Question: Reflect and discuss your ideas about how to best focus our work in the future and how to address gaps in resources, tools, and professional development.

Total of 39 Responses(in this list some responses are repeated if they address more than one category)

Total PLC Responses: 4 (some had already responded at CW and others worked as center teams to answer)

Total of 18 MO SW-PBS Responses (in this list some responses are repeated if they address more than one category)

How/WhenCan This Be Used?

  • More on technology with opportunities to practice and fewer resources. Real world applications by those who have used the technology.
  • Model curriculum?
  • Closing the knowing/doing gap How does this work?
  • When does content come into the model, since it is a large piece of assessment?
  • A timeline is essential to include planning/ development / training / implementation.
  • Will the Area Supervisors be involved? Area Supervisors should be strongly suggesting MTSS to the schools.
  • If the one system of PD for all is the answer—I would think all schools should spend their 1% PD funds through this PD system of support
  • I fear much work has/is going into something that could benefit school districts, especially at-risk schools…BUT what is the impetus for a school to put aside their own efforts to raise student achievement to invest in something that isn’t promoted, advertised, emphasized, or incentivized? I am personally and professionally aligned with the intent and structure. I just have reservations that a district will see the intended big picture and then invest the internal resources and long-term commitment needed for this scope of work. The essential component of coaching is inherently missing…for those that invest, how many the access help should they get stuck?
  • What’s the timeline for the different steps in the change?
  • When will integrated supports (training and TA) be expected?

Training/Consistent Message/Alignment

  • Training
  • Adequate training for understanding
  • Clear and consistent messages
  • Crosswalk document of all systemic-type initiatives...? We need to first understand the commonalities (explicitly) within our own centers.
  • Opportunities to define success
  • Common language
  • Comprehensive PD training for consultants
  • Gaps and focus: 1) More in-depth PD on instructional strategies for Tier 1/general ed beyond Hattie's practices and more specific to the needs of different students, e.g. how to provide direct instruction in strategy groups for a specific misconception or error, how to structure cooperative learning to stretch or enrich a group of proficient students (much of CW PD is at a surface level and not specific enough to really address students' needs; 2) More in-depth PD on research- based Tier 2 and 3 instructional strategies - many schools do not know effective strategies for Tier 2 and 3 and either use commercial programs with limited results or use some activities or more of the same from general ed
  • Our priorities: State Level: a consistent message-- Regional: that regional consultants have adequate PD training-- Local: buy-in from the school districts
  • A timeline is essential to include planning/ development / training / implementation.
  • Annual goals aligned to overall MTSS implementation plan...align shared learning, networking, learning to those specific goals along a continuum. Paced well...go slow to go effective.
  • We need to have a state-wide developed plan for transitioning our silo initiates into one comprehensive MTSS initiative before we start rolling it out to schools. (Marisa)
  • Consider offering a flipped classroom model with the online modules
  • On the handout with two triangles—the bottom two questions in the blue box are confusing. They list the percentage of change in student scoring but do not state if this is an increase or decrease in change (x2)
  • What are the overlapping or contradicting practices?
  • The RPDCs need continued communication regarding the changes.
  • Better understanding of each program to assure vocabulary and content connections.
  • How will we get an understanding of the specific vision of what MTSS will look like at each center?
  • Someone must take the outcomes for each initiative and do a Scope & Sequence to meld those together. Then RPDC staff can look at the aligned Scope & Sequence and allow them to teach the areas they have expertise.
  • So…are we changing our “delivery model” so that we are going to be more modular in deployment? Rather than 3 years of a Tier 1 package…we deploy a feedback package? If so, how do we systematize?
  • Who will be responsible for the ongoing professional learning and support of the consultants who specialize in the different areas of MTSS? Is the goal to have all consultants wearing multiple “hats”? I’m very concerned about consultants who have knowledge an inch deep and mile wide. Specialization is very critical to provide that deep level of support for schools and districts.
  • Work directly and effectively with State Supervisor – making them aware of the center’s resources and expertise.
  • Ultimately, we are all about improving outcomes for Missouri students. What does this look like in schools? What does this do for kids? That is what the SSOS and alignment is supporting. Providing a framework to insure high quality curriculum and instruction for all students, and additional supports as needed to keep kids from slipping through the cracks. That is what MTSS is. The SSOS is the system to help ensure that this happens. Thank you for addressing this, today! Talking about the 6 elements or the SSOS without talking about the vision for kids and schools is fragmented and forces consultants to infer how everything fits together into a multi-tiered system of support. DESE needs to communicate how framework content will be presented to schools/districts, how they will be tiered, and when this will be directed to RPDCs.
  • Once they know the scope and sequence of training content and TA expectations, RPDCs can begin planning.
  • Will all personnel go to Shared Learning every month since no more programs will be present? If so, when does this happen?
  • Should consultants/RPDCs continue to recruit schools for participation?
  • Ensure hiring of qualified staff with expertise in all areas of MTSS. Not experts in all, but at least one per RPDC for each area.
  • I think the RPDC will need to train the schools on the proper use of the website. (I’m afraid they will pick and choose and only know enough to be dangerous!)
  • Will there be an “elevator speech” that describes the difference between the MO SW-PBS site and the MTSS site? Or a document that shares “what is located where?”
  • FYI: I came over to MO from Kansas so have broad experience with MTSS. I am excited to see MO moving towards integration of all initiatives into one system.

Inclusion of All Initiatives

  • ALL initiatives should be included
  • Deepen understanding and share powerful practices of ALL initiatives
  • Strategies that cross all initiatives and increase everyone's learning.
  • The consultants in the centers will have to understand the other programs; their purpose, their content, and their intended outcomes.
  • Create teams across initiatives and meet with districts together as a team.
  • We all need to have a clear understanding of each other’s components.
  • Get out of “silos” of grant program’s while playing nicely together within center for the “need” of the district/building
  • Maintain strong “programs” during transition. At some point, we need to be less territorial, and share ideas of how best to integrate across social/behavioral and academic needs. When is a problem behavioral or strictly academic, and when does it call for an integrated approach?
  • Integrate teams; breakdown silos within RPDC’s, while still maintaining specialization. Share, have a shared vision of what matters – tiered systems of support do for students and what this framework looks like in schools. Tier schools based on support needs.
  • We must understand where we fit with other initiatives.
  • Be able to work/plan/present collaboratively between “initiatives”.
  • Give needs assessments to districts. Create leadership teams driven by common purpose – Begin with either academic or behavior #3-8. And then use that system to behind work in other area (behavior/academic). Tier 1 can use both behavior and academic (PBS-PLC-CW) consultants to train T1).
  • 1 person who’s an expert in all; assign to a district to facilitate everything? Or 1 person assigned to facilitate for a district? Or Messy free for all?
  • Play nice with others.
  • So…are we changing our “delivery model” so that we are going to be more modular in deployment? Rather than 3 years of a Tier 1 package…we deploy a feedback package? If so, how do we systematize?
  • Relinquish the throne – we are all created equal – not worry about who gets credit – Allow everyone to play in the sandbox.
  • Start with DBDM – everyone needs to know the process – Help schools identify and own their weaknesses. All schools will need individualized plans – They take ownership of the problem and the solution. I believe this is the correct process.
  • How do we ensure a school is implementing all Essential Components of Universal Academic or Behavioral Support to move to Tier 2/3?
  • I think experts from all areas need to be at the table to make sure “all voices are heard.” We also need to come to consensus in all areas of the process.
  • Eventually, what will happen to initiative websites? I don’t believe we are thinking to reduce consultants, but what really is our role? Will be a “jack of all trades” or “experts in an area?”

Consultant Input/Collaboration

  • Clearinghouse for resources from consultants! Shared!
  • LISTEN to the regions. They're all saying the same things: Needs assessments; Having a solid plan in place before rollout; Consultants deeply involved in development
  • Develop a process for the consultants (the ones working in the schools) to help develop the MTSS. That work could be happening during these meetings.
  • Inclusion of regional consultants (with strong systemic background) on work team to plan, communicate, share reflections, have voice.
  • Where are active practitioners voice in this?
  • Have people on the developing team who are doing the work.
  • Collaborative conversation and intentional teaming
  • We need to work as regions to ensure that we understand our role in this new framework
  • It will be critical that we all know the results of the comprehensive district assessment and be able to speak to their needs and how we can best utilize this as an RPDC.
  • What is the accountability?
  • What accountability will there be for fidelity particularly for those accessing online materials?
  • School needs to show artifacts or evidence that pieces are in place – not just asked if they are in place.
  • What data will the state collect to determine if the MTSS model is working?
  • What data could we pull that would turn on the light bulb on to the MTSS process? (This is why we need the needs assessment?
  • Drop Out Rates?
  • Graduation Rates?
  • ODR’s?
  • Absences?
  • Are we addressing a school’s readiness in regards to CW, PLC, SW-PBS, etc.? Some schools are not ready for or believe in SW-PBS. How are we addressing this? Or can we?
  • Get out of “silos” of grant program’s while playing nicely together within center for the “need” of the district/building
  • Integrate teams; breakdown silos within RPDC’s, while still maintaining specialization. Share, have a shared vision of what matters – tiered systems of support do for students and what this framework looks like in schools. Tier schools based on support needs.
  • Supporting buildings not grants/programs while letting go of program ownership
  • How can we be “experts” in assistance if we can’t travel out of state to get expert training?
  • SW-PBS already teaches the systems needed for MTSS-rather academically or behaviorally:
  • Systematic identification students in need
  • Gathering info on individual student to determine specific need
  • Have available small group interventions to meet common needs so students may be placed quickly
  • Data to determine student reaction to intervention
  • Data rules for continuing, intensifying, fading, and graduating
  • How can we “sweeten” the deal for districts to use our MTSS which is research based? Our PBS schools are enthusiastic; however, other schools see it as “more work” and they don’t “need” it.
  • 1 person who’s an expert in all; assign to a district to facilitate everything? Or 1 person assigned to facilitate for a district? Or Messy free for all?
  • Play nice with others.
  • Relinquish the throne – we are all created equal – not worry about who gets credit – Allow everyone to play in the sandbox.
  • So…are we changing our “delivery model” so that we are going to be more modular in deployment? Rather than 3 years of a Tier 1 package…we deploy a feedback package? If so, how do we systematize?
  • I fear much work has/is going into something that could benefit school districts, especially at-risk schools…BUT what is the impetus for a school to put aside their own efforts to raise student achievement to invest in something that isn’t promoted, advertised, emphasized, or incentivized? I am personally and professionally aligned with the intent and structure. I just have reservations that a district will see the intended big picture and then invest the internal resources and long-term commitment needed for this scope of work. The essential component of coaching is inherently missing…for those that invest, how many the access help should they get stuck?
  • Who will be responsible for the ongoing professional learning and support of the consultants who specialize in the different areas of MTSS? Is the goal to have all consultants wearing multiple “hats”? I’m very concerned about consultants who have knowledge an inch deep and mile wide. Specialization is very critical to provide that deep level of support for schools and districts.
  • Work directly and effectively with State Supervisor – making them aware of the center’s resources and expertise.
  • Maintain strong “programs” during transition. At some point, we need to be less territorial, and share ideas of how best to integrate across social/behavioral and academic needs. When is a problem behavioral or strictly academic, and when does it call for an integrated approach?
  • Ultimately, we are all about improving outcomes for Missouri students. What does this look like in schools? What does this do for kids? That is what the SSOS and alignment is supporting. Providing a framework to insure high quality curriculum and instruction for all students, and additional supports as needed to keep kids from slipping through the cracks. That is what MTSS is. The SSOS is the system to help ensure that this happens. Thank you for addressing this, today! Talking about the 6 elements or the SSOS without talking about the vision for kids and schools is fragmented and forces consultants to infer how everything fits together into a multi-tiered system of support. DESE needs to communicate how framework content will be presented to schools/districts, how they will be tiered, and when this will be directed to RPDCs.
  • Right now we have a 30,000 foot view of how this looks at DESE. We need a vision of what it will look like at the school/student level. Once that is articulated, people can buy in. Right now not knowing in practical terms what MTSS means in terms of the work to be done, it’s hard to know what needs to be done.
  • How do we ensure a school is implementing all Essential Components of Universal Academic or Behavioral Support to move to Tier 2/3?
  • Creating a system is not enough. How will DESE market, educate, reinforce and monitor the model across the state?
  • I think experts from all areas need to be at the table to make sure “all voices are heard.” We also need to come to consensus in all areas of the process.
  • Eventually, what will happen to initiative websites? I don’t believe we are thinking to reduce consultants, but what really is our role? Will be a “jack of all trades” or “experts in an area?”

Helping Schools/Teachers Utilize Supports

  • Communication with non-CW schools on availability of resources about MTSS from RPDC
  • Helping schools achieve results
  • We have learned there is a common gap in schools (no matter the system they are trying to build) in curriculum. Standards are one thing...they go to the textbook as safety net and this prevents good problem solving. Textbooks create gaps in standard proficiency. If only we could prove a good working resource (understanding standards) that we could ensure was in the hands of all MO teachers. If teachers do not truly know #1) what do our students need to know...the rest of the system will not function in an efficient manner.
  • Gaps needing to be addressed: 1. teacher content knowledge - 2. inequity of highly qualified teachers in the state - 3. A challenge is that MO is a local controlled state and ultimately, schools can choose to continue not to address gaps until student achievement is at a significant deficit. (Marisa)
  • We need more recognition for schools that acknowledges their progress of implementation. Our schools are asking for that!
  • It is a big hurdle when schools have the option to utilize the supports or not.
  • Make sure schools have ability to sustain work
  • Our priorities: State Level: a consistent message-- Regional: that regional consultants have adequate PD training-- Local: buy-in from the school districts
  • Gap - for districts/schools - how to reduce the number of initiatives (ones that are really not effective) and align/blend the ones that are effective (and how to integrate PLC, CW and PBS practices with their existing initiatives) - agree that we need documents that show the alignment and cross-walks but it is a bigger problem than can be addressed with documents
  • Needs assessment of our schools
  • Possibly considering a triangulated approach with needs assessment...using multiple sources to ensure deep understanding of "where we are"...
  • Encouraging School-based Coaching
  • How will you ensure that district personnel are not only giving support publicly but they are actually involved in the MTSS process?
  • What is the accountability?
  • Have teachers/admin in our state been able to give feedback and ideas on this process? (i.e. give feedback on website and what is practical for their lives) That being said, we thank you for asking for our input.
  • More holistic approach to serving buildings
  • We need to be able to have the ability to meet the needs of our grant buildings without worrying about “FTE” work logs, etc.
  • School needs to show artifacts or evidence that pieces are in place – not just asked if they are in place.
  • What accountability will there be for fidelity particularly for those accessing online materials?
  • What data will the state collect to determine if the MTSS model is working?
  • What data could we pull that would turn on the light bulb on to the MTSS process? (This is why we need the needs assessment?
  • Drop Out Rates?
  • Graduation Rates?
  • ODR’s?
  • Absences?
  • How can we “sweeten” the deal for districts to use our MTSS which is research based? Our PBS schools are enthusiastic; however, other schools see it as “more work” and they don’t “need” it.
  • Fidelity of Implementation (within SW-PBIS) shows an “importance of state level systems of support for sustaining of state level systems of support for sustaining SW-PBIS at the school level” (McIntosh, K.; Mercer, S.; Nese, R.; Strickland-Cohen, M.K.; Hoselton, R.; 2016). The idea being that the state is going to need to drive the districts. How do we incentivize districts to adopt/do early?
  • Early Intervention to move the district

Typically this is where DESE gets more control…Why wait to fail?