Self-Assessment of MTSS
(SAM)
Technical Assistance Manual
July 2016
Stockslager, K., Castillo, J., Brundage, A., Childs, K., & Romer, N.
A collaborative document between Florida’s Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project and
Florida’s Positive Behavior Intervention and Support Project, discretionary projects of the Florida
Department of Education and the University of South Florida.
Please cite as:
Stockslager, K., Castillo, J., Brundage, A., Childs, K., & Romer, N. (2016). Self-Assessment of MTSS (SAM)
Technical Assistance Manual. Florida’s Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project and Florida’s
Positive Behavior Intervention and Support Project, University of South Florida.
Table of Contents
SAM Technical Assistance Manual Introduction .............................................................................................................i
Description and Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Intended Audience .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Training Required ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
Directions for Administration ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Scoring and Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Frequency of Use ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Technical Adequacy
Initial Pilot ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
National Pilot .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Interpretation and Use of the Data .................................................................................................................................. 8
School-Level Example of SAM Data ............................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix A: Copy of the Self-Assessment of MTSS (SAM) ......................................................................................... 13
Appendix B: Additional Considerations for SAM Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation ........................................ 35
Appendix C: Standardized Factor Loading for Items on the SAM ............................................................................... 40
SAM Technical Assistance Manual Introduction
Program evaluation of Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS) initiatives is a critical component of facilitating
successful implementation. Complex educational systems require that key stakeholders take a systems view of
facilitating change and develop plans to address variables likely to relate to successful implementation. Educators’
knowledge and skills; school, district, and state policies and procedures; funding streams; and myriad other factors
likely will impact whether educators will adopt practices within an MTSS framework. Although a comprehensive
strategic plan designed to address these systemic factors is a necessary condition for successful implementation, it is
not sufficient by itself. Formative data-based evaluation of needs within the educational system and the impact of
any actions taken should be used to guide the development of (and modifications to) implementation plans. Key
stakeholders who engage in this type of formative decision-making can focus more intensely on identified issues,
thus responding to the specific needs of educators and the systems in which they operate. The development of a
model to evaluate efforts to scale up MTSS implementation, however, poses several challenges. Questions about
what issues to focus on and how often to collect data, among others, can be difficult to address.
It is with these difficulties in mind that the evaluation team from the Florida Problem Solving/Response to
Intervention (PS/RtI) Project and Florida’s Positive Behavior Intervention and Support Project created this SelfAssessment of MTSS (SAM) technical assistance manual. The purpose of this manual is to provide information about
the SAM to educational stakeholders interested in using the instrument to inform MTSS implementation.
A summary of the information available on the SAM follows.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
Description & Purpose of the Instrument: Theoretical background, description of the instrument, and its
intended use
Intended Audience: Suggestions for who should complete the instrument and who should use the results for
decision-making
Training Required: Suggestions for training of individuals responsible for (1) administering or completing the
instrument and (2) analyzing and interpreting the results
Directions for Administration: Strategies for administering or completing the instrument and examples of
ways in which Project staff approached administration
Scoring and Analysis: Strategies for summarizing data for decision making
Frequency of Use: Considerations when determining how often to use the instrument and general guidelines
for frequency of use
Technical Adequacy: Available information on the reliability and validity of the instrument
Interpretation and Use of the Data: Suggestions for analyzing, displaying, and interpreting results
School-Level Example of SAM Data: Examples of how data could be collected, displayed, and used to guide
decisions made at the school-level
Appendices: A copy of the instrument and additional information relevant to SAM administration, analysis, and
interpretation
Description & Purpose
Description
The Self-Assessment of MTSS (SAM) is a needs assessment and progress-monitoring tool for implementation of a
multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS). A copy of the instrument is found in Appendix A, page 13. Data from the
SAM can be used to inform implementation efforts, in conjunction with school and district improvement plans and
other implementation data. The SAM is a 39-item self-report measure organized around six domains associated with
implementation of an MTSS model. The six domains assess the extent to which schools are (1) developing
leadership for implementation, (2) developing the capacity and infrastructure necessary to support implementation,
(3) building communication and collaboration structures, (4) engaging in data-based problem solving, (5)
implementing a three-tiered instruction/intervention model, and (6) building a comprehensive data and evaluation
system. Each item within these domains is scored using a rubric with the following response options:
0= Not Implementing
1= Emerging/Developing
2= Operationalizing
3= Optimizing
Purpose
The purpose of the instrument is to assess current implementation levels of an MTSS model to inform schools and
districts regarding which areas require action planning. The SAM can assist educators in identifying areas of need in
their MTSS and monitoring implementation progress.
Intended Audience
Who Should Complete the SAM?
School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT) members complete the SAM. SBLTs are comprised of approximately six to
eight staff members selected to take a leadership role in facilitating MTSS implementation in a school. (Note. For
more information on the development of SBLTs, see Appendix B, page 35).
Who Should Use the Results for Decision Making?
The SBLTs who complete the SAM should review the results for their school. The District-Based Leadership Team
(DBLT) should review the results for the district’s schools individually, as well as aggregated across schools.
Members of the DBLT provide leadership and support to schools implementing practices within an MTSS.
Training Required
Training Recommended for Individuals Facilitating SAM Completion
Qualifications of the Facilitator. Completion of the SAM requires that an individual be in charge of facilitating SBLT
consensus regarding item ratings. Personnel in charge of facilitating completion of the SAM should have a thorough
understanding of the MTSS model and the systems issues that influence implementation. Facilitators also should
possess the interpersonal and communication skills required to facilitate consensus among a group of individuals
that may have different opinions regarding the extent to which the school is engaging in certain MTSS activities.
Content of the Training. Trainings on facilitating completion of the SAM should include the following components:
•
•
•
•
•
Explanation of the relationship between implementation integrity and desired outcomes, and the alignment
between the SAM and critical features of implementing practices within an MTSS.
Review of each domain and item so that facilitators have a clear understanding of what is being measured.
Description of the SAM Endnotes and how team members can use Endnotes to enhance understanding.
Overview of administration and scoring procedures.
Common issues that arise during administration, such as frequently asked questions and how to address
disagreements among team members.
Training Suggested for Analyzing, Interpreting, and Disseminating SAM Results. The knowledge, skills, and
experience of educators in analyzing, interpreting, and using data for decision making may vary. If the stakeholders
responsible for these activities possess the knowledge and skills required, then training specific to the SAM data may
1
not be necessary. However, should the stakeholders responsible for using the data lack any of the aforementioned
skill sets, training and technical assistance is recommended. Topics that support may include:
•
•
•
Appropriate use of the measure, given its purpose and technical adequacy.
Analyzing and displaying data derived from the tool.
Interpreting and disseminating the results.
Directions for Administration
The SAM is completed by SBLT members in three steps:
Step 1. The facilitator reviews the SAM with SBLT members to ensure their understanding of the purpose of the
SAM, what the instrument measures, how the information will be used, and how to complete the SAM.
Step 2. The facilitator provides each SBLT member a copy of the SAM to review individually approximately one
week prior to the meeting at which the team reaches consensus on a single score for each item. Disseminating the
instrument before this SBLT meeting provides adequate time for participants to record their perspectives and to
attend the meeting ready to contribute to discussion.
Step 3. The facilitator guides discussion until the team reaches consensus on a score for each item. The facilitator
then records the final responses. Group completion of the SAM typically takes one to two hours, depending on the
amount of discussion required to reach consensus on each item. Use the SAM version that represents the consensus
of the SBLT members for decision-making purposes.
Note. After completion of the SAM, SBLT members can meet to review the results, identify specific areas of need,
and identify potential action items for improving MTSS implementation. (Note. For more information on SAM
administration, see Appendix B, page 35).
Scoring and Analysis
The amount of analysis required to use the SAM for decision making will likely depend on the unit of analysis (e.g.,
school, district, state).
School-Level Analysis of SAM Data
School-level personnel using the results simply may want to chart responses from the school’s final version to
identify needs and monitor progress over time (see example school-level graphs below in Figures 1, 2, and 3 – pages
10, 11, and 12).
District-Level Analysis of SAM Data
Stakeholders examining other units of analysis (e.g., district-level, schools served across a state or geographic
region) likely would need to aggregate results to inform decision making. Two ways in which personnel aggregating
results from multiple schools can consider analyzing data from the SAM include (1) calculating the mean rating for
each domain and item to determine the average activity level evident across schools and (2) calculating the
frequency of each response option selected (i.e., Not Implementing, Emerging/Developing, Operationalizing,
Optimizing) for each item.
Calculating domain and item means provides an overall impression of the MTSS implementation activities
occurring within each of the six SAM domains. When calculating average implementation levels, the following
values should correspond with each response option: 0 = Not Implementing; 1 = Emerging/Developing; 2 =
Operationalizing; 3 = Optimizing. Examining implementation at the domain level allows educators to examine
general patterns across each of the six SAM domains. One can compute a domain score by calculating the sum of the
ratings of the items that comprise the domain and dividing by the total number of items within the domain (see
example district-level “average domain scores” graph in Appendix B; Figure 4, page 36). The items that comprise
the six domains are as follows:
•
•
•
•
Domain 1 (Leadership): Items 1-5
Domain 2 (Building Capacity/Infrastructure): Items 6-16
Domain 3 (Communication and Collaboration): Items 17-20
Domain 4 (Data-Based Problem Solving): Items 21-27
2
•
•
Domain 5 (Three-Tiered Instructional/Intervention Model): Items 28-33
Domain 6 (Data and Evaluation): Items 34-39
Calculating the mean rating for each item across schools allows stakeholders to identify the extent to which
educators are engaging in specific activities to facilitate MTSS implementation. This information can be used to
identify specific activities that may need to be addressed systematically (through professional development, policies
and procedures, etc.), but does not provide detailed information regarding the variability across schools for each
activity.
Calculating the frequency of schools reporting levels of implementation for an item (Not Implementing,
Emerging/Developing, Operationalizing, and Optimizing), on the other hand, provides information on the range of
activity levels. This information helps to determine the percentage of schools engaged in specific MTSS
implementation activities. When making decisions about how to address implementation efforts, information on the
number of schools engaging in a particular activity can help inform decisions regarding modifying implementation
plans (see example district-level “item frequency” graphs in Appendix B; Figure 8, page 39).
Technology Support
School personnel should consider using district supported or commercially available technology resources1 (e.g.,
SurveyMonkey®, Google Forms®, Qualtrics®) to facilitate collection and analyses of the data.
Frequency of Use
When determining how often SBLT members should complete the SAM, it is important to consider the resources
available within schools and districts to support data collection. Important considerations include:
•
•
•
•
•
The time needed for completion of the instrument
The time required to enter, analyze, graph, and disseminate data
The personnel available to support data collection
Other data collection activities in which SBLT members and school staff are required to participate
The time required to increase implementation of specific practices within an MTSS.
In other words, decisions about how often to collect SAM data should be made based on the capacity to administer,
analyze, and use the information to inform plans to scale-up MTSS implementation.
Although schools and districts will need to make adjustments given available resources, general recommendations
for completing the SAM are as follows. Completing the SAM once per year can assist SBLT members in identifying
implementation levels of specific practices. SBLTs can use the information obtained to develop short- and long-term
goals for implementing MTSS as well as to develop strategic and action plans (e.g., professional development
activities and necessary supports). Administering the SAM again each year will allow SBLT members to examine
progress made during the previous year and to refine goals and action plans for the subsequent school year.
Technical Adequacy
Initial Pilot. The initial pilot phase of the SAM began in 2013 and included several actions designed to address the
content validity of the SAM. Those actions are described below and resulted in a 39-item version of the SAM used
for data collection during the national pilot.
Content Validity
The content validation process of the SAM involved several steps. First, there was a thorough review of related
research (e.g., MTSS, problem solving, RtI, PBIS, educational systems change) to identify critical components
associated with implementation of MTSS. Additionally, there was a review of existing implementation
evaluation instruments to identify strengths and areas for improvement in the field of MTSS implementation
evaluation. After the initial items were generated, Florida PS/RtI Project and Florida PBIS:MTSS Project staff
provided feedback regarding the importance and clarity of each item, resulting in a revised item list. Next, an
Expert Review Panel, which consisted of 11 district-, state-, and national-level experts on MTSS (RtI) and/or
PBIS implementation reviewed the draft instrument. The panel members provided feedback on the
1
These are included to provide stakeholders with examples of technology resources available to assist with data
collection. The Project does not endorse specific technology resources.
3
representativeness of the MTSS components covered by the items using the following scale: Not at all relevant,
Somewhat relevant, Relevant, Very relevant, and Don’t know. Panel members also provided feedback on the
clarity and conciseness of the individual items using the following scale: Not at all, Somewhat, Very, Don’t
know. Finally, panel members suggested modifications to items using open-ended response options.
The Projects’ evaluation staff analyzed panel member feedback and revised the survey using a structured
process. Evaluation staff considered 80% agreement among panel members that an item was relevant and well
written as the criterion for retaining an item in its current form. When agreement from the panel members was
below 80%, the staff reviewed and discussed feedback from the respondents who disagreed with the item. A
review of panel results indicated that 97% of items met the criterion for agreement that the content was relevant
and that 74% of the items met the criterion for clarity. Items that did not meet the 80% criteria for content
relevancy or item clarity were revised based on qualitative feedback by reviewers. Once panel members’
comments were addressed, each revised item was compared to panel member feedback to calculate a revised
estimate of agreement that the item was relevant and clear. This process resulted in all 34 items meeting the
80% criterion for retaining individual items.
Following the expert panel review process, cognitive interviews were conducted with six school-level
stakeholders (e.g., school administrator, student support personnel, content specialist, teacher). The purposes of
the cognitive interviews were to (1) solicit feedback on the clarity of the SAM items and (2) ensure that
stakeholders were accurately interpreting the items by having interviewees verbalize their thought process for
each item. For each item, interviewees thought aloud while reading and provided feedback on clarity and
interpretation. Each of the six interviewees also provided specific feedback on any terms or phrases that could
be confusing or be considered jargon. Information gathered during the interviews was used to revise items
identified as problematic.
Following the cognitive interviews, a small-scale pilot administration was conducted in 155 schools across
seven districts from two states. The 155 SBLTs completed the 34-item version of the SAM that emerged from
the content development stage described above and provided qualitative feedback on item groups (e.g.,
additional components to be included in the SAM). Data collected from this administration and feedback from
the SBLTs resulted in the addition of five items to the original 34-item version of the SAM (i.e., revisions
resulted in a 39-item version).
National Pilot. Following the activities completed during the initial pilot study, a large scale, national pilot study
was conducted to address the construct validity and reliability of the SAM.
Construct Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures using a categorical model were used to examine the 6-factor
structure of the SAM that was conceptualized from the literature. Data from SAMs completed by 436 SBLTs
from 15 districts within eight states were used to analyze the instrument. The fit for the model was examined
using Bentler’s (1992) comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Steiger & Lind, 1980). CFI values greater than or equal to .95 and RMSEA values less than or equal to .08 (Hu
& Bentler, 1999) were considered to indicate acceptable levels of fit.
The model estimated resulted in good fit (CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05). Standardized loadings ranged from .69 to
.83 for items on the Leadership factor (5 items), from .68 to .85 for the Building Capacity/Infrastructure factor
(11 items), from .66 to .84 for the Communication and Collaboration factor (4 items), from .62 to .85 for the
Data-Based Problem Solving factor (7 items), from .79 to .91 for the Three-Tiered Instructional/Intervention
Model factor (6 items), and from .79 to .87 for the Data and Evaluation factor (6 items; see Table 4 in Appendix
C, page 40, for a listing of the individual item loadings). Correlations between each of the factors were high (see
Table 1 below for correlations between each of the factors).
4
Table 1. Correlations between SAM Domains.
Leadership
Leadership
Capacity/
Infrastructure
Communication
and
Collaboration
Data-Based
Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered
Model
Data and
Evaluation
Capacity/
Infrastructure
Communication Data-Based
and
Problem
Collaboration
Solving
Three-Tiered
Model
Data and
Evaluation
*
.86
*
.79
.85
*
.79
.85
.87
*
.69
.75
.73
.86
*
.83
.90
.86
.88
.80
*
Internal Consistency Reliability
Internal consistency reliability estimates were computed for each of the six domains using Cronbach’s alpha.
Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .79 to .91 indicating adequate to high levels of internal consistency. Specific
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each of the factors were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership: α = .84
Building Capacity/Infrastructure: α = .91
Communication and Collaboration: α = .79
Data-Based Problem-Solving: α = .89
Three-Tiered Instructional/Intervention: α = .90
Data and Evaluation: α = .90.
Criterion Validity. The relationships between the SAM and the Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ; Kincaid, Childs, &
George, 2005) were examined using data from 188 schools that also completed the BoQ. A review of the
Pearson correlation coefficients showed a moderate relationship between the BoQ total score and the overall
SAM score. Small to moderate correlations also were found between the BoQ total score and several domain
scores from the SAM. See Table 2 for correlations between the SAM and BoQ.
Table 2. Correlations between the SAM and the Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and Collaboration
Data-Based Problem Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
BoQ
.31***
.28***
.28***
.12
.32***
.35***
.15*
The relationships between the SAM and several behavior outcomes also were examined in a subset of schools
who provided behavior outcome data. The behavior outcomes examined included the number of Office
Discipline Referrals (ODRs), the number of Out of School Suspension Events (OSS-Events), and the number of
5
Out of School Suspension Days (OSS-Days). The total score from the SAM was negatively associated with the
number of OSS days. Three of the six domain scores also were negatively associated with OSS days. Finally,
Leadership was negatively related to the number of ODRs. The magnitudes of the relationships found were
small. See Table 3 for correlations between the SAM and the behavioral outcomes investigated.
Table 3. Correlations between the SAM and Behavioral Outcomes.
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
ODRs (n = 258)
-.05
-.12*
-.04
OSS-Events (n = 255)
-.08
-.06
-.07
OSS-Days (n = 243)
-.14*
-.10
-.13*
-.04
-.05
-.13
-.02
-.06
-.09
-.02
-.06
-.05
-.12
-.13*
-.16*
Relationships between the SAM and academic outcomes also were examined. The academic outcome data
available included Florida Standards Assessment2 (FSA) data for 261 Florida schools. We examined
correlations between the percentage of students proficient on the FSA for the English Language Arts and
Mathematics subtests, and SAM scores from their schools. See Tables 4 through 8 for correlations between the
SAM and the academic outcomes for all schools in the sample, elementary, middle, high, and secondary (middle
and high) schools, respectively.
Results differed by content area for the entire sample of schools. Both the total score and five of the six domain
scores were positively associated with the percentage of students who were proficient on the Mathematics
subtest. Only the Three-Tiered Instruction/Intervention implementation score was positively associated with the
percentage of students proficient on the English Language Arts subtest. The magnitudes of the correlations were
small.
Results differed somewhat when broken down by school level. The Data-Based Problem Solving and ThreeTiered Instruction/Intervention scores were positively associated with proficiency on both the English Language
Arts and Mathematics subtests at the elementary level. The magnitudes of the correlations were small. No other
correlations were significant at the elementary level. At the high school level, only the Leadership domain
scores were associated with proficiency on the FSA. Specifically, Leadership scores were positively associated
with English Language Arts and Mathematics proficiency (the magnitudes of the correlations were moderate).
No other scores were associated with FSA proficiency at the middle school, high school, or combined
secondary levels.
2
For more information on the Florida Standards Assessments (FSA), see
http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/fsa.stml
6
Table 4. Correlations between the SAM and Academic Outcomes (All Schools).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
English Language Arts
(% Proficient)
(n = 261)
.10
.07
.04
Mathematics
(% Proficient)
(n = 261)
.19**
.12
.14*
.08
.16*
.12
.21***
.13*
.10
.23***
.15*
Table 5. Correlations between the SAM and Academic Outcomes (Elementary).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
English Language Arts
(% Proficient)
(n = 173)
.12
.05
.05
Mathematics
(% Proficient)
(n = 173)
.13
.06
.06
.09
.11
.16*
.18*
.16*
.12
.18*
.11
Table 6. Correlations between the SAM and Academic Outcomes (Middle).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
English Language Arts
(% Proficient)
(n = 45)
.16
.05
.10
Mathematics
(% Proficient)
(n = 45)
.13
-.02
.08
.16
.15
.11
.09
.26
.14
.25
.14
7
Table 7. Correlations between the SAM and Academic Outcomes (High).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
English Language Arts
(% Proficient)
(n = 37)
.14
.33*
.13
Mathematics
(% Proficient)
(n = 37)
.23
.37*
.24
.09
.21
.10
.14
.02
.04
.04
.17
Table 8. Correlations between the SAM and Academic Outcomes (Secondary).
SAM Overall
Leadership
Capacity/Infrastructure
Communication and
Collaboration
Data-Based Problem
Solving
Three-Tiered Model
Data and Evaluation
* p < .05.
** p < .01
*** p< .001.
English Language Arts
(% Proficient)
(n = 82)
.15
.17
.12
Mathematics
(% Proficient)
(n = 82)
.16
.12
.14
.12
.12
.11
.11
.16
.10
.19
.13
Interpretation and Use of the Data
Broad domains to examine
When interpreting SAM data, examine the six broad domains measured by the instrument (i.e., Leadership, Building
Capacity/Infrastructure, Communication and Collaboration, Data-Based Problem Solving, Three-Tiered
Instructional/Intervention Model, Data and Evaluation) first. Key stakeholders (e.g., SBLTs, DBLTs) can examine
graphically displayed data to evaluate levels of implementation within each of the domains. Each of the
methodologies for scoring mentioned above (i.e., calculating average activity levels at the domain and item levels
and calculating the frequency/percent of schools who selected each response option at the item level) can be used to
examine the broad domains. (Note. For more information on interpretation and use of SAM data, see Appendix B,
page 35).
Identifying specific needs
Each item within the domains also can be graphed to examine trends in which activities tend to be engaged in more
or less frequently. Key stakeholders should consider a number of factors when identifying which activities tend to be
engaged in at relatively high levels versus those being engaged in at low levels. For example, schools may need to
address leadership structures and processes before focusing on capacity building and implementation.
8
Sharing data with stakeholders
It is important that a plan for disseminating data on implementation and for providing key stakeholders the time and
support to discuss the information be included in a plan to scale-up practices within an MTSS. It is recommended
that these key stakeholders be identified and data be shared with them as quickly and frequently as possible
following SAM administration. This timeline allows stakeholders, such as SBLT members, to discuss activity levels
indicated by the SAM data, develop or alter goals, and design strategies (e.g., professional development, access
technology resources, develop procedures) to facilitate increased levels of implementation. DBLT members also
should have access to data from schools to plan support provided at the district level. Additionally, SBLT and DBLT
members may find it helpful to have a coach or facilitator discuss the data with stakeholders to facilitate
interpretation and problem-solve barriers to implementation efforts. Finally, SBLT members are highly encouraged
to share their data with instructional staff members. These stakeholders often are critical to the implementation of
practices within an MTSS and their support and input are important to consider when developing and finalizing
action plans.
Using questions to guide discussions
To facilitate discussions about implementation efforts, one helpful strategy is to provide educators with guiding
questions. The use of guiding questions is designed to facilitate discussions about each school’s data, including
potential strategies for increasing the use of practices within an MTSS. Listed below are examples of guiding
questions used to facilitate discussions regarding implementation. These guiding questions were designed to
facilitate discussions about each school’s data, including current level of problem-solving implementation and
consistency between SAM data and other implementation measures.
•
•
•
What domains have the highest and lowest levels of implementation?
What specific items represent the highest and lowest levels of MTSS implementation?
Which specific MTSS implementation actions or activities will your team focus on improving within your
school or district?
- Which are most immediately actionable?
- Which would be most impactful?
- Which would be most foundational (e.g., aligned with where you want your school or district to be
regarding MTSS implementation)?
9
School-Level Example of SAM Data
SunshineElementary:SAM
AverageDomainScores
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure 1. School-Level Example of SAM Data: Average Domain Scores.
Explanation of the Graph
Sunshine Elementary recently committed to implementing MTSS at the school. The newly formed SBLT at
Sunshine Elementary met at the beginning of the school year to plan for implementation, but realized that they did
not know where to begin. At the suggestion of the school’s MTSS coach, the team decided to complete the SAM at
their next meeting to inform goals and activities for the year. They also agreed to complete the instrument again at
the end of the year to examine progress and identify additional needs. After completion of the SAM, the team first
reviewed the average domain scores to identify potential areas of strengths and need (Figure 1). A quick review of
the graph led the team to identify Leadership as an area to focus on related to improvement of MTSS
implementation. While the team noted low levels of implementation in several domains (e.g., data-based problem
solving, three-tiered model), the team also understood the importance of leadership to improving implementation.
To better understand specific areas for improvement within the Leadership domain, the school leadership team
decided to review individual item responses within the domain.
10 Figure 2. School-Level Example of SAM Data: Leadership Domain.
Explanation of the Graph
As mentioned above, the Sunshine SBLT decided to first focus on the Leadership domain after a review of their
SAM average domain scores. Figure 2 above includes results for the items from the SAM that assess leadership
activities. The results are from the beginning of the year administration.
Interpretation and Use of the Data
Examining items within a SAM domain. Following the administration of the SAM at the beginning of the year, the
SBLT met to discuss the results and to plan for addressing leadership levels. First, the SBLT took note of the initial
status of leadership activities reflected by the SAM items displayed in Figure 2. Team members noted that principal
involvement (item 1), establishment of an SBLT (item 2), and having an MTSS implementation plan (item 4) were
all “emerging/developing.” They also noted that the school had not started engaging staff in professional
development and coaching (item 3) or actively facilitating implementation of MTSS (item 5). Overall, these data
indicated that work needed to be done to build leadership for MTSS implementation at the school before schoolwide implementation could occur. SBLT members proceeded to plan for how to increase leadership activities at the
school.
Identifying specific needs. Given that the SBLT noted that the school had not started or was “emerging/developing”
for leadership activities, they decided that soliciting more active principal involvement and further defining the roles
and expectations of the SBLT should be the initial focus. SBLT members met with school administrators to discuss
the development of a vision for MTSS implementation, the critical role of administrators in the process, and how to
identify professional development and support required to build capacity for implementation, as well as to establish
regular communication with the administrators. Additionally, the SBLT – with support of the administration decided to improve their own functioning (item 2) by creating opportunities to involve additional staff members,
developing expectations for facilitating MTSS implementation, and engaging in activities to build their beliefs,
knowledge and skills regarding implementation. SBLT members established regular team meetings, developed roles
11
and expectations for the team, and planned for internal professional development to increase their own knowledge
and skills.
After the SBLT addressed team functioning issues, the SBLT began to identify specific activities to facilitate MTSS
implementation as part of their ongoing school improvement process (item 5). They provided ongoing professional
development to staff, based on data from a school-wide needs assessment and in alignment with their school
improvement plan, and developed a strategic plan.
Figure 3. School-Level Example of SAM Data: Leadership Domain (BOY = Beginning of Year, EOY = End of
Year).
Examining trends in SAM data. After developing roles and expectations for the SBLT and engaging in internal
professional development efforts, Sunshine Elementary was interested in how their school’s leadership activities
changed throughout the year. See Figure 3 to examine the beginning and end of year SAM results. The red bars,
representing the end of year SAM data, demonstrated increases in indicators of leadership development for most
items. Specifically, the school had “operationalized” the establishment of a functioning SBLT with explicit
expectations for facilitating MTSS implementation. The SBLT also engaged in additional activities throughout the
year to build on their internal progress. For example, while the SBLT noted that engaging staff in professional
development and coaching for MTSS implementation (item 3) was not present at the beginning of the year, the
activity was “emerging/developing” by the end of the school year. While the comparison of beginning of year to end
of year data shows promising changes for Sunshine Elementary, it is critical to remember that leadership
development is an ongoing activity. The SBLT members agreed to continue to monitor staff beliefs, knowledge, and
skills in order to ensure that the proper supports were being provided to increase levels of MTSS implementation.
12 Appendix A. Copy of the Self-Assessment of MTSS (SAM)
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
OverviewofMTSS
Thisinstrumentisusedtomeasureschool-levelimplementationofaMulti-TieredSystemof
Supports (MTSS). MTSS is a term used to describe an evidence-based model of educating
students that uses data and problem solving to integrate academic, behavior, and socialemotionalinstructionandinterventiontomaximizethesuccessofallstudents.Instruction
and intervention is provided to students across multiple tiers of intensity based on need.
Staffmakedata-baseddecisionsinorderforresources(e.g.,time,staff,andevidence-based
strategies) to reach the students at the appropriate levels to increase the performance of
ALLstudentswiththegoalofachievingand/orexceedingproficiency.
Quality implementation of MTSS is associated with increased likelihood of instruction and
interventions leading to successful student outcomes. Thus, it is important for schools to
monitor not only student outcomes, but also how assessments, instruction, interventions,
and data-based problem-solving are put into place (i.e., the fidelity with which these
elements are implemented). Successful implementation is influenced by many factors
within and around the school system (e.g., professional development, administrative
support,datasystems,staffmemberperceptions,successfuladaptation,etc.).Asameasure
ofschool-levelimplementationofanMTSS,thefocusofthisinstrumentisonthenecessary
actions and activities to successfully implement and sustain the critical elements of MTSS
withfidelity.ThecriticalelementsofMTSSreferredtothroughouttheinstrumentinclude:
• Curriculumstandards
• Assessmentsusedtoinforminstruction
• Multipletiersofinstructionandintervention
• Data-basedproblem-solvingusedtomakedecisions
To promote a common understanding, staff that complete the instrument are urged to
discusstheelementsofMTSSandhowtheyrelatetocomponentsoftheirschool’ssystem
for educating all students. MTSS should not be thought of as a separate initiative or
programthatmustbeimplemented.Rather,MTSSprovidesaframeworkfortheintegration
of academic, behavior, and social-emotional supports. Other initiatives such as
implementation of educational policies and regulations, new assessment systems, or new
instructional strategies also should be considered in the context of how they fit withinan
MTSS. MTSS provides a framework for implementing educational practices to ensure
academic,behavioral,andsocial-emotionalsuccessofallstudents.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-i
13
DirectionsforCompletingtheInstrumentandUsingtheData
The school leadership team that has responsibility for allocating resources to improve
student learning should complete this instrument. Completion involves a three-step
process:
1. Each team member should review the SAM instrument and Endnotes
independentlyandthinkhows/he,personally,wouldrespondtoeachitem.
2. After reviewing the SAM items independently, the team members should
come together to discuss their responses and reach agreement on which
answer best represents the current status of implementation at their
school.Endnotesprovideadditionalclarifyinginformationordefinitionsthat
the team should utilize, especially as team members are first becoming
familiar with the SAM instrument. Endnotes provide critical information for
ensuring the SAM instrument is completed accurately and results in valid
scores.RecordconsensusscoresontheSAMScoringSheet.TheScoringSheet
hasabbreviatedlanguageandshouldonlybeusedtorecordresponsesandto
provideavisualrepresentationofitemswithhigherandlowerscores.
3. UsetheSAMinstrumentandtheScoringSheetdatatoinformyouractionplan
(anoptionalplanningtemplateisprovided)toimproveMTSSimplementation.
Rate each item on a scale from 0-3 (0 = Not Started; 1 = Emerging/Developing; 2 =
Operationalizing;3=Optimizing)usingthedefinitionprovidedforeachrating.
Superscript numbers (e.g., 2) correspond with endnotes that provide additional clarifying
informationordefinitionsrelevanttothecontentwithintheitem.
Thereare39itemsorganizedintosixdomains:
1)
Leadership
Leadership is key to successful implementation of any large-scale innovation. The
building principal, assistant principal(s), and school leadership team are critical to
implementing MTSS at the school level. They engage staff in ongoing professional
developmentforimplementingMTSS,planstrategicallyforMTSSimplementation,and
model a data-based problem-solving process for school improvement. The school
principal also supports the implementation of MTSS by communicating a vision and
mission to school staff, providing resources for planning and implementing instruction
andintervention,andensuringthatstaffhavethedataneededfordata-basedproblemsolving.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-ii
14 2)
BuildingtheCapacity/InfrastructureforImplementation
School-widecapacityandinfrastructurearerequiredinordertoimplementandsustain
MTSS. This capacity and infrastructure usually includes ongoing professional
developmentandcoachingwithanemphasisondata-basedproblem-solvingandmultitieredinstructionandintervention;schedulingthatallowsstafftoplanandimplement
instructionandintervention;andprocessesandproceduresforengagingindata-based
problem-solving.
3)
CommunicationandCollaboration
Ongoing communication and collaboration are essential for successful implementation
of MTSS. Many innovations fail due to a lack of consensus, to a lack of feedback to
implementerstosupportcontinuousimprovement,andtonotinvolvingstakeholdersin
planning. In addition to including stakeholders in planning and providing continuous
feedback,itisalsoimportanttobuildtheinfrastructuretocommunicateandworkwith
families and other community partners. These practices increase the likelihood that
innovativepracticeswillbeimplementedandsustained.
4)
Data-BasedProblem-Solving
The use of data-based problem-solving to make educational decisions is a critical
elementofMTSSimplementation.Thisincludestheuseofdata-basedproblem-solving
forstudentoutcomesacrosscontentareas,gradelevels,andtiers,aswellastheuseof
problem-solving to address barriers to school wide implementation of MTSS. While
several models for data-based problem-solving exist, the four-step problem-solving
approachevaluatedinthisinstrumentincludes:1)definingthegoalsandobjectivesto
be attained, 2) identifying possible reasons why the desired goals are not being
attained,3)developingaplanforandimplementingevidence-basedstrategiestoattain
thegoals,and4)evaluatingtheeffectivenessoftheplan.
5)
Three-TieredInstructional/InterventionModel
The three-tiered instructional/intervention model is another critical element of MTSS
implementation. In a typical system, Tier 1 includes the instruction delivered to all
students;Tier2includessupplementalinstructionorinterventionprovidedtostudents
not meeting benchmarks; and Tier 3 includes intensive, small-group or individual
interventions for students facing significant barriers to learning the skills required for
school success. It is important to consider academic, behavior, and social-emotional
instructionandinterventionswhenexaminingthisdomain.
6)
Data-Evaluation
Given the importance of data-based problem-solving within an MTSS model, the need
for a data and evaluation system is clear. In order to do data-based problem-solving,
school staff need to understand and have access to data sources that align with the
purposes of assessment. Procedures and protocols for administering assessments and
data use allow school staff to use student data to make educational decisions. In
addition to student data, data on the fidelity of MTSS implementation allow school
leadership to examine the current practices and make changes to increase
implementation.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-iii
15
Acknowledgements
The Florida Problem Solving/Response to Intervention (PS/RtI) Project and Florida’s Positive
Behavior Support: MTSS (FLPBS: MTSS) Project would like to thank the following groups for
theireffortsonthisinstrument:
FloridaPS/RtIProjectstaff
Florida’sPBS:MTSSProjectstaff
MembersoftheSAMExpertReviewPanel
ParticipantsintheSAMCognitiveInterviewProcess
SomeitemsontheSAMwereadaptedfromthe
RtIImplementationRubric:SchoolLevelbytheColoradoDepartmentofEducation
Pleaseciteas:
Stockslager,K.,Castillo,J.,Brundage,A.,Childs,K.,&Romer,N.(2016).Self-Assessmentof
MTSS(SAM).Florida’sProblemSolving/ResponsetoInterventionProjectandFlorida’s
PositiveBehaviorInterventionandSupportProject,UniversityofSouthFlorida
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-iv
16 Item
3=Optimizing
andTheleadershipteamprovides
supporttoeducatorsimplementing
thecriticalelementsofMTSS
identifiedinthestrategicplan
andAspartoftheschool
improvementplanningprocessa
strategicplanisdevelopedthat
4
specifiesMTSSimplementation andAprofessionaldevelopment
planiscreatedbasedontheneeds
assessmentandusedtoengage
staffinongoingprofessional
developmentandcoaching
Rating
andTheleadershipteamusesdata
onimplementationfidelityofthe
criticalelementsofMTSStoengage
indata-basedproblem-solvingfor thepurposeofcontinuousschool
improvement
andAstrategicplanforMTSS
implementationisupdatedas
neededbasedonstudentoutcome
andimplementationfidelitydataas partoftheschoolimprovement
planningprocess
andOngoingprofessional
developmentactivitiesare
informedbydatacollectedonthe
outcomesofprofessional
developmentandcoachingfor
continuousimprovement
andTheleadershipteamhas
andTheleadershipteammembers
explicitexpectationsforfacilitating havethebeliefs,knowledge,and
MTSSimplementation,
skillstoleadimplementationefforts
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-1
Theleadershipteamisnot
activelyengagingineffortsto
facilitateMTSS
implementation
Theleadershipteamengagesin
actionplanning
andhascreatedastrategicplan
tofacilitateimplementationof
6
thecriticalelements ofMTSS
Aneedsassessmentisconducted
togatherinformationonbeliefs,
knowledge,andskillstodevelop
aprofessionaldevelopmentplan
tosupportMTSSimplementation
5.Theleadershipteamis
activelyfacilitating
5
implementationofMTSS as
partoftheirschool
improvementplanning
process
Theleadershipteamdoes
nothaveaneeds-basedplan
toprovidestaffwith
professionaldevelopmentor
coachingtosupportMTSS
implementation
3.Theleadershipteam
activelyengagesstaffin
ongoingprofessional
3
developmentandcoaching necessarytosupportMTSS
implementation
Aleadershipteamexiststhat
includescross-disciplinary
representation,
Leadershipteamisengaging
district,family,andcommunity
partnerstoidentifystakeholder
needs,resourcesfor,andbarriers
toMTSSimplementation
Noleadershipteamwith
explicitresponsibilityfor
leadingMTSS
implementationexists
2.Aleadershipteamis
establishedthatincludes6-8
memberswithcrossdisciplinaryrepresentation
(e.g.,principal,generaland
specialeducationteachers,
contentareaexperts,
instructionalsupportstaff,
1
studentsupportpersonnel )
andisresponsiblefor
facilitatingMTSS
2
implementation
2=Operationalizing
Theprincipalcommunicatesan
andTheprincipalactivelysupports andThePrincipalactivelysupports
urgentdesiretoimplement
theleadershipteamandstaffto
data-basedproblem-solvinguseat
MTSS,participatesinprofessional buildcapacityforimplementation theschool
developmentonMTSS,andis
establishinganMTSSvision
4.AstrategicplanforMTSS
NostrategicplanforMTSS
implementationisdeveloped implementationexists
andalignedwiththeschool
improvementplan
Theprincipaldoesnot
activelysupportMTSS.
1.Theprincipalisactively
involvedinandfacilitates
MTSSimplementation
1=Emerging/Developing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
1.LeadershipDomain(Items1-5)
17
18 Item
6
1=Emerging/Developing
Noinformationonthe
criticalelementsofthe
school’sMTSSisavailable
Thestaffengagesininitial,jobembeddedprofessional
developmentfocusingon:
• Purposeandadministrationof
assessmenttools
• Roleofassessment/data
sourcesinmakinginstructional
decisions
• Reviewofcurrent
assessments/datasources
beingutilizedandthosebeing
considered
• Analyzingandusing
assessmentresultstoimprove
instruction
• Usingvarioustypesofdatato
informinstructionalpractices
tomeettheneedsofdiverse
learners
• Communicatingandpartnering
withfamiliesaboutdataand
assessmentpractices
ThecriticalelementsofMTSSare
beingdefined
3=Optimizing
Rating
andThestaffengagesinongoing
professionaldevelopmentand
coachingrelatedtothe
administrationofassessmentsand
interpretationofthedata/data
sources.Professionaldevelopment
includes:
• Changesorupdatesto
assessments/datasources
• Changestodatacollection,
tracking,andanalysis
• Ongoingcoachingon
instructionalpracticesand
interpretingassessmentresults
andTheleadershipteamanalyzes
feedbackfromstaffaswellas
outcomesinordertoidentify
professionaldevelopmentand
coachingneedsintheareaof
assessment/datasourcesinsupport
ofcontinuousimprovement
andThecriticalelementsofMTSS andThecurriculum,assessment,
aredefinedandarecommunicated andinstructionalpracticesthat
toschoolstaff
definetheschool’scriticalelements
ofMTSScanbecommunicatedby
allschoolstaff
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-2
7.Theleadershipteam
Initialprofessional
facilitatesprofessional
developmentisnotprovided
7
developmentandcoaching toallstaffmembers
forallstaffmemberson
assessmentsanddata
sourcesusedtoinform
decisions
6.Thecriticalelements of
MTSSaredefinedand
understoodbyschoolstaff
2=Operationalizing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
2.BuildingtheCapacity/InfrastructureforImplementationDomain(Items6-16)
andOngoingprofessional
developmentandcoachingon
multi-tieredinstructionand
interventionisprovidedthat
includesthefollowingelements:
• Differentiationofprofessional
developmentandcoachingbased
onstaffroles/responsibilities
• Coaching
• Modelingof,practiceof,and
collaborativefeedbackon,
evidence-basedpractices
2=Operationalizing
andOngoingprofessional
developmentandcoachingondatabasedproblem-solvingisdelivered
thatincludesthefollowing
elements:
• Differentiationofprofessional
developmentbasedonstaff
roles/responsibilities
• Coaching
• Modeling,practice,and
collaborativefeedbackon
problem-solvingsteps
• Supportforcollaborationand
teamingskills
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-3
Initialprofessionaldevelopment
onmulti-tieredinstructionand
interventionisprovidedthat
includesthefollowingelements:
• Rationaleforandmodelingof
instructionalandintervention
designanddelivery(e.g.,
CommonCoreStateStandards,
instructionalroutine,Tier1
PositiveBehaviorSupports,
lessonplanningforactive
studentengagement)
• Connectionsaremade
regardinghowthepractices
arealignedwithand
integratedintoMTSS
• Howdatainformsinstruction
andinterventiondesignand
deliverythatreflectsstudent
diversityandresultsinlearning
8
opportunitiesforallstudents 9.Theleadershipteam
facilitatesprofessional
7
developmentandcoaching forallstaffonmulti-tiered
instructionandintervention
relativetotheirjob
roles/responsibilities
Noexplicitconnectionto
multi-tieredinstructionand
interventionisevidentin
professionaldevelopment
provided
1=Emerging/Developing
Initialprofessionaldevelopment
ondata-basedproblem-solvingis
providedthatincludesthe
followingelements:
• Rationaleforuseofdata-based
problem-solving
• Problem-solvingstepsto
addressschool-wide,
classroom,small-group,and
individualstudentneeds
• Rolesandresponsibilitiesfor
teammembersengagingin
data-basedproblem-solving
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
Item
0=NotImplementing
8.Theleadershipteam
Professionaldevelopment
facilitatesprofessional
doesnotfocusondata-based
7
developmentandcoaching problem-solving
forstaffmembersondatabasedproblem-solving
relativetotheirjob
roles/responsibilities
andTheleadershipteamregularly
usesdataonstudentneedsand
fidelityofhowevidence-based
practicesareimplementedto
continuouslyimproveprofessional
developmentandcoachingefforts
Rating
3=Optimizing
andDataonuseofproblem-solving
skillsandapplicationareusedto
informcontinuousimprovementof
professionaldevelopmentand
coachingefforts
19
20 Schedulesdonotinclude
timeallocatedto
professionaldevelopment
andcoachingforMTSS
Schedulesdonotinclude
timeallocatedto
administeringassessments
neededtomakedecisions
acrosstiers
Themasterscheduleis
developedwithoutstudent
dataanddoesnotinclude
timeformulti-tiered
interventions
11.Schedulesprovide
adequatetimefortrainings
andcoachingsupport
12.Schedulesprovide
adequatetimetoadminister
academic,behaviorand
social-emotionalassessments
neededtomakedata-based
decisions
13.Schedulesprovide
adequatetimeformultiple
tiersofevidence-based
instructionandintervention
tooccur
2=Operationalizing
andCoachingactivitiesare
expandedtoinclude:
•
Opportunitiestopractice
•
Collaborativeand
performancefeedback
andSchedulespermitpersonnelto
administeradditionalassessment
(e.g.,diagnosticassessments)
acrosscontentareasandtiers
neededtoengageindata-based
problem-solving
andSchedulespermitpersonnelto
accessadditionaltrainingand
coachingsupportthatis
differentiatedbasedontheirneeds
Rating
3=Optimizing
andDataonprofessional
development,implementation
fidelity,andstudentoutcomesare usedtorefinecoachingactivities
andThemasterschedulefacilitates andThemasterscheduleallowsfor
effectiveimplementationofmulti- flexiblestudentgroupings
tieredinterventionsmatchedto
studentneedsbycontentareaand
intensity(Tier1,Tier2,Tier3)
andSchedulesincludetimeto
administermorefrequentprogress
monitoringassessmentsto
studentsreceivingTier2and3
servicesasspecified(e.g.,weekly
ormonthlyassessments)
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-4
Themasterscheduleis
developedutilizingstudentdata
andincludestimeformultitieredinterventions
Schedulesincludetimefor
academic,behaviorandsocialemotionalassessments
administeredtoallstudents(e.g.,
universalscreening)
Schedulesincludetimeallocated andSchedulesincludetimefor
fortrainings
ongoingcoachingsupport
1=Emerging/Developing
Initialcoachingisoccurringthat
isfocusedprimarilyon
facilitatingormodelingthe
componentsofMTSS
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
Nocoachingisprovidedto
buildstaffcapacityto
implementthecritical
elementsofMTSS
Item
7
10.Coaching isusedto
supportMTSS
implementation
Leadershipteammembersare
gatheringinformationonthe
personnel,funding,materials,
andotherresourcesavailableto
supportMTSSimplementation
Processes,procedures,and
decision-rulesneededtoengage
indata-basedproblem-solving
aredevelopedandexisting
structuresandresourcesare
incorporated
andResourceinventoriesare
establishedusingthegathered
informationonthepersonnel,
funding,materials,andother
resourcesavailabletosupport
MTSSimplementation
andplansforallocatingthe
resourcesareestablished
andThestepsofproblem-solving;
proceduresforaccessing,
submitting,andusingdata;and
decision-rulesneededtomake
reliabledecisionsare
10
communicatedtostaff
2=Operationalizing
andThemasterscheduleprovides
sufficienttimefortheprocessto
occurwithfidelity
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-5
Noprocessexistsfor
mappingandallocating
resourcesavailableto
supportMTSS
implementation
16.Resources availableto
supportMTSS
implementationare
identifiedandallocated
11
Nosystematicprocesses,
procedures,ordecisionrulesareestablished
15.Processes,procedures,
9
anddecision-rules are
establishedfordata-based
problem-solving
1=Emerging/Developing
Themasterscheduleprovides
opportunitiestoengagein
collaborative,data-based
problem-solvinganddecisionmakingtooccur
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
Themasterscheduledoes
notprovideopportunitiesfor
collaborative,data-based
problem-solvingand
decision-makingtooccur
Item
14.Schedulesprovide
adequatetimeforstaffto
engageincollaborative,databasedproblem-solvingand
decision-making
andExistingresourcemapsand
resourceallocationsareupdatedat
leastannuallybasedonstudent
need,availablepersonnel,funding,
materials,andotherresources
andData-basedproblem-solving
processes,procedures,and
decision-rulesarerefinedbasedon
dataandfeedbackfromstaff,
schedulechanges,andresource
availability
Rating
3=Optimizing
andThemasterscheduleprovides
opportunitiesforcollaborative,
data-basedproblem-solvingand
decision-makingtooccurinsettings
suchas:
• Leadershipteammeetings
• Grade-levelmeetings
• Crossgrade-levelmeetings
• Cross-departmentalmeetings
• ProfessionalLearningCommunity
meetings
21
22 Item
1=Emerging/Developing
12
Staffdo2or3ofthefollowing4:
• activelyengagefamiliesthat
representthediversepopulation
oftheschool
• engagefamiliesinproblem
solvingwhentheirchildrenneed
additionalsupports
• provideintensiveoutreachto
unresponsivefamilies
• increasetheskillsoffamiliesto
supporttheirchildren’s
education
Familyandcommunityengagement
are2ofthefollowing3:
• definedandmonitoredwithdata
• linkedtoschoolgoalsin
SIP/MTSSplan
• supportedbyproceduresfor
facilitating2-waycommunication
exists
Staffareregularly(2x/year)
provideddataregardingMTSS
implementationfidelity
andstudentoutcomes
andStaffhasopportunitiestogain
understandingofitsrelevanceto
theirrolesandresponsibilities
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-6
20.Educatorsactivelyengage Staffdononeofthe
familiesinMTSS
following:
• activelyengagefamilies
thatrepresentthediverse
populationoftheschool
• engagefamiliesin
problemsolvingwhen
theirchildrenneed
additionalsupports
• provideintensiveoutreach
16
tounresponsivefamilies • increasetheskillsof
familiestosupporttheir
children’seducation
Staffdo1ofthefollowing4:
• activelyengagefamiliesthat
representthediverse
populationoftheschool
• engagefamiliesinproblem
solvingwhentheirchildren
needadditionalsupports
• provideintensiveoutreachto
unresponsivefamilies
• increasetheskillsoffamiliesto
supporttheirchildren’s
education
Familyandcommunity
engagementare1ofthe
following3:
• definedandmonitoredwith
data
• linkedtoschoolgoalsin
SIP/MTSSplan
• supportedbyproceduresfor
facilitating2-way
communication
Familyandcommunity
engagementis:notdefined
andmonitoredwithdata;
notlinkedtoschoolgoalsin
SIP/MTSSplan;
andproceduresfor
facilitating2-way
communicationdonotexist
19.Theinfrastructureexiststo
supporttheschool’sgoalsfor
familyandcommunity
15
engagement inMTSS
Staffareprovidedopportunities
togainunderstandingofthe
needforMTSS
Staffarerarely(1x/year)
provideddataregardingMTSS
implementationfidelity
andstudentoutcomes
Staffarenotprovided
opportunitiestogain
understandingoftheneed
forMTSS
18.Staffareprovideddataon Staffarenotprovidedany
MTSSimplementationfidelity dataregardingMTSS
14
andstudentoutcomes
implementationfidelitynor
studentoutcomes
17.Staff haveconsensus
andengageinMTSS
13
Implementation
2=Operationalizing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
3.CommunicationandCollaborationDomain(Items17-20)
Rating
Staffdoallofthefollowing:
• activelyengagefamiliesthat
representthediversepopulation
oftheschool
• engagefamiliesinproblem
solvingwhentheirchildrenneed
additionalsupports
• provideintensiveoutreachto
unresponsivefamilies
• increasetheskillsoffamiliesto
supporttheirchildren’s
education
Familyandcommunityengagement
areallofthefollowing:
• definedandmonitoredwithdata
• linkedtoschoolgoalsin
SIP/MTSSplan
• supportedbyproceduresfor
facilitating2-waycommunication
exist
Staffarefrequently(3x+/year)
provideddataregardingMTSS
implementationfidelity
andstudentoutcomes
andStaffhasopportunitiesto
provideinputonhowtoimplement
MTSS
3=Optimizing
Item
Instructional/intervention
plansarenotdeveloped
24.Specific
instructional/intervention
plansaredevelopedand
implementedbasedon
verifiedreasonswhy
studentsarenotmeeting
academic,behaviorand
social-emotional
expectations
andInstruction/Interventionplans
consistentlyspecifywhatwillbe
done,bywho,whenitwilloccur,
andwherewithenoughdetailtobe
20
implemented andDataareusedtoverifythe
reasonswhystudentsarenot
meetingexpectations
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-7
Instructional/interventionplans
aredeveloped
Reasonswhystudentsare
Reasonswhystudentsarenot
notmeetingexpectationsare meetingexpectationsare
notidentified
identified
andInstructional/intervention
plansconsistentlyaredeveloped
basedonverifiedreasonsstudents
arenotmeetingexpectations
andThereasonswhystudentsare
notmeetingexpectationsspan
multiplereasonsrelatedto
instructionandthelearning
environmentofwhystudents
struggleandareverifiedusinga
rangeofassessmentmethods
andThegapbetweenexpectedand andThegapbetweenexpectedand
currentoutcomesisidentified,
currentoutcomesisidentified
andisassociatedwithacademic,
relativetoacademic,behaviorand
behaviorandsocial-emotionalgoals social-emotionalgoalsandisused toidentifytheappropriatelevel
(tier)ofinstruction/intervention
Rating
Thegapbetweenexpectedand
currentoutcomesisidentified,
3=Optimizing
Data-basedproblemsolvingoccurs Data-basedproblemsolvingoccurs
across2ofthefollowing3:
acrossallofthefollowing:
• atleast3contentareas
• acrossallcontentareas
• atleast75%ofgradelevels
• allgradelevels
• atleasttwotiers
• alltiers
2=Operationalizing
Data-basedproblemsolving
occursacross1ofthefollowing
4:
• atleast2contentareas(e.g.,
reading,behavior,socialemotional)
• atleast50%ofgradelevels
• asingletier
• onlyacademicoutcomesor
onlybehaviorandsocialemotionaloutcomes
23.Academic,behaviorand
social-emotionaldataare
usedtoidentifyandverify
19
reasonswhy studentsare
notmeetingexpectations
Dataonacademic,behavior,
andsocial-emotional
outcomesmaybecollected,
butdata-basedproblemsolvingdoesnotoccur
across:
• academic,behaviorand
social-emotionalcontent
areas
• anygradelevels
• anytier
22.Acrossalltiers,dataare
Thegapbetweenexpected
usedtoidentifythe
andcurrentstudent
differenceor“gap”between outcomesisnotidentified
expectedandcurrentstudent
outcomesrelativeto
academic,behaviorand
social-emotionalgoals
21.Integrateddata-based
17
problemsolving forstudent
academic,behaviorand
social-emotionaloutcomes
occursacrosscontentareas,
18
gradelevels,andtiers 1=Emerging/Developing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
4.DataBasedProblemSolvingDomain(Items21-27)
23
24 27.Resourcesforandbarriers
21
totheimplementationof
MTSSareaddressedthrough
adata-basedproblemsolving
process
Schoolleadershipdiscusses
resourcesforandbarriersto
implementationofMTSSanddoes
oneofthefollowing:
• collectsdatatoassess
implementationlevels
• developsactionplanstoincrease
implementation
andPatternsofstudent
performanceacrossdiversegroups
areidentified
2=Operationalizing
andInmostcasesdataare
collectedtomonitorstudent
progressandinterventionfidelity
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-8
Data-basedproblemsolving Schoolleadershipdiscusses
ofresourcesforandbarriers resourcesforandbarriersto
toimplementationofMTSS implementationofMTSS
doesnotoccur
Dataonstudentoutcomesare
collected
1=Emerging/Developing
Plansformonitoringprogress
towardexpectedstudent
outcomesaredeveloped
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
Progressmonitoringdoes
notoccurandstudent
progressisnotevaluated
26.Data-basedproblemPatternsofstudent
solvinginformshowpatterns performanceacrossdiverse
ofstudentperformance
groupsarenotidentified
acrossdiversegroups(e.g.,
racial/ethnic,cultural,socialeconomic,language
proficiency,disabilitystatus)
areaddressed
Item
25.Studentprogressspecific
toacademic,behaviorand
social-emotionalgoals
specifiedinintervention
plansaremonitored
Rating
Schoolleadershipdiscusses
resourcesforandbarriersto
implementationofMTSSanddoes
bothofthefollowing:
• collectsdatatoassess
implementationlevels
• developsactionplanstoincrease implementation
andDataonstudentoutcomes
informshowMTSS
implementationeffortsare
impactingdifferentgroupsof
students
3=Optimizing
andChangesaremadeto
instruction/interventionbasedon
studentresponses
Item
1=Emerging/Developing
2=Operationalizing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
3=Optimizing
30.Tier2(supplemental)
Tier2strategiesarenot
academicpractices existthat developedand/orclearly
includestrategiesaddressing defined
integratedcommonstudent
needs,arelinkedtoTier1
27
instruction ,andare
monitoredusing
assessments/datasources
tieddirectlytotheacademic,
behaviorandsocialemotionalskillstaught
29.Tier1(core)behaviorand Tier1strategiesarenot
social-emotionalpractices
developedand/orclearly
existthatclearlyidentify
defined
school-wideexpectations,
social-emotionalskills
instruction,classroom
25
managementpractices ,
andschool-widebehavior
26
andsocial-emotionaldata emotionalpractices.)
28.Tier1(core)academic
Tier1elementsarenot
practicesexistthatclearly
developedand/orclearly
22
identifylearningstandards , defined
23
school-wideexpectations forinstructionthatengages
students,andschool-wide
24
assessments • commonstudentneeds
• linktoTier1instruction
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasourceslink
directlytotheskillstaught
• commonstudentneeds
• linktoTier1instruction
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasourceslink
directlytotheskillstaught
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-9
Tier2strategiesincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
• clearlydefinedschool-wide
expectations
• classroommanagementpractices
• linktoTier1academic
content/instruction
• accessingschool-widebehavior
andsocial-emotionaldata
• clearlydefinedschool-wide
expectations
• classroommanagement
practices
• linktoTier1academic
content/instruction
• accessingschool-wide
behaviorandsocial-emotional
datasources
Tier2strategiesincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
Tier1strategiesincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
• clearlydefinedlearning
standards
• school-wideexpectationsfor
instructionandengagement
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasources
Tier1elementsincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
Tier1strategiesincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
• clearlydefinedlearning
standards
• school-wideexpectationsfor
instructionandengagement
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotional
content/instruction
• assessments/datasources
Tier1elementsincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
Rating
• commonstudentneeds,
• linktoTier1instruction
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasourceslink
directlytotheskillstaught
Tier2strategiesincorporate
allofthefollowing:
• clearlydefinedschool-wide
expectations
• classroommanagementpractices
• linktoTier1academic
content/instruction
• accessingschool-widebehavior
andsocial-emotionaldata
Tier1strategiesincorporate
allofthefollowing:
• clearlydefinedlearning
standards
• school-wideexpectationsfor
instructionandengagement
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasources
Tier1elementsincorporate
allofthefollowing:
5.ThreeTieredInstructional/InterventionModelDomain(Items28-33)(Itemsinthissectionalternatebetweenaddressingacademic,behaviorandsocial-
25
26 33.Tier3(intensive)behavior Tier3strategiesarenot
andsocial-emotional
developedand/orclearly
30
practices includeintegrated defined
strategiesthataredeveloped
basedonstudents’needs
andstrengths,arealigned
withTier1andTier2
instructionalgoalsand
strategies,andaremonitored
usingassessments/data
sourcesthatlinkdirectlyto
skillstaught
32.Tier3(intensive)academic Tier3strategiesarenot
29
practices existthatinclude developedand/orclearly
integratedstrategiesthatare defined
developedbasedon
students’needs,arealigned
withTier1andTier2
instructionalgoalsand
strategies,andaremonitored
usingassessments/data
sourcesthatlinkdirectlyto
skillstaught
2=Operationalizing
Tier2strategiesincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-10
Tier3strategiesincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
• basedonstudents’needsacross
academic,behaviorandsocialemotionaldomains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linktoacademic
content/instruction
• assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
• developedbasedonstudents’
needsacrossacademic,behavior
andsocial-emotionaldomains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
• developedbasedonstudents’
needsacrossacademic,
behaviorandsocial-emotional
domains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linktobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
Tier3strategiesincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
• basedonstudents’needs
acrossacademic,behaviorand
social-emotionaldomains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linktoacademic
content/instruction
• assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
Tier3strategiesincorporate
2or3ofthefollowing4:
Tier3strategiesincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
• commonstudentneeds
• linktoTier1instruction
• linktoacademic
content/instruction
•
assessments/datasourceslink
• assessments/datasourceslink
directlytotheskillstaught
directlytotheskillstaught
• commonstudentneeds
• linktoTier1instruction
• linktoacademic
content/instruction
1=Emerging/Developing
Tier2strategiesincorporate
1ofthefollowing4:
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
Item
0=NotImplementing
31.Tier2(supplemental)
Tier2strategiesarenot
behaviorandsocialdevelopedand/orclearly
emotionalpracticesexistthat defined
addressintegratedcommon
studentneeds,arelinkedto
28
Tier1instruction ,andare
monitoredusing
assessments/datasources
tieddirectlytotheskills
taught
commonstudentneeds
linktoTier1instruction
linktoacademiccontent
assessments/datasourceslink
directlytotheskillstaught
Rating
Tier3strategiesincorporate
allofthefollowing:
• basedonstudents’needsacross
academic,behaviorandsocialemotionaldomains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linktoacademiccontent/
instruction
• assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
• developedbasedonstudents’
needsacrossacademic,behavior
andsocial-emotionaldomains
• alignedwithTier1andTier2
instruction
• linkedtobehaviorandsocialemotionalcontent/instruction
• monitoredusing
assessments/datasourcesthat
linkdirectlytotheskillstaught
Tier3strategiesincorporate
allofthefollowing:
•
•
•
•
3=Optimizing
Tier2strategiesincorporate
allofthefollowing:
Item
Nopoliciesandprocedures
areinplace
35.Policiesandprocedures
fordecision-makingare
establishedforthe
administrationof
assessments,accessto
existingdatasources,and
31
useofdata Theleadershipteamhaspolicies
andproceduresfordecisionmakingthatincludeschedulesfor
screening,useofdiagnostic
assessments,progressmonitoring
frequency,andcriteriafor
determiningtier(s)ofsupport
needed
Stafflearnthepurposesof
assessmentwithinMTSS
andtheleadershipteamselects
measuresforthepurposesof
assessmentacrossacademic,
behaviorandsocial-emotional
areasthatarereliable,valid,and
accessible,aswellasculturally,
linguistically,and
developmentallyappropriate
andStaffconsistentlyadminister
assessments,accessdatasources
andmakedata-baseddecisions
usingthepoliciesandprocedures
fordecision-makingwithfidelity
• determinestudentattainmentof
academic,behaviorandsocialemotionaloutcomes
andStaffengageinassessment
withfidelityto:
• answerpredetermined
guiding/criticalquestions
regardingstudent
functioning/outcomes
• identifystudentswhoareat-risk
atleast3-4times/year
• determinewhyastudentisatrisk
• monitorstudent
growth/progress
• informinstructional/intervention
planning
2=Operationalizing
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-11
Staffdonotunderstandand
haveaccesstoacademic,
behaviorandsocialemotionaldatasourcesor
thataddressthepurposesof
assessment
34.Staffunderstandandhave
accesstoacademic,behavior
andsocial-emotionaldata
sourcesthataddressthe
followingpurposesof
assessment:
• identifystudentsat-risk
academically,socially,
and/oremotionally
• determinewhystudentis
at-risk
• monitorstudentacademic
andsocial-emotional
growth/progress
• informacademicandsocialemotional
instructional/intervention
planning
• determinestudent
attainmentofacademic,
behaviorandsocialemotionaloutcomes
1=Emerging/Developing
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
0=NotImplementing
6.Data-EvaluationDomain(Items34-39)
Rating
andAdherencetoandeffectiveness
ofpoliciesandproceduresfor
decision-makingareevaluated
regularlyforefficiency,usefulness,
andrelevanceforstudentsandstaff,
anddataareusedtomake
adjustmentstothepolicies
andTheleadershipteamand/or
staffcollaborativelyand
systematicallyevaluateandrefine
(asneeded)criticalguiding
questionsandadjustassessment
practicestoensureavailabilityof
accurateandusefuldatatoinform
instruction;assessmenttoolsare
evaluatedforcontinuedvalue,
usefulness,andcultural,linguistic,
anddevelopmental
appropriateness
3=Optimizing
27
28 andTheleadershipteam
periodicallyconductsanalysesto
determineconsistencyand
accuracyofdata
andProcessesandcriteriafor
resourceallocationarerefined
basedonstrategiesthatresultin
improvedstudentoutcomes.
andTheLeadershipteam
periodicallyconductsanalysesto
determinehowimplementationof
criticalelementsofMTSSrelateto
positivestudentoutcomes
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)Page-12
Pleaseciteas:
Stockslager,K.,Castillo,J.,Brundage,A.,Childs,K.,&Romer,N.(2016).Self-AssessmentofMTSS(SAM).Florida’sProblemSolving/Responseto
InterventionProjectandFlorida’sPositiveBehaviorInterventionandSupportProject,UniversityofSouthFlorida
andTheleadershipteamusesa
protocol(e.g.emailnotificationsfor
failuretotakeattendance,etc.)to
monitordataconsistencyand
accuracy
Datasourcesarenot
monitoredforaccuracyor
consistency
39.Datasourcesare
monitoredforconsistency
andaccuracyincollection
andentryprocedures
Theleadershipteamensuresthat
staffunderstandtheimportance
ofaccurateandconsistentdata
collectionpracticesandhave
providedprofessional
developmentonpoliciesand
proceduresformethods,types
andfrequencyofdatacollection
Resourcesarenotallocated Resourcesareallocatedbasedon andtherelationshipbetweenthe
basedonstudentneedand studentneed
resourcesallocatedandthe
theavailabilityoftime,
outcomesofstudentsisevaluated
availablepersonnel,funding,
andmaterials
38.Availableresourcesare
allocatedeffectively
andTheleadershipteamusesdata
sourcestoevaluateimplementation
andtomakesystemic
improvementstothecritical
elementsofMTSS
Theleadershipteamhas
identifieddatasourcesthatwill
beusedtoevaluate
implementationofthecritical
6
elementsofMTSS
37.Datasources areusedto Nodatasourcestoevaluate
evaluatetheimplementation implementationofthe
andimpactofMTSS
criticalelementsofMTSS
havebeenidentified
31
Rating
1=Emerging/Developing
2=Operationalizing
3=Optimizing
Theleadershipteamensures
andStaffusethedatatoolsandare andDatatoolsareperiodically
availabilityoftoolsthatcantrack providedassistanceasneeded
assessedandthenecessarychanges
andgraphicallydisplayacademic,
aremadeinordertoimprove
behaviorandsocial-emotional
functionality,efficiency,and
data,andstaffaretrainedonthe
usefulness,andstaffisproficient
useofthetoolsandontheir
andindependentwithdatatools
responsibilitiesfordata
andeasilysupportnewstaff
collection,entryand
members
management
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)
Item
0=NotImplementing
31
36.Effectivedatatools are Staffdonothaveaccessto
usedappropriatelyand
toolsthatefficientlyprovide
independentlybystaff
dataneededtoanswer
problemsolvingquestions
foracademic,behaviorand
social-emotionalissues
Self-AssessmentofMTSSImplementation(SAM)Endnotes
1.
Instructional support staff may include: interventionists, coaches, behavioral specialists.
Studentsupportpersonnelarecomprisedofschoolpsychologists,schoolcounselors,social
workersandschoolnurses.
2.
ResponsibilitiesforfacilitatingMTSSimplementationarenotlimitedto,butcaninclude:
•
•
•
•
Promoting a school-wide vision and mission for MTSS implementation, including the
developmentanddisseminationofaschool-wideimplementationplan
Allocating resources (e.g., time, personnel, materials) for the planning and delivery of
evidence-basedassessment,instructionandintervention
Providingongoingprofessionaldevelopmentandcoachingsupporttoschoolstaff
CollectingandanalyzingdataonMTSSimplementationefforts
3.
Professionaldevelopmentandcoachingareongoingactivitiesthatdevelopthecapacityof
staff to implement MTSS. Efforts should be aligned with results of school needs
assessmentsandmodifiedbasedontheresultsofprofessionallearning.
4.
AstrategicplanforMTSSimplementationshouldaddressthefollowingcomponents(ata
minimum):
•
•
•
5.
Communicationandcollaborationstrategies
Capacitybuildingtargetsandactivities
DatatomonitorimplementationfidelityofthecriticalelementsofMTSS
Different approaches to facilitating school-wide implementation of an MTSS model can
include:
•
•
The focus on a three-stage model of consensus building, infrastructure development, and
implementationofpracticesconsistentwithanMTSSmodel
The focus on a specific sets of activities related to successful implementation of a
designated model of service delivery (e.g., National Implementation Research Network
framework)
The approach to facilitating school-wide implementation of an MTSS model should be
connectedtotheSchoolImprovementPlan(SIP),aswellotherschool-wideplans.Ifyour
district/state has provide guidance on an approach to implementing MTSS, then school
leadershipteamsshouldconsiderusingthespecifiedapproach.
6.
CriticalelementsofMTSScommunicatedtostaffinclude:
•
•
•
•
7.
Curriculumstandards
Assessmentdatausedtoinforminstruction
Multipletiersofinstructionandintervention
Data-basedproblem-solvingusedtomakedecisions
“Coaching” is defined as technical assistance and support provided to school staff to
improve implementation of components of an MTSS model (e.g., engaging in data-based
problem solving, use of assessment data, development of multi-tiered instruction and
intervention),including:
•
•
Co-planning
Modeling/demonstration
• Co-facilitation
• Guidedpracticewithhighqualityfeedback
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)-Page1
29
8. Independentpracticewithguidedreflection
• Instruction and intervention design and delivery that reflect student diversity make learning relevant
and effective for all students by evaluating and accounting for diverse students’ culture,
language,backgrounds,beliefs,knowledge,skillsandcontexts.Inaculturallyresponsiveschool
effectiveteachingandlearningoccurinaculturally-supported,learner-centeredcontext,where
studentstrengthsareidentifiedandutilizedtopromotestudentoutcomesacrossalltiers.
9. Schools will need to establish and communicate the problem solving process to be used,
specificstepstobefollowed,andcriteriatousewhenmakingdecisions(e.g.,whatisgood,
questionable,orpoorRtI?).Schoolsshouldconsiderdistrictandstateguidelineswhenavailable.
10. Processesandproceduresforproblemsolving,datacollectionanduse,anddecision-rules
include:
• Specificguidelinesonthestepsofproblem-solvingtobeused
• Documentationrequirements
• Opportunities for engaging in data-based problem-solving (e.g., Professional
LearningCommunities,InterventionTeams)
• Rolesandresponsibilitiesofparticipants
11. Resources encompass not only available monetary assets but also available personnel,
instructionalmaterialsandtimethatwillfacilitatetheimplementationandsustainmentof
anMTSSasaframeworkforsupportingallstudents.
12. Staff refers to employees at the school that will be impacted by or will be involved in
implementation of MTSS. This will always include administration, teachers, other
professional (e.g. student support services personnel) and para-professional support staff.
The degree to which other employees (e.g. bus drivers, cafeteria workers, administrative
supportstaff,facilitiesstaff)areincludedmaybedeterminedbytheirlevelofinvolvement
with/implementationofMTSScomponentsattheindividualschoollevel.
13. Efforts to engage staff should align with district and state guidance regarding MTSS
implementation to facilitate staff understanding of connections between school, district,
andstateinitiatives.
14. Dataonstudentoutcomes,school-levelimplementationfidelity,thecapacityofeducators
to implement, and commitment from staff are needed to inform implementation. Staff
rolesandresponsibilitieswilldrivethespecificdatatheyneedtoinformimplementation.
15. Familyandcommunityengagementistheactiveandmeaningfulpartnershipthateducators
buildandmaintainwithstudents’familiesandthebroadercommunityforthepurposeof
supportingstudentlearning.
16. Intensiveoutreachtounresponsivefamiliesreferstoadditionalactivitiesundertakenbythe
school to engage families of students who need additional supports, but who are not
engaging with the school's typical outreach practices (e.g. letters and phone calls
home). Intensive outreach is an individualized approach requiring information gathering and
problemsolvingtoidentifyoutreachstrategiesthataremorelikelytobesuccessfulforafamily.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)-Page2
30 17. Data-based problem solving refers to a multi-step process that includes examining
performance related to goals/expectations (Problem Identification), understanding
variables causing problems (Problem Analysis), selecting/designing and implementing
strategies to lessen barriers and achieve goals (Instruction/Intervention Delivery), and
monitoringeffectiveness(Monitoring/Evaluation)
18. Data-basedproblem-solvingshouldoccur(a)acrosscontentareas(reading,math,science,
behavior, social-emotional and other relevant content areas for a school) (b) within and
acrossgradelevels(e.g.,horizontalmeetingsfor6th,7th,8th,aswellasverticalmeetings
for6ththrough8th),and(c)acrosstiers(performancedatainresponsetoinstructionusedto
engage in problem-solving for all students [Tier 1], for some students receiving
supplementalinstruction[Tier2],andforstudentsreceivingindividualizedsupport[Tier3]).
19. Reasons why students are not meeting expectations are sometimes referred to as
hypothesesorbarrierstolearning.Thebigideaisthatschoolsidentifypotentialcurriculum,
instruction, environmental (e.g., peer distractions, classroom management issues), and
learner (e.g., skill deficits) for why the student is not meeting expectations and collect
data/informationtodeterminewhichreasonsarecontributingtotheproblem.
20. Specificinstruction/interventionplansincludeinformationoutlining:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thegoaloftheintervention/actionplan
What intervention or action steps (e.g., curriculum adjustments, instructional processes
andprocedures)willbeputinplace
Howoften(daily/weekly/etc.)theinterventionwillbeutilized
Howlongeachsessionistobeimplemented
Whoisresponsibleforinterventionimplementationandsupport
Whereandwhentheinterventionwillhappen
Planformonitoringinstruction/interventionfidelityandprogresstowardsidentifiedgoals
Timeframe(dates)forperiodicreviewofprogressmonitoringdataanddecisionpoints
21. Structured problem solving is utilized to identify resources that can be used to facilitate
implementation and barriers that are hindering implementation for the purpose of
developingspecificactionplanstoincreaseimplementationlevels.
22. Prioritylearningstandardsarecurriculumstandardsthatdefinewhatstudentsshouldknow
and be able to do for a given content area and grade level (e.g., Common Core State
Standards;statespecificstandards,Social-EmotionalLearningStandards).
23. Expectationsforinstructionoftenincludeelementsrelatedtotheinstructionalroutine(e.g.,
whole-group, small-group, and independent practice), amount of time dedicated to
instruction,andwhichevidence-basedinstructionalstrategiesareused.
24. Both statewide assessments and formative assessments administered to all students are
important to identify so that expectations for the data needed to inform decisions are
consistent.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)-Page3
31
25. Structuredinstructionofbehavioralexpectationsandsocialandemotionalskillsisprovided
to all students. Classroom routines include social and emotional learning principles and
classroom management strategies embedded into instruction. School climate and
environments support student well-being. A small number of clearly defined school-wide
expectations that are positively stated are a foundational element of Tier 1 school-wide
behaviorsupportsystem.
26. School-wide social-emotional behavior data may include Office Discipline Referrals, InSchool Suspensions, Out-of-School Suspensions, and social-emotional screening data
sourcesusedtoexaminetheeffectivenessofTier1behaviorandsocial-emotionalsupports.
27. Tier 2 interventions should be aligned with Tier 1 instructional goals and expectations,
address high-probability barriers to achieving instructional goals and expectations, and
includeassessmentswhichmeasurespecificskills,generaloutcomes,andstudentprogress.
28. Tier 2 interventions should be aligned with school-wide behavior and social-emotional
expectations, address high-probability barriers to meeting instructional goals and student
well-being, and include assessments that monitor student discipline incidents, socialemotionalskills,andwell-being.
29. Tier 3 interventions generally provide increased exposure (time in minutes) to quality
instructionorintervention,morefocusedinstructionmatchedtostudentneed,andsmaller
groupings.Additionally,Tier3interventionsoftenaredevelopedduringindividualstudent
focused problem-solving sessions. Importantly, Tier 3 interventions focused on academic
issuesshouldbelinkedtoTier1and2instructionalcontentandprocessesandalsoshould
considerwhatbehavioralorsocial-emotionalsupportsareneededforsuccess.
30. Tier 3 interventions are matched to a student’s specific behavior and social-emotional
needsandensurethestudenthasaccesstoTier1andTier2supports.Forafewstudents
withcomplexneeds,individualizedinterventionsmayinvolvewraparoundsupportsacross
systems(e.g.,mentalhealth,education,medical,family,etc.).Individualizedinterventions
include specific prevention and consequence-based strategies based on assessment
information (i.e., Functional Behavior Assessment), and may include modifications to the
classroom environment or instruction, teaching new skills, and reinforcement of desired
behaviorsaswellasarangeofsupportssuchasmentalhealthservices.
31. District and states typically create or adopt data management systems. They also specify
access and use requirements. School leaders should coordinate with district and state
leaders to understand requirements and establish and communicate procedures for using
the data system at their school. Quality indicators for data management systems include:
real-timerelevantdataforacademic,behavior,andsocial-emotionalcontent,theabilityto
graphically represent data, provision of tiered intervention data, integrated academic,
behavior,andsocial-emotionaldata,andthedataarecustomizableattheschoollevel.
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)-Page4
32 SAMScoringSheet
THISSCORINGSHEETHASABBREVIATEDLANGUAGEANDSHOULDONLYBEUSEDTORECORDANDDISPLAYRESPONSES
Rateeachitemonascalefrom0-3(0=NotStarted;1=Emerging/Developing;2=Operationalizing;3=Optimizing)
1.LeadershipDomain(Items1-5)
Rating0-3
1.Theprincipalisactivelyinvolved
0 1 2 3
2.Aleadershipteamisestablished
0 1 2 3
3.Theleadershipteamactivelyengagesinongoingprofessionaldevelopment
0 1 2 3
4.AstrategicplanforMTSSimplementationisdeveloped
0 1 2 3
5.Theleadershipteamisactivelyfacilitatingimplementation
0 1 2 3
2.BuildingtheCapacity/InfrastructureforImplementationDomain(Items6-16)
Rating0-3
6.ThecriticalelementsofMTSSaredefinedandunderstood
0 1 2 3
7.Professionaldevelopmentandcoachingprovidedtostaff
0 1 2 3
8.TheleadershipteamfacilitatesPDondata-basedproblem-solving
0 1 2 3
9.TheleadershipteamfacilitatesPDonmulti-tieredinstructionandintervention
0 1 2 3
10.CoachingisusedtosupportMTSSimplementation
0 1 2 3
11.Schedulesprovideadequatetimefortrainingandcoaching
0 1 2 3
12.Schedulesprovideadequatetimetoadministerassessments
0 1 2 3
13.Schedulesprovideadequatetimeformultipletiersofinstruction/interventions
0 1 2 3
14.Schedulesprovideadequatetimefordata-basedproblem-solving
0 1 2 3
15.Processes,procedures,anddecision-rulesareestablishedforDBPS
0 1 2 3
16.ResourcestosupportMTSSimplementationareidentifiedandallocated
0 1 2 3
3.CommunicationandCollaborationDomain(Items17-20)
Rating0-3
17.StaffhaveconsensusandengageinMTSSImplementation
0 1 2 3
18.StaffareprovideddataonMTSSfidelityandstudentoutcomes
0 1 2 3
19.Theinfrastructureexiststosupportfamilyandcommunityengagement
0 1 2 3
20.EducatorsactivelyengagefamiliesinMTSS 0 1 2 3
4.Data-BasedProblem-SolvingDomain(Items21-27)
Rating0-3
21.DBPSforstudentoutcomesoccursacrosscontentareas,gradelevels,andtiers
0 1 2 3
22.Acrosstiers,datausedtoidentify“gap”betweenexpectedandcurrentoutcomes
0 1 2 3
23.Dataareusedtoidentifyreasonswhystudentsarenotmeetingexpectations
0 1 2 3
24.Plansbasedonverifiedreasonswhystudentsarenotmeetingexpectations
0 1 2 3
25.Studentprogressspecifictoacademicorbehaviorgoalsaremonitored
0 1 2 3
26.Dataareusedtoaddressperformanceacrossdiversegroup
0 1 2 3
27.ResourcesforimplementationofMTSSareaddressedthroughdata-basedproblem-solving
0 1 2 3
5.ThreeTieredInstructional/InterventionModelDomain(Items28-33)
Rating0-3
28.Tier1academicpracticesclearlyidentifylearningstandards
0 1 2 3
29.Tier1behaviorpracticesidentifyschool-wideexpectations
0 1 2 3
30.Tier2academicpracticesincludecommonstudentneeds,arelinkedtoTier1
0 1 2 3
31.Tier2behaviorpracticesincludecommonstudentneeds,arelinkedtoTier1
0 1 2 3
32.Tier3academicpracticesarebasedonstudents’needs,alignedwithTier1andTier2
0 1 2 3
33.Tier3behaviorpracticesarebasedonstudents’needs,alignedwithTier1andTier2
0 1 2 3
6.Data-EvaluationsDomain(Items34-39)
Rating0-3
34.Staffunderstandandhaveaccesstodatasources
0 1 2 3
35.Policiesandproceduresfordecision-makingareestablished
0 1 2 3
36.Effectivedatatoolsareusedappropriatelyandindependentlybystaff
0 1 2 3
37.Datasourcesareusedtoevaluatethefidelityandimpact
0 1 2 3
38.Availableresourcesareallocatedeffectively
0 1 2 3
39.Datasourcesaremonitoredforconsistencyandaccuracy
0 1 2 3
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)
33
ActionPlanandGuidingQuestions
1. InwhichdomainsarethegreatestgapsincurrentandoptimalMTSSimplementation?
2. WhichspecificitemsrepresentthegreatestgapsincurrentandoptimalMTSS
implementation?
3. WhichspecificMTSSimplementationactionsoractivitieswillyourteamfocuson
improvingwithinyourschool?
4. Whicharemostimmediatelyactionable?
5. Whichwouldbemostimpactful?
6. Whichwouldbemostfoundational(alignedwithwhereyouwanttobe)?
Youmaychoosetouseyourownactionplanningformortheoneprovidedbelow.
Action/Activity
Whois
responsible?
Whenwillit
bestarted?
Whenwillitbe
completed?
When/howwill
weevaluateit?
SAMVersion2.0(LastrevisedOctober2015)
34 Appendix B. Additional Considerations for SAM Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation
This section provides additional information relative to SAM use and interpretation. Specifically, SBLT team
composition and time commitment guidelines (prerequisites for completing the SAM), administration considerations,
suggestions for identifying strengths and needs, and additional examples of district-level data analysis are provided.
Prerequisites
School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT). SBLTs are comprised of approximately six to eight staff members selected
to take a leadership role in facilitating MTSS implementation in a school. Staff included on the SBLT should have
the following roles represented: administration, general education teachers, special education teachers, student
services, and content specialists (e.g., reading, math, behavior). SBLT members should receive training on the
MTSS model including strategies for facilitating implementation. Individuals on the team also should adopt roles
and responsibilities to ensure efficient and productive planning and problem-solving meetings. Important
responsibilities include a facilitator, timekeeper, data coach, and note-taker, in addition to providing expertise in the
particular content areas or disciplines listed above.
Time and commitment. Prior to committing to completion of the SAM, SBLT members should consider the time and
resources necessary to collect, analyze, and action plan around the SAM results. Results from a national pilot study
indicated that average completion time for the SAM averaged between 1-2 hours.
Administration
Data collection and action planning. During the SAM administration, SBLT members should consider prioritizing
completion of the full SAM instrument prior to engaging in action planning. Completion of the entire set of 39 items
allows teams to review their full implementation data and prioritize action planning based on having all of the
information available.
Frequency of use and administration time of year. As described earlier, it is recommended that SBLT members
complete the SAM at least once per year. Completion of the SAM annually allows team members to evaluate initial
MTSS implementation efforts, as well as changes in implementation levels across years. Collecting the SAM once
per year also allows SBLT members to re-prioritize their focus based on results of the data collection.
SBLTs also should consider the time and resources dedicated to increasing MTSS implementation when deciding on
the frequency of SAM data collection. For example, if an SBLT completes the SAM at the beginning of the school
year and dedicates a significant amount of resources (e.g., professional development, coaching, etc.) toward
increasing specific MTSS implementation components, an end of year SAM administration might help the SBLT
measure their progress and re-organize their MTSS focus for the upcoming school year.
Interpreting SAM data and applying the results
Identifying strengths and needs.
•
•
•
The extent to which schools should be implementing MTSS practices will depend on training received; length
of time since the school decided to implement the model; district, state, and national policies and procedures;
availability of data systems to support data-based decision-making; among myriad other factors. Given the
multiple interacting variables that impact school efforts to implement any initiative, it is important to consider
all aspects of the system that contribute to or impede engagement in specific activities while developing plans
that address needs evident from the data.
In addition to the SAM, SBLT members should consider additional MTSS implementation data and information
that are available prior to action planning. For example, schools may already collect behavior implementation
data (e.g., Benchmarks of Quality [BOQ]) that can be used in conjunction with the SAM. SBLT members should
consider the SAM to be one piece of data in examining a complex system of educational service delivery.
SBLTs should consider the identification of areas of strength, areas of potential strength, and areas for
improvement. For areas for improvement, schools should identify those components that are foundational (i.e.,
must be in place for other components to be present) to facilitate optimal levels of MTSS implementation.
Additional district-level example graphs
Below are sample district-level graphs to provide an example of how aggregate, district-level SAM results can be
displayed for easier interpretation. The examples are based on real SAM data and decisions made by the District
Leadership Team in the district that completed the SAM.
35
Figure 4. District-Level Example of SAM Data: Average Domain Scores.
Explanation of the Graph
Sunshine School District recently committed to implementing MTSS district-wide. The newly formed district
leadership team (DLT) at Sunshine School District met at the beginning of the school year to plan for
implementation, but realized that they did not know where to begin. At the suggestion of the district’s MTSS lead,
the team decided to have all the schools complete the SAM at their next SBLT meeting to inform both district and
school goals and activities for the year. After all of the schools completed the SAM, the team first reviewed the
district average domain scores to identify potential areas of strengths and need (Figure 4). A quick review of the
graph led the team to identify communication/collaboration, data/evaluation and capacity/infrastructure as potential
areas to focus on related to improvement of MTSS implementation. The team decided to look at the averages across
levels (elementary, middle, and high) to provide further information to assist in selecting a focus area.
36 Figure 5. District-Level Example of SAM Data: Aggregated Elementary Domain Scores.
Explanation of the Graph
Upon examination of the aggregate scores across all elementary schools, the DLT at Sunshine School District noted
the same domains (communication/collaboration, data/evaluation and capacity/infrastructure) as potential areas to
focus on related to improvement of MTSS implementation.
Figure 6. District-Level Example of SAM Data: Aggregated Middle School Domain Scores.
37
Explanation of the Graph
The data aggregated across all middle schools indicated similar relative areas of need (communication/collaboration
and data/evaluation) as the overall district average. The DLT noted that all aggregate middle school domains (except
Three-Tier model) were below the district domain average of 1.5 and, therefore, were potential targets for
improvement.
Figure 7. District-Level Example of SAM Data: Aggregated High School Domain Scores.
Explanation of the Graph
Similar to the district and elementary data, the aggregate domain scores across all high schools indicated the same
potential areas for improvement (communication/collaboration, data/evaluation and capacity/infrastructure).
Interpretation and use of the data
While the DLT noted similar levels of implementation across many of the domains, the team decided to prioritize
building the capacity and infrastructure for implementation due to it being foundational for many of the other
activities and/or practices within the other domains to occur. In order to better understand the broad domain, the
team next looked at the distribution of responses for each item within the Building Capacity/Infrastructure domain.
38 Figure 8. District-Level Example of SAM Data: Item Frequencies (Building Capacity/Infrastructure Domain).
Explanation of the Graph
As mentioned above, the Sunshine District DLT decided to focus on the Building Capacity/Infrastructure domain
after a review of their SAM scores. Figure 8 above includes the district-wide distribution of results for the SAM
Building Capacity/Infrastructure items.
Interpretation and use of the data
Examining items within a SAM domain. Following the first administration of the SAM at the beginning of the year,
the DLT met to discuss the results and plan for addressing building capacity and infrastructure for implementation.
The team examined the district-wide distribution of ratings across each item (Figure 8). Within the Building
Capacity/Infrastructure domain, the DLT found the lowest percentage of schools rated themselves as optimizing and
the highest percentage of schools rated themselves as emerging/developing on item 8 (Professional development and
coaching for staff members on data based problem solving relative to their job roles/responsibilities), item 9
(Professional development and coaching for all staff on multi-tiered instruction and intervention relative to their job
roles/responsibilities) and item 15 (Processes, procedures, and decision-rules are established for data-based
problem solving).
Identifying specific needs. Overall, these data indicated that across schools there was a lack of clear expectations
about the circumstances under which educators are to engage in data-based problem solving to address student and
systems issues. Additionally, the data indicated that a lack of explicit professional development focused on how to
engage in data-based problem solving (e.g., process, data sources) and how to provide multi-tiered supports to meet
students needs existed. A strategic district-wide focus to build capacity in these areas is foundational for sustainable
MTSS and is a logical first step for the Sunshine District. The DLT planned for addressing these issues and agreed
to examine progress following the next SAM administration. Once district-wide expectations and capacity have been
established for common areas of need, the district will consider how to best address school level-specific needs, such
as overall low levels of implementation across all domains at middle schools.
39
Appendix C. Standardized Factor Loadings for Items on the SAM
Table 4. Standardized Factor Loadings and Standard Errors for Items on the SAM.
Factor
Item #
Item
Estimate
Leadership
1
The principal is actively involved in and facilitates
MTSS implementation
A leadership team is established that includes 6-8
members with cross-disciplinary representation
(e.g., principal, general and special education
teachers, content area experts, instructional support
staff, student support personnel) and is responsible
for facilitating MTSS implementation
The leadership team actively engages staff in
ongoing professional development and coaching
necessary to support MTSS implementation
A strategic plan for MTSS implementation is
developed and aligned with the school
improvement plan
The leadership team is actively facilitating
implementation of MTSS as part of their school
improvement planning process
The critical elements of MTSS are defined and
understood by school staff
The leadership team facilitates professional
development and coaching for all staff members on
assessments and data sources used to inform
decisions
The leadership team facilitates professional
development and coaching for staff members on
data-based problem solving relative to their job
roles/responsibilities
The leadership team facilitates professional
development and coaching for all staff on multitiered instruction and intervention relative to their
job roles/responsibilities
Coaching is used to support MTSS implementation
Schedules provide adequate time for trainings and
coaching support
Schedules provide adequate time to administer
academic, behavior and social-emotional
assessments needed to make data-based decisions
Schedules provide adequate time for multiple tiers
of evidence-based instruction and intervention to
occur
Schedules provide adequate time for staff to engage
in collaborative, data-based problem solving and
decision making
Processes, procedures, and decision-rules are
established for data-based problem solving
Resources available to support MTSS
implementation are identified and allocated
Staff have consensus and engage in MTSS
Implementation
.69
Standard
Error
.04
.80
.03
.71
.03
.82
.02
.93
.01
.76
.03
.77
.02
.79
.02
.83
.02
.75
.68
.03
.03
.68
.03
.74
.03
.68
.03
.85
.02
.83
.02
.84
.02
2
3
4
5
Capacity/
Infrastructure
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Communication
and Collaboration
40 17
18
19
Data-Based
Problem Solving
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Three-Tiered
Model
28
29
30
31
32
Staff are provided data on MTSS implementation
fidelity and student outcomes
The infrastructure exists to support the school’s
goals for family and community engagement in
MTSS
Educators actively engage families in MTSS
Integrated data-based problem solving for student
academic, behavior and social-emotional outcomes
occurs across content areas, grade levels, and tiers
Across all tiers, data are used to identify the
difference or “gap” between expected and current
student outcomes relative to academic, behavior
and social- emotional goals
Academic, behavior and social-emotional data are
used to identify and verify reasons why students are
not meeting expectations
Specific instructional/intervention plans are
developed and implemented based on verified
reasons why students are not meeting academic,
behavior and social-emotional expectations
Student progress specific to academic, behavior and
social-emotional goals specified in intervention
plans are monitored
Data-based problem solving informs how patterns
of student performance across diverse groups (e.g.,
racial/ethnic, cultural, social-economic, language
proficiency, disability status) are addressed
Resources for and barriers to the implementation of
MTSS are addressed through a data-based problem
solving process
Tier 1 (core) academic practices exist that clearly
identify learning standards, school-wide
expectations for instruction that engages students,
and school-wide assessments
Tier 1 (core) behavior and social-emotional
practices exist that clearly identify school-wide
expectations, social-emotional skills instruction,
classroom management practices, and school-wide
behavior and social-emotional data
Tier 2 (supplemental) academic practices exist that
include strategies addressing integrated common
student needs, are linked to Tier 1 instruction, and
are monitored using assessments/data sources tied
directly to the academic, behavior and socialemotional skills taught
Tier 2 (supplemental) behavior and socialemotional practices exist that address integrated
common student needs, are linked to Tier 1
instruction, and are monitored using
assessments/data sources tied directly to the skills
taught
Tier 3 (intensive) academic practices exist that
include integrated strategies that are developed
based on students’ needs, are aligned with Tier 1
and Tier 2 instructional goals and strategies, and are
.80
.03
.70
.03
.66
.83
.03
.02
.85
.02
.83
.02
.82
.02
.84
.02
.62
.03
.81
.02
.79
.03
.81
.03
.90
.02
.91
.01
.88
.02
41
33
Data and
Evaluation
34
35
36
37
38
39
42 monitored using assessments/data sources that link
directly to skills taught
Tier 3 (intensive) behavior and social-emotional
practices include integrated strategies that are
developed based on students’ needs and strengths,
are aligned with Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional
goals and strategies, and are monitored using
assessments/data sources that link directly to skills
taught
Staff understand and have access to academic,
behavior and social-emotional data sources that
address the following purposes of assessment:
• identify students at-risk academically, socially,
and/or emotionally
• determine why student is at-risk
• monitor student academic and social-emotional
growth/ progress
• inform academic and social-emotional
instructional/intervention planning determine
student attainment of academic, behavior and
social-emotional outcomes
Policies and procedures for decision-making are
established for the administration of assessments,
access to existing data sources, and use of data
Effective data tools are used appropriately and
independently by staff
Data sources are used to evaluate the
implementation and impact of MTSS
Available resources are allocated effectively
Data sources are monitored for consistency and
accuracy in collection and entry procedures
.86
.02
.87
.02
.84
.02
.79
.02
.84
.02
.80
.82
.02
.02