Say about SWPBS?"). They do not
assume that families who have traditionally been considered disengaged
are making a conscious choice not to
get involved in their child's school
experience. Rather, schools are recognizing that a range of challenges may
prohibit well-intentioned families from
effective engagement. As a result, they
are embedding proactive and responsive systems and practices that address
a wide range of needs and challenges.
Responsiveness to Family
Engagement
Educators in PBIS-NH schools think
about parent engagement in terms of
Epstein's (2002) framework and a
multi-tiered approach that addresses
responsiveness to family engagement
through three tiers of support: universal, targeted, and intensive. Once
schools identify the range of behaviors
and actions that constitute engagement, the next logical step is determining what families need to know or
access to "engage." Thus, teachers and
administrators implicitly recognize
their responsibility to meet families at
their own level with regard to engaging
in their child's education experience.
Schools that perform a focused assessment of parents' needs understand
what strategies or supports will be necessary to (a) sharpen a wide range of
parents* basic skills, (b) establish consistent systems of two-way communi-
cation, (c) create a spectrum of volunteering opportunities, (d) teach families
how to support students' academic
progress by exposing them to new academic and behavior content and skills,
(e) expand the influence of families by
sharing power in decisions about
teaching and learning at their schools,
and (f) tap into the resources and
strengths avaiiable in the community.
Being responsive to all families
requires that educators understand the
range of readiness for engagement that
exists and be able to match strategies
to each family's place on the continuum. Although engagement needs for
most will be satisfied by universal
strategies, some families will need
more targeted forms of support. For
example, most families might only
need basic information regarding how
they might engage in their child's education effectively. For many of these
parents, information provided through
traditional communication systems
What Does the Literature
Soy About SWPBS?
SWPBS particularly emphasizes
the relationship between school
and home, making educators and
family members prominent
agents in transforming students'
educational experiences. Not surprisingly, SWPBS draws on a
robust research literature to validate its emphasis on homeschool partnerships. The literature suggests that such partnerships improve attendance, homework completion, and student
achievement (Christenson &
Sheridan 2001; Henderson. Johnson, Mapp, & Davies, 2006), particularly in urban areas (Nogera,
1999). and independent of family
background (Keith et al.. 1993).
Family engagement has also been
shown to decrease school violence (Boulter, 2004), improve
graduation rates, and increase
the likelihood that early adolescents will enroll in higher education (Deslandes & Bertrand.
2005).
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN '
JULY/AUG
2008 9
{e.g., newsletters, open houses,
resource lists, and parent conferences)
will suffice. However, for some families, a second tier of targeted supports
may be required to support effective
engagement in their child's education.
These families may need information
in their native language, provided by a
translator, or personal contact by a
school staff member with whom there
is mutual trust and respect, rather than
a mass e-mail or newsletter. Positive
relationships hold the key to success.
At the intensive tier, a small number
of families may be disengaged from
their child's school because of. for
example, their own failed school experiences, an ineffective relationship with
their child, persona] challenges, or previously compromised relationships.
Unpleasant relationships or experiences
promote escape and avoidance behaviors, which make school and family
engagement difficult. In these cases,
teachers and administrators must adopt
a highly individualized and respectful
10
COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
CC
Before getting involved with the PBIS program, I found
myself yelling, fighting and having no patience with my
two daughters, Natalie, age 4, and Nicole, age 2. As a
result of our involvement with the Black Bear TVacks
program, my husband and 1 now work better with the
girls. The girls now pick up their own toys, put their
own dirty clothes away and we can sit down at the
dinner table without them getting out of their chairs.
One big improvement is that I am not always yelling and
losing my patience and we have more bonding times
together.
—Dawn Johnson
Parent, Lakes Region Child Care Center
approach that requires, at its core, an
understanding of families' unique
needs, fluency with specialized interaction and relationship-building skills.
and knowledge and access to targeted
resources and supports. These families
may not feel they have the power or
capacity to effect change for their children and see disconnecting from the
school as the only viable option.
Schools that operate with an approach
that is expanded, proactive, and organized along a continuum of intensifying
parent support and engagement, however, are more likely to experience
mutually beneficial outcomes associated with family-school partnerships
(Keenan, 2004). For example, schools
involved in the Mental Health and
Schools Together: New Hampshire initiative (e.g., Peterborough Elementary
and Littleton High School; see
www.nhceb!s.seresc.net/family_
engagement_article2008) have linked
with local community mental health
centers and developed a facilitated
referral process to help families access
appropriate and culturally responsive
mental health supports in a timely
fashion.
improvement in mean math scores on
the New Hampshire state test. More
important, 16 (59%) made gains in
reading proficiency levels and 14
(52%) made gains in math pro0ciency
levels.
PBIS-NH and Family
Engagement
Since the inception of the PBIS-NH systems change initiative in the fall of
2002. SWPBS has heen systematically
introduced and comprehensively supported in 141 public and private
preschools and K-12 schools; the PBISNH initiative reaches more than 40,000
New Hampshire children, 98% of
whom attend public schools. To date.
By articulating concrete values, identifying evidence-based practices, establishing transparent linkages with area
organizations, and outlining the specific criteria and expectations for schoolbased teams, PBIS-NH lays the groundwork for families and educators to
develop relationships and cultivate
productive partnerships. These exceptional partnerships, in turn, serve to
holster the mission of PBIS-NH to sup-
PBIS-NH State-Level Practices
for Family Engagement
One type of activity involves helping parents become fluent
in using PBIS strategies to create a home climate that is conducive
to studying, completing projects, and doing homework.
PBIS initiatives are actively underway
in 17% of New Hampshire's public
schools, reaching 16% of public school
students in the state; and teachers,
administrators, and families in these
schools are experiencing a number of
important educational outcomes. For
example, program evaluations reveal
that PBIS-NH early childhood education (ECE) programs and schools experience decreases in problem behaviors
resulting in less office discipline referrals and suspensions and increases in
time for teaching, learning, and leadership activities, which result in improvements in academic achievement [Muscott et al., in press; Muscott et al.,
2004; New Hampshire Center for
Effective Behavioral Intervention and
Supports, 2008). In school year 2006 to
2007, ECE and K-12 schools in multiple cohorts had 1,088 [7.1%) fewer
office discipline referrals and 260
(16%) fewer suspensions than the previous school year. Of 27 elementary,
middle, and multilevel schools analyzed over a 2-year timeframe, 24
(89%) showed improvement in mean
reading scores and 11 (41%) showed
port the social-emotional well-being
and achievement of all New Hampshire's students. We hegan our efforts
by creating linkages with statewide
family and youth leadership organizations (e.g.. National Alliance on
Mental Illness-NH, Granite State Federation of Families, Parent Information
Center, Alliance for Community Supports, Main Street Academix) that
resulted in state-level policy, shared
trainings and presentations, and joint
grant proposals.
These state-level partnerships produced consensus on a definition of a
family-friendly school as a place where
all families (a) feel welcomed, valued,
and respected; (b) have opportunities
for their opinions to be heard and their
input known and acted upon; (c) have
varied and authentic opportunities to
be involved in activities of decisionmaking; and (d) feel satisfied with
these elements (New Hampshire
Family Engagement Work Group,
2004).
To operationalize these values, the
Family Engagement Work Group identified the features of a family-friendly
TEACHING
school as a place where families (a)
are informed of school activities in a
variety of ways, tb) have access to
information about how they can support their child's learning, (c) have
access to information about how they
can be involved in supporting learning
in school through volunteering and
assisting, and (d) know what resources
are available and how to access those
resources. As a second outcome, the
group articulated a skill set for family
members who serve on the universal
leadership team (see www.nhcebis.
seresc .net/ f amily_engagem ent_
article2008). The group also ratified the
policy of the New Hampshire Center
for Effective Behavioral Interventions
and Supports that all ECE programs
and schools be required to have at
least one family member on their universal leadership team. Finally, the
group agreed with the recommendation
that schools regularly assess responsiveness to family engagement using
the Family Engagement Checklist
(Mann & Muscott, 2004) and develop
an action plan to address any areas not
fully implemented.
PBIS-NH School-Level Family
Engagement Practices
Engaging families through parenting
and learning at home. Many New
Hampshire ECEs and K-12 schools
have developed engagement activities
related to parenting and learning at
home that are delivered at open houses
or in more formal workshops. One type
of activity involves helping parents
become fluent in using PBIS strategies
to create a home climate that is conducive to studying, completing projects, and doing homework. Another
typical activity involves helping families design a behavioral matrix based
on home routines that is consistent
with the expectations used in the
SWPBS system. For example, the
Southern New Hampshire Head Start in
Nashua was the first ECE in the PBISNH initiative to support parents with
basic parenting skills using an adapted
home matrix based on their Heads Up
program (Be Safe, Be Kind, and Take
Care of Our Things). Family workers
visited families to help them create
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
JULY/AUC
2008 11
positively stated, observable behaviors
for home routines such as bedtime,
mealtime, and peer play.
To enhance connections between
school and home, the Lakes Region
Child Care Services Center surveyed
parents to assess interest and barriers,
and partnered with another local
agency, UpStream, to offer a five-part
parenting series. Educators and family
members involved in creating and
delivering the "Parenting Series" considered the universal needs of the families by conducting surveys; providing
training, materials, practice, and feed-
CC
in school programs and understand
their children's progress—and schools
become more aware of parentaJ
strengths and concerns.
Schools such as Mastricola Lower
Elementary, Hillside Middle, and Dublin
Consolidated Elementary (see box,
"Additional Resources"), which we
spotlight in this article, recognize the
role that communication plays in creating partnerships with families. They
created a number of universal communication systems, such as monthly
newsletters with a write-in parent
advice section, initial SWPBS activities
My children love this school—the school has
been a phenomenal support for me and my
kids. I can communicate with the school staff
about anything. When you have the support you
need, you succeed.
—Parent of a student
at South Meadow Middle School, Peterborough
back in natural settings; including parents in decision making and leadership; and emphasizing positive behavioral expectations (Be Safe, Be Kind,
and Take Care). Results inciuded high
and consistent attendance, high graduation rates from the training series,
contintied participation after the training concluded, reports of improved
family functioning, and creation of a
community of leaders and learners.
One father, for example, noted that the
bedtime routine had become much
more peaceful since they implemented
the ideas: "We don't have to fight with
him at bedtime anymore, we just look
at the matrix and know what to do."
Engaging families through two-way
home-school communication. Historically, schools have used unilateral forms
of communication with families by disseminating pertinent information
through irregular administrative letters,
parent handbooks, newsletters, report
cards, or infrequent phone calls.
According to Epstein (2002), a defining
element of school-home partnerships
is establishing effective two-way communication systems. Through the
reciprocal exchange of information,
families are better equipped to engage
12
COUNCIL FOR ExcEPnoNAi. CHILDREN
to introduce the program to parents,
periodic open houses with aligned
activities, an interactive Web site, and a
parent liaison who solicits information
from families and brings questions and
suggestions to school meetings.
Mastricola's monthly school
newsletter features a SWPBS column to
inform and engage parents, listing the
upcoming "Behavior Skill ofthe Week"
and offering suggestions for fostering
common approaches in "The Big 3"
(safety, respect, and responsibility; see
www.nhcebis.seresc.net/document/
filename/369/Mastricola_ES_Nov_
newsletter_revised_highlighted.pdf).
Every 6 weeks, members of Hillside
Middle School's parent-teacher organization (PTO) edit and print their Beak
Speaks parent newsletter (see www.
nhcebis. seresc.net/document/
rilename/365/Beak_Speaks_pages_
combined.pdf). During tbe first year
of the SWPBS initiative, the newsletter
incltided articles about the adoption of
the program and an explanation of
what it would mean to students. Additional articles clarified the dress code,
cbanges to the tardiness policy, details
of the Hillside High-Five acknowledgment program, and data summaries.
The use of interactive rollout activities to introduce the SWPBS program to
students and families and open houses
to create ongoing, two-way dialogue
about the program are typical in PBISNH ECE centers and K-12 schools.
Dublin Consolidated School, a small,
rural elementary school, used a consistent schedule of open houses to achieve
two-way communication with families
and creatively sustain tbe momentum
for SWPBS implementation. During one
such open house. An Evening of ABCs,
families participated in four different
activities that highlighted the important
aspects of the program. According to
Principal May Clark:
Fifth graders wrote and performed skits showing families
bow students exhibit the ABCs in
three locations: arrival/dismissal,
lunch, and physical education
classes. A Jeopardy! game that
had been used in a school activity with students was used to
inform and assess families'
knowledge of the ABCs. The
ABC song was performed by second graders and taugbt to families. Finally, students shared
their responses to a writing
prompt related lo respect in four
small groups so families had the
opportunity to hear the work
done by students of all ages. The
open house was attended by
more than 90 family members.
Viewed through Epstein's (2002)
framework, this form of engagement
provided an opportunity for two-way
communication witbin the context of a
fun, interactive hour of activities.
Events were made relevant by (a)
using discipline data to identify the
specific routines needing additional
behavior support (i.e., arrival/dismissal, lunch, and physical education
classes); (b) maximizing opportunities
for students to design and perform at
open houses; (c) emphasizing activities
that actively invoived parents and students; and (dj showcasing student
products (e,g,, written essays, posters)
that highlighted the integration of academics witb bebavior support and contributed to a positive school climate.
Periodic and brief surveys are also a
good way to gauge whether families
feel connected to the school and
understand their child's experiences.
Some families do not respond to paper
surveys; schools might employ a second-tier attempt through a telephone
poll. Volunteers with clipboards can
also administer surveys at school
events. Mastricola Elementary, for
example, developed and distributed a
survey to assess parent awareness of
their "The Big 3" program, The leadership team used findings from the survey to develop articles for their
newsletters. (See www.nhcebis.seresc.
net/document/filename/366/Mastricol
a_ES_PBIS_Survey_05.pdf for surveys
from Mastricola Elementary School.)
Family members who do not speak
English, have limited reading skills,
and/or lack educational resources at
home may need additional supports
and different communication mechanisms. Without adequate and accurate
translators and translations, some children may misunderstand and/or miscommunicate school messages. Investments in computer-based translation
systems, third-party liaisons, translated
materials, automated phone messages,
and so forth are worthwhile to bridge
the language divide between educators
and non-English-speaking families.
Engaging families through volunteering and shared decision making. Traditionally, parental involvement in
schools has been unsystematic, voluntary, and limited (e.g., chaperoning
field trips, participating in fundraisers,
tutoring), and perceived by some educators as time-consuming and obligatory rather than helpful. Educators in
PBIS-NH schools have moved family
engagement toward Epstein's [2002)
vision in which recruitment is systematic, opportunities for volunteering are
available to al! families, and family
engagement is influential to student
success.
When schools view parents as partners and engage them in decision-making processes that are mutually respectful, they realize higher levels of student
achievement and greater public support. PBIS-NH schools are required to
have at least one family member on
the universal leadership team to attend
trainings, participate in team meetings,
bring the family perspective to decision
making, support rollout activities, serve
as a liaison to family organizations,
and encourage other famiiy members
to become active.
For example, Mastricola and East
Derry Memorial actively recruit family
members to serve as equal partners on
SWPBS teams that make decisions
affecting teachers, administrators, students, and families. At Mastricola,
Maureen TYacy, the parent member, has
use and reinforce the [program]
at school, at home and in the
community. Parents have found
that the tenets . . . are helpful in
enhancing parenting skills and
creating a positive environment
at home. Our goal over the next
2 years is to improve two-way
communication and involve
more families and the community in evaluating and measuring
the success of the program, it
will be wonderful to see that
Periodic and brief surveys are also a good way to
gauge whether families feel connected to the school
and understand their child's experiences.
done more than serve as a liaison for
the team, PTO, and parent volunteer
program. She has set up information
tables during parent conferences, coordinated a SWPBS section in the annual
Merrimack Christmas parade in conjunction with the student council, and
developed a SWPBS Parent Hotline to
provide answers and information for
families. Similarly, Leah Manchester,
parent member on East Derry Memorial's universal leadership team, takes
her role seriously.
I was the outsider, the noneducator in the group, but 1 wanted to
truly be part of the team. So, I
try to attend all meetings and
special events, and I offer to help
in any way I can.
For the most part, my role as
parent representative has been
primarily as an information conduit, helping parents understand
what SWPBS is and how [it]
works. . . . At each PTA meeting. Vice Principal Lidia
Desrochers and I provide an
update of what behaviors the
students are working on, their
accomplishments, our celebrations and what to expect next.
Our monthly PTA newsletter
reaches a larger audience.
I am glad to part of the
SWPBS team. We have made
progress in helping families
understand what we are trying to
accomplish and how they can
opportunity expanded so that
other parents and community
members can participate. We
believe that providing a wide
range of family engagement practices will continue to be important as the [program] becomes
even more a part of our culture
in the next few years.
Although volunteers should not be
involved in disciplining students, they
can certainly receive training to participate in other aspects of the program,
including teaching expectations and
providing acknowledgment when students exhibit desired behaviors. However, family members, like staff, also
should receive training on confidentiality, appropriate social interactions, handling conflicts, seeking assistance/
advice, and so on. Mastricola
Elementary's behavioral matrix supports the expectations that school volunteers exhibit safe, respectful, and
responsible behaviors while in the
school, further strengthening school
climate and the idea that family members are role models for children even
at school. The matrix is a part of the
Volunteer Handbook and used during
training (see www.nhcebis.seresc.net/
family _engagement_article2008).
Looking Ahead
Educators in PBIS-NH schools are
working diligently to create safe, successful, and satisfying teaching and
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
JULY/AUG 2008
13
learning climates that support students"
social competence and academic
achievement. They purposefully work
on establishing trusting relationships
with families that form tbe basis for a
wide range of engagement practices. No
matter bow well intentioned the effort,
there are clear barriers to engagement
between schools and families, Whether
schools choose to acknowledge their
role in mitigating the barriers will, no
doubt, make a difference in the quality
of a child's educational experience.
Fortunately, empirical evidence suggests that educators and parents can
overcome barriers that obstruct wellintentioned families from engaging in
their children's educational experiences
when schools choose to endorse and
implement responsive, multi-tiered
interventions and supports tbat address
the wide range of engagement needs.
Tbe family engagement strategies
we describe give testament to the
emerging power of reform efforts in
New Hampshire using SWPBS to support adults, evidence-based practices to
support students, and data-based decision making to assess effectiveness.
The true test will be whether the effective family engagement practices being
used in many PBiS-NH ECE programs
and K-12 schools can be sustained
with fidelity and ultimately expanded
across the state. It is likely that increasing the engagement of families as
authentic partners witbin tbe culture of
SWPBS wili significantly improve the
probability that students experience
increased social competence and academic achievement in school and ultimately enjoy a higher quality of life.
References
Boulter. L. (2004). Family-school connection and school violence prevention. The
Negro Educational Review. 55(1), 27-40.
Bradshaw, C. (2006, July). Project Target: An
evaluation of PBIS in Maryland. Presentation at meeting of OSEP Project Directors. Baltimore. MD.
Brendtro. L. K.. Brokenleg, M.. & Van
Bockern. S. (1990). Reelaiming youth at
risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Bryk. A., & Schneider, B. (2005). Thist in
sehoob: A core resource for improvement.
New york: Russell Sage Foundation.
Christenson. S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001).
Schools and families: Creating essential
14
COUNCIL FOR ExcErTiONAL CHILDREN
connections for learning. New york:
Guilford Press.
Deslandes, R.. & Bertrand. R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. The Joumal of
Educational Research. 98. 164-175.
Epstein. J. L. (2002). School, family and
community partnerships: Your handbook
for action. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin
Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders. M. G. (2006).
Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community
partnerships. Peabody Joumal of Education, 81(2). 81-120.
Henderson, A., Johnson, V., Mapp, K., &
Davies, D. (2006). Beyond the bake sale:
The essential guide to family/school partnerships. New york: The New Press,
Horner, R, H,, Sugai, G,, Eber, L , Phillips,
D,, & Lewandowski, C, A, (2003). Illinois
positive behavioral interventions and sapports project: 2002-2003 progress report.
Chicago: rSBE EBD/PBIS Network.
Keenan, S. (2004), Family and professional
partnerships within a system of care:
Exploring the role of families in preservice and in-service development and training. Washington, DC: American Institutes
for Research. Technical Assistance Parlnership for Chiid and Family Mental
Health,
Keith, T, Z., Keith, P. B., TYoutman, G, C.
Bickley, P, G., TVivette, P, S., & Singh, K.
(1993), Does parental involvement affect
eighth-grade students' achievement?
Structural analysis of national data.
School Psychology Review. 22, 474-496.
Leistyna, L, (2002), Extending Ihe possibilities of multicultural communily partnerships in urban public schools. The Urban
Review, 34[l), 1-23,
Mann, E,, & Muscott, H, S, (2004), The family engagement checklist Bedford, NH:
New Hampshire Center for Effective
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Muscott. H, S. (2002), Exceptional partnerships: Listening to the voices of families.
Preventing School Failure. 46. 66-69.
Muscott, H. S,, Mann, E., Benjamin, T. B.,
Gately, S., Bell, K., & Muscott. A, J.
(2004). Positive behavioral interventions
and supports in New Hampshire: Prehminary results of a statewide system for
implementing schooiwide discipline practices. Education and lYeatment of Children, 27, 453-475,
Muscott, H. S,. Mann, E,. & LeBrun, M. (in
press). Positive behavioral interventions
and supports in New Hampshire: Effects
of large-scale implementation of schoolwide positive bebavior support on student discipline and academic achievement, .Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions.
National Association of State Mental Health
Program Directors, and the National
Association of State Directors of Special
Education. (2002), Mental health, schools
and families working together for all children and youth: A shared agenda. Alexandria, VA: Author,
New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Intervention and Supports, (2008),
PBtS-NH: 2006-2007 report to the NH
DOE. Bedford, NH: Author.
New Hampshire Family Engagement Work
Group, (2004), Family-friendly schools.
Bedford, NH: New Hampshire Center for
Effective Behavioral Interventions and
Supports.
Nogera, P. (1999), TVansfonning urban
schools thraugb investments in the social
capital of parents. Motion Magazine.
Retrieved April 14, 2008, from www.
inmotiotimagazine,com/pncapl.html
Public Agenda (1999), Playing their parts:
What parents and teachers really mean
by parental involvement. Retrieved April
12, 2008. from www.publicagenda.org/
speciats/parent/parenl,blm
Sheldon, S, (2003). Linking school-familycommunity partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement
on stale tests. The Urban Review, 25(2),
149-165,
Sugai. G., & Homer, R, H. (1999), Discipline
and behavioral support: Preferred
processes and practices. Effective School
Practices, 17, 10-22,
Sugai, G., & Horner, R, H. (2006). A protnising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology' Review. 35,
245-259.
U.S. Depariment of Education. (2000),
TWenty-second annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals
With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC:
Author.
Howard S. Muscotl (CEC NH Federation),
Director; Stacy Szczesiul (CEC MA Federation), Evaluation Coordinator: and Becky
Berk, Associate Director. New Hampshire
Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions
and Supports, Bedford. Kathy Staub, Hiltside Middle School Parent-Teacher Organization, Manchester. New Hampshire. Jane
Hoover and Paula Perry-Chisholm, PBIS
Coaches. Mastricola Elementary School,
Merrimack, New Hampshire.
Address correspondence to Howard Muscott,
New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 29 Commerce Drive. Bedford. NH 03110 (e-mail:
hmuscott@seresc.net).
TEACHING Exceptional Children. Vol. 40.
No. 6. pp. 6-14.
Copynght 2008 CEC.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment