7
Conducting the Self‐Assessment

In this chapter, we outline self‐assessment as a core component of your MTSS needs assessment process. We recommend working with your core MTSS team to complete the self‐assessment using the tools shared in this chapter. The self‐assessment aligns with a vision for deeper learning for all students. Once you complete the self‐assessment process, we provide guidance to support you in sharing your key findings with all district stakeholders.

Refinishing the Glider (Katie)

Growing up, my parents had a wooden glider that sat on the back patio. I read all my Babysitters Club books while swinging back and forth on that glider. In high school, my best friend, Robyn, and I would stay up late, drinking hot chocolate by the fire pit and looking at the stars from that glider. Fast‐forward 20 years, and the glider was headed to the same firepit. “You can't throw away the glider,” I told my dad.

He looked at me quizzically; the glider was clearly on its last leg. There it sat, covered in moss and splinters, the hinges rusted and a few boards missing. “I will refinish it,” I announced with absolutely no idea how I would do that. I rushed into the project with little thought, and to be honest, it probably took me hundreds of hours and dollars more to complete it than if I took the time to assess the process, create a plan, and acquire the needed tools.

“No need to plan,” I told myself, I can just refinish it! Spoiler alert: I did not. At nearly every step in the process, I realized that I wasn't clear on what I actually needed in the first place. I didn't have all the right tools, the right hardware, or let's face it, the right skills. If I could go back in time, I would've sat with my dad and done a comprehensive “Save the Glider Needs Assessment.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because it probably is. We work in schools and districts where the needs are clear and we want to jump in and fix them. After you review the documents and data, you may feel like I did with the glider. You're ready to start! But believe me, it's important to better understand the entire process and all the components you will need before you begin.

Now, you're probably wondering, did I save that glider? Yes, I did. But it involved the purchase of many new tools, a gorgeous cobalt blue paint, weeks of my summer, and yes, a couple of visits from my dad. Hey, you can't do this alone, right?

Completing the Self‐Assessment

We do not want you to jump into an action plan without taking the time to complete a self‐assessment as a means of understanding the scope of the work in order for you to define action steps and your high‐priority areas. We must examine our current systems to move closer to a vision of deeper learning for all students.

We created this self-assessment in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as a way to support planning teams as they identify potential areas of systems design that are in place or need to be put into place. A digital version of this self-assessment is publicly available at www.doe.mass.edu/csdp/guidebook (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2023a). This process is designed to help district teams assess the systems and structures that they have in place already and those they do not have yet, to foster an effective MTSS. This process was designed to give a district-level perspective and should be used by a team consisting of a range of stakeholders. The self-assessment covers many complex elements that you likely will not be able to evaluate easily or immediately. As you preview the self-assessment, consider which data sources and documents you will draw on to respond accurately and thoroughly to each indicator. Generally, when working with districts, we recommend a sequenced planning option or an intensive self-assessment retreat.

For the sequenced planning option, the team meets before conducting the self‐assessment to triangulate and analyze data. The team may be the district leadership team or a subset of the larger MTSS advisory group. Prior to completing the self‐assessment, the team completes the document review and the data analysis. This can occur in a prolonged workshop setting or over multiple meetings. They then bring this information to the full planning team's self‐assessment session(s).

Alternatively, in the retreat option, the team meets in one lengthy session or a series of sequential meetings to analyze data and complete the self‐assessment. For this to be effective, the people who need to pull up data and documents are present and available to gather this information during the meeting. Be sure to bring lots of coffee and sweet treats if you're opting for a retreat!

Whatever the format and purpose, we recommend that the self‐assessment be data‐informed and reflective. For each component, consider a rating scale and have a place to record the narrative. Consider the information you gathered from your document and data review to define your rating. If you have something mostly or fully in place, link in an artifact (document or data) to demonstrate this.

The following is a sample of a rating scale you can use in your self‐assessment:

  • (0) Not yet in place
  • (1) Partially in place
  • (2) Mostly in place
  • (3) Fully in place

Using the previous rating scale, the following is a sample of notes taken at a self‐assessment workshop:

ComponentsRatingHow do we know?
Vision: The learning community has a shared understanding of high‐quality instruction, which promotes deeper learning for all students.1
  • We have a vision, but it is not robustly aligned with all of the effective instructional practices.
  • We do not have an articulated instructional guide to define what our vision should look like in all settings.
  • We do not have a fidelity measure to assess if our vision is being enacted in all settings.

You can complete the self‐assessment as a team or complete it individually or in small groups and then calibrate the responses. Regardless of how you complete the process, it is critical that the MTSS team requests evidence to justify tool ratings to bolster the validity of the information collected and support consistency in the criteria used (Schiller et al., 2020). If you choose to complete it individually or in small groups first, you may use or adapt the following process:

  1. Rating sharing: One at a time, teams share their score for each of the rubric categories—without explanation—as the recorder completes the group's score sheet. For example: “For Vision, our group rated the three items 1, 1, and 2.” The recorder would write the ratings in a single copy.
    1. The recorder will highlight any row where there are differences in ratings. Those items will be discussed in the next step.
  2. Discussion
    1. The facilitator invites the group to consider where the differences in the scores occurred and why people scored differently for each area.
    2. Group members explain and justify ratings. For example, a group may say, “We thought that rating was a one because…” and cite evidence from the document review or data analysis.
    3. Discuss any area where there is a discrepancy in the rating, resolving issues until consensus is reached. Given that the overall ratings are district‐based, discrepancies sometimes result because a driver is in place at one school and may not be in place at another. If this occurs, change the overall rating to partially or mostly in place because it may be present at some sites in the district but not all sites.
  3. Debrief: Summarize the areas that are fully in place, mostly in place, partially, and not in place yet to ensure agreement. This step will help build a collective understanding of what will be necessary to focus on in developing an MTSS action plan.

Instructional Vision

This section is small and easy to overlook, but it is the heart of the work. Here you are articulating your collective understanding of what instruction should look like in practice (see Table 7.1). Throughout the self‐assessment, we reference a set of effective instructional practices. In our work, this is defined as the use of pedagogy rooted in deeper learning and UDL, evidence‐based practice, culturally sustaining practice, the use of high‐quality instructional materials, linguistically supportive practice, the inclusion of standards‐based instruction, and trauma‐informed practice. The combination of these practices in all settings serves as a foundation for which all students can be successful in our schools.

Table 7.1 MTSS vision self‐assessment.

Instructional Vision
SummaryIn this section you will examine your instructional vision and the degree to which it is grounded in deeper learning and equity, and shared across the learning community.
Focus AreaRefining what high‐quality instruction looks like.
Guiding QuestionWhat is our instructional vision?
Equity Pause
  • Does your vision lend itself to equitable and rigorous student outcomes for all learners?
  • How did your educators', students', and families' perspectives inform your vision?
  • How are strategies for equity—at the individual, institutional, or systems level—built into the vision?
IndicatorsInstructional Vision
  • Shared vision: The learning community has a shared understanding of high‐quality instruction, which promotes deeper learning for all students.
  • Grounded in equity: The instructional vision is grounded in equity, communicates high expectations, and advances equitable outcomes for all learners.
  • Student experience: The vision centers around the student experience and creates conditions for student engagement and agency in their own learning.

Instructional Design

In this section, we will look at our learning environment and the implementation of the instructional vision. You can use this self‐assessment to answer this question: “How far are we from our vision?” Think of this process as the beginning bridge between where you are and where you want to be. Table 7.2 summarizes sample components of this part of a self‐assessment. For each indicator, consider your alignment on a rating scale like the one previously shared.

Table 7.2 MTSS instructional design self‐assessment.

Instructional Design
SummaryThis section includes elements of the learning environment and implementing the vision in practice. This section will help you identify ways you might strengthen high‐impact components of instructional design and move closer to instructional practices that embody deeper learning.
Focus AreaThe student learning experience is rooted in deeper learning, universally designed, supported by evidence‐based instruction using high‐quality instructional materials, and is consistently implemented for all students.
Guiding QuestionHow well does our vision show up in our daily practice and classroom experience?
Equity Pause
  • Do the implemented materials and assessments create unnecessary barriers for students?
  • What does student work show about the progress toward the instructional vision?
  • Are there differences in how specific students or student populations experience our instructional design?
IndicatorsCurricular Materials
  • High‐quality instructional materials: Materials are bias‐free, have empirical evidence of efficacy (high‐quality instructional materials, HQIM), engaging content, and are inclusive in design.
  • Coherence: Materials used across all three tiers exhibit a coherent sequence of target skills and knowledge that advances deeper learning (i.e., vertically and horizontally aligned).
  • Vision alignment: The learning community has a system for reviewing curricular materials and adjusting as needed to align to the instructional vision.
Equitable Practices
  • Equitable access: All students receive challenging, grade‐appropriate instruction and have equitable access to effective instructional practices.
  • MLL support: All multilingual learners have access to appropriate language development services as part of a Tier 1 instruction that is culturally responsive. Additionally, all multilingual learners are provided with opportunities to develop and practice discipline‐specific language.
  • SWD/504 support: Instructional practices outlined in the 504 or IEP used with students with disabilities must be research‐based, provide equitable access to Tier 1 instruction, and be implemented with fidelity.
Pedagogy
  • Effective instructional practices: The learning community implements effective instructional practices (rooted in deeper learning, universally designed, culturally sustaining, linguistically supportive, and trauma‐informed).
  • Implementation: The organization has identified measures and resources (e.g., observation tools or an instructional guide) to ensure organization‐wide fidelity.
  • High expectations: There are high expectations for all students across all classrooms, including multilingual learners and students with disabilities such that students are engaging with grade‐level work that advances deeper learning.
Assessment
  • Data‐informed practice: Standards‐based and universally designed formative and summative assessments are used to monitor student progress toward learning goals and to inform effective instructional support.
  • Data‐based decisions: There is a process for collecting and analyzing student work throughout units to monitor student performance that results in increasing equitable outcomes.
  • Engagement: Each student's strengths, progress, and next steps are shared with students and families such that students and families know and can track their progress.
Learning Environment
  • Safety: The learning environment is physically and psychologically safe, supportive, and accessible.
  • Belonging: Students experience a learning environment that recognizes the value of all educators and students and is inclusive in nature.
  • Feedback: The organization utilizes ongoing feedback cycles from students, families/caregivers, community partners, and educators to build an inclusive, positive school community.

Tiered Systems

In this next section, we focus on the implementation of multi‐tiered systems of support through tiered systems and the creation of a robust data culture (see Table 7.3).

Table 7.3 Tiered systems self‐assessment.

Tiered Systems
SummaryThis part of the self‐assessment explores components of tiered systems for students and effective data systems that are important for ensuring that all students can access deeper learning.
Focus AreaThe organization uses an MTSS model to provide a tiered and fluid continuum of evidence‐based academic and social emotional/behavioral supports and interventions for all students at universal (Tier 1), targeted (Tier 2), and intensive (Tier 3) levels.
Guiding QuestionHow well do we ensure that all students have equitable access to our instructional vision?
Equity Pause
  • What progress is being made toward your vision, disaggregated by specific student groups?
  • Are certain student populations overrepresented in particular tiers of support and/or in the referral process? What potential biases and/or blind spots might be contributing to overrepresentation?
  • How do adults examine their own biases and blind spots and their effects in relation to the vision? What biases and blind spots are coming up as part of the work?
IndicatorsTiered Supports
  • Domains: There is a systemic approach to developing a comprehensive set of tiered supports for all learners across all three domains (academic, social/emotional, and behavioral).
  • Tiered interventions: The organization creates conditions and systems to provide universal (Tier 1), targeted (Tier 2), and intensive (Tier 3) support to students.
  • MLL: All multilingual learners receive appropriate language development services, access to Tier 1 instruction, and can access a tiered system of support, as needed.
  • Students with Disabilities (SWDs): IEPs are designed and implemented to ensure that all SWDs can access scientifically based tiered support as appropriate in the least restrictive environment.
  • Engagement in student support: Families/caregivers and students are actively engaged in student support processes/decisions and are regularly informed about progress. Families/caregivers receive the information they need to advocate for their children and are informed of their rights to request a special education evaluation at any time during the tiered support process.
Data‐Driven
  • Data systems: All schools have a clear system and process of collecting and distributing universal screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring to inform placement and progress within their tiered system of support.
  • Assessment plans: All schools have an assessment plan that defines the purpose, type, and timing of all schoolwide and districtwide assessments, including universal screeners, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring tools (across all three domains). The map is reviewed regularly to ensure that it is accessible to all as well as culturally and linguistically appropriate.
  • Data‐driven culture: Leaders and educators create/embrace a culture that centers on using triangulated data to assess and address current systems that create barriers for students.
  • Student needs: Administrators, teachers, students, and families/caregivers engage in strategic problem‐solving processes that identify student needs and determine progress monitoring protocols for short‐ and long‐term goals. This includes students with diverse needs such as those with IEPs and 504 plans, as well as multilingual learners.
Access to Resources
  • Reviews: A regular review of student needs is conducted at least annually to ensure that student needs drive staffing and service structures, as opposed to retrofitting student needs into existing models or assessing positions and/or roles that no longer meet the needs of current students or models that may be contributing to inequity.
  • Tiered staffing: The staffing selection, models, and positions are designed to support the implementation of MTSS based on students' needs. Consideration is given to staff titles and duties to foster a positive approach to meeting the needs of all students. Staff is (re)allocated based on student needs annually and during the year.
  • Tiered scheduling: The schedule articulates when tiered supports will occur, ensures that intervention services are supplemental and not supplanting core instruction, specifies priorities to direct student supports in staff schedules, and provides time to administer and review data to identify and monitor students.
  • Community partnerships: Community partners are actively engaged to better support students and families/caregivers and to connect them to social services related to health, social, recreational, and supplemental educational services.
  • Technology: Educational and assistive technology is available for all students and used in alignment with the instructional vision and to increase access to appropriate tiered supports.

Systems and Structures

We have to support our instructional practices and tiered supports with systems and structures. This section ensures that we create and sustain an integrated system that results in our vision for all learners. It focuses on the processes and resources in place to communicate, support, and improve practices to realize the instructional vision. Here, you continue your self‐assessment by understanding where you are as an organization. You will do this by conducting this portion of the self‐assessment by referencing content in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Systems and structures self‐assessment.

Systems and Structures
SummaryThis final set of components explore the foundational aspects such as staff development and competency, improvement cycles, and resource allocation, which we can leverage to sustain a longer‐term vision of deeper learning.
Focus AreaThe organization utilizes its systems and structures to prioritize and allocate its people, time, technology, funding, and so on in service of the instructional vision. This results in optimizing tiered systems needed to support all students.
Guiding QuestionHow well do our systems and structures support our instructional vision?
Equity Pause
  • How does the culture support personal and professional learning in relation to the instructional vision?
  • How do adults learn in your schools? How does this mirror your vision (or not)?
  • To what extent does the learning community reflect on and confront inherent biases and blind spots in their collaboration and processes? What is the outcome of that reflection?
  • How do we honor all voices at the decision‐making and implementation stages of our programming? For example, what do we do to ensure representative stakeholders and invite multiple voices and perspectives into our processes?
  • To what extent do teams have the autonomy and information to make decisions?
IndicatorsStaff Development and Competency
  • Professional learning plan: The organization has a sustainable professional learning plan that offers coherent high‐quality, universally designed professional development that is informed by and results in movement toward the instructional vision.
  • High‐quality professional learning: Educators engage in data‐based and relevant ongoing, job‐embedded professional learning opportunities, including frequent observations and feedback that advance skillful use of high‐quality curricular materials and associated educational technology. Professional learning results in effective instructional practices that advance deeper learning and include tiered coaching models.
  • Collaborative planning: There is time in the schedule for educators (including interventionists, ESL instructors, and special educators) with designated opportunities to collaborate, analyze data and student work, assess the effectiveness of instruction, plan, and engage in learning experiences that deepen their understanding and implementation of effective instructional practices and provide access to grade‐appropriate content for all students.
  • Observation and feedback: All schools and/or teams have routines and systems for frequent observation and feedback that focus on clearly defined and communicated expectations for effective instructional practices to advance deeper learning.
  • Evaluation: There are strategic, unbiased, and transparent systems for evaluation, using student feedback, observation data, and review of artifacts along to make informed decisions about opportunities for educator support and leadership development.
Structural Support
  • Alignment to vision: Resources are strategically aligned for impact and informed by data, and allocations are vetted with a lens toward access and equity; the alignment between resources and the instructional vision is well articulated.
  • Fiscal support: The budget provides appropriate levels of funding for high‐quality instructional and intervention materials and assessments, key positions, professional development, and so on.
  • Structural review: Policies, practices, and procedures are analyzed with an equity lens, such as a review for disproportionality for students of color or accessing the language accessibility of the assessment for multilingual learners.
  • Technology: There is a clear and consistent process for selecting and evaluating technology products that are aligned to the instructional vision and responsive to student and staff needs.
Continuous Improvement Cycles
  • Leadership commitment: There is an active leadership team that takes on the responsibility of ensuring that systems meet the needs of all learners. The team has the authority to make resource, scheduling, programmatic, and staffing decisions and has representation from a range of leaders (e.g., academics, student support, special education, and multilingual learners).
  • Continuous improvement: The organization engages in ongoing and inclusive long‐term (multiyear and annual) and short‐term (quarterly and monthly) goal setting and monitoring toward realizing the instructional vision and ensuring each student is making progress, which results in adjustments to the school's structures, programs, and resources (e.g., time, staff, schedules) throughout the year.
  • Representation: Voices from all students, families, and communities are used to drive improvement efforts and obtain perceptual data on the progress of the plan. Representation is assessed to ensure participation and engagement represent the community at large, with a specific lens to remove barriers to participation (e.g., transportation or language barriers).
  • Equity focused: Improvement efforts are grounded in concepts of equity and identify clear goals to close the opportunity gap for all students (including MLLs, SWDs, newcomers, SLIFE, ELSWDs, etc.).
  • Multiyear planning: A multiyear district strategy process is established and results in a multiyear plan rooted in implementation science. The district plan informs annual district action plans, school improvement plans, and educator goals. Annual action plans include the use of benchmarks to access progress toward the improvement goals.
  • Midcourse corrections and continuous improvement: Based on the data collected through fidelity measures and feedback loops, decisions are made about how to enhance the effectiveness of the work.
Human Resources
  • Distributive leadership: The organization has instructional leadership teams or equivalent structures to collaboratively develop and reflect on the effectiveness of professional development, planning, and implementation efforts. Across the organization, team and collaboration structures create shared responsibility and ownership and have an impact on school improvement.
  • Hiring: Hiring processes and procedures are bias‐free and ensure that all candidates have the relevant expertise to meet each student's needs and have a mindset and belief that all students can learn at high levels. The organization systematically reviews staff hiring processes and policies to ensure that they are nondiscriminatory, inclusive, and focused on meeting the needs of all learners.
  • Retention: Hiring and retention policies and procedures include strategies to recruit, mentor, train, and support a diverse educator and administrator workforce that is well‐prepared to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Key Findings

Based on your initiatives review, document review, asset‐mapping, data review, and self‐assessment, what are the top three to five key findings? Let's start with associated readiness elements and essential planning questions. Table 7.5 shows those aligned with all components of our equitable MTSS model. You can use these essential planning questions to help you focus on your key findings.

Table 7.5 Readiness elementary and essential planning questions.

Readiness ElementsEssential Planning Questions
Vision
Instructional VisionDoes the organization have a clear vision for instruction rooted in deeper learning, inclusive in nature, supported by evidence‐based instructional practice and materials, and articulated and understood by everyone at the implementation level?
Instructional Design
Instructional FoundationsDoes the organization use high‐quality instructional materials, have coherence across materials, and use assessments to monitor student performance to inform instructional practice?
Instructional ImplementationIs there evidence of the use of effective instructional practices (pedagogy rooted in deeper learning and UDL, evidence‐based practice, culturally sustaining practice, the use of high‐quality instructional materials, linguistically supportive practice, the inclusion of standards‐based instruction, and trauma‐informed practice) at all levels?
Equitable PracticeDo all students receive challenging, grade‐appropriate instruction and have equitable access to effective instructional practices, including multilingual learners and students with disabilities?
Learning EnvironmentIs the learning environment safe physically and psychologically (e.g., gives a sense of belonging, provides a sense of agency, and recognizes the value of all educators and students)?
Tiered Systems
Tiered SupportDoes the district/school use an MTSS model to provide a tiered continuum of evidence‐based academic support for all students at universal (Tier 1), targeted (Tier 2), and intensive (Tier 3) levels?
Data SystemsDoes the district/school have clear systems and procedures to support educator teams in using formative and summative assessment data for screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring purposes?
Foundational ResourcesDoes the organization have the appropriate foundational resources necessary to support a tiered system of support such as tiered scheduling, staffing, and a regular cycle of programmatic reviews?
Systems and Structures
Staff Attainment, Development and CompetencyDoes our organization hire the best staff to meet the needs of our students, and when hired do we provide appropriate supports for staff success such as high‐quality professional learning, collaborative planning structures, and mastery‐oriented feedback?
Structural SupportsAs an organization focused on equitable MTSS, do our fiscal allocation, chosen technology, policies, procedures, and practices align with our instructional vision?
Continuous Improvement CyclesDo we engage in improvement planning that is based on implementation science and improvement science, and includes a lens on equity and planning team representation?

Sometimes we feel overwhelmed by this process. One way to think about this is by using the self‐assessment readiness elements articulated previously. For example, if we find a lot of low scores in a particular section, what is the readiness element for that section of the self‐assessment? Let's go through an example.

In a recent self‐assessment, we found a lot of indicators were 0 or 1 under instructional implementation. So we reviewed the essential planning question under that readiness element. It read, “Does the organization have a clear vision for instruction that is rooted in deeper learning, inclusive in nature, supported by evidence‐based instructional practice and materials, and articulated and understood by everyone at the implementation level?” We knew the organization did not, based on the self‐assessment results, so we turned that into a finding by stating, “There is not a clear vision for instruction that is rooted in deeper learning, inclusive in nature, supported by evidence‐based instructional practice and materials, and articulated and understood by everyone at the implementation level.”

Key findings will focus your work in the upcoming planning cycle and will support you in prioritizing upcoming action steps. This step intends to organize your data and self‐assessment to prioritize areas for improvement planning. Table 7.6 shows sample key findings with subfindings informed by each section of the self‐assessment.

Summary

The self‐assessment process is designed to help district teams assess the systems and structures they have in place already and those they do not have yet, to foster an effective and equitable MTSS that supports all students. Using the document and data review to complete the self‐assessment is critical to identifying key findings that will drive the improvement process. As with all other steps in this process, transparency and communication are key. Once key findings are identified, they should be shared with multiple stakeholders and other district teams for feedback.

Reflection Questions

  1. How has reviewing the self‐assessment resources in this chapter changed your understanding of MTSS?
  2. Consider your current process for completing a needs assessment as it relates to MTSS. What are the strengths of your current process? What will you improve in future strategic cycles?
  3. How would this self‐assessment process help to build a shared understanding of the strengths and areas in need of improvement in your school or district as it relates to MTSS?
  4. Once you complete the self‐assessment process, how will you share a draft of the results with all stakeholders for review and feedback?

Table 7.6 Sample key findings.

Key Finding
There is not a shared instructional vision understood by all staff, such as through an articulated instructional guide, that details a common set of evidence‐based, standards‐aligned, universally designed, culturally sustaining, linguistically supportive, and trauma‐informed instructional strategies, rooted in deeper learning.
Instructional Design Subfindings
  • Not all of our materials can be categorized as high‐quality instructional materials: materials that are bias‐free, have empirical evidence of efficacy (high‐quality instructional materials/HQIM), include engaging content, and are inclusive in design.
  • There is no instructional guide to articulate expectations about the use of high‐quality instructional practices.
  • The learning community has not yet consistently implemented effective instructional practices (rooted in deeper learning, universally designed, culturally sustaining, linguistically supportive, and trauma‐informed).
  • The organization has not identified measures and resources (e.g., observation tools or an instructional guide) to ensure organization‐wide fidelity of high‐quality instructional practices.
  • There is no process for collecting and analyzing student work throughout units to monitor student performance that increases equitable outcomes.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset