Abstract
This “View From the Field” column is the first in a series discussing aspects of implementation science important for scaling up and sustaining evidence-based practices in schools and districts. Recent research suggests there are important approaches to instruction, behavior support, and mental health that have been empirically documented but are not being implemented widely across local schools and school districts (Ginns et al., 2020; Mazzotti & Plotner, 2016; Powell et al., 2020).
The consistent message coming from researchers and practitioners is that we know a great deal about how to make schools more successful learning environments but are struggling with how to apply that knowledge in schools. Implementation science is an emerging discipline dedicated to “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” (Eccles & Mittman, 2006, p. 1).
We draw largely upon the work of technical assistance providers and researchers from the National Technical Assistance Center on the State Implementation and Scale-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP; https://sisep.fpg.unc.edu) and the National Implementation Research Network (https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu). The key message of this series is to describe how implementation of evidence-based practices in schools are enhanced when district- and school-based leadership teams (also referred to as implementation teams, commonly comprising administrators, general and special education teachers, school psychologists or counselors, parents, and community members) invest in the systems to support their implementation. In this series, we describe how the implementation of organizational systems (or “frameworks”) within the Active Implementation Frameworks (Fixsen et al., 2005; Metz & Bartley, 2012) support school and district leadership teams to (a) identify and select valued and contextually fit evidence-based practices, (b) utilize district and school teams to assist in implementing these practices, (c) understand how implementation (processes and actions) is unique across different implementation stages (e.g., initial implementation vs. full implementation), (d) identify effective strategies (e.g., training, coaching) to implement these practices to full capacity, and (e) use data to assess and continually improve their implementation. We start this series by offering insights for how district- and school-based leadership teams select evidence-based practices for implementation.
Selecting Evidence-Based Practices
As highlighted by Rowe (2019), educators today have many opportunities to select and implement evidence-based practices. For example, national technical assistance centers, such as the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (https://pbis.org), the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (https://transitionta.org), and the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (https://ectacenter.org) have devoted significant portions of their websites to identify and evaluate evidence-based practices to improve schools and classrooms. Because of these widely disseminated resources, the opportunity for state, district, and school leadership teams to identify and select evidence-based practices has never been higher.
An example of one group of evidence-based practices implemented by general and special teachers include those for classroom management. Evidence-based classroom management practices include a wide range of strategies designed to maximize student engagement and academic achievement by providing structured, predictable, and safe classroom learning environments (Simonsen et al., 2008). Examples of high-impact classroom management practices include (a) providing frequent opportunities for students to respond to instruction, (b) physically arranging the classroom environment to maximize student learning, (c) providing behavior-specific praise to students contingent on them engaging in a desired response, and (d) posting, teaching, and reinforcing students for engaging in positive classroom behaviors (e.g., raising hand before talking; Simonsen et al., 2008).
Overall, these practices have a strong evidence base for improving student outcomes (e.g., increasing attentive behavior, increasing academic engagement, increasing peer interactions, decreasing off-task and disruptive behaviors; Simonsen et al., 2008). These practices are designed to provide all students with a preventative (or primary) level of behavior support, and should be routinely implemented by educators in schools to support positive outcomes for students (Horner & Sugai, 2015). The question is, how do district and school leadership teams ensure practices such as these are implemented consistently across classrooms?
Select Practices That Align With Core Values
Before selecting evidence-based practices, Fixsen and colleagues (2013) described the need for leadership teams to cultivate a “readiness for change.” This includes building consensus among school personnel that there is a need for change. Fixsen et al. (2013) noted that the need for change must be important enough to (a) warrant the resources required to scale- up an evidence-based practice (i.e., expanding the delivery and reach of the practice across an intended population; Hagermoser Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019) and (b) be “validated with data or broad consensus” (p. 3).
Horner (2020) expanded on this by articulating that the selection of evidence-based practices in schools should align with the mission and values of a school district through effective policy. An example of this policy foundation is when school districts invest in implementing multitiered systems of support. Implementing multitiered systems of support includes the adoption of multiple levels of support intensity matched to student need (Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3) using evidence-based practices and organizational systems at each tier (intensity of support increases with higher tiers) designed to improve student academic and social-behavioral outcomes (Horner & Sugai, 2015).
During the early stages of implementation, a key responsibility of district leadership teams is to ensure that the implementation of these evidence-based practices align with the mission statement and strategic plan of the district through district policy (Horner, 2020). For example, if a core value of a district is to “foster engaging learning environments” for all students, the district leadership team should articulate why investing in strong Tier 1 evidence-based classroom management practices accomplishes this objective.
Select Practices That Fit the Local Context
A second important factor to consider before selecting evidence-based practices is determining their degree of contextual fit (Benazzi et al., 2006). Contextual fit asks if those who are expected to use new practices have the administrative support, intervention skills, logistical resources, and personal values necessary to implement evidence-based practices with adequate implementation fidelity (Benazzi et al., 2006). As school districts vary in their resources, skills, and values, the contextual fit will vary across districts. For example, some districts will have more funding allocated for professional development, others will have organizational systems in place to improve implementation efficiency (e.g., using data to monitor and improve implementation), and some will have hiring policies designed to hire educators with advanced skill sets in implementing these practices (Horner, 2020).
In line with the need for cultivating a readiness for change (Fixsen et al., 2013), district and school leadership teams should evaluate contextual fit before implementing these evidence-based practices. One tool particularly suited to support district and school leadership teams examining how evidence-based practices fit into existing school infrastructures is the Hexagon Tool (Metz & Louison, 2018), available on the SISEP website (https://sisep.fpg.unc.edu). The Hexagon Tool includes six indicators. These six indicators include three related to implementation sites (capacity to implement, fit with current initiatives, and need) and three related to evidence-based practices (existing evidence for the practice, usability, and supports [e.g., training, coaching, and supervision]).
Leadership teams can use these indicators to determine (a) whether to invest in the implementation of an evidence-based practice and (b) what site components may need to be improved (e.g., alignment with other evidence-based practices). For example, it is encouraged that district leadership teams implementing multitiered systems of support develop a 5-year district implementation plan for implementing all three tiers (Lewis et al., 2016).
In Years 1 and 2, a leadership team may plan to solely focus on implementing Tier 1 evidence-based practices and organizational systems. The district leadership team could use the Hexagon Tool to help determine the number of Tier 1 evidence-based classroom management practices that could be feasibly implemented within these first 2 years in schools and what supports school-based leadership teams need to implement these evidence-based practices with fidelity (e.g., professional development for how to screen for student behavior and academic concerns, monitoring fidelity and student outcomes, problem solving, local resources).
Conclusion
Educators today have more resources than ever before to identify and select evidence-based practices. Before selecting the practices, it is important to measure the values of the organization and assess contextual fit, so they are most likely to succeed. The Hexagon Tool provides district and school leadership teams with one efficient tool to measure these critical components.
