Abstract
Helen Keller once said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This quote amplifies the importance of individuals working together to achieve common outcomes. Within implementation science, a scientific field dedicated to scaling up of evidence-based practices (EBPs) (Hagermoser Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019), teaming is a crucial structural process for supporting natural change agents to implement EBPs.
In this View From the Field column from the implementation science series, highlighting how the field enhances the implementation and scale-up of EBPs in schools and districts (Kittelman et al., 2020), we discuss the importance of implementation teams and their roles in directing support for students and supporting educators to implement EBPs.
We focus largely on the work from researchers and technical assistance providers from the National Technical Assistance Center on the State Implementation and Scale-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (https://sisep.fpg.unc.edu) and the National Center on Intensive Intervention (https://intensiveintervention.org).
In the Active Implementation Frameworks, implementation teams are described as foundational structures for supporting EPBs as they move through the different stages of implementation (exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation; Blanchard et al., 2017; Metz & Bartley, 2012). Team members are purposefully selected based on their ability to facilitate organizational change and adequately support implementation of effective practices (Higgins et al., 2012). These include individuals with (a) the administrative authority to allocate resources for EBP implementation and show public support, (b) content knowledge of EPBs and technical expertise for providing professional development (e.g., training and coaching), and (c) representation from the larger body of individuals receiving the EBPs (either directly or indirectly; Blanchard et al., 2017; Chaparro et al., 2020; Higgins et al., 2012).
Implementation teams build enthusiasm and readiness for the EBPs. Teams develop and install organizational systems (e.g., data and evaluation systems) to support and monitor implementation. Teams also provide initial and ongoing professional development so that EBPs are implemented correctly and consistently (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Metz & Bartley, 2012).
Research has shown implementation teams to have a significant impact on whether EBPs are implemented and sustained over time (McIntosh et al., 2018). For example, Powell and colleagues (2015) surveyed experts in implementation science and clinical practice and identified 73 implementation strategies used to implement and sustain EBPs.
Many of these strategies, such as conducting ongoing training, conducting needs assessments, using data experts, promoting adaptability, accessing new funding, and capturing and sharing local knowledge, are commonly utilized by implementation teams in education. As an example, McIntosh and colleagues (2018) found that implementation teams’ ability to use data for decision making when implementing a multitiered system of support (MTSS) was found to predict high implementation fidelity 3 years later.
The Role of Implementation Teams Within MTSS
For schools implementing MTSS, teaming is a cornerstone for supporting students through a multitiered approach (Chaparro et al., 2020). For example, when implementing school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports, teams are established early in the process to oversee the implementation of organizational systems (e.g., data systems) and EBPs to support students across each of the tiers. MTSS is designed to promote behavior and academic success by delivering EBPs matched to the need of the student (Bruhn et al., 2014; Weingarten et al., 2020). MTSS teams are composed of purposefully selected individuals (e.g., educators, behavior and academic specialists, administrators, family and community members) dedicated to supporting school personnel in improving student and school outcomes (Marx & Goodman, 2019; Weingarten et al., 2020).
As described by Kittelman et al. (2020), district leadership teams play a key role in identifying EBPs and providing the vision, resources, and capacity needed for implementation by school teams (Chaparro et al., 2020; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Due to the variations in the school context (e.g., school size, existing teaming structures, school culture, integration or stand-alone academic and behavior support teams, experience implementing MTSS), different configurations are needed for school teaming structures implemented within MTSS. For example, some schools may have Tier 1 (core program for all students), Tier 2 (for at students at risk), and Tier 3 teams (for students with most significant need) that monitor the implementation of EBPs and organizational systems and also have numerous individual student support teams.
Individual support teams develop, implement, monitor, and adjust supports for individual students receiving Tier 3 comprehensive and individualized behavior or academic support. These teams may also be the individualized education program teams or transition support teams for students receiving special education services (Mazzotti & Rowe, 2015; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016; Weingarten et al., 2020).
Other schools may have a Tier 1 team, a combined Tiers 2 and 3 team, and individual student support teams. In this variation, the combined Tiers 2 and 3 team focuses on screening and identification, access to EBPs, and outcome and fidelity data for all students receiving Tiers 2 and 3 supports. Benefits of combined teams can include increased communication among team members and alignment of multiple EBPs across the tiers of support (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
The number and types of teams within MTSS can vary depending size of the school, whether academic and behavior support teams are integrated, and the number of years implementing MTSS. For example, an elementary school with 250 students may have a combined Tiers 1 and 2 academic-behavior team and several individual student support teams, but a large elementary with 600 students could have a Tier 1 behavior team, a Tier 1 academic team, multiple Tier 2 behavior and academic teams, and a large number of individual student support teams. Although the structures differ across teams, the key message is that teams have two primary functions: directing support to students to improve meaningful outcomes and supporting educators to implement EBPs correctly and consistently. Both of these functions require teams to utilize data to be effective.
Directing Support for Students
The first function of these teams is to identify and provide support to students. Tier 1 teams typically identify students in need of support through the development and administration of screening and nomination systems. Screening systems include systematic ways of gathering data to identify students who may need additional academic or social-emotional support.
Lane and colleagues (2016) noted that developing systematic screening systems serves to assess the overall need for student support in schools and to identify and match at-risk students with more intensive levels of support (e.g., Tier 2 or 3 behavior or academic teams). Students may be identified from team members using psychometrically sound and efficient screening tools, by collecting and reviewing student outcome data (e.g., office discipline referrals, suspensions, academic performance), or through teacher and staff nominations (Bruhn et al., 2014; Lane et al., 2016).
For students needing support beyond Tier 1, additional support is coordinated by Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams by assessing their behavior and academic needs and matching students with efficient and standardized EBPs (Tier 2) or developing and implementing individualized EBPs (Tier 3; Bambara & Kunsch, 2015; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). For example, for students engaging in frequent, low levels of unwanted classroom behaviors (e.g., being off task, minor disruptions) to gain teacher attention, a Tier 2 behavior team may decide to implement the Check-In Check-Out intervention (CICO; Hawken et al., 2020).
After implementing the intervention, teams meet regularly to review EBP implementation fidelity (extent procedural elements of the EPB were completed) and student outcome data (e.g., increased words read per minute, decreased office discipline referrals, increased time on task).
During these team meetings, teams will review the fidelity of implementation and student outcome data to make decisions on whether to (a) continue supporting students on the current EBP, (b) modify the EBP, or (c) modify implementation of the EBP (Bambara & Kunsch, 2015). The following five guiding questions help evaluate whether teaming is both effective and efficient:
Does the team have the necessary and appropriate team members?
Does the team use data for decision making and informing action?
Does the team use efficient meeting procedures?
Does the team have a process to communicate and interact with key stakeholders or other teams at the school or district level?
Does the team have access to needed resources to fulfill the purpose of the team?
Supporting Educators Implementing EBPs
The second function of MTSS teams is to provide educators with sufficient training and coaching to implement EBPs with adequate implementation fidelity. For MTSS to be effective for all students across all settings, the majority of school personnel need to buy into and support these implementation efforts.
This distribution of workload is especially important for the implementation of Tier 1 EPBs because they support all students, and it allows Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams to devote more attention to supporting school personnel implementing EBPs and progress monitoring for students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 EBPs (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Having strong Tier 1 EBPs in place also helps to facilitate the implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 EBPs because teams are building on a continuum of existing practices and organizational systems at Tier 1 that are conceptually linked across the tiers.
An example of how MTSS teams can support educators to effectively implement Tier 1 EBPs is through the implementation of Tier 1 EBPs in classrooms (Mathews et al., 2014). Research has shown that implementation of Tier 1 EBPs (e.g., teaching and acknowledging students for engaging in school-wide behavior expectations) is a significant predictor of sustained implementation of Tier 1 systems in schools and associated with improved student outcomes (i.e., decreased office discipline referrals; Mathews et al., 2014).
Moreover, Massar (2017) showed that providing brief and efficient coaching to classroom educators (performance feedback and prompting) can have meaningful increases in their use of classroom management EBPs (e.g., behavior-specific praise, opportunities to respond) and decreases in unwanted student classroom behaviors (i.e., classroom disruptions).
Students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 EBPs also spend a majority of their day in general education classrooms. Although implementation of these EBPs are monitored closely by Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams, those implementing these EPBs will likely be their classroom teachers (Marx & Goodman, 2019). For example, CICO is a common Tier 2 intervention implemented by a coordinator (conducts brief check-ins with students at beginning and end of the school day) and their classroom teachers (rate and provide feedback to students on their classroom behaviors).
MTSS team members must ensure educators have the training and coaching needed to implement these EBPs with adequate implementation fidelity. Without the proper training, coaching, and ongoing support, the interventions will not garner the full positive impact intended, resulting in less than desirable outcomes for both students and educators. Well-trained and supported educators have a better chance of feeling successful and of meeting the needs of their students at any tier.
Conclusion
Effective teaming is crucial for the implementation of EBPs in schools. A team approach provides a greater accumulation of expertise and experience contributing to meaningful results. Additionally, teams help to distribute the workload so that any single individual is not burdened with planning and monitoring implementation efforts.
Finally, teams promote sustainability for the implementation of EBPs by creating a resiliency against staff turnover. For schools implementing MTSS, behavior and academic teams are designed to support students with varying levels of need. The key functions of these teams include identifying and providing direct support to students and supporting educators in their implementation of EBPs to improve meaningful student behavior and academic outcomes.
