Taking Action on Next Steps

skill is essential for the student growth. Researchers Jian-Bin Li, Shan-Shan Bi, Yayouk E. Willems, and Catrin Finkenauer (2021) state, “Self-control aids children and adolescents to navigate the challenges during the developmental process to achieve optimal outcomes” (p. 101). As schools work to fully integrate the key aspects of MTSS, it is critical that time be devoted to these other essential skills that often are not as easily measured as academic attributes.

The Change-Over-Time Gap

The change-over-time gap is a positive indicator and is the difference between the necessary performance data and where you are today in terms of student proficiency. This suggests that a student’s current proficiency levels are measured against an initial baseline assessment to see if instruction has had a positive or negative impact over time. For example, schools may decide to assess each student’s current reading level and compare that to their expected reading level based on their grade. Following an examination of that evidence, an intervention plan could be established for those students who are not at level, with periodic checks to see how they are progressing. This also provides some insight as to whether an intervention is having an impact and is worth continuing.

Taking Action on Next Steps

Moving from goals (identification of need) to next steps requires action. Based on analyses, what information has emerged? What are your top three next steps? Your areas of greatest need? Consolidating the work of these first two sections of the MTSS road map may seem overwhelming, and schools often get stuck here. The temptation to do it all at once is strong, particularly when faced with external pressures that demand change in a short period of time. Remember the Pareto principle and the notion that focusing intensely on a small number of items (20 percent) will address a large portion (80 percent) of the challenges (DeFeo, 2017). How then do you figure out which goals are most important?

Zone analysis helps schools move from need identification to action (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012). The strategy involves disaggregating data sources to isolate where improvement is needed and matching the strategies that will best address these gaps: “Without this kind of analysis, all student performance remains lumped into an average, which tells us little about individual student performance and provides almost no guidance on what to do about it” (Conzemius & MorgantiFisher, 2012, p. 52). A school might use the data sources in table 3.1 to identity areas of greatest need.

TABLE 3.1: DATA SOURCES AND POSSIBLE REVELATIONS

Data Source

Academic results from classrooms

Academic results from external assessments (such as district assessments or benchmarks)

Behavior referral data from the office (distinguishing between minor and major offenses)

Diagnostics, such as Scales of Independent Behavior–Revised (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996)

Screeners, such as the Philadelphia Urban ACE Survey (Public Health Management Corporation, 2013), SRSS-IE (Ci3T, 2020; Drummond, 1994), and SIBSS (Cook et al., 2011)

Teacher and MTSS team feedback

Student surveys

Possible Revelation

Students identified as proficient, beyond proficient, or not yet proficient Strategies that worked or didn’t work as far as content delivery Assessment items that may be ineffective or misaligned

Students identified as proficient, beyond proficient, or not yet proficient Whole program evidence as to effective identification of priority learning

Effectiveness of behavior instruction and expectations Areas of need based on what caused the infractions Time of day and day of week

Accuracy of information and effectiveness of intervention

Effectiveness of interventions Support structures

Effectiveness of implemented modifications Planning of next steps

Outcomes achieved Gathered follow-up evidence

Figure 3.1 (page 58) is an example of how teachers might group their evidence. In this example, the students are sorted based on their achievement of ten learning targets. The team decided that students who met zero to six targets measured as struggling, those who met seven to eight targets measured as progressing, and those who met nine to ten targets were proficient. The team went further to identify students for whom attendance was a concern (in bold) as that may lead to a separate discussion on strategies to address that gap (in addition to strategies to address the academic deficits).