Proposal 26 AN EDUCATOR'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: WORKING IN A MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORT by Robert L. Pettit Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the...

Proposal
40
AN EDUCATOR’S PROESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: WORKING IN A MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORT
by
Robert L. Pettit
Liberty University
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Education
Liberty University
January 23rd, 2022
ABSTRACT
Now-a-days, to work in a multi layered environment teachers are envisioned to have immense knowledge base which has to increase consistently with time including the Response to Intervention (MTSS/RTI).After the reapproval of 2004 Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and successive order which authorised the local administration of schools to make use of different approach to find out the ways for learning deficit,the execution of the MTSS AND RTI plan in day nursery to senior high school has unwaveringly expanded .Anyhow, there are teachers who have inadequate basic abilities. The current band of teachers is the focal point for the expertise advancement. Many schools crave for knowledgeable and skilled teachers who did brilliantly during their training sessions. The study hall memoir and conduct gives out the idea about the inadequacy in advisory involvement. This report examines the steps to be taken for the students who are not recompensing with the scholarly designed courses to bridge the gap in MTSS-RTI agreement plan.
Keywords: Mtss, rti , pbis,
Copyright Page (Optional)
Dedication (Optional)
In this page, the student dedicates the document manuscript .This page is optional.
Acknowledgments (Optional)
This page is for acknowledgment that gives the candidate the space to confess the individuals who motivated them for the accomplishing the critique. This page is optional.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT    3
Copyright Page (Optional)    4
Dedication (Optional)    5
Acknowledgments (Optional)    6
List of Tables    10
List of Figures    11
List of Abbreviations    12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION    13
Overview    13
Background    13
Problem Statement    14
Purpose Statement    14
Significance of the Study    14
Research Question(s)    15
Definitions    16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW    17
Overview    17
Conceptual or Theoretical Framework    17
Related Literature    18
Summary    18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS    19
Overview    19
Design    19
Research Question(s)    19
Hypothesis(es)    20
Participants and Setting    21
Instrumentation    22
Procedures    23
Data Analysis    23
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS    25
Overview    25
Research Question(s)    25
Null Hypothesis(es)    25
Descriptive Statistics    25
Results    26
Hypothesis(es)    26
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS    27
Overview    27
Discussion    27
Implications    27
Limitations    27
Recommendations for Future Research    28
REFERENCES    29
APPENDIX or APPENDICES    30
List of Tables
The List of Tables cites the tables and the corresponding pages of each table. This enables the reader to easily locate the tables in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double spaced.
List of Figures
The List of Figures cites the figures and the corresponding pages of each figure. This enables the reader to easily locate the figures in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double-spaced.
List of Abbreviations
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)
Multi-Tiered Support Systems (MTSS)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
National Association School Psychologists (NASP)
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS)
Response to Intervention (RTI)
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
The implementation of Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks in preschool- to 12th grade (PK-12) schools has steadily increased which constantly expanding knowledge base and skills of today’s teacher. This system provides the educator to track the gap between the benchmarks and current accomplishment. This help the teachers to bring out the students forward who are not performing their highest level and provide them sufficient knowledge with the help of the approaches. These approaches influence the teachers to adopt innovative teaching strategies, which would might help the students to grab the information more quickly and make their concept clear.
Background
    A recommendation was made following the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 to use Response to Intervention (RTI). A research-based, tiered system of academic and social assistance that provides academic or social intervention based on the unique area(s) of need of a student is known as Response to Intervention (RTI). This approach provides educators with the capacity to work and identify these pupils earlier by allowing them to close the gap between benchmarks and current accomplishment. It is done more specifically before it expands and becomes more difficult to close. Teachers' perceived levels of stress vary from day to day and according to Von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus, Wicoff, and Bowler (2017), it might result in the use of more frequent counterproductive teaching practices; however, despite these stressors, teachers are still held accountable for their students' academic growth. When academic or behavioral benchmarks show that a student is not performing at their highest level of learning (at/above benchmark), at that circumstances teacher must seek out innovative instructional strategies with the primary goal of closing the achievement gap, by balancing their other job-related duties and responsibilities (Satterfield, 2020). If general-education teachers are unable to assist students in closing these academic gaps, the end result is all too frequently referral in other special education programs. Since the 1960s, members of the educational community have disputed educational choices for challenging kids, and are showing concerns about the rapidly expanding number of pupils enrolled in special education programs (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). As part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), RTI was authorized to be used indefinitely, and a multi-tiered support system was instituted as a means of securing additional assistance for all students, reducing the number of special education student referrals, and lowering the overall costs of special education services (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). The implementation of the RTI framework, according to Cowan and Maxwell (2015), resulted in a paradigm change in the educational system since it obliged educators to investigate alternative interventions, tactics, and approaches before recommending testing or attempting to diagnose a kid. The RTI framework was intended to be used originally as a strategy tool to aid in the early identification of students with learning disabilities. It was also intended to be used as a screening process to prevent over-identification of students as needing special education services as an outcome of an incorrect diagnosis or label being assigned to a particular student (Satterfield, 2020).
Historical Overview
    Researchers and educators have witnessed considerable gains in student outcomes as a result of the passage of federal special education legislation. The legislation was devised and implemented in order to ensure that all pupils, regardless of aptitude, have unfettered access to a free and suitable public education. Learning impairments, behavioral consulting, data-driven program adjustment, and other sectors are all examples of where the RTI framework has its roots (Bergan, 1977; Deno & Mirkin, 1977). It was 1982 that the idea of a multi-tiered method in the general education classroom was first proposed, but it wasn't until more than a decade when later the idea of employing a multi-tiered approach in general education classrooms was revived at the federal level (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). RTI has been influenced by a variety of sources, including parent groups and educational psychology (Preston et al., 2016), but Heller, Holtzman, and Messick (1982) were among the first researchers to conceptualize the origins of RTI in their theory that general education teachers are ultimately responsible for providing multiple interventions to the struggling as well as documenting student progress within these interventions (Preston et al., 2016). According to Heller et al. (1982), general education teachers must follow the established protocols before referring a student to special education in order to reduce the over-identification of pupils for special education. According to Heller et al., "the measure of a child's potential is not his or her initial performance, but the degree of progress is made in the response to instruction" (p. 62). When it comes to special education, the tiered intervention approach has its roots in the preventive models used by the social and health services administration (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000). Kauffman (1999) proposed by one of the first recognized direct uses of three levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) in the context of special education interventions to target emotional and behavioral disorders (Zigmond, 2011). RTI has been around for quite some time, but it was not recognized as a formal program until President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, which mandated that educators incorporate scientifically based research in their instruction and intervention strategies (Thorius & Sullivan, 2013; Voulgarides, Fergus, & Thorius, 2017). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) brought about significant and sweeping changes in the United States' educational system, and it increased pressure on general education teachers to emphasize the importance of providing high-quality research-based instruction as well as interventions to all their students (Klotz & Canter, 2007). It also established the practice of holding schools and teachers formally accountable for the progress their students make on a yearly basis using mandated standardized assessments, and it mandated that special education students not only should have access to the general education curriculum but also participate in all standardized assessments (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). As part of the NCLB accountability movement, control was transferred from local school districts to the state level for schools that did not improve their performance criteria. The present tiered RTI model, as a result, has been described by researchers as a development of special education away from a civil rights frame and toward a frame of educational excellence and accountability (Itkonen, 2009; Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). Schools may utilize a process that assesses if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process (614[6]B) when identifying students with learning disabilities when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in 2004 (614[6]B). This reauthorization, which allowed states to use RTI for both prevention and identification of learning disabilities, was prompted by growing concerns that the IQ-achievement discrepancy-based model that had previously been used had developed into a "wait and see" model (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015; Kovaleski, 2007; Reschly, 2005; Voulgarides et al., 2017, Zigmond, 2011). In many cases, kids had to fall so far behind their peers and "fail" before they could receive any assistance or interventions, and for many of them, the academic gap had become so visible as well as so great that it was nearly difficult to close the gap. As an outcome of the discrepancy model's lack of inclusion of evidence-based interventions and instructional response, it was frequently difficult for teachers to distinguish between students who were struggling. It was more because they did not respond to any kind of interventions and students who were still struggling because they had not received adequate instruction in the classroom (Vellutino et al., 1996; Voulgarides et al., 2017). Supporters of RTI believed that the use of a multi-tiered response model would allow teachers to determine better, which students have a true disability and which students simply have not received evidence-based instruction.
Society-at-Large
    The use and implementation of RTI are evolving in tandem with technological advancement. In Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the adoption of a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) to provide tiered levels of support and intervention, as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, has been proposed. However, even though there is an increasing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of MTSS, the tiered levels of assistance were established to cover both academic help for kids as well as individual student social and behavioral support. However, what was not recognized and so remained a systematic problem is that the teacher’s cultural competence, as well as the skills and roles of the other members of the staff in aiding all students in fulfilling academic and behavioral requirements in general.
Theoretical or Conceptual Background
Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law on April 11, 1965, after decades of Congress attempting and failing to pass educational legislation. This act recast the federal government's role in education. It provided funds to improve school libraries, conduct educational research, and assist disadvantaged students and students with disabilities (Nelson, 2016). This new law increased the federal government's investment in education in order to provide a high level of education to areas with a high concentration of economically disadvantaged students (USDE, 2008). The employment of RTIs as a method accomplished two objectives. In order to address the requirements of any special education students who required structured supports in general education academic classroom settings, the first goal established was to provide them the supports. Secondly, the purpose of RTI was to reduce the number of kids who needed to be referred for special education review by emphasizing on teamwork and data-driven decision-making as a means of improving overall student achievement. School personnel were ready to offer special education evaluations instead of classroom or school-supported treatments when student data indicated the need for further academic support. One unfortunate result of identifying needs in this manner was that students of color and students from low-income families were frequently over-identified as disabled and in need of special education services. According to educational researchers such as Douglas Fuchs, Lynn Fuchs, and Vicki Jacobs, early identification of students who are risk zone or students with learning disabilities, as well as the use of research-based instruction is a common topic of discussion among various experts in education. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2019 Nation's Report Card, only 34% of eighth-grade students performed at or above the proficient level on NAEP reading assessments. This percentage dropped 3% compared to 2017. These at-risk students are leaving middle school with the inability to understand and expand on the content of vocabulary of their other subjects. Response to Intervention (RTI) and Response to Intervention 2 (RTI2) is a proactive approach used by staff members to assess a student's skill level and then provide targeted instruction and intervention support materials to meet the student's needs based on the student's skill level. This instructional assessment approach can be used by the teacher to observe the student's reaction to the lesson or intervention that is being given. When we talk about RTI or RTI2, we're talking about a schoolwide service delivery strategy that supports effective results for all general and special education students. Specifically, the purpose of RTI2 was to satisfy the needs of students enrolled in Special Education, Title I, Title III, English learners, gifted and talented programs, and other special education programs. Data from national databases demonstrate that over representation and underserving minorities pupils continue to be a concern, despite changes in state policy and legislative efforts to offer equal access to the general education curriculum and limit placement in special education programs (Bell, 2017, Creswell & Poth, 2018; IDEA, 1997; McCart, 2019, Sugai, 2010, Witzel. 2017). A disproportionate or inaccurate percentage of minority pupils are recognized as deserving in need of special education services, sometimes because of misdiagnosis or incorrect labeling, result in the loss of educational opportunities for the students in question (Gottlieb et al., 1994, Smith, 1999).
Furthermore, due to misdiagnosis or mislabeling, special education can result in the exclusion and degradation of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds (Cavazos, 2020). Although students' responses to intervention help were often used when classifying them as special education pupils, staff perceptions and social segregation were also considered when classifying them as such. California Department of Education established Response to Intervention 2 (RTI2), which incorporated a component of behavioral support in addition to academic support for both mainstream and special education students. RTI2 is an acronym that stands for Response to Intervention 2. In today's society, positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS) is a widely utilized structure of social and behavioral assistance that, when implemented consistently, can significantly enhance students' social, behavioral, and academic achievements. Pupil behavior intervention and support services (PBIS) are designed to accommodate the diverse needs of all pupils, which include those with disabilities and other marginalized groups. Academic tactics of tiered interventions to suit the needs of the entire child are provided by the MTSS and PBIS frameworks, which are utilized in conjunction with one another. MTSS is a framework for providing academic strategies of tiered instructional intervention combined with a social-behavioral component, PBIS, is on the other hand is that which is integrated into the MTSS framework as a tool to meet the needs of the whole child. For example, the MTSS framework incorporates evidence-based practices of RTI2 (used as an academic response) along with an evidence-based social/behavioral strategy to meet the educational requirements of kids. State initiatives are hereby ready to address the integration of shared core state standards with response to intervention in order to support kids' academic, social, and behavioral needs that are gaining pace, and MTSS is becoming more widely used.
Problem Statement
    The problem of transitioning from elementary school to middle school is: (a) Do students get the same support services in MTSS/RTI? and (b) how can implementation of an MTSS program with students transferring into the sixth-grade (middle school) not be considered at grade-level be described? The first is primarily academic in nature, whereas the second is primarily social and emotional in nature. However, the problem with RTI is that the majority of students can make significant progress at the first level, which employs high-quality instruction...